Pissing As Performance Art?

Great Debates
81

Well, first of all, as pompously and authoritatively as I spout my Dogma of Art, I don’t think a word like “correct” has a place in a discussion such as this one.

Secondly, though I’m not sure I’d agree that it’s significant, I’d say you’d have to go a lot farther to make something not art than simply going really far to make it not art. If you know what I mean. In other words, yes; a person’s insistence that what they’re making is not art doesn’t mean it’s not art; and yes the denial itself can be art.

Look, the further we reduce this, the farther we get from my Universal Theory of Art[sup]TM[/sup]. If I say I believe that pretty much anything created or communicated by a human being is art, we can spend the rest of eternity saying “So okay, is my T-shirt art then? Is an omelette art? Is this question art?”, but to do so would kind of obscure the indefinable nature of art that I’m trying to communicate.

82

Regarding denial as art: consider this.

83

I Sabe.

Some things you think of as art, I think of as style.

Is it possible to ask for another definition?

what’s the difference between “art,” and “Art?” (besides the capitol letter.)

We can look a the Van Gogh and instantly feel that this is a worthy thing. It is suffused with a quality of care, craftsmanship and sensitivity that draws empathy. Clearly this is (Trumpets please) …Art!

The urinals, not so much if you know what I mean.

84

I think that will have to be your own personal definition.

85

[Sister Mary Elephant] Class… Class… [/Sister Mary Elephant]. Well, lissener and Scylla, at least we’re back on track about art and not gunslinging epithets. Thanks lissener, for not bringing up Gorilla art in the middle of a discussion about Guerrilla art. We all could of had a severe mental trainwreck. I think there is good work being done here to define the importance of context. Kudos Gaudere, for your excellent isolation of the “found” aspect of accidental art and the decoupling of context through your example of the “buffalo” rocks. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

86

From Webster’s

"art1 (ärt)
n.

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith’s art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).

arts. Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.

art \Art\ ([aum]rt), n. [F. art, L. ars, artis, orig., skill in joining or fitting; prob. akin to E. arm, aristocrat, article.] 1. The employment of means to accomplish some desired end; the adaptation of things in the natural world to the uses of life; the application of knowledge or power to practical purposes.

Blest with each grace of nature and of art. --Pope.

  1. A system of rules serving to facilitate the performance of certain actions; a system of principles and rules for attaining a desired end; method of doing well some special work; – often contradistinguished from science or speculative principles; as, the art of building or engraving; the art of war; the art of navigation.

Science is systematized knowledge . . . Art is knowledge made efficient by skill. --J. F. Genung.

  1. The systematic application of knowledge or skill in effecting a desired result. Also, an occupation or business requiring such knowledge or skill.

The fishermen can’t employ their art with so much success in so troubled a sea. --Addison.

  1. The application of skill to the production of the beautiful by imitation or design, or an occupation in which skill is so employed, as in painting and sculpture; one of the fine arts; as, he prefers art to literature.

  2. pl. Those branches of learning which are taught in the academical course of colleges; as, master of arts.

In fearless youth we tempt the heights of arts. --Pope.

Four years spent in the arts (as they are called in colleges) is, perhaps, laying too laborious a foundation. --Goldsmith.

  1. Learning; study; applied knowledge, science, or letters. [Archaic]

So vast is art, so narrow human wit. --Pope.

  1. Skill, dexterity, or the power of performing certain actions, acquired by experience, study, or observation; knack; as, a man has the art of managing his business to advantage.

  2. Skillful plan; device.

They employed every art to soothe . . . the discontented warriors. --Macaulay.

  1. Cunning; artifice; craft.

Madam, I swear I use no art at all. --Shak.

Animals practice art when opposed to their superiors in strength. --Crabb.

  1. The black art; magic. [Obs.] --Shak

It seems to me, that as we are talking about it, that art is the application of skill, or the attempt thereof.

87

and if I go with “Art is an application of skill,” then I can argue that the urinal and the pissing were not art, but the Van Gogh is.

As an aside, for Lissener and Gaudere (who are sincerely helping me here with defining my thinking on this subject,)

Does skill have anything to do with defining art?

88

Scylla, truly I despair.

Let me put words in Gertrude Stein’s mouth: art is art is art.

That’s really all there is to it, your artful attempts to screw it into a pre-drilled hole notwithstanding.

I have a friend, a brilliant man, who is very successful in his highly technical business, who breaks every subject of discussion down into “if this, therefore that”; “this cause, that effect.”

This makes it very illuminating to examine certain things with him. It makes it utterly impossible to talk to him about certain other things.

89

Ok, define “skill”. <eg> You really, really seem to want to define art in a manner that excludes the urinal and the pissing, but honestly, I think you’re better off simply calling it “art I don’t like”. The “skill” in arranging an assortment of colors to create a pleasing aesthethic is the much the same as the “skill” of placing found objects to create a new perception in people’s minds. After all, paints are merely “found objects”, too; I find them in the store and I arrange them in a manner to convey my message. Duchamp did the same with his urinal, and the pissing artists did the same with their urination.

90

I’d like to continue the detente, but if art is indeed as comprehensive a term as both you and Gaudere claim, than it is not a particularly useful term, as it encompasses basically everything.

I’d like to poke it a little bit further if I can. I’m a neophyte in this area so forgive me for being obtuse.

The application of skill goes a long way towards defining my feelings about art. Great skill went into the creation of “The Fallen Karyatid,” as did the creation of “Jesus Piss.”

Little skill was required in the hanging of “The fountain” or pissing in it. Perhaps this is why the artistic merit is under question.

But others may argue that great skill was needed to make the statement in the creation of “The fountain,” since few would have thought of such a thing, or of how to execute it. Same goes for the irony of pissing in it.

It seems to me that we’ve been dancing arounde it, but this is the crux of the discussion.

91

I would agree with this. When Whistler sued the critic who accused him of “flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face”, he justified his price for the radically abstracted (for its time) “Nocturne in Black and Gold” not because of the two days it took him to paint it, but “for the knowledge [he had] gained in the work of a lifetime.” The vast majority of artists do not choose abstract, “found” or performance art because they lack talent in other areas; Duchamp was certainly talented in painting. They choose the media and method of art they do because it is the best method to express what they intend to express. Duchamp’s experience in art over his lifetime led him to choose that urinal and sign and display it because it most effectively expressed what he wished it to.

92

I’m not trying to hold you to this definition, but would you consider furniture makers like James Krenov and Sam Maloof artists?

93

Yes, I would. Their pieces are useful, but not “pure” utilitarianism (which is nearly impossibile to find, anyhow; man can’t use hardly anything without consciously either choosing or modifying it to suit him). After all, if you just wanted something to sit on you could sit on a packing crate. But the choosing of beautiful woods, the graceful design, the ornamentation, etc., is art.

94

It works foir me quite well. I can look at Art as an application of skill, and give credit for artistic merit to pieces that I personally do not appreciate.

There may be something true to what Gaudere says about me trying to exclude “The Fountain” from the domain of art.

In looking at art as an application of skill I can define the problem a little bit better, and understand the disagreement.

We’ve discussed two sides of the argument

  1. No skill involved in hanging a urinal
  2. A lot of skill in terms of coming up with the idea.

Chewing this over in the back of my head for the last two hours, let me look at it this way:

Exactly what skill was applied?

Skill with the concept of irony, for sure. Skill in finding the right material to present to his perceived audience to correctly interpret the piece. In short the same skills needed by your average practical joker.

While these skills are not necessarily great, or what we come to expect from an artist, they are there nonetheless.
So again, art it is. Whether it’s worth hanging in a museum is another question entirely.

As for pissing it. Hmmm. What application of skill. Again, they had to think it up, but hey, I’ll bet evertybody who saw the piece (who was male,) probably thought about taking a leak in it. This is nothing special, and in fact can probably be attributed to the artist since this is an urge that the artist evokes in his piece.

So the “skills” were left with for the pissers are Aim, and the ability to pee in public. Without getting into a definition of skill I’d have to say that these don’t qualify. They are more like innate traits of biology.

So the pissing isn’t art.

Hey it works for me! I feel much better now :slight_smile:

95

It seems to me that the consensus of this debate is that the pissing is art.

And to say more clearly what I may have only implied before, your method of breaking down a “problem” into a mathematical model may serve you well in many different situations, but I don’t think it’s helpful here.

It has, for example, left you insisting that the performance artists’ pissing in the “Fountain” is not art, when it certainly is art.

It may be art that doesn’t impress you, or art whose point you don’t get, or art whose message you may actively dislike. None of these conclusions make it not art.

96

Sorry, but I think there’s more to it than that. The artists were undoubtably aware of the meaning of “The Fountain”, and also that the vast majority of museum-goers simply stared at it with a cow-like gaze, accepted that the urinal must be Serious Modern Art, and moved onto their next dose of acculturation without the piece’s real meaning impinging on their thoughts at all. So…how to make them realize the artist’s original intent; in a way, using that piece of art as “found” art by giving it a new context via their actions. Well…they decided to piss in it. Kinda like doing insane-appearing performance art in front of “Self-Portrait with a Bandaged Ear” and chopping your ear off. I think it works well enough; not subtle, but I’m glad to see an intent to reawaken Duchamp’s original meaning. The vandalism was wrong, but on the other hand an official “pissing time” display would have negated a lot of the impact. And I still think it’s pretty damn funny.

97

Lissener:

“It seems to me that the consensus of this debate is that the pissing is art.”

Granted, but that does not make it so.

“And to say more clearly what I may have only implied before, your method of breaking down a “problem” into a mathematical model may
serve you well in many different situations, but I don’t think it’s helpful here.”

Maybe not, but “art is art is art” doesn’t help me either. It seems to me that if it is indefinable, there’s no use discussing it at all, since our meaning can never be conveyed. I’d like to continue to try if you don’t mind.

Your admonition about your reductionist friend is well-taken in the vein of thoughtful criticism with which I assume it was intended. I am not he. Believe it or not I was a published poet (though I never got any money.)

I haven’t seriously thought about why I enjoy art that I enjoy, or what art is, or its nature so I find the discussion fascinating. I’m not convinced that it’s impossible to understand though.

"it has, for example, left you insisting that the performance artists’ pissing in the “Fountain” is not art, when it certainly is art. "

Again, sincerely, without trying to be rude, a simple assertion isn’t helpful.

“It may be art that doesn’t impress you, or art whose point you don’t get, or art whose message you may actively dislike. None of these
conclusions make it not art.”

I would agree.

I’m not sure how the Pissing qualifies as art by your definition. You describe art as the attempt document understanding (my parpaphrase if it’s in error, my apology.)
I’m not sure how I understand how that’s happening in this circumstance.

98

Gaudere:

If it indeed occured as you say, then yes, their actions would be art. Interesting.

I do know what my reactions would be if I looked at it hanging on the wall, and it wouldn’t be in the interests of artistic clarity, more of a Pavlovian response.

Are we sure that we can attribute these higher artistic motives to the performance artists? :wink:

On the other hand I find it difficult to beleive that an artist could hang a urinal on a wall, and not expect somebody to eventually try to take a piss in it.

If it was expected, than the performance artists weren’t performing art, rather they were the canvass upon which Duchamp worked his art.

99

Well, they say they meant to do art. If they were not attempting to make art and it was just a handy place to piss, then no, I’d say it wasn’t art.

Well, if they meant to make art and Duchamp meant for someone to piss in it, they were co-artists, although perhaps not equal contributors. It would be like the artwork we have in the Chicago Art Institute about a man who died of AIDS. The artist put a pile of candy on the floor that is the exact same weight as the person who died, and you’re encouraged to take a piece. As you do, you contribute to the symbolic wasting away of that person’s body; you contribute to the art and gain a more visceral understanding of the art because of your participation (only if you take the candy with an awareness of your contribution to the piece, of course; if you are unaware of the context and just take a piece of candy because you saw it lying on the floor, the artist used you to make art without your knowledge and you are not a co-artist). If the pissing artists did not intend to create art, then I agree they were simply inert canvas.

100

Gaudere:

That works for mw, thanks for your patience.