If dances incorporating things like dildos up the butt is art, then Man! Can I ever point that art critic to a treasure trove of art in some of the upstairs bars in Patpong, I’ll clue ya.
I think you’ve confused art with entertainment and/or skill.
It’s probably the reason Miller is a mod here–if he can take the bullshit rationalizations of art critics in claiming something is art because they alone have the magic glasses that allow it to be seen as such, he can buy the bullshit decisions he has to abide by with the staff here, no problem.
Qin’s view of life once again cuts through the bullshit and sees things the way they really are.
And the OP still has a point: what he saw was not art. It was the pretension of art, and it fucking sucks that no art critic exists that will do exactly what Miller seems to think is horrible: call things out that aren’t art. The word has no meaning if all you have to do to make something art is to say that it is art.
An objective art critic would be such a boon in these times, not people talking about “soul” or whatever–that’s practically woo.
One time we were prepping the line, chopping carrots. Bored to death, I asked my co-worker what he thought about the merits of carrots. He said “I don’t know anything about carrots.” I said, “Neither do I, but I know what I like.” If I’d only known, I could have stuck one up my butt and been a star.
He is a reviewer you jackass. Don’t movie critics review bad movies? But yeah, lets just go back to the New York isn’t really America idea you fucking dumb ass great great grand sons of a bunch of treasonous losers. New York is part of America. It’s one of the best parts of America. You want to equate the idea of culture (being the stuff we do) with cultured (being of intellectual pursuits). Well guess what? You’re wrong again! Let me guess, you think evolution is just a theory too.
Sounds more like a “bowel movement” to me.
Uninteresting dance. Uninteresting porn. Just plain uninteresting.
Probably better than Warhol’s phallicly long “Empire”, butt still nothing more than artistic constipation.
Is it bad art or a bad fart? The difference matters not.
I for one am not outraged.
I’m not entirely clear what you mean by this. Are you saying that my characterization of art critics is wrong, or the attitude of those critics is wrong?
What Qin said is, factually, objectively, incorrect. He claimed that modern or post-modern art critics would disdain popular art. That’s not a “view of life.” It’s not a question of personal aesthetics, or subjective taste. That’s a objectively verifiable statement of fact. And it’s entirely wrong. One of the most important concepts in postmodern art is that popular and commercial art is as good as fine art. Whether or not you agree with that idea, it’s an undeniable fact that it is an idea espoused by many (if not most) post modern artists and critics.
Why, exactly, does that “suck?” What would a critic who was willing to say, “That’s not art!” have been able to add to that review that wasn’t already there? The critic eviscerated the piece. What would someone saying, “Also, it’s not art,” have added to your understanding of the performance? Are you concerned that people reading the review won’t get that it’s a horrible performance? Do you think people are going to read that and think, “Well, he didn’t say it wasn’t art… maybe we should check it out?” I mean, that’s the ultimate purpose of a review, right? To let people know if a particular show is worth seeing? The critic here was pretty unambiguous about his feelings in that regard. Is your complaint simply that he didn’t trash the play using precisely the right words?
I don’t think you understand what the word “objective” means. There has never, in the history of the arts, been an objective art critic. All critics, no matter how rigid their standards of quality, is ultimately giving a subjective opinion. A purely objective movie review would read like an IMDB entry: running time, names of actors and directors, and a plot summary. As soon as the critic starts talking about quality - about whether or not it was good, he’s talking about subjective criteria. And that ultimately comes down to what sort of emotional resonance he feels from the piece. Another word for that resonance is “soul.” I’m genuinely baffled that you’re somehow outraged at the use of this word in this context - it’s a usage that goes back centuries. Hell, it’s practically a cliche, and I can see someone objecting to it on the grounds that it’s a dreadfully unoriginal way to talk about art. But to argue that’s its a meaningless way of talking about art? I honestly can’t imagine what you think a good art review would look like. Even the most hidebound, didactic critic imaginable would still be discussing art in terms that, for all intents and purposes, would be synonymous with the way PlainJain used “soul” in this thread.
Of course it was art. It was presented as art, therefore it’s art. It’s that simple.
It was also, apparently, terrible art. I have no problem believing that. To say it’s not art, though, means you don’t know what the word “art” means.
What’s this fine art and commercial art thing here?
Before 1850’s or something almost all art was commissioned. Michelangelo was commissioned to paint Sistine Chapel and he got very strict directions what to do. Mona Lisa was an ordered job. In the old days the commissioner decided what the artist painted, in what size, on what surface and even how much certain colours were allowed to use ( azure blue was very expensive, so You don’t see that much in medieval works, unless some-one really wanted to show-off ).
Leonardo, Raphael and others considered themselves craftsmen. They didn’t sit down to wait inspiration, deciding to do The ART, the boss told them what to do and they worked ‘nine-to-five’ for their bread.
Heck, I personally consider Alex Raymond as high as Leonardo da Vinci.
( And after googling her, I’m sure if she’d been alone there on the stage, there wouldn’t be any debate. Art it is. )
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! No, stop it, you’re killing me here…
I don’t care one patoot about the whole ‘soul’ vs ‘a soul’ argument, but as for your latter point, why couldn’t you be content to just say they didn’t move you? Why go so far as to say they have ‘no soul’? I for one found them to have a sort of Americana soul. I think seeing them in person would move me in some fashion.
So, with your bold proclamation, what does that make me?
Apparently they used dildos in their performance rather than butt plugs. One weeps for the art that could have been.
Anyway, to bring this thread back to its original purpose, which is slamming NASCAR, I give you this oldie but goodie:
Non
Athletic
Sport
Centered
Around
Rednecks
I lived in and around New York 18 years. I grew to hate the vibe of New York, but it’s as American as anything can be.
The only thing the fucking dumb asses have a point about is that New York does turn its back on the country it is part of. It focuses on the rest of the world. It takes in people, things, and thoughts from everywhere, but its arms open widest to the desperate, the restless, and the burning-bright. It’s not a place to be calm or centered or grounded, and I think people in smaller places value those things. I know I do.
The OP didn’t see the dildos-up-their-butts performance, he only read about it in a New York Times article. The writer does not say whether or not he considers the “Pâquerette” performance to be “art”, but he does say “Many of us are tempted to talk as if art = good, pornography = bad. Yet that’s wrong too. Much art is poor” (emphasis mine). His description of “Pâquerette” makes it clear that, if it is art, the writer does not consider it to be good art, or even good entertainment or good pornography.
Most people would prefer a smooth-running engine in their car, but you don’t get the nice ride without a regular series of explosive sparks. I think New York(and to a lesser extent, Los Angeles) provides that spark for the U.S.
What makes it art isn’t that it had some aesthetic value, but that it provoked some kind of reaction, even if that reaction was sputtering outrage. Or bewildered boredom.
That said, I prefer things which do have aesthetic value, and I tend to like “illustration” more than “art” – if you happen to be someone who likes placing a dichotomy there. (I don’t. I define art as something whose primary purpose is to be experienced, as opposed to having some other predominant function.)
My favorite artist is Alphonse Mucha; M.C. Escher is a second favorite. Make of that what you will.
Ya know that reaction you have when you drop a really big turd, that wonderful sense of relief and completion? Now that’s art.
There was no mention of that in the review. I expect that the anal dancers were focused on stasis after insertion, rather than the actus of expulsion, and thereby missed their opportunity to communicate with the audience, for the bond that everyone shares is the feeling of a really good dump, not the feeling (if any) of watching someone’s foot holding a dildo rather than a butt plug up another person’s ass. By failing to find and build on commonality and community with the audience, the dancers failed.
In the print edition the other day, I saw, but did not read the review, but I knew the OP’s impression of the review had to be incorrect since I know how often the NYTimes absolutely skewers shows like that.
One additional quote - slightly altered for completeness of thought:
The Royal Caledonian Ball is a grand event of traditional Scottish dancing.