Click pic for more
Has everything worthwhile artistically been done and we’ve reached the point where if you make it and you call yourself an artist that makes it art? Especially if an ‘art critic’ says it is and someone with money is willing to buy it?
People differentiate between artist and non-artist based on degree of mastery in imitating nature, and further differentiate Realism from Hyperrealism based on skill in rendering details. Different motivations on the part of the artist can also be used to make distinctions such as Realism, Symbolism or perhaps other “isms.”
[…]
I think artists really want to play god more than anything else, and will stop at nothing to construct a truth that validates the self. They first delude themselves, then maybe move on to people around them. I really wonder to what extent these self deceptions and constructed truths can strike a nerve in the knowing onlooker.
“to what extent these self-deceptions and constructed truths can strike a nerve in the knowing onlooker” is what makes it art. Vivid viscera & bulging, tubular intestinals lurking in the furniture can tweak the subconscious.
It’s not my taste, and I’d be questioning any friends that considered it “tasteful”, but it can be a representation of some esthetic or a comment on culture.
To presume because it is somewhat shocking that it is worthless just shows small-mindedness. I dislike all religious iconography and sculpture because of its context, but I can accept that it has some inherent beauty. I can also ignore the meanings that the artists imply and make my own meaning out of it.
Do I like those works? No, but I would defend his right to make them for people who appreciate them — and you should too if you’re really for humanity and not some dumbed-down bubble version of reality.
I would also defend this mans right to remain a “starving artist”.
Please, sit down and spill your guts.
It looks tacky, vulgar and belongs to a kitsch Halloween haunted house.
When it opened on my screen I only saw a little less than half of the image. At first glance, I thought it was an illustration of a knee surgery!
I was married for 14 years to an artist. A real artist. Oil paintings mostly, though she did dabble in other media. I didn’t like most of her work though the critics thought she was mostly pretty good and she made some good money. Almost enough to support herself and pay for the expense of the stuff that didn’t sell!
We often attended exhibitions and some of the crap we saw was absolutely amazing. I remember one show at a reputable museum in Edinburgh where they set aside a small room with extra ventilation for the “piece.” The “artist” had literally dumped a a can of garbage on the floor. As best I could tell, it had not been arranged or otherwise modified. Just a random can turned over and left to rot.
At least the art in the OP above is something real that took some thought and effort and imagination and even some skill. Something that, if you liked it for whatever reason, you take home.
I guess it’s true: Art IS in the eye of the beholder. (In the Edinburgh case, it was also in the nose…)
It’s art because someone put money into its production…
As an artist I’ve never seen my job as an attempt to imitate nature. I use my sadly undeveloped skills and my arguable level of talent to manipulate things in an attempt to make a statement whose level of significance varies in levels between “0” and profound. Other artist often create work that baffles me and I usually assume they’re speaking a language I don’t understand but might be able to if I make the effort or perhaps it’s pure bullshit. After looking at enough art it’s usually pretty easy to distinguish the successes from the failures regardless of personal taste. Picasso once said something like, “Art is a lie that enables us to know truth.” But he might have been lying.
My dumb theory: film and video games are hoovering up all the artists with real talent. Nothing cooler for an artist than being able to say, “I work for Pixar.”
Shock value is a category of art these days (love it or hate it). This was done BY an artist, but would have a hard time “Living” as art outside a gallery, Like the Pee and Poop art of the 80’s – 90’s. If no one buys an art piece, is it valid art? or just a passing news article?
My favorite example of questionable art from 1961:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_shit
One of 90 examples sold at Sotheby’s for 124,000 euros in 2007.
“is it art?” is an easy test, if the “art piece” was vandalized and only the “artist” would notice, then it isn’t art.
’nuff said…
Sigmund Fraud: good one. Its been in my mind to look for who might be posting under various avatars, harder to identify than my own themistic ones, and while you may or may not be the same in fact, in the quality of culturally critical humor, you take the same brush as Sister Hand Grenade. As performance art, I don’t see how she can maintain character for so long. I can see it if a different persona is given the different subjects.
Whatever? Still==well done.
Art: “A conspiracy between rich people and artists to make poor people think they are dumb.” // Kurt Vonnegut
Art: Something on which the rich can corner the market, drive up prices, then dump their holdings. /// Nelson Rockerfellow. He never SAID that, its just what he did several times over. Who do you think “discovers” Andy Whorewal, promotes him, buys his crap, then dumps all their holdings? Poor people? Rich people buying late in a “market?”
Haw, haw. More dumb ass poor people giving their money to Rich venal criminals.
Same as it ever was.
We salute you sir, having enjoyed your commentaries for years:
http://cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/aba/lowres/aban1000l.jpg
Slow news day.
Me for the win.
the question ‘is it art?’ has been answered, are people still so backward that they think something is not art because they don’t think it is? this is ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy .
Everything and anything is art, the question is answered , the real question remains and it is the only thing that matters ;
Is it good ?
There is no answer to this question that is not subjective.
Why is it not art?
“…the dream of a madman, a hodgepodge of body parts any four-year-old could have painted.”
Nazi reaction to Picasso’s Guernica
Art is provocation and evoking certain emotions to the person on the other end.
But my million $ question is… why do I have to re-log in every x number of days?
You got your browser or a security program running that cleans your history and cookies every so often?
Good point, I’ve just checked my laptop and is logged in, and it has been for much longer than my HTPC where the problem happen.
I wonder why I didn’t think about it before, maybe this is a side effect of listening to No Agenda so much, I find a conspiracy in everything.
Every time my post doesn’t take, my first thought is I’m being censored. But every time I find my mistake.
We are all silly hoomans.
Because the server gets rebooted periodically.
It’s art also, but I would not pay for it. If I want to see that, I can always go to my local butcher.
Why is it art?
Simply because it generated conversation and interest.
Its certainly not my cup of tea, but its of a lot more merit than a bunch of self important painters just pumping out the same old boring uninspired shit thats already been around for hundreds of years.
If someone’s definition of art excludes anything that makes them feel uncomfortable or offends their delicate sensibilities then they should just shut the hell up and walk around all day with a god damned blindfold on.
Two Girls, One Cup made me uncomfortable and offends me, so it must be art.
As a performance piece, then I believe that yes, it IS art.
Not that I’d want it on my wall, or spreading in a stinky puddle over my floor, nor for similar stuff to attract any sort of funding.
Which Supreme Court justice was it that said, “I know art when I see it…”?
Oh, wait he was talking about porn. Oh, well. Same shit, different smell.
I know Art when I see him.
It’s rather gross to me but I suppose shock was the intended response desired by this artist. Viva all artists!
Still looks far less gross to me than the bear rug in Mitt Romney’s living room.
It should have the festering boil ottoman.
Well,siting in front the TV will gut your mind like gutting a pig.
This is not bad but it is very graphic and I suppose we need something like this to make us move our fat butts
Art is indefinable.
Then I declare the food stain on my sweatshirt to be a work of art you can have for a mere $100K.
Artists like Warhol and Christo have done far less for far more.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40586000/jpg/_40586395_duchamp203.jpg
Does it come in a $100,000 frame?
You ask: “Why Is This Art?” on the presumption that it is? Still, no one answered the question DIRECTLY. a few came awful close and I might be quibbling.
Its art because you can contemplate it and in doing so ultimately you can think about what life means. The highest form of art then really. That form most often occupied by: the Novel. But paintings occasionally, sculptures too. Arrangement of everyday objects, whatever that might be called.
I thought about that sci-fi story (Hand Maiden’s Tale?) but really the movie ((Jennifer Jason Leigh?)) where the 1% finally assumed the positions of power they had been fighting for for years and they used people as “furniture” with the beautiful Jennifer being “a couch.” It made more sense at the time, more than my faulty/partial retelling.
then I thought of Snowden’s Secret from Catch 22.
then I thought of my own mortality.
F*ck It.
This is art however I’d have rather not have seen it. If after looking at an art object you realize you’d have paid not to have seen it and charged for being forced look at it I call it art that bleeps.
I remember when Morley Safer got into a little trouble with the art world, for criticizing some of the examples of modern art, he’d seen. Things like a vacuum cleaner in a glass case. Three basketballs suspended in Lucite. A pile of imported wrapped hard candy. A couple of porcelain wall urinals, without plumbing. Safer thought it was ridiculous to call it art. But to a man, all those in the business defended this crap. And I’m sure they’ve never invited Safer back to any of those museums. I could see if the artist built the modern electric vacuum cleaner, piece by piece. But to just go out and buy one, ready made, and stick it inside a case, and call it HIS art! More like plagiarism of Hoover’s art. And for this the guy (not artist) gets a tidy sum. It’s a racket. These days, much of what’s called modern art, is.
http://tinyurl.com/863fuxe
Morley Safer himself paints. And has sold painting for as much as $500, in the past. He didn’t get it from any grants. Many of today’s “contemporary artists”, are freeloading on the public dime. Along with their art critic friends, who act as apologists, explaining why none of it makes any sense.
Why are you even asking this question on the blog?
While everyone else debates the definition of art in order to answer your question, I’m going to assume that you already know why it is in fact legitimately art, and that you’re just commenting for the sake of expressing your opinion that it’s ugly and makes you uncomfortable. You could have just said that instead of coming off like an a-hole art-world outsider who thinks he knows better than the art-world it’s self, therefore removing doubt that you just don’t get it.
It’s OK to have your own tastes in art and respectfully express your opinion, without resorting to insulting others who don’t share your tastes.
In all honesty I’m not a huge fan of that piece either, but it takes more skill and talent than I have to make realistic entrails like that overflowing from a skin chair. I can at least respect the artists craftsmanship.
You could have at least attacked some conceptual stuff like a framed coffee stain ring on a napkin.