Originally Posted by Jorge
Sorry Jorge, the idea was already taken and used in the Jules Pfeiffer movie: "Little Muders" from the '70s. Elliot Gould (I think it was) was developing a 'body of work' shooting dog turds with a macro lens. The movie was very wry and funny to New Yorkers especially, since it poked serious fun at the city's zeitgeist.
I think the art world's biggest problem is its confusion regarding originality. Instead of understanding that originality can be strongly manifested by the force of an artists unique personality and vision in his/her work, the notion persists that 'original' only refers to something never seen before. Hence Eliot Porter's work is dismissed by some curators and gallery owners simply because it superficially may resemble calendar 'graphs.
In a Chelsea art gallery, my wife and I encountered a 'piece' that consisted of linked columns of colored paper clips suspended from the ceiling. We both laughed so hard out lound that the proprietor made a glaring "get the fork outta here" look at us, but it was worth it!! Such originality....priceless!!
Remnbrandt was not accepted "Conceptually" during his time. A case in point is his painting "Night Watchmen" where he shocked everyone by not painting each individual person in sharp detail as if they were individual portraits. Not only did he p!ss off the sitters, but the "Art World" of his era in general. It was not acceptable to paint people that way.
Originally Posted by Robert Kennedy
And El Greco's elongated figures were not looked upon kindly either.
The vast majority of past artist we hold dear were not looked upon favorably by their contemporary society. The Impressionists are strong proof to that.
Is this sex piece/performance art or not... I really don't care because I choose to ignore it.
Long live Ed "Big Daddy" Roth!!
"I don't care about Milwaukee or Chicago." - Yvon LeBlanc
Originally Posted by Lee Shively
I remember that. Didn't the gasses build up to a point where the bottles exploded during one of the exhibitions. They were placed in the sun or something for better detail.
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
Progress! From "Jack the Dripper" to "Jorge the Shi!!er" in only one generation.
Originally Posted by Jorge
I have spent some time with Google this AM trying to locate this Proformace Artist and nothing is turning up online. One would think that this sort of behavior would get some notice with the blog people and the real press.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Are we talking about Andrea Fraser?
On the one hand this work is saying something old and familiar--"art is prostitution." It is subject to the charge that even as it attempts to make such a statement, it's part of the system anyway and is just more prostitution.
On the other hand, some of what she does tries to reveal new elements of the evolving brothel of the art world. In that sense, she's part of another current of artists who are doing a kind of performance art based on bureaucracy of producing institutional art. They apply for grants, make presentations, commission engineering studies, etc., and the reams of documentation produced by this process are evidence of the artistic performance.
Here's a (fairly dense) statement by Fraser that gives a little more context:
Or not. Maybe we have become that jaded. Which seems to just encourage greater excess.
As to "conceptual accesibility" -
While in the past artists have irritated the critics and the masses, the images have always been decipherable.
"Naked Maja" - by Goya, not El Greco BTW...I confuse the two myself... is pretty much as it seems. Nobody is gonna wander around it for an hour going "Huh?"
Same with "The Nigh****ch" (have they cleaned that yet BTW?). There may be hidden depths to the piece, but nobody is going to be left out in the cold wondering what the subject of the piece is.
As to Ed's comment about "bullying" -
I think there is some subtle, and not so subtle bullying going on in the art world.
First off there is what people are taught. Yesterday everyone in my color class was told that you must title all your work so people can understand it. I pointed out that David Levinthal (who was mentioned earlier in class that day) doesn't do this, and we can all understand his work. He titles the series, but not the piece.
This of course resulted in the "You aren't David Levinthal! He can do what he wants! He is famous!" response, which, sad to say is just plain juvenile. My point was the by using good IMAGERY you don't NEED a pithy title. Or ANY title!
But the push by people like this is pretty strong at times. At others it isn't. Like the quizzical stare from the gallery manager when you don't have a statement or a title. That is what I got when I hung my work. For someone who isn't as obstinate and bullheaded as I, that could be a really bad moment making someone feel as if they NEED those things to make it "art".
Which is the whole issue isn't it?
There is a clique', so to speak, that while proclaiming that art has no rules, immediately sets about making rules.
As in the "Hooker/Artist" example. The rules state that only an "Artist" can legitimately do that piece. If a common streetwalker went into a gallery they would be quickly asked to leave and then mocked. But when the "right person" engages in the same behavior, it is "art".
Or more to the point, why do they even have the term "outsider art"? If art is so inclusive now, then why do you even need that commonly used term?
And to compound this perception of mine, the person defending prostitution as art is such an insider as to be a joke (which, sadly she is in the program). Her dad is a bigwig at the school of art and he has been either working for, or an alumni of, every school she went to.
Friends in high places and all....
With this kind of inbreeding and closed minded attitude, is the art world even remotely in touch with the everyday?
Official Photo.net Villain
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]
Fess up, you just wanted to see some blue movies.....
Originally Posted by lee
Robert, this is no different than the british woman who decided to put her messy bed on display and called it art. This is what I call the "elitist" art, which unfortunately seems to be predominantly present in museum and "avant garde" galleries. This is art that is precieved to be "cutting edge" by those "in the know" who have to justify their position somehow. If they chose something the rest of us the unwashed masses would apprecite, then they would not be percived as doing their job, or "knowing" more than us.
This no longer upsets me if it is all done between private individuals or entities. Someone wants to pay $40000 for a roll in the hay with an "artiste," well then more the power to him or her.
Where I get pissed is when Museums and goverment sponsored facilities start buying and showing art that is crap or offensive under the guise of being "controversial" and using our tax money to do so. About two years ago a mexican american woman was given a grant and her pieces were shown all over the country. The theme was some catholic religious icon that had been "updated" to reflect the present. So what does this moron used, in one photograph, she used a facsimili of the Virgin of Guadalupe where the virgin was depicted with hot pants and the angel supporting her was some other woman with her breasts hanging out. Not surprisingly, this caused an uproar in the latin community, but the funny thing was that this woman was surprised that people were upset. This is what I call being out of touch and I certainly understand where you are comming from.
In short, welcome to the club of the bewildered who sometimes think "what were they thinking?"
I think you need to realize that there is two art worlds. There is the New York-LA axis where the more bizarre, strange and sensational the better, regardless if the work has anything of merit to say or has any beauty to it. One of the prerequisites of such art is that it usually emphaisizes the ugliness of humanity, and any message is pessimistic and negative in nature.
The other prerequisite is that the really avant-garde have to glorify the most deviant and obnoxious aspects of society and culture. If the artist can gain some modicum of repect or acceptance of such art, they can hope society will eventually grow to see such deviance as acceptable behaivor.
A good example is the recent book by Timothy Greenfield-Sanders caled XXX Porn Stars. I have not read the article in View Camera yet, but do know that the book takes a variety of porn stars and through his portrait style shows these people as normal everyday people that just have a job they are good at.
I am not critical of someone's right to produce, act in or view pronography, ( I saw plenty during my mis-spent college days) But I am critical of trying normalize an industry where success depends on the ability to demonstrate subjagation and domination of women by men, and the exploitation of women to make a profit. Study after study shows that pornography is a trigger to males who are prone to violence or aggresion toward females. But the idea is trendy, controversial and in vogue with the idea of political correctness. I mean Why can't Ron Jeremy or Jenna Jameison be role models for your children?
Then there is the rest of the "world" where people appreciate beauty and the idea that art can communicate up lifting and inspiring messages as well as work that can challenge our beliefs and assumptions wtihout the sensationalism of the avant garde who consider themselves as important as the work itself. Of course to the "cutting edge" this majority is a bunch of backwards rubes who still believe in God, mom and apple pie. To really understand the art and the artist, look at the audience it attracts.
One other thing. Andy Warhol was the most under talented and over rated artist in the history of the world (imho). But he did make that statement about everyone getting there 15 minutes of fame sometime in their life.
You simply are seeing that on the walls Of NY and LA. 99% of these artists will be forgotten, their work cleared out of storage rooms and tossed into dumpsters with the museum curator 25 years from now wondering what somebody was thinking when they purchased it. Thier work only remebered in some dusty photograph in an old museum catalogue. Yes some of it will be remembered and considered influential and one or two of the thousands hailed as a genius. But that work will probably contain some beauty or idea that resonates with themes of the human spirit.
"Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
Jim, this is MHO too!
Originally Posted by Jim Chinn