No, Mr. NY Times art critic...a dildo up your butt is NOT art

[Ravenman]

@fumster

Why are you being such a prescriptivist when it comes to cars? A turnip is a car, a thought is a car, the thought of a turnip is a car. Anything can be a car. Now the thought of a turnip might not get you to work, but who says cars need to be functional? It’s only small-minded, mid-westerners who try and limit cars.

I suppose you’ve made a reasonable argument that the turnip between your ears is actually a “brain,” but I still have my doubts.

[VinylTurnip]

:mad:

[Maeglin]

I just got a timely email from the Metropolitan Museum of Art inviting me to a members only preview of a gigantic, high-profile exhibit on, you guessed it, Andy Warhol.

Regarding Warhol: Sixty Artists, Fifty Years is an in-depth exhibition that explores the multifaceted impact of Warhol by displaying his work alongside examples by sixty artists across three generations, including Chuck Close, Robert Mapplethorpe, and Cindy Sherman.

I’m certainly going to go. And when I look at a Mapplethorpe, perhaps a photograph of a blunt instrument jammed into the head of a penis, I will be ineluctably reminded of the OP and Qin.

[PlainJain]

@Measure_for_Measure

So Jane -seriously- by what criteria is Rockwell’s work not art? It seems you think it lacks soul. Are you saying the themes he worked on are too banal? That can’t be right, given Rembrandt’s subject matter. I agree Rockwell’s work doesn’t challenge me too much (though Karl’s counter-examples are much appreciated, and I’ve read professional critics who think Rockwell was under-rated). So while I can think of a lot of art that I consider better, I’m having trouble putting Rockwell in a different category than any other artist working on a commission with strict commercial restrictions.

It can be successfully argued that any 2-D construct can be called art. Certainly NR had some very clever and moving pieces. Without getting too hoity-toity, I believe it comes down to composition and intent. There are many clever and moving logos, for example, but I wouldn’t call them art for the purposes of this thread, but more broadly they could be. Composition-wise I doubt Rockwell was under too many strict commercial restrictions from his editors. The restrictions probably came from himself (a lot of his art was composed to sell magazines). And as such were too contrived to be Art, imo. Maybe I consider works art when they appear to be created from the same space that I create art from. For example, I have sold hundreds (maybe thousands) of commercial art pieces. I don’t cringe when I look back on them, they are just a product I created for money. A job - regardless of how beautiful anyone else thought they were. But I had a built in buyer. When I do an art show I create works from a place that seems to have a life of it’s own. I feel a need to create them. And I believe it shows in the final product. It’s like bearing a part of myself to throw that out to the world.

Hm. Maybe that’s it. “Strict commercial restrictions.” The problem there is that, uncomfortably, commercial pressures can be good for art at times.

I disagree strongly. I admit I’m no art historian but I believe the opposite is true.

[Muffin]

I disagree. Commerce has no bearing at all as to whether something is art or not.

[kaylasdad99]

@Slithy_Tove

Subsequently, no one ever dildoed Pablo Picasso’s asshole.

Based on some of the Picasso’s I’ve seen,* I’m not sure how one would go about FINDING Picasso’s asshole…

*(in reproduction only, of course)

[Muffin]

Just google Picasso “Study of a Torso, After a Plaster Cast”.