Did I read this correctly? This guy got paid 4000 bucks to spank his monkey? Holy cow, that’ll buy a lot of Playboys!!!
I’ve always loved art because it’s not about pleasing you, it’s about pleasing the artist. When an artist sits down to create (Unless you are talking about Kincade), they don’t think “Hmmmmm, I’d like to impress 55% of the female population, 67% of the male population, and I would be happy if 24% of all teenagers appreciated my work.” When an artists creates it’s because said artist is looking for a way to express him/herself.
When I write, I do think it would be nice if someone appreciates what I’m trying to say, but if no one does, I’m not going to wring my hands and say, “Oh no, I’m not a real writer!” because I’m just fulfilling my needs. This artist is just fulfilling his needs (no pun intended) not yours. If you like it, party, bonus. If not, well, that doesn’t make him less of an artist.
Well, it has done one thing that art should do - it has us discussing the nature of art. However, the discussion consists of “Jeez, that’s stupid/a rip” (could this be considered an ad hominem argument?) and people saying “You just don’t know art”. It isn’t much of a discussion. If we had this level of discussion over, say, christianity, everyone in here would probably get jumped on for bad form if nothing else.
I call this type of art “Shock art”. It’s primary purpose seems to be to present us with something that we don’t consider “art” such as semen, and asks us to consider it art. If we dismiss it as not art, at least we should look at it and ask ourselves why it isn’t art - and don’t say “Because I could do that”. You didn’t. Could you have come up with that idea, and enough others to manage to feed yourself?
In the same way, if we do claim it is art, we should be able to define how it transcends mere existance.
Having said all that, I don’t believe it is very good art. It has been done before, and better. The cross in the urine should have made us think about what we consider sacred and profane. Why, in putting a piece of plastic in a container of bodily fluid, did this artist shock and offend so many people? Even earlier, Rembrandt painted a side of beef.
But all “Shock art” really has to offer is to get itself in the news. Madonna does the same thing, and is more financially successful at the same time.
Others have done still better. They have taken common objects and made works of art that transcended the original art. A recent exhibit at the Hirshorn showcased objects of great beauty made of milk and pollen and gives us something to contemplate about the nature of art at the same time.
Now I find the Rembrandt painting. Vegetarians and the squeamish should not go here.
http://www.theartgallery.com.au/ArtEducation/greatartists/Rembrandt/slaughtered_ox/
Oooooohh… Rembrandt painted a side of beef, so he like, made a picture of beef. Or rather, ox. I was thinking “whoah, that Rembrandt. He was so modern. I wonder how he got his paints to stick?”
On a related note, I’d call a quadruple amputee hanging on the wall Art, so who am I to judge? 
Tenebras
Heh…maybe I should add this guy to my collection:
http://www.jinwicked.com/artihate/
Oh, and for the person that mentioned Thomas Kinkade, I have a page just for him @ http://www.jinwicked.com/artihate/kinkade.html
For what it’s worth, I don’t think much of Picasso either. 
jinwicked, how can anyone hate Bob Ross? He had to be one of the calmest people in the world.
Happy little trees, jinwicked. I’m thinking that you should think of happy little trees.
I actually remember my grandmother watching that show. Of course, it was all that was on until “As the World Turns” came on.
IMHO I think we need a word other than art to describe “anything created”.
To make a comparison, “anything audible” is sound, only some of it is music.
Also on the subject, I am a fan of art and artists and I appreciate challenging art. However, I am weary of so many artists working in the genre of “shock” and “challenging perceptions”. It’s just the same note played over and over and over again by so many “artists”. It’s like every new generation has to prove they can be “challenging”.
Oooooohhh, look, he’s being shocking! [sub]ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz[/sub]
aseymayo, this MD story came out a few months ago in Art in America I think, or maybe it was ArtNews, I forget. I bought the issue and have it around somewhere, I’ll look around for it. I was astonished myself, since my alma mater is the world center and archive for Dada studies, and I’ve heard just about every concept anyone ever thought about Duchamp.
But then there’s people that can hear almost “anything audible” as music. Some folks have a deep appreciation for the music of John Cage. or Lou Reed’s Metal Machine Music, or US Maple, or The Residents, and yet there’s scads of folks who hear nothing but discordant noise when listening to these releases. I still maintain that anything created can be viewed as art by someone.
The phrase “I may not know art, but I know what I like” is less shallow and mundane than it’s usually made out to be. Rather than the impossible task of defining or naming art in general, I’d rather just spend my time enjoying what makes me feel something. I would never feel comfortable looking at something that someone else created and declaring that it’s not art. I’m perfectly fine with saying it’s crap if that’s what I think about it, but not with stating it’s artistic worth or lack of same to the world in general.
Good grief, monkeys do THAT! Do you observe the filth smeared on the glass ot the zoo as “art”?
A great “Calvin & Hobbes” comic strip once addressed this. Calvin made an abstract snow sculpture, then defined his work saying, “I’m ridiculing the masses that are too ignorant to appreciate what great art this is!”
If an artist is TRYING to make a statement, but is so obtuse that no-one understands it, all he’s really doing is talking to himself, saying, in essence, “Neener-neener, you’re all just stupid!”
This is why most people agree with what yojimboguy said. When people in the “art community” say things like this:
What arrogance!
They deserve to be locked in their ivory towers and ignored. Let them play with their bodily fluids, arranging gobs of excretia and “ooh”-ing and “ahh”-ing to each other about how profound they are being. Let them deride Thomas Kinkade or Bob Ross as ineffective, condemning them merely for the crime of having mass appeal. In the end they will have done nothing to elevate the human condition, and will be remembered only by their “intellectual” peers.
Oh ick.
I guess I’m not surprised, but that’s just…ugh.
It also sounds HIGHLY unsanitary.
Look, if that’s what turns you on, fine. But…well…ick.
That was my thought too until I saw the picture in the link. I was thinking: “Gee. How does anybody know that Rembrandt painted a side of beef? Somebody must have written about it becuase surely it would have rotted away by now.”
-
-
- It’s not art, it’s trash. A hundred years from now, DaVinci will still be well-known while the jerkmeister and many, many like him lie in anonymous graves.
~
- It’s not art, it’s trash. A hundred years from now, DaVinci will still be well-known while the jerkmeister and many, many like him lie in anonymous graves.
-
- And Rembrandt never did seem like a happy camper. - DougC
I see this as the beauty of art.
Well, DUH! It would be the Period Period.
Are you saying that all self-expression is art? If not, where’s the line?
Personally, I see art as both a representation of the artists expression AND his effort. Rubbing one off every day for a week and hanging it on a clothesline in the middle of the town square? That’s not art IMHO because it’s all expression and no effort. (Same for dropping a crucifix in a jar of urine.)
Conversely, I suppose one could argue that Kinkade is all effort and no expression. shrug I can appreciate the latter type more readily than the former, the one having at least some technique, the other consisting almost entirely of some ephemeral “message”.
Zyada is this what you were looking for in a discussion?
See, I can look at the painting by Rembrandt and appreciate that he was such a master that even when reduced to a pixellated image on a computer screen, the effort he put into that painting can be observed. The subtleties of tone and shading can be appreciated, even when the individual brush-strokes can’t be seen.
There’s a point, too. When an artist has worked that hard to be that good, the effort is the expression. I can’t pretend to know the mind of a Master, but I’d wager this painting was NOT a comment on vegetarianism, or the deplorable conditions of local abbatoirs. I’d be surprised if this piece HAD a message. I get the feeling R. painted to paint.
Moderator’s Notes: Chas.E, please explain to me why you feel insulting comments such as this,
are fit for this forum? I assure you, they are not. How much shorter must I make your leash? Behave, dammit.
While I don’t fundamentally disagree with your definition in practice, the difficulty with your definition is that boiled down to its essence you are saying art = anything. If that is so then the word has no meaning.
Again, IMHO, consider the quality you describe as invoking a feeling. The smile on the face of a loved one invokes many feelings, a snarling dog does too, the smell of bacon frying on a cool morning might invoke feelings and memories, an old shirt in the rag bag, etc. etc. What I describe is normal human emotions triggered by senses. I think it is neccessary to separate this phenomenon of emotional response triggered by senses that is just “life” from the definition of “art”. Otherwise, every one of us is creating “art” every minute of every day, waking and sleeping.
Let try to keep “art” as a word for something else.
Rather than art equaling anything, I think the equation is more accurately anything can equal art if someone simply sees it that way. And I indeed don’t think of the word art as particularly imbued with meaning. The moment a person or organization attempts to define art for anyone beyond themselves, then there will not be adequate representation for all who are being represented. And that’s fine if the piece in question is a commission for a city or something along those lines. Then it becomes a lowest common denominator or most equitable compromise type of scenario. Outside of a taxpayer dollar scenario though, any definition beyond a personal one is meaningless IMHO.
And sorry for being so long winded. I know what I mean, but I’m not always able to say it clearly.