Man you have such a crush, reviving something that happened like three days ago. I’m flattered that you like to follow me around and poke at me, but I’m not going to sleep with you.
I give the OP’s artist credit for creating bad art that people can’t look at and declare, “My five-year old could do that!”
I’m reminded of a fake letter to the editor in the National Lampoon ca. 1980 purportedly from Chris Burden, a performance artist whose work consisted of things like being shot in the arm and nearly electrocuted. The letter intended to set the record straight that a recent incident, which had been hailed as a brilliant new work, was simply a mishap. “I just threw up in a K-Mart, OK?”
I take it that’s a no?
And I was away all of Friday, FYI. Check my posting record.
Well it’s nice to know you were thinking of me on your day off. ;p
I was with the wife - 9th anniversary, actually. The Dope were the furthest thing from my mind.
I take it it’s safe to mention her outside the Pit.
But art doesn’t have to be pretty to communicate a message, and certainly doesn’t need to be aesthetically appreciated. Some pieces can also be equally horrific and beautiful, so that it’s sick and depraved in its execution (see also: Chris Burden) doesn’t mean the installation in the gallery isn’t beautiful in a purely objective sense. I don’t know, because I haven’t seen it–I can’t critique it in that regard, and neither can you. Furthermore, art professors at an institution such as Yale don’t “guide students into creating something that people can appreciate”, Bob Ross does that. I’m not a musician, so I can’t discuss the musical effect of peeing on a guitar, but what about a composer who’s most famous and controversial composition is four minutes, thirty-three seconds of silence? Or Robert Rauschenburg’s Portrait of Iris Clert?
That you can’t see her message because you can’t get over the aesthetics of the piece doesn’t mean there isn’t one. How do you feel about this painting, by Francisco Goya?
Art isn’t always about pretty, or feeling good.
(emphasis added)
- What ever makes you think she isn’t trying to communicate a particular message?
- I do not think that word means what you think that it means.
I was referring to this statement:
- I think she was communicating a message.
- I don’t know which word you’re referring to.
As far as your statement goes. It is incredibly easy to horrify people and get them talking. Is shock its own reward? Does it have some redeeming social value? I mean, art needn’t have a redeeming social value, it can be for the artist alone, but if you are trying to create a dialogue, doesn’t it need to be more than, “That’s disgusting!”?
This painting is ALWAYS trotted out in this discussion and it’s the worst example ever. Goya at least had to have some talent to paint that. Any woman can saran wrap the sloughings of her endometrium. It’s like we rush to reward a lack of aesthetic discipline merely because she was able to create a viral meme. Is Icahnhazcheezburger then a work of art too? How long is the ability to create a gestalt going to be evidence of artistic merit? Goya developed his art and then used it to express an idea of bestiality. As opposed to merely expressing his bestiality and calling it art.
To me this work is like the dotcom era, it’s marketing and little else. We are so obsessed with the medium that the value of what’s being communicated is lost. What I heard from Aliza Shvartz is that she hates her Mother, she hates herself and she hates femininity. Past that, I don’t hear much.
Sorry, I missed the emphasis on ‘literal’. I think it means what I think it means.
From Dictionary.com
By her claim she inseminated herself and then took abortifacents to terminate any possible pregnancies. Now, she may not have been pregnant, but she may have. By her own words the point is about the ambiguity of whether or not she was pregnant. At the very least she is sacrificing herself.
I once did a piece for an introductory sculpture course that involved an industrial garbage can filled with cooked ramen noodles. The piece was about cheap, crappy food, our wasteful culture, industrialized food production, third-world starvation, and so on. If anyone had stuck their arm down into the noodles, they’d have run into a false bottom about two and a half feet down, meaning the industrial garbage can you saw, spilling over with noodles all over the floor, was a lie. That didn’t matter, it still communicated the same message.
I think it’s pretty clear she was never pregnant and never intended to actually be–if she had, and had meant that to be a serious aspect of her piece, she’d have run pregnancy tests on herself to confirm conception before aborting, and with no medical guidance, how effective do you think self-insemination with a syringe is going to be? How do you imagine she’s “sacrificing herself” by filming herself menstruating into a cup? Is that the same way strippers “sacrifice themselves” by letting people see them nude?
As far as the phrase “literal human sacrifice” goes, since we’ve already established that the chances of her actually having succeeded in repeatedly impregnating and aborting herself are slim to none, we can eliminate the words “literal” and “sacrifice”. Do we need to get into a discussion of the “humanity” of a zygote or blastocyst or do you want to just refer to the “conception” thread?
I don’t really want to make this a discussion about abortion, but I also think you’re allowing your aesthetic objection to a performance of fictionalized abortion to cloud the issue of whether or not her performance can be classified as “art”. So you’re ready to defend Goya because he’s got some skill at painting, but I see you didn’t bother to comment on John Cage’s 4’33", or Rauschenburg’s Portrait of Iris Clert.
And wait a minute–how do you know she’s not an extremely skilled painter, or sculptor, or ceramicist? Have you studied her prior portfolio? Then how can you judge her relative merits as an artist on one piece you haven’t even seen? You know that Goya had honed his skill as a painter prior to Saturno Devorando a su Hijo because you’ve been able to study the rest of his body of work and you use that as a basis to judge Saturno. Are you really ready to declare this girl has no talent as an artist because you find this particular piece aesthetically objectionable? We’ve got nine-year-old Pablo Picasso’s drawings of copulating donkeys in art books, but I’m not going to judge the rest of his body of work on that.
No, Bob Ross teaches painting techniques. He’s a painter. An art class should go beyond the technical skills. But without some guidance then you end up with an excuse for art instead of art. You’re right back in the semantics of “anything is art”. That doesn’t require $30,000 a year to learn.
You picked 2 great examples. One is a painting that show’s talent, the other is a non-composition. 4 minutes and 33 seconds of no sound is not music, it’s the absence of music. There is nothing within the song that could be copyrighted beyond the name.
- She isn’t nine, she’s an adult at one of the most prestigious schools in the world.
- Saturno Devorando a su Hijo tells me that Goya is talented without seeing any of his other works.
- She may be talented, but this piece doesn’t require it.
- I dated a girl who did work similar to what you described above about your Ramen noodle project, and she is one of the most amazing painters I’ve met, could do photorealistic painting if she so chose. Some of her work, taken in its own context failed to impress people who were unfamiliar with her other work. Many people thought she had no talent based on what they saw of her work. That’s the calculated risk a conceptual artist runs.
- I find the piece we are discussing amusing, just as I find 4’33, but ultimately it’s merit is questionable. It’s not that she isn’t saying anything, she’s just not saying anything significant, just as you were not with your garbage can full of noodles. John Cage is remembered because of when and where he did it. It wasn’t a mere rehash of a gimmick that we’ve seen again and again.
So basically based on number 5 my opinion of this piece is that it’s just a gimmick. A gimmick can be great if it’s pulled off at the right time. This one is just more Goatse.cx internet memery. It’s more tragically clever bullshit, the post-modern echoes of Modern art, where we are only shocked by greater and greater bestiality. It cannot be removed from its context, and its context makes it banal. As I have intimated before, she may very well have a bright career along with the painters in Chelsea who draw stick figures and write bad poetry on 16 foot Canvasses, to show us how much modernity has tortured their inner child or whatever. yawn
The issue at hand is not that it was improbable that she was pregnant, but that she MIGHT have actually conceived, and that this was a worthy medium for her to make this art piece with. That her ability to conceive life was merely paint for her, that she took the calculated risk that she MAY HAVE ended a potential son or daughter. That there is no value in this to her is what is disturbing. More fodder for us to eat up, more prurient interest in the grand whines of an artist debasing themselves for us to gawk at. Should she ever find success there will be people who have multimillion dollar interests in her violent self-destruction. Their investments increasing in value in direct proportion to the ignomy of her end.
I don’t want to degenerate into the semantics of ‘literal human sacrifice’ either.
Just like real banks…no fee for direct deposit.
Wow, feeling a little misogynistic?
You know, I wouldn’t disagree with much of anything you said, except for this point.
I think she didn’t take any calculated risk at all. Just as I can have unprotected sex with my husband 21 days out of the month with no concern about pregnancy, she could shoot herself full of half-congealed semen the day after her period ended and not have the slightest concern about pregnancy actually resulting. She can still go thorough the motions and include in her statement the commentary that she inseminated herself and took abortificant drugs, delivering the insinuation while leaving out the risk-eliminating factors. Remember, it’s a performance. The idea of painting with aborted embryonic material is disturbing, yes, but that’s not what she did. She pretended to paint with aborted embryonic material.
Regarding your analysis of her piece and the gimmick status of it, I respectfully submit that not having seen the piece, you can’t say anything of value in critique of it and neither can I. You base an assumption on Goya’s talent that equates it with his skill in painting, and you base an assumption about her talent as an artist based on a reaction to a piece you haven’t seen. I find it particularly telling that you speak in glowing terms about your former partner’s talent because she “could do photorealistic paintings if she so chose”. So? And that some people wrote off her talent due to reactions based on pieces they saw that they didn’t like? Again… so? I think that kind of illustrates my point.
Further to the point,
Let me put it another way. If you’d never heard of Francisco Goya, and someone started a thread entitled “Creepy Wanna-Be Cannibal Glorifies Infanticide by Painting Sicko Fantasies of Eating his own Children” and linked to that painting out of context, what would your reaction be?
“You can clearly see he’s a skilled painter, he must be making a statement about blah blah art historical analytical bullshit references and cites” or would it be: “This sicko is just pushing buttons, shocking us by images of greater and greater beastiality for us to gawk at. Clearly, he hates his mother, hates himself, and hates parenting. It’s disturbing and purient and has no value, only seeks to shock and horrify.”?
Also that he’s a stupid cunt who deserves to have the shit kicked out of him and left for dead in a coma, don’t forget that part.
Hating a particular stupid cunt does not a misogynist make.
May I have this printed on a T-shirt?