Ed - El Greco, Remnbrandt et al, were not PHYSICALLY accessible by all (well, El Greco sort of was with some of his work), but they were CONCEPTUALLY accessible.
Nobody needed a 5 page "statement" to understand what they were doing.
My point is less with people being "out there" and more with people being "in their own world to the exclusion of all else."
More to the point, if a $25.00 hooker went into a gallery and tried to sell video of her with a john, would she be recieved the same?
Nope. Ten bucks says the words "whore, dirty, filthy, and stinking" would be used after she was brusquely marched out and told not to return.
Yet her actions are none the different from what a garden variety hookers are.
Yet SHE is the artist and the other person is firmly set up as an "outsider".
And I am all for rocking the boat. My first piece was accepted at a small gallery in town and it is definately one to piss people off.
But here is the thing....I made it in such a way as to INVITE disscussion. Not to ENFORCE it. Which is what I think the tendency of the insular art community runs towards. In fact the piece with the 5 page statement sits right next to mine.
My nice, untitled piece which is constructed (I hope) in such a way as to let the viewer arrive at a "statement" instead of driving them to it with semiotic BS.
Then again, maybe if I crapped on a plate and took a picture....
Official Photo.net Villain
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]
Robert, I have seen enough photo's that looked like someone crapped on a plate.........
Good to hear you are exhibiting, keep it up!
As to artists statements.... I use them sometimes if I feel they are appropriate for what I am doing, some work needs a context, but often I use a simple quote that relates to why I am doing what I am doing, but pages and pages of the stuff? nah, not a good look. I did see a show once where I thought the artists staement was better than the work.
Last edited by livemoa; 09-23-2004 at 12:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: bloody dyslexia again, is there a pill?
When bankers get together for dinner, they discuss art. When artists get together for dinner, they discuss money. Oscar Wilde Blog fp4.blogspot.com
Sorry, this idea is taken, please see my "dog turd" project.....
Originally Posted by Robert Kennedy
OTOH, since yours will be human feces, maybe we can do a two man show and call it "the evolution of sh!t". As someone suggested in my thread I am trainning my puppy to drop a load on command, I am sure if we took a good laxative you and I can provide the live art for the human feces part. I bet you we will be hailed as the next best thing since Pollock.
This hooker-artist would probably have made more financial gains if she had marketed the video as porn instead of art.
But Francesco, then it wouldn't have been "Art"!
Like everything else in the good ol' USA, the marketplace for "Art" has fragmented beyond our wildest dreams. This person's view of performance art is just one small sliver of an overall art market.
If she can put one over on the Art World and get paid for her performance, then that's great. Another case of the Emperpor's New Clothes.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
After Adams...after Bresson...a lot of the stuff we (and other artists) are making are new that inventive, but it may still be art. And it may have some additional qualities we may not see...
Originally Posted by bjorke
After all: We all have seen landscapes photographed before...but we still want to be called genius if we make something good...
My pix are art when I say so...my pix are crap when I say it!
I shoot b/w with my Holga, Lomo Cosmic Symbol or Olympus Trip 35.
WAIT,wasn't the artist having sex,video taping it and calling it art
Paris Hilton?OH,I'm sorry I forgot she just has sex,video tapes it,puts it on
the web then gets a TV show.Sorry for the mistake.
"An object never performs the same function as its name or its image"-Rene Magritte
"An image of a dog does not bite"-William James applied to photography
Robert, Jorge--I believe the feces project has already been completed. I remember reading of an artist "somewhere in the world" whose work was the canning of his own feces. The cans were then sold to one of the great institutions "somewhere in the world". (I can't remember the specifics) It gives new meaning to the term of "your art is crap".
But, seriously, artists probably should be out-of-touch. We need the insanity, the whimsy and the audacity to keep things interesting. There were very likely artists in the past whose works, in their day, were the equivalent of videotaped sex acts or canned feces. We don't much hear about them today except maybe as a footnote in an art text. They likely kept things stirred up in their day. They may have even contributed to the works of the masters by opening minds to innovation.
Congratulations on your "acceptance"!!! It is not easy, to say the least, to find a small gallery here in Puritanville, Massachusetts that will even consider a "controversial" piece.
Originally Posted by Robert Kennedy
I've got to confess ... I'm having a problem understanding "Conceptual" accessibility. I take it as something like the diametrical opposite of "Abstraction" ... ??? I'm not trying to be combative here ... I'm just trying to clarify.
I don't recognize any level of "enforcement" in any of the galleries I've visited. I sense a suggestion of a form of "bullying" ... but I'm not very succeptable to being pushed around, as far as my perceptions of art - at least not now.
Discussion ... I'm not in the least angered or offended by your post. I think I have a different viewpoint about the "Art World" ... and to some extent - "art" itself. Not much of a surprise - we are all different from each other - that's all.
I guess my point is that I don't - and CAN'T prove that my views are "better" than yours or anyone elses.
My Artists Statement: "My WORK is my statement."
Ed Sukach, FFP.
I've been thinking ... The "Masters" WERE the out-of-touch (and to a great extent, pornographers) of their day. The one that comes to mind, immediately, is Toulouse-Lautrec. He was beaten to a pulp by the critics of his day for the lascivious content of his work. Add Alma-Tadema, who was (rumored) to have been knighted for painting a pornographic mural somewhere in Buckingham Palace; El Greco - "Naked Maja"; If anyone is interested, I have a copy of an (indelicate) etching by Rembrandt - delicately entitled "Woman Urinating".
Originally Posted by Lee Shively
This could be a long list. A much shorter one would be those who were exclusively in the mainstream... not that they were less qualified, but, possibly for the fact that it is more difficult to be noticed there. Norman Rockwell would certainly head the list ... and ... and ...
THis is an interesting subject. Can anyone think of a significant photographer who has NOT done nudes at one time or other? My first thought was Ansel Adams ... but no ... he had photographed a few - but simply decided that he was not "good" at that type of work.
Ed Sukach, FFP.