[pbradley]

I fucking love troll pictures. They're so artful.

 

[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by ploesj

sounds like you are referring to some artists in the fluxus movement who thought 'i am an artist so what i do is art' and documented everything they did in pictures, notes and film. (like Vautier) these days there is ai wei wei who takes about 700 pictures a day. it's a way of looking at life.

i've always thought that art was something someone made up or put together, and it moves people in a way. you could say a beautiful nature photograph isn't art because the landscape was already there, but the photographer put a frame around a part of it and made a choice, which is what makes it art. a lot of modern art is rubbish, but some pieces just manage to touch people in a certain way, and provoke very different reactions (think about neuman's 'who's afraid of red, yellow and blue': it's a large red canvas with some blue and yellow stripes on it but apparently it makes people so mad they want to destroy it)

there was a french sociologist, pierre bourdieu, he did a whole project about people's taste and then divided the general public in three classes: worker's class, middle class and higher class. worker's class tend to like things they recognise from their world and culture, they see art as decorative and functional (it has to match the other things in the house) and appreciate materials and craftmanship. the highest class are the 'trendsetters', they appreciate 'art' at its finest and would rather build a house around one painting than find a painting that matches the couch. those two classes are the only ones with their own taste, since all the middle class does is copy the high class so they won't be associated with the worker's class. the middle class has no taste of her own and is constantly worried about having the right things to fit in.

i'm not too sure if i fully agree on this since it's a survey from the late sixties and communication has expanded a lot since then... art and culture have become a lot more democratic.

It's all down to effort and originality. The more effort and originality an artist puts into his/her creation, the more respect they'll receive from the general public. How can anyone respect someone who creates what they deem a piece of art something the public can easily do themselves or have done in their everyday lives?

[ploesj]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

It's all down to effort and originality. The more effort and originality an artist puts behind his/her creation, the more respect they'll receive from the general public. How can anyone respect someone who creates what they deem a piece of art something the public can easily do themselves or have done in their everyday lives?

people often look at early abstract or expressionist work saying 'oh my kid could have done that' and it's quite wrong, maybe your kid could do that, but at the time those pieces were made AND EXHIBITED AS ART, it was a revelation. we are now used to seeing stuff that is not necessarily about craftmanship, but you need some kind of drive to be the first one to put a canvas flat on the ground and drip over it, like pollock did (he completely turned the normal way of painting: vertical, with control over the brugh strokes)

[looking glass spectacle]

i had no idea this would cause so much confusion.

first off, OF COURSE it's art... it's in a fucking art museum for christ's sake.

Originally Posted by phoenix

There are lots of things in this world that contain more than just what is on the surface..

yup... and the title of this thread is one of those things.

Originally Posted by phoenix

I personally don't know this artist, but even looking quickly;

"Orozco's exploration of the use of video, drawings, and installations in addition to his photographs and sculptures, allows the audience's imagination to explore the creative associations between oft-ignored objects in today's world. His work permits a rarely allowed interaction between the artwork and the audience."

just because the artist claims it doesn't make it so... i learned this a long time ago when i tried to take a bite out of yoko ono's apple at the moma. i was thrown out before i got it to my mouth. i'm pretty certain the same would have happened if i'd tried to water the plants with the hose...

Originally Posted by phoenix

Seemingly his intention is to break down physical/sociological barriers which can exist between artist work and audience, in a playful manner. I would say such a piece does that quite well.

He is asking you to look at the item in a different light. Putting something usually considered quite worthless into a place usually reserved for expensive, exclusive, elitist items. It is quite subtle though, because the item does not have a reserved plinth or space. It's playful.. humorous..

it breaks down no barriers, there was no interaction with the piece other than worshiping an object on a pedestal (even if there was no pedestal) and it was not playful or humorous in the slightest.

riding in these teacup bumper cars was playful and humorous. i got to sit on 'art' and smash it into other 'art' .... very very gently or the museum guard would get mad... still, a lot of fun.

 

eating thai food was playful and humorous. no object on a pedestal here. just social interaction in the raw. and free food.... same for the espresso/bean bag movie watching experience tiravanija gave me at the guggenheim, though i don't have photos of that one...

 

and defacing a gordon matta-clark was a lot of fun, even if that's what it was there for.

 

but just standing there and looking at a hose on the patio was about the boringest thing i've ever done in a museum....

...so yeah, i still don't get it.

[ploesj]

at a certain point in this century art started to be more about art itself than about making a picture of something. all work had to be refreshing and original, which would mean the end of art, because as soon as you show the piece a second time it's not original anymore.

[Rob Instigator]

I read a great book about i, written in the 40's about how modern art had perverted the love of beauty into the narcissitic love of the shaman/artist. Instead of praising the natural world around us with art, artists began praising themselves as sopme sort of "sacred" founts of "ART".

in the rennaissance times, even the highest of artists was just a glorified craftsman, a person for hire to the highest bidder, (or ANY bidder if times were rough)

the idea that art was more dependent on the mind of the one making it than the actual resultng art piece is what twisted all this u[p I think.

everyone wants their artists to be shamanhealers, to be natural-born-seers, instead of the hardworking, tedius, process oriented creator of art opbjects that is a more accurate representation of the true artist.
.

beauty comes from effort.

[looking glass spectacle]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I'm not sure you should be following the arts if you really consider this an overly difficult piece to comprehend...

I say that in the nicest way possible..

what i do get is that by resorting to excluding those in the audience who don't "get it," you've actually proved that the piece reinforces the elitist positioning of the 'art object' in society. so much for... you know... 'breaking down barriers' and all.




i am also saying this in the nicest possible way.

[demonrail666]

^ploesj

I agree, and I suppose that point where art began to concentrate on itself was the point when it really began to alienate a more general audience.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I read a great book about i, written in the 40's about how modern art had perverted the love of beauty into the narcissitic love of the shaman/artist. Instead of praising the natural world around us with art, artists began praising themselves as sopme sort of "sacred" founts of "ART".

in the rennaissance times, even the highest of artists was just a glorified craftsman, a person for hire to the highest bidder, (or ANY bidder if times were rough)

the idea that art was more dependent on the mind of the one making it than the actual resultng art piece is what twisted all this u[p I think.

everyone wants their artists to be shamanhealers, to be natural-born-seers, instead of the hardworking, tedius, process oriented creator of art opbjects that is a more accurate representation of the true artist.
.

beauty comes from effort.

Do you remember the name of thast book by any chance?

[Rob Instigator]

I will check out my stacks and post the name of the book.

[demonrail666]

thanks!

[ploesj]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

^ploesj

I agree, and I suppose that point where art began to concentrate on itself was the point when it really began to alienate a more general audience.

indeed, which is quite a bad thing, since this is a time when art could really be available for everyone... it used to be an elitist thing because only the rich people could afford education, books, artworks. now it's an elitist thing because the majority of the population thinks it's rubbish.

[Rob Instigator]

the Elite have it in their best interest to destroy/ruin any elite item/endeavor that becomes accessible to the masses.

[ploesj]

indeed, because it's what makes them different.

ugh.

and you know we're no better than that. would you still love your obscure noisebands as much if everyone had a poster of them up on their walls?

i'm off to bed, art philosophy exam in the morning. wish me luck!

[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by ploesj

people often look at early abstract or expressionist work saying 'oh my kid could have done that' and it's quite wrong, maybe your kid could do that, but at the time those pieces were made AND EXHIBITED AS ART, it was a revelation. we are now used to seeing stuff that is not necessarily about craftmanship, but you need some kind of drive to be the first one to put a canvas flat on the ground and drip over it, like pollock did (he completely turned the normal way of painting: vertical, with control over the brugh strokes)

You go inside anyone's house where you live, ploesj, and you'll discover they own nothing by Pollock, or any abstract or expressionist work. It'll be more the art that appeals, is familiar, and is the least pretentious. The average person has never fallen for all that pseud hyperbole that only ever convinces imbecilic poseurs with more money than sense.

[looking glass spectacle]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

hey-lo, I wus ches wonderink eef chu wood like to buy dees peenk hose I gots.

You must wave a yellow hose around some more before spraying it at floatingslowly again.


i'm glad someone caught the humor in that....

[Savage Clone]

Elitism is not bad, especially in the modern sense of setting yourself outside of the mass/homogenized experience.
"My kid could do that" is to art what "it's just a bunch of noise" is to "out" music. The rubes can have their experience, and they can look at me with the same disdain I have for them.
Being secure in your tastes and being careful who your friends are is not bad. Dumbing down your life in an effort to be part of an increasingly idiotic and anti-intellectual culture is far worse than behaving in a way that some slack-jawed moron would call "elitist."

[Keeping It Simple]

What is on the wall of the room you're in?

[Savage Clone]

A framed promo poster for my first album from 1997. It was a gift from my mom.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by pbradley

I fucking love troll pictures. They're so artful.

 

Just for you then, some pictures I didn't get to use today: