Me, that works for me. I don’t know who “mw” is.
Well, now that the serious discussion is over, I will merely note that when I worked in a hardware store many years ago, we had display models of toilets set up. On three separate instances, artists came by and did a live performance piece. You might think these artists were brilliant, since they were uniformly under the age of 5, but they actually suffered from some stagefright, as they always managed to at least begin the show without an audience.
A recent news story is eerily appropriate to this discussion.
I was an admirer of Hubiak for several years until I released that it was not redemption he is leading us to, it is chaos!
I personally think the “meat” series lacks the enegy and in the face rawness of is earlier work, and find it interesting that he is finally gaining public recognition just at the time that his talents are waning.
But his work isn’t “art” either to my wa way of thinking. It’s more like social dichastocism with retroverted paradigms. Powerful on the surface, but ultimately less filling.
no coffee=spelling errors. Sorry.
A lot of that so-called modern art is just plain garbage. I mean, c’mon…a badly painted picture of Mary with clumps of feces attached to it? A crucifix in a bucket of urine? A plain 'ol urinal just hanging on a wall? There is no craftmanship or talent involved there. It’s just like those modern paintings that look like the paint was just thrown on or that just consist of squares and circles, or those damn Campbell Soup cans. The only reason the travesties mentioned above are even known about at all is that some rich nitwit was willing to pay a lot of money for one of them in order to look “with it”. Give me Alex Ross or Norman Rockwell any day. At least they can DRAW.
Max:
What about Hubiak don’t you like?
If that picture from the Onion is really Hubiak, then I think the picture speaks for itself. It’s not art. It’s a guy hopping around in a diaper.
Max, did you read the thread? the only way I can think of to address your objections would be run through the whole thing again, with you in the Scylla part. Is there one particular aspect you’d like to bring up that can be discussed, or was your post just by way of saying “Whatever, I don’t buy it, and I’m not really interested in discussing it”?
BTW, are you aware that the Onion is a joke newspaper, like Mad Magazine or the National Lampoon? that the performance artist in the article is fictional?
“When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden’s green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mould;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: ‘It’s pretty, but is it Art?’”
—“The Conundrum of the Workshops”, Kipling.
Yep, I know the Onion is like Mad Magazine. So Hubiak doesn’t dress up in a diaper and hop around? My objection was that modern art takes very little craftsmanship and probably even less talent. With my limited talent, I could probably create something close to the Mary with the feces on it, but I could never create something close to an Alex Ross painting. I could also trace a Campbell Soup can. I could definitely hang a urinal on a wall. I could even piss in it for you too, if you like. Now gimme some money.
P.S. I really love the art in the old '50’s Mad Magazines. Will Elder is the bomb, baby.
[list=A][li]Yes, but did you?[/li][li]Have you seen the Virgin Mary painting you’re describing so inaccurately? There’s a link to it near the beginning of the thread.[/li]I take it from your response that I was accurate in characterizing it as “. . . I’m not really interested in discussing it.”[/list]
“Those that do not read the thread are condemned to repeat it”
-Winston Churcham
I still say Hubiak is a genius 
Thank you, Gaudere. I’d heard that but never new where it came from. And of coure it’s a much better response than mine.
A. Sure. But I don’t try and sell anything I do. It’s just for me.
B. Yep. Saw it on TV. With or without feces, it was a lousy, ugly painting.
C. I’ve stated my position on it twice. I didn’t say I just don’t like it “because”. I said it looks like it lacks any sort of talent or craftsmanship, and I can’t respect that. You just weren’t lissening.
You can get into the whole social dichastocism with retroverted paradigms thing about these goofballs art, but at the end of the day, it’s still an ugly, lousy painting, or a plain ol’ urinal hanging on a wall. Sounds to me like you have a urinal you’re trying to sell.
Now riddle me this: does Hubiak jump around in a diaper or doesn’t he?
It seems to me that the classificationa of a thing as “art” is a visceral response for many people. I know art when I see it.
Which leads me to the question, if something doesn’t immediatley strike people as art, has the creator failed? Should all art cause people to say “Hey, Art!”?
Does Santa Claus come down your chimney?
Hubiak is a fictional character. I guess you weren’t reeding.
Maybe not, but he sounds like the kind of “performance artist” that people who are in-the-know about art would be bamboozled by.
It’s not a diaper, it’s a flag. That and the meat together form the opposing cruxicles of Hubiak’s work, much as Yin Yang, Chocolate and Vanilla, And Abbot and Costello represent diametrically opposed forces within the crucibles of their own context.
The meat of course represents America’s spiritual sustenance, while what you refer to as the diaper is actually an American flag girded about Hubiak’s loins.
When he removes the diaper and has sex with the meat on stage this symbolizes the rape of American principles in pursuit of ecumnical fulfillment.
It’s really quite amazing.
You should give it a closer look before denigrating it.
Quite frankly and seriously, by now, if you don’t understand Hubiak, you probably shouldn’t be having this discussion.