Why is time the test? If 100 years from now the works <insert your favorite here> of are considered worthlless will it be any less good then today? We judge from our backgrounds. Our beliefs. Maybe the past critics knew more then us?
If you are talking about Holmes, I think his first name is John. However, a search of google indicates that John Holmes died of AIDS in 1988. His claim to fame was a 13" penis.
no problem. Those porno guys all look alike.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Feb 10 2003, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>One, all art from about 0 ad...on til the time of LOUISE the XIV was done purely for the church and its officials. read your art history! the catholic church had a vested interest in making the autrocities from the bible look more herendous than the next painting.
The thing is, until the advent of photography, paintings were staged or made up in the mind of the artist doing the painting. They were of maybe real subjects, but ficticious in their content. They were interpretive of an event.
... Or do we allow anything and everything no matter what and call it art. You would make the Ted Bundy's of the world happy. I personally think the bounds of common decency have been crossed and not for the good.
First - when I jumped into this discussion, I installed a piece of my patented Flavored Inner Tube (Amaretto) between my teeth. I had assumed that a few waves would be created - but then - waves are what keeps the waters pure. See "swamp".
Uh .... (pause ... try to think of a delicate way to do this...) I'l have to disagree with the idea that "All art from 0 to Louis XIV (1638 - 1715) was commissioned by the church." This would include Rembrandt, Velasquez, Rubens, Tintoretto, ad Boticelli... and a bunch of others.
It is true that *many* works were commissioned by the church, and many artists were more or less dependent on the church for their livelihood, but there were a lot of portraits comissioned privately, and there were a great many paintings based on Roman and Greek mythology - which would certainly not have been condoned by the church. Nudes were definitely discouraged - to the point of being burned at the stake, in some instances - and yet there were many from this period.
"Paintings ... were ficticious in their content."?? I don't quite understand this - portriature would not be "ficticious" ... would it?
"Do we allow anything and everthing to be called art?"
Dr. Bergen Evans once said "The purpose of art is not to support society, but to rescue us from it." Going aganst the grain, occasionally, is probably necessary, if for no other reason than to provoke thought, to bring us to examine - and constantly re-examine our priorities, ideals, and values. There is a place - and porbably a necessity, for the Devil's Advocate.
Now... Ted Bundy? How the heck did he get in here? No... I don't support or condone or encourage or want to "make him happy" - not even a little bit.
I tried to convey the idea that I was neutral in my position regarding "pornography" - whatever that is. I have not and will not assume the role of a morality-based policeman. There are PLENTY of others eager - at times far too eager - to do that.
I do not consider my work to be pornographic. I hope it is emotional -- sensual and erotic - well ...OK, I guess ... One of the significant artists - I think it was Rodan - was once asked, "Do you thnk your work is erotic?" He replied, "I certainly hope it is .. if it isn't, I've failed miserably."
I am aware of a number of studies of the effect of uh ... "Explicit" material - a few were conducted at UCLA. None that I know of concluded that ANY harm was done to anyone. I an open to additional input here - but please, something definite - I'm really not interested in mythological "everybody knows that..." rants.
The most "pornographic" publication I ever read ws the "Report of President's Commision on Pornography" published sometime in the mid '70's. They descibed "every wrinkle in the sheets" ... to the point where I sarted to suspect the onset of obsession.
At a gallery exhibition, someone once asked me, "Do you do pornograhy?" I answered, "Nah! The field is too crowded."
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I have followed this thread with a lot of interest and learned a lot along the way. I cannot match the depth of knowledge that many of you have about the wide variety of artists already mentioned so I am gratefull for the views and information shared thus far. My own views seem to match edbuffaloe's although some of my strongest influences are the same Rothko works that Ed thinks are garbage. Neither of us is wrong we just see things differently. I agree with his views on porn too for some of the most beautiful photographic prints I have seen are those of Mapplethorpe, though perhaps Tom Baril sould get the credit and I am being seduced by the printing rather than the image.
When I view a piece deemed to be art I always ask myself a question about communication for I believe that is what it is all about. If the image speaks to me then it has succeeded no matter how abhorant I find the subject to be. For example, the British photographer Don McCullin has made some quite exquisite images of appalling things that happen in war and famine, in my opinion.
On the other hand paintings by Monet and Turner explore light and atmosphere
are more restful and welcoming to the viewer but still communicate, but only if the viewer is receptive to their particular vision.
Interesting topic. An intellectual discussion on a subject that cannot be resolved.
Art, pornography, politics, religion, wonderful topics. Debating them is fun but they only define the peope debating and not the topic themselves. We live in a free society, free exchange of ideas, for adults. Let's keep it that way. If you see something you like you can call it what you like. If you wish to hang it on your wall go ahead. If you don't, don't. As long as you don't tell me what I can like, we will all be happy.
Some people hang their childrens "art" on their refrigerator, is this any less "art" than what they could buy for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is it any less precious to them? Is the confusion of old or antique compared to new and original part of the problem. Old equals good, new equals maybe, we'll see in a few years.
It's all a part of what makes life interesting. Lighten up.
Just an opinion.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
Check out this link. It's an interview with Witkin. Quite the sick puppy in my estimation. But then again there have been quite a few quite mad creators of exquisite art thru time. I don't feel he was trying to be shocking, but rather was trying to satisfy his own cravings. The use of a camera and the "respectability" it brought just gave him easier access to the dead and decaying he seemed to need to be around and fondle in his own way.
As far as his art is concerned, it's not for me. But that doesn't make it art in some peoples eyes. I would classify this type of image making as satisfying some sort of fetish. Many of the Betty Page pictures were created to satisfy various fetish needs of the publishers customers. Some of those images are now considered "art". Those that truly appreciate them as art probably don't derive the same sexual kick that the original intended audience did.
So this begs the question, how does something transform itself from fetish/shock/schlock imagery to art? Is it because we are now able to appreciate it on a higher level? Are we now seeing past the originators demons and into their souls. Are we now recognizing the contribution of that part of the creators persona that is/was connected to a higher plan?
Or is it because we have become so jaded we are no longer moved by the original message and reduce everything to lines, tonality, focus and S curves?
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ed Sukach @ Feb 10 2003, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm trying to understand the concept of "non-subjective art". Is this meant to describe works that are devoid of the emotional influences and human biases of the artist?...
Or am I misunderstanding the idea of "non-subjective art"? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Sorry you had trouble with my term non-subjective art, I had trouble using it!
Certainly, I didn't mean devoid of emotional influences on the part of the artist or the viewer; I was trying to coin a term that provided some universal or "objective" evaluation of the object being considered as art, meant to be appreciated beyond a temporary societal, or cultural perception in reaction to a given event.
Let me give three examples of photographs that had a profound impact on me and continue to do so. There was the Dorothea Lange's portrait of the migrant farm woman with two childern. There was a Vietnam war photo (taken by a Japanese photographer whose name I don't recall) of a women with two children crossing a raging stream and obviously in dire straits. There was Eugene Smith's photo of the child, disabled by mercury posioning, being bathed by his/her mother.
Each of these pictures were documentary in origin, showing what is. But the each transcend that purpose and speak of certain universals in the human condition. they will be great pictures and great art for as long as people see them. It doesn't matter if you know the stories behind the pictures, or not.