It is too a diaper. I remember seeing some guy on TV who as part of his performance art rolled around naked on broken glass. The idea that people would be fooled into thinking a guy jumping around in a diaper waving meat around is art is not so far-fetched.
BAMBOOZLED, I say!
Yes, art alone is the one discipline where the persons most knowledgeable about it, who have studied its history and development for dozens of years and perhaps are accomplished practicioners in their own right, are completely and utterly useless at determining whether a work is any good and regularly award laurels to sheer crap. It is a good thing for us artists that we have people on a message board to tell us what is any good! ::wanders off to frame a turd and sell it for half a mil::
There is crap in the art world, I agree. However, why did this guy get on TV? Because people–average everyday people–wanted to see it, perhaps so they could feel self-righteous about those stupid artists, or just to see a naked guy. You make no mention as to whether his work was considered worthwhile by fellow artists and critics; they may very well have thought his stuff sucked too, and are used enough to “unusual” art to not bother with it if it’s not worthwhile. Do you consider it possible that those who are very knowledgable about art may perhaps know what they’re talking about when they say a piece is good, or do you think all art experts are stupid and incompetent?
This is my first time trying to do quotes correctly. I hope I don’t fuck it up. I wouldn’t say all art experts are stupid and incompetent. However, just because someone is knowledgable about art and proclaims a piece to be great or a work of genius does not make it so. After all, that critic is nothing more than a person with an opinion. Just like me. His opinion, as far as I’m concerned, carries no more weight that my own.
Does that turd you’re framing have corn in it?
Frankly I’d rather discuss assholes and elbows with someone who knows the difference.
Should’ve thought about that before I sent it.
What I meant to say was that I disagree with Max; that I’d rather discuss a topic with someone who has some knowledge and experience of it.
I honestly didn’t mean to sound like I was saying “I don’t want to discuss this with Max because he doesn’t know his . . . etc.”
::Becoming Serious Now::
Regarding Gaudere’s prior descriptions of art as those things aesthetic and without utility (my paraphrase,) I’m going to have to disagree.
She made the example that the styling on a car, its upholstery etc. represented the car’s artistic content.
But if you consider the design of a Porsche for instance, the way it hunkers down and grips as you accelerate into a turn, this has been built into the car, and accomplishing this is an art.
THe surgeon who delivered our baby quite justly in my opinion considers himself an artist for several reasons.
The way I cook a steak, or Gumbo is an art.
So, I’m thinking art itself can be functional too.
I’m still not going to buy that urinal your’re trying to sell.
I cannot recall the specifics, nor have I a cite for this, but I am sure some of those of you involved in the art world may remember this. Several years ago, perhaps as far back as 10 or 12, there was some big art competition/award going on in one of the Nordic countries if memory serves. Some watercolors won (abstract of course). Critics praised it and offered analysis and commentary that was full of what the lay public would call “artsy BS.” Then it was revealed by the “artist” who submitted these pictures that the person who had actually painted the pictures was his young (5 or 6 year old) daughter.
At the time, there was much derision over this seeming confirmation that modern artists and critics were just a bunch of pretentious, self-congratulating windbags blowing smoke up each others tailpipes. The artist judges and critics who praised the works were redfaced and falling all over themselves saying things like “just because the art was unintentional doesn’t mean that it isn’t art,” and generally saying that there really was a great and profound message in the art regardless of the identity of the painter. Really, they sounded more than a little foolish.
Anyone remember the name of the artist or the competition? Somebody please help me find a link to this story if it’s out there on the net.
And to quote Berke Breathed, “Pablo Gookman wouldn’t know a pink snow bunny if it bit him on his keister.”
Yeah, but you thought diaper guy was real. :o
Hey Lissener-
I know you’re definitely not an elbow.
Your opinion on whether you like it or not is of exactly equal weight. However, art does have a language: composition, color, light-dark grouping, symbolism, texture, media, historical references, “styles”, technique, etc. Artists and art critics learn abut this through their own studies, through the teachings of masters and through their own work. To assume that someone who has spent their entire life studying art has no more valid opinion on whether a piece is good or not seems strange. Do you think a knowledgable film critic has no more valuable of an opinion on the worth of a movie than your average 13-year-old?
Some art is created to be readily accesible to nearly all, like Norman Rockwell, Die Hard, or The Three Musketeers. Some art requires more knowledge, understanding and study before it can be fully understood and enjoyed, like Picasso, Dr. Strangelove, or Finnegan’s Wake. I don’t consider either type inherently “better”; there’s incredible easily accesible art and crappy art that requires a lot of work to understand. However, people who do not take the time to comprehend the “harder” sorts of art often scorn the entire group, simply because it doesn’t speak to them as it does to those who are more knowledgable.
I do not think artists and art critics are as easily fooled as you propose, nor do I think their opinions on whether art is “good” are of no more worth than anyone else’s. There are some bizarre, scatological, blatantly sexual pieces regarded by many of them as “good art”, but simply getting naked, wearing a diaper, smearing shit, or other “modern art” things will not guarantee you critical acclaim. For example, I once saw a show about an artist who hired men and women to mimic sex in her gallery. Another shock-for-shock’s-sake talentless “modern artist”, right? Well, in the opinions of the critics and artists at the gallery…yeah, pretty much. Her work was judged decent, but not amazing (she did bronze sculptures), and the naked men and women were regarded as simple sensationalism to get people in the door, despite her attempt to make them “good art”. (They were art, of course, just not good art.) I remeber one artist regarding the writhing men and women, sipping her wine and saying in perfect Janeane-Garafolo-sarcasm “Oh, this is amazing. I must go back to my studio and do something like this, really.” (I was thinking much the same thing. 
) Artists and art critics really aren’t as dumb as you think–perhaps you should start studying modern art and see if it starts becoming more pleasing to you. When I was younger, I preferred realism, too, and scorned “modern art”; the more I learned about art the more I appreciated the skill and talent in more modern works. Similarily, I used to prefer tidy rhyming metered poetry that was child’s play to understand; after reading and studying less simple poetry I generally find it much more enriching and powerful than what I previously preferred. If you open-mindedly study performance art, I think you will come to a greater appreciation of it–and then, perhaps you’ll be able to knowledgably say naked-guy-rolling-on-glass is a crappy artist, and possibly have the art world back you up. 
[Edited by Gaudere on 09-20-2000 at 02:06 PM]
Yes, but it didn’t have to do it so well. The designers wanted a car that did more than get you from place to place; they wanted one that did so pleasingly. So I would say that is art too. Very, very little created by man has pure utililty, and thus is without art. A doctor can be an artist: does he simply do only what is necessary to get the job done? Or does he take care to cut and stitch to minimize scarring?
Never argued that it wasn’t. But it’s the “not exactly completely necessary”–“without utility”–that’s the art, IMHO. Even on such a basic level as a caveman choosing which rock to place in his cave to sit on; if he conciously chooses the prettier one, or the one that is more impressive…that’s art. It is not necessary that he pick the rock he does; either rock would do for the purposes of sitting. He picks one because of a trait that is not necessary for its sheer function.
You miss the point of this, Ptahlis; as did the embarrassed judges, apparently.
The “art” in this case was the man’s submission of his daughter’s work, not the work alone. The judges, being the “butt” of his rather derisive statement about the art establishment, didn’t respond with humor, and so proved his point.
No one is arguing that the art “establishment”–like any other “establishment”–doesn’t have its share of philistines.
The judges missed out on an opportunity to A) applaud the guy’s successful bit of performance art, and B) praise his daughter’s paintings as “found art,” which is what they made it by finding more in it than the artist intended.
After more reading and thinking, I’ve found my own definition of art is this: When I view the work, I feel that the creator was attempting art.
I get that feeling reading Finnegan’s Wake. I may not understand all of it, but I’m convinced Joyce was trying to say something. When I read T.S. Elliot’s Wasteland, I only feel that hes was trying to trump Finnegan’s Wake by throwing a bunch of unrelated verses together.
I sympathize, Doc; I’m partial to FW myself. But surely you’re aware that far more people say FW is “not art” than say the same for TW.
Do you see how your absolute statement that it is “not art” doesn’t take this into account? That simply to say that you’re right about this and they’re wrong is nonsensical? I’m not suggesting that that’s what you’re saying, only that in making the absolute statement that an artwork you don’t like is not art implies that, in order for a work, any work, in the history of mankind, to be considered art, it has to judged as such by DocCathcode.
My point here, convluted and belabored as it is, is that you are separating FW from TW along a spectrum of good art <–> bad art, not yes art <–> no art. To do otherwise would imply that the validity of a piece of art is an absolute that must resonate with DocCathcode’s experience and aesthetic.
Right lissener. This is exactly why the public at large is tends to become contemptuous of the whole performance art/modern art/abstract art establishment. If everything is art then there is really very little point in debating it, or even pursuing it for that matter. IIRC, the guy did it purposely (though not expecting to win) to prove the point to his wife that any random blobs of color would do for “the critics.” He was sure that it would garner some praise from somebody, and it exceeded his expectations mightily. Now while you might judge it on the level of performance art after the truth is known, the fact remains that the judges in that competition were not doing so, and they praised it for its values as a work of art itself. Which made it art, to them at least. (I wish this had happened during the internet age, or that someone would show up here and verify my recollection.)
Now I am not saying that all modern art is valueless, nor that the artists are talentless. There is much genuine art being produced. But the point remains that it is a medium that is almost wholly subjective, that from the outside certainly seems to be driven by a certain trendiness, and is rife with implied and blatant snobbery (from the elite “you just don’t understand you ignorant savage” as well as the reverse attitude of “you artists are just a bunch of incestuously self-referential, snooty pretenders.”)
Having had a small amount of education in basic art appreciation, yet being a fairly practical guy, I fall squarely in the middle. I see the viewpoints of both sides, and wander back and forth between them depending on the work in question. I do indeed appreciate many abstract works, and I also do believe there is a lot of garbage that is artificially elevated beyond its justly deserved station. And of course, all this is just my opinion, ventured just as authoritatively as everyone else’s. FWIW, for something to qualify in my mind as art it must have one or more of the following qualities: aesthetics, emotional impact, a reasonably definable message, exhibition of great skill, or it must illuminate something in a new way for me. Every single one of those is completely subjective of course.
Having said all of this, I should probably make my point. Simply put, I am in full sympathy with anyone who cares to say “That isn’t art.” They are every bit as correct as those who contend that it is. Art, as does beauty, lies entirely within the province of the beholder. Those who devote a great deal of time to producing or understanding abstract art are often operating with a different set of conventions, different reference frames than the rest of the world does, and this causes the split between the lay person and the artist to be as pronounced as it was in the competition I talked about. What I wish I would see more often is the admission, from both sides, that the other side isn’t totally off base. The common, unwashed, art heretic who thinks anything beyond Rockwell is a bunch of talentless crap that the artists foist off on guileless patrons needs to grudgingly admit that although he doesn’t see it, it might be real-and-for-true-Art for these other folks, who really do attempt creation and understanding through it. The ultra artsy-fartsy, nose-in-the-air snobs should also admit that for all the profound meaning he might see in a sculpture, to 99% of the rest of the world it’s just a big damned metal foot, because they choose to devote their time to other things than learning the ins and outs of what the art world is doing. If we could get to that state, maybe there would be less contempt evinced on both sides of the issue.
This “divide” that some of you insist on does not exist. You use the phrase “the art world” the way you would say “republicans” or “rotarians.” There’s no such thing as “the art world.” There are as many “art worlds” as there are artists. You’re not likely to find anyone more intent upon remaining “outside” of the perceived “art world” than someone who identifies himself as an artist. This art world you describe as an exclusionary monolith is an imaginary creation of people who feel excluded, as a straw man argument for why they feel excluded. (“There’s a lot of art I don’t get. Must be a conspiracy.”) There’s a lot of bad art out there; this is not a conspiracy. Besides, there’s no single “group” of people that would be more difficult to organize into a conspiracy.
In fact, one of the perennial debates in any gathering of individual artists I’ve ever been a part of–formal or informal–is how to fight this perception; how to make art that is more inclusive, that reaches a wider audience. This is as much a concern of the “art world”–probably more–than those of you who insist petulantly that you’re “outside” the art world. This caricature of the effete bereted artist may very well exist, but I assure you he is as shunned and derided by “artists” as by “non-artists.” What I mean is, I never hear this “us/them” thing about the “art world” except from people who perceive themselves to be on the “outside”: no artist that I know believes in such a divide.
Art that is not immediately understandable to you, or art that you don’t connect with, was not created with that express purpose in mind. It’s not about you. Study it if you like, see if there’s something you can connect with, or move on. But to accuse the artist of willfully trying to make you look stupid is transparently petulant and childish. A piece of art will find its audience, or it won’t. If you’re not it, you’re not it. Why must you take it so personally? Besides, the possibility always remains that it’s just bad art. No one is disputing that bad art exists. I’ll even go so far as to say there’s more bad art out there than good art. A lot more.
A point I’m trying to make is that “artists” and “non-artists” may look at the same piece of good art and like it. And they may look at the same piece of bad art and hate it. There will always be certain pieces of art that will find an audience among some people, and completely baffle others. Where’s the divide? There’s more overlap than you think.
As far as the apparently apocryphal story of the Man Who Fooled the Art World, there are simply too many variables to extract a specific message from this. Was the painting entered with false biographical info–did the judges think they were judging something by a 37-year-old? Or was there no context at all–were they judging it solely on its artistic merit? If so, good for them. Was it really a beautiful painting? I love paintings by kids. I own a huge number of junk-store paintings, some funny, some beautiful, and some of the kids’ “abstracts” are my favorites. Who were the judges? What was their reaction? Were they embarrassed or delighted? Amused or defensive? As a piece of fiction, it could be manipulated to illustrate the worst aspects of the self-appointed adjudicators of Art, or it could told as a story about the freshness of a child’s vision. Who knows? And who cares–what does it say, in reality, except about that particular group of judges and that particular man’s feelings about them?
FWIW, when I was four my mother entered a painting of mine in a citywide (Dallas) adult art contest, and it won second place. The judges were delighted when they learned the truth. I was on the news for three nights running. The way my mom tells it, they saw it as an entirely good thing that said something about the loss of artistic freedom so many of us experience as we mature, and probably as a vindication of their open mindedness as judges.
I thought you said it was a flag.
Lissener, you said a while ago that
Sorry to dredge up past comments but if we take this to be the case, what kind of criteria do art gallery owners use to choose what to display in their galleries? IMHO, I don’t think, if art is as subjective as you say, that they would choose pieces which are most likely to appeal to a mass audience because as you said, there are pieces of art where
which I’d have thought the vast, vast majority of people would not truly understand in the same way as the artist. In short I think that there are too many pieces of that nature, which clearly aren’t designed for mass appeal and aren’t designed to bring visitors to a gallery to make profit and the idea of “pulling a crowd” so to speak a viable motive for selecting a piece of art.
So how do gallery owners disinguish between a good and bad piece of art if both of them are intended to be subjective statements made by the artist which don’t necessarily hold any kind of popular appeal?