It is my position that "modern art" only has value if it exhibits severe brain damage on the part of the artist (Melting clocks, Escher's stuff). ITT, you prove me wrong by posting examples of modern art that has value.
I am predisposed to reject modern art on the grounds of "Yoko Ono", but I am prepared to change my mind, should anything interesting be posted.
Note: This is a general invitation. I only cited Hoops because he brough it up.
Also note: I won't actually be able to see any of this stuff until I get home tonight.
Not sure if it counts as modern art, but the Harbin Ice City in China is awesome regardless
http://www.pbase.com/thepokergod/harbin_ice_festival
Can you be a bit more specific what you mean by modern art? I'm guessing you don't mean the dictionary definition, which specifies art made between 1860 and 1970.
off the top of my head:
project postergasm
(though if I had to pick a genre for postergasm, I'd put it in the category of postmodern art)
I meant what Hoops meant. Modern art.
I'm assuming he meant the 1870-1970 variety...That's what I meant, anyway.
I love modern art. More specifically, I love modern conceptual art. My favorite recent piece is the box that sells itself on eBay. Pure fucking genius.
Sorry, I mean "contemporary art". It'll be funny in about 20 years when the pretentious artfag establishment has to come up for another word for "now".
Post post-modernism.
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2011, 09:56:30 PM
Post post-modernism.
What about the pre-post contemporaneous movement of the 2010s?
My two cents------------------------------------
Art used to be really well defined, you know? There were groups of people in charge of defining what is and what is not art. The symbolism and fashions were controlled by a scant few groups of people.
Marcel Duchamp hated those fuckers, he thought that artists should get to decide what is and what is not art, not this one cabal of european fuckwits
so he flipped a urinal upside down and signed the wrong name on it.
Essentially, he was flipping everybody off.
Predictably, the art authorities flipped out. THAT'S NOT FUCKING ART, they said, ART IS PAINT ON CANVAS, OR MAYBE A SCULPTURE OF A NAKED MAN. WHY CAN'T YOU PAINT A NICE BOWL OF FRUIT OR SOMETHING?
Duchamp saw his legacy as an attack on rational society. If art was supposed to be beautiful, he'd make art that was ugly. If it was supposed to be meaningful, he'd make stuff which is meaningless. The world was just crawling out of some horrific war, he was saying "I reject the world which led us there." "Anti-Art".
His work led to the creation of surrealism, absurdism, abstract art, and the Situationist Internationale -- who in turn gave us culture jamming and the revolution of May 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_in_France).
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2011, 09:53:15 PM
Sorry, I mean "contemporary art". It'll be funny in about 20 years when the pretentious artfag establishment has to come up for another word for "now".
my guess is that it'll have something to do with re-appropriation, which is the big fad right now.
I also think that art has finally run away from "dedicated artists" - those guys who make Autotune the News and Symphony of Science are fucking masters, and those aren't skills you learn in art school.
Hmmmm. This is a toughy, I doubt I would be very good at convincing you of anything Roger, especially since I liked the water = oak tree piece, and you clearly hated it.
Let me give it some thought and I will try to post something later tonight which i think might convince you. Cool?
I love modern art too! :) At least, quite a bit of it. Many years ago I visited London and went to Tate Modern (huge modern art museum based in a former power station), it was awesome. Had all the great things in it, at least many of the really famous modern art things.
I can try to explain what I like about it, but if you disagree, then, yeah that's that then. Cause it's by it's nature, not exactly very objectively likeable :)
However, I'm reminded of my experience with olives. When I was young, I used to hate olives. But around my 20th, I was hanging with some friends, and one had put a tray of olives on the table for snacking. So I thought, what the heck, I'll try one. It wasn't disgusting, it was .. strange (olives have quite a unique flavour after all), actually not bad at all. So I ate some more, and started to really like them. Now, the cool thing about this is that it was a complete win-win-win-win situation, since now there was an extra thing in my life to like! No downside, just learned to appreciate and enjoy a thing I wasn't getting any enjoyment out of before.
So who knows, maybe you get that from modern art.
First off, about the melting clocks (Dali) and Escher's stuff. I like them too. Quite easy to explain for me why: Some modern art is just plain damn cool to look at. If you like that sort of thing, there's a bunch more modern artists whose work is very enjoyable as simply eye-candy. Can't name any names from the top of my head, maybe someone else can.
Some stuff I saw at Tate Modern:
Starting with the toughest one, Fountain by Duchamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)). This is a urinal signed with the name "R Mutt". I believe it's Dada. You asked about value. Gonna hand you that one, this particular urinal doesn't really have much value, except in a few very specific ways. First, it's not the urinal, it has been destroyed and replaced by a replica several times, apparently because its existence annoys people to no end. In that sense already, it's art because I enjoy tremendously knowing that this object was able to cause such an enormous amount of strife when mr Duchamp submitted it for an art show. Well, there are all sorts of details to the story (why R Mutt, for instance, and history and blabla), but realizing that this stupid dumb urinal (and not even a particular urinal) caused all those emotions, that makes me value it.
Also, mind, seeing it in Tate didn't really add that much to the enjoyment of the piece, unlike, for instance seeing a beautiful painting up close. It's just nice to have seen it, so that I have seen it. It doesn't get more interesting when you see it up close, because it's just a fucking urinal with R MUTT written on it.
Another thing, this also shows how the question "so a urinal with R Mutt written on it is art?" doesn't really work. Because if somebody were to do it now, the same thing, it wouldn't create all that ruckus, and so it would just be a urinal with not much extra value to it.
Anther thing that makes the Fountain important to me, because there are a lot of "shock" modern art things now, some of them even manage to create a whole bunch of strife, like Fountain did. But Duchamp's Fountain was the first one (I think. one of the very first at least) to do such a nonsensical thing. And that alone gives it a whole lot of historical value.
I don't need to like all dadaist "shock" modern art objects, because after a while you sort of get the general idea. So I'm gonna go with that one.
I was going to write about Roy Liechtenstein and Piet Mondriaan as well, but this post is taking long enough, I need to go do other stuff now, will probably continue later (depending on where this thread goes).
... damnit I should have started with Liechtenstein, I see Cram already did Duchamp :argh!:
Would land art (a sort of abstract art, formal or informal) be considered "modern"?
(http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/intellect_and_entertain/assets/spiral_jetty_wisps.jpg)
(http://www.writedesignonline.com/history-culture/AndyGoldsworthy/goldsworthy.jpg)
(http://naturalismo.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/andy_goldsworthy_rowan_leaves_with_hole.jpg)
(http://www.sculpture.org.uk/images/504816331403/640x480/0.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TWBSMc47bw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TWBSMc47bw) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBcdL8uO71E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBcdL8uO71E)
Most of that is Andy Goldsworthy, just because he's my favorite artist ever, but the top one is Spiral Jetty by Robert Smithson. If it's modern art then I'd argue it's not without value.
it's very pretty and I'm going to click the links tomorrow to find out what it is I'm looking at :)
I like that. It's sculpture (?) that is pleasing to the eye.
Contrast it with this crap:
(http://www.dallasartsrevue.com/art-crit/Here_Lately/AHL-pix/DanGraham-argonnePavillion-II_2252.jpg)
(relevant + love this story)
QuoteERIC: I use my sword to detect whether it's good.
ED: It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo!
ERIC: (Pause) I call out to it.
ED: It won't answer. It's a gazebo!
ERIC: (Pause) I sheathe my sword and draw my bow and arrows. Does it respond in any way?
ED: No, Eric. It's a gazebo!
ERIC: I shoot it with my bow (rolls to hit). What happened?
ED: There is now a gazebo with an arrow sticking out of it.
ERIC: (Pause) Wasn't it wounded?
ED: Of course not, Eric! It's a gazebo!
ERIC: (Whimper) But that was a plus-three arrow!
ED: It's a gazebo, Eric, a gazebo! If you really want to try to destroy it, you could try to chop it wih an axe, I suppose, or you could try to burn it, but I don't know why anybody would even try. It's a @#%$*& gazebo!
ERIC: (Long pause - he has no axe or fire spells) I run away.
ED: (Thoroughly frustrated) It's too late. You've awakened the gazebo, and it catches you and eats you. ERIC: (Reaching for his dice) Maybe I'll roll up a fire-using mage so I can avenge my paladin...
Kai, I don't think Andy Goldsworthy is modern (Modern Art refers to a specific period, "Contemporary Art" is what is occurring right now).
So, Roger, what is that "crap"? Who made it? What was it titled? And most importantly, by what criteria are you judging it as crap?
ETA: I also think it's naive to regard only "pretty" things as art with value.
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2011, 09:53:15 PM
Sorry, I mean "contemporary art". It'll be funny in about 20 years when the pretentious artfag establishment has to come up for another word for "now".
:lol:
I know, I know...
I just want to put in a good word for Yoko Ono. Back in 1966, which I think just squeaks this work into the Modern period if not the Modern style she produced the Blue Room Event.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yokoonoofficial/2891958083/in/set-72157607534446622/#/
Looks like even old Yoko is a good, right thinking discordian, she was Gasming before Cram was even born . . .
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on January 11, 2011, 01:56:40 AM
Kai, I don't think Andy Goldsworthy is modern (Modern Art refers to a specific period, "Contemporary Art" is what is occurring right now).
So, Roger, what is that "crap"? Who made it? What was it titled? And most importantly, by what criteria are you judging it as crap?
ETA: I also think it's naive to regard only "pretty" things as art with value.
Guernica isn't pretty, and it's art. Stop fucking putting words in my Goddamn mouth. Thanks.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 01:33:13 AM
I like that. It's sculpture (?) that is pleasing to the eye.
Contrast it with this crap:
(http://www.dallasartsrevue.com/art-crit/Here_Lately/AHL-pix/DanGraham-argonnePavillion-II_2252.jpg)
Yeah, it's sculpture usually, though I've seen it done in ways that makes it almost like a painting. Glad you like it.
As for the other thing, I don't know what to make of it. It looks like a bus stop.
Quote from: ϗ on January 11, 2011, 02:45:00 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 01:33:13 AM
I like that. It's sculpture (?) that is pleasing to the eye.
Contrast it with this crap:
(http://www.dallasartsrevue.com/art-crit/Here_Lately/AHL-pix/DanGraham-argonnePavillion-II_2252.jpg)
Yeah, it's sculpture usually, though I've seen it done in ways that makes it almost like a painting. Glad you like it.
As for the other thing, I don't know what to make of it. It looks like a bus stop.
Or a retarded green house.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on January 11, 2011, 01:56:40 AM
Kai, I don't think Andy Goldsworthy is modern (Modern Art refers to a specific period, "Contemporary Art" is what is occurring right now).
So, Roger, what is that "crap"? Who made it? What was it titled? And most importantly, by what criteria are you judging it as crap?
ETA: I also think it's naive to regard only "pretty" things as art with value.
Guernica isn't pretty, and it's art. Stop fucking putting words in my Goddamn mouth. Thanks.
Did I say YOU said that? I was responding in general to anyone who may feel that way.
But I see this thread is more about you lashing out as opposed to discussing ideas, so maybe I'll return to it when it becomes a pun war.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on January 11, 2011, 03:58:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on January 11, 2011, 01:56:40 AM
Kai, I don't think Andy Goldsworthy is modern (Modern Art refers to a specific period, "Contemporary Art" is what is occurring right now).
So, Roger, what is that "crap"? Who made it? What was it titled? And most importantly, by what criteria are you judging it as crap?
ETA: I also think it's naive to regard only "pretty" things as art with value.
Guernica isn't pretty, and it's art. Stop fucking putting words in my Goddamn mouth. Thanks.
Did I say YOU said that? I was responding in general to anyone who may feel that way.
But I see this thread is more about you lashing out as opposed to discussing ideas, so maybe I'll return to it when it becomes a pun war.
Yeah, and I was only saying "Fuck off" to anyone who might stroll along and put words in my mouth.
Don't piss down my neck and then tell me it's raining.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 04:03:36 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on January 11, 2011, 03:58:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on January 11, 2011, 01:56:40 AM
Kai, I don't think Andy Goldsworthy is modern (Modern Art refers to a specific period, "Contemporary Art" is what is occurring right now).
So, Roger, what is that "crap"? Who made it? What was it titled? And most importantly, by what criteria are you judging it as crap?
ETA: I also think it's naive to regard only "pretty" things as art with value.
Guernica isn't pretty, and it's art. Stop fucking putting words in my Goddamn mouth. Thanks.
Did I say YOU said that? I was responding in general to anyone who may feel that way.
But I see this thread is more about you lashing out as opposed to discussing ideas, so maybe I'll return to it when it becomes a pun war.
Yeah, and I was only saying "Fuck off" to anyone who might stroll along and put words in my mouth.
Don't piss down my neck and then tell me it's raining.
Yes, yes. Everyone is out get you and I put razors in your Cheerios.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on January 11, 2011, 04:09:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 04:03:36 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on January 11, 2011, 03:58:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on January 11, 2011, 01:56:40 AM
Kai, I don't think Andy Goldsworthy is modern (Modern Art refers to a specific period, "Contemporary Art" is what is occurring right now).
So, Roger, what is that "crap"? Who made it? What was it titled? And most importantly, by what criteria are you judging it as crap?
ETA: I also think it's naive to regard only "pretty" things as art with value.
Guernica isn't pretty, and it's art. Stop fucking putting words in my Goddamn mouth. Thanks.
Did I say YOU said that? I was responding in general to anyone who may feel that way.
But I see this thread is more about you lashing out as opposed to discussing ideas, so maybe I'll return to it when it becomes a pun war.
Yeah, and I was only saying "Fuck off" to anyone who might stroll along and put words in my mouth.
Don't piss down my neck and then tell me it's raining.
Yes, yes. Everyone is out get you and I put razors in your Cheerios.
Well, that explains the anal bleeding.
However, you may consider addressing such comments to the board in general, instead of in a reply to me, especially since NOBODY HERE SAID THAT ONLY PRETTY THINGS CAN BE CONSIDERED ART.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z86V_ICUCD4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z86V_ICUCD4)?
Concept expanded into this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkgoSOSGrx4&NR=1&feature=fvwp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkgoSOSGrx4&NR=1&feature=fvwp)
Quote from: MMIX on January 11, 2011, 02:18:03 AM
I just want to put in a good word for Yoko Ono. Back in 1966, which I think just squeaks this work into the Modern period if not the Modern style she produced the Blue Room Event.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yokoonoofficial/2891958083/in/set-72157607534446622/#/
Looks like even old Yoko is a good, right thinking discordian, she was Gasming before Cram was even born . . .
Yoko made one I love called White Chess (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yokoonoofficial/2892798380/):
Also, I found its somehow connected to another artist's series 'spice chess' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spice_Chess)which is interesting.
Both these works are appealing to be because they use the viewers participation as art of the experience.
I'm rather disappointed no-one looked at the ice city.
I'm pretty sure most of you won't like this.
(http://digilander.libero.it/herminda/blog/pollock-n23-1948.jpg)
Jackson Pollock. I love his work. When I look at his paintings, I can see the movement. It's like trapped kinetic energy.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4258926808_7efe22e2ea.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/3143931169_efd919711f.jpg)
(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3v2oenn0p1qah2gqo1_500.jpg)
And I really, really don't care if you don't enjoy it. You won't convince me otherwise.
I like some Pollack. It depends. I don't think it's "great" art, or especially hard to do, but I find some of his pieces aesthetically pleasing. The top one and the third, for example, I would quite happily have on the wall or as a screensaver. The other two...not so much.
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2011, 12:35:43 PM
I'm rather disappointed no-one looked at the ice city.
Well nobody commented but a lot of us are probably like the guys walking past that monumental head in the gloriously labelled "Random snow Communist", we don't seem to be looking but we probably had a quick peek.
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2011, 09:39:06 PM
Not sure if it counts as modern art, but the Harbin Ice City in China is awesome regardless
http://www.pbase.com/thepokergod/harbin_ice_festival
Blockpage.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 11, 2011, 01:01:24 PM
I'm pretty sure most of you won't like this.
(http://digilander.libero.it/herminda/blog/pollock-n23-1948.jpg)
Jackson Pollock. I love his work. When I look at his paintings, I can see the movement. It's like trapped kinetic energy.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4258926808_7efe22e2ea.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/3143931169_efd919711f.jpg)
(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3v2oenn0p1qah2gqo1_500.jpg)
And I really, really don't care if you don't enjoy it. You won't convince me otherwise.
I like em, of course I can only see two of them. It feels very improvy, and kind of looks to me what improv music feels like. It really captures a moment and depicts how unique moments can be. (yeah, that sounds kind of pretentious, oh well)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 01:33:13 AM
I like that. It's sculpture (?) that is pleasing to the eye.
Contrast it with this crap:
(http://www.dallasartsrevue.com/art-crit/Here_Lately/AHL-pix/DanGraham-argonnePavillion-II_2252.jpg)
Do What I do and pretend they are abandoned time machines from the future. If they are too unsightly even for that, act as if you have come across a plane crash.
Ok, I've been thinking about this a lot, and I'm still not convinced anyone will like this but me, probably the second one, but not sure about the first:
1) Marina Abramović - this is obviously Contemporary Art, not Modern, but still.... Marina herself is the art most of the time, most recently she did a piece at the MOMA (she is a performance artist) where she sat at a table and people were encouraged to sit across from her and each stare into the other's eyes for as long as they wanted. Some lasted hours, some only a few minutes, many were brought to tears. Here is a single image from that exhibit:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2010/3/19/1268997830729/Marina-Abraomvic-left-wit-001.jpg)
She has done other pieces (like wrestling people, or getting people to suck on her nipples) but this one seemed to me to be the most direct, and the most honest. She has always said she only puts pieces together that frighten her, and that for her art should be about the artist making herself uncomfortable and working through that.... she said very little frightened her as starkly as just staring into another person's eyes without speaking.
This piece is important to me, both because I have a hard time making direct eye contact for long periods of time, and also because it seems like an activity that our culture could benefit from... its both self indulgent and... well, whatever the opposite of self indulgent is.
It's hard for me to describe, but I really like this piece.
2) LHOOQ
This one is by Duchamp (for real this time), and it just tickles me... both because he has taken someone else's art and changed it into something fun, mischevious and a little dirty.
I'm sure I don't have to say that the base for this is the Mona Lisa, but I just did so deal with it... Duchamp has added a cute little mustache, and every painting could use a little mustache added. In addition, he has added the letters "LHOOQ" at the bottom of the image, which, when spoken aloud sounds like the French sentence "Elle a chaud au cul." which translates to "She has a hot ass." Does it get better than that?
(http://psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/duchamp-LHOOQ.jpg)
I also love the idea of the sloppy removal of graffiti being a subconscious form of art, aping the technique that Mark Rothko used:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3005/2856419509_4cbdd7fd8d.jpg)
http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/graffitiremoval/ (http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/graffitiremoval/)
A lot of pieces don't translate well to prints or photos. Pollock's work in this thread doesn't look like much to me, but seeing it in person, the massive size of the canvas, the way it demanded attention, the scope of movements it would take to accomplish it was all very evident.
I have a feeling that if the sculpture Roger posted was viewed in person it would be more impressive, especially if you caught it in the right lighting.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1201398/Liu-Bolin-The-Chinese-artist-turns-Invisible-Man.html
This guy. Ignore the link, look at the pictures.
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2011, 02:52:06 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1201398/Liu-Bolin-The-Chinese-artist-turns-Invisible-Man.html
This guy. Ignore the link, look at the pictures.
That is fantastic.
First, a clarification why I posted the "Eric and the Gazebo" D&D story and claimed it was relevant: I should have been in bed for over an hour, as it was 3AM or something.
Second, there's been 13 new replies while writing this (on and off during the day), which I haven't read yet so maybe the discussion has taken another turn entirely, sorry about that, but if I read those replies now, I'm going to want to change this post as well, and then I never get done.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on January 11, 2011, 01:56:40 AM
So, Roger, what is that "crap"? Who made it? What was it titled? And most importantly, by what criteria are you judging it as crap?
Try the filename/URL of the image,
author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Graham
title "Pavillion II"
I wonder who wrote that wikipedia article and what they were thinking, because it just seems to be blowing smoke up his ass, for example "The concepts behind Dan Graham's artworks engage the viewer in the artwork.". Except they don't. I slapped a :cn: tag on that right now (knowing quite well it will just cause some wiki editor to quote a blurb from the Urban Planning Magazine
Glass & Steel Special art catalog).
Because really I believe this sort of thing is some of the
least engaging types of art I have ever seen. Dunno if you have a lot of this in the USA, but our cities are pretty much littered with this crap. And this is from somebody who generally appreciates the occasional glass and steel architecture quite a bit.
Do you have these things? It's a whole category of crap called "Urban Planning Art" or something (don't get me wrong, there are some gems in the genre, but they are a rarity), maybe they are judged on the merit of cheapness to build? Got some open space in your city? Let's add some abstract object there that claims to "interact with the environment" and "poses questions about the relation between figure and ground".
There is one in the middle of nearly every roundabout. Though some of them much are uglier than this Pavillion II structure. At least that one is fairly neutral, utterly boring and therefore not even offensive. This is the sort of thing that people walk past without noticing it at first, and then ask one another "Hey, what is that supposed to be, anyway?" which will be answered with a shrug and "It's art .. I guess".
A shrug. That is pretty much the extent of engagement it causes on the viewer.
A lot of these concepts (figure & ground, space, form, etc) are also explored or considered in visual design. Except the idea is, that by paying attention to those concepts, visual aesthetic and clarity and such are achieved. They are a means to an end. Even in conceptual design, that claims to explore, say "figure and ground" doesn't try to get away with a simplistic geometric shape like that, it has to have something more, add a bit of powerful "extra" (and if the artist can't manage that within his own restrictions of his minimalism, they're not very good at it).
ah yes, that reminds me: A friend of mine once wrote an article about the relation between art and science, one of the things he said is that art needs to have multiple layers of meaning (he didn't claim that is a sufficient criterium for art btw). So if you have, for instance, a mechanical object that merely demonstrates a certain physical law, it's not art. An example he gave was an elliptical pool of water (object near a university), an ellips has two focal points, and placed at these points were vibrating poles, demonstrating something about resonance and waves. He said this might be pretty cool, but it's not art. However, if it would have been augmented with some elements connected to the story about how the physics guy that discovered this law, it could be considered art (the quality of the artwork would be dependant on how well the elements are integrated in a clever way, bonus points if you manage to express it in the form of some self-referential strange loop cause physicists dig that shit). BTW he also used the same argument to claim that fractals, while incredibly pretty, aren't art by themselves--which is an interesting discussion I'd gladly contribute to in another thread.
Now this "Pavillion II" maybe have a tiny bit of "extra" (the one way mirror, for instance), but it's such a ludicrously thin, it's hardly anything. I'd almost say it's less than the average person would unintentionally put into a simple craft work that's not intended as art.
Now this would all be fine with me if he'd express his conceptual minimalism on paper or something, but the kick in the face is that he gets commissioned by urban planning committees to design structures that cost hundreds of thousands of euros! If it wasn't for that, and the fact that by the very nature of his crap, his objects are intended to be placed in public spaces, I simply wouldn't care at all, one bit.
BTW here's a small sample of other poop Graham designed:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dan_Graham
I've been to exhibitions showing shit like
exactly like this at the Kröller-Müller Museum, in the sculpture garden, maybe it was even his.
The only time I felt more decepted/defrauded/cheated for paying entrance fee to a museum was when, in the Berlinische Galerie, upon closer inspection I noticed that one of the paintings was in fact a cheap CMYK inkjet print (including a few minor JPEG artifacts) of the original. This was not intentional, as far as I could tell, it did say "reproduction" in tiny letters under the info plaque.
(Which would have been okay, maybe the painting was temporarily lended out, it's the CMYK part that was bothering me most, because one reason why I enjoy viewing paintings in real life, is that it's impossible to capture the true vibrance of colours of real paint (or in fact, any material) using photography and CMYK printing)
Quote
ETA: I also think it's naive to regard only "pretty" things as art with value.
Nobody was claiming that.
What I said is that it's rather straightforward to appreciate certain kinds of modern art, because they're damn cool to look at. That doesn't mean that's all there is to them (Escher's wrok has certain very interesting mathematical ideas, Dali had his own crazy complicated reasons).
Going for the pretty stuff is a good way to get acquainted with modern art, an incentive to learn about the layers beneath the eye-candy, and when you learned to appreciate that, you can also appreciate modern art that may be less immediately striking as pretty, but stands out for its deeper meanings or social commentary or whatnots.
And from there you can move on to even more abstract stuff, that isn't pretty at all.
Though personally I also prefer my modern art both pretty and oddly meaningful. Only a few works of modern art are the exception to that (for me), because their historical value overshadows their lack of pretty entirely--such as Duchamp's
Fountain, or John Cage's
4'33".
Our roundabouts have art from local artists. Some of it is very nice, some not so good.
But infinetly better than some spag welding window panes together.
Hoops: Performance art - as opposed to the performing arts - tends to be Yoko Ono Land.
The staring contest one is mildly interesting, but that road leads to interpretive dance.
AH beat me to post. I was just about to say something about performance art.
I really really really like about 10% of the performance art I've seen.
I'll never forget my first contact with performance art. I was in college, I had just taken a german exam and was on my way back to my apartment, when I saw somebody in some kind of absursdist tropical parrot costume running across campus with a ladder under their arm. Intrigued, I followed him to a little alcove, where 7 people in bizarre costumes were doing bizarre activities. I'm not sure that I can even explain it - one person was crawling around, another was hanging up paintings and mirrors on the exterior of the buildings, another had a clip board and was taking notes on the people watching them... there was this odd music playing, and every so often everybody synched up doing the same thing at the same time.
I didn't know what I was looking at! I wondered if maybe it was some kind of LARP, or theater, or art, or what? I had never seen people acting like this, and I stayed for 25 minutes, watching their weird dance, trying to figure out what was going on. It really snapped me out of my robot mode.
other than that, I haven't seen any performance art that got inside my head like that. I've seen some cool stuff, but a lot the stuff I've seen seems to be about watching the artist have this sort of ritual experience, and it draggggggs. Last year I watched a performance art piece which consisted of watching a guy strip down to briefs, oil himself up, and balance a log on top of another log. It took 20 minutes. I almost fell asleep.
That one piece though, the first one I saw, left a big mark on me. It alerted me to how art can affect pedestrians that pass by, how it can change a space so that people experience that space differently. And it made me feel insanely creative - it was probably one of the things in my head when I came up with a lot of my posters.
1. I, too, love Pollock. I like the first image in LMNO's post best. The last image in it is probably also nice, but as was said, it needs to be at a much bigger resolution, it looks kind of noisy. Big reason why I got interested in Pollock is because a bunch of mathematicians measured the fractal dimension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_dimension) (a measure of self-similarity) of his abstract works over time (decades, IIRC), and it was increasing. This is odd, because fractal dimension is not something you do on purpose when making splatter paintings, it's not like you can just add more paint or make bigger or tinier squiggles, besides, Pollock never heard of fractal dimension. So, apparently Pollock had been practising and enhancing his splattering technique, which just happened to coincide with increasing the fractal dimension as well. And that's damn cool.
2. I also love the concept of graffiti removal reinterpretation of subconscious abstract art. I saw a Youtube vid about it, really slow, with some piercing cold electronic ambient music in the background. Not sure if the text was narrated or written on the video. My gf loved the idea but the music made her really uncomfortable. So I guess it was narrated, otherwise I'd have just turned off the sound, heh.
3. Will give the ice city stuff a closer look later, but it looks beautiful at first glance.
4. Invisible man dude is also wonderful. It's even more amazing because it's himself that you see on those photographs, it would be a lot easier to accomplish if he just put a suit on some model and started painting on that.
5. Cram, between your first contact and an oiled guy balancing logs, well it seems there must be world of interesting performance art in between :)
Don't get me wrong, 99% of the performance art I've seen has blown pigs. I just happen to like the one woman's work.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 11, 2011, 03:29:09 PM
Don't get me wrong, 99% of the performance art I've seen has blown pigs.
I think I saw that one. It was called
"Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" right?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 11, 2011, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 11, 2011, 03:29:09 PM
Don't get me wrong, 99% of the performance art I've seen has blown pigs.
I think I saw that one. It was called "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" right?
Yes, and that one was good, but to be fair, all the art out of Salazore is amazing.
I was going to guess a Roger Waters concert.
"modern art" great fucking label for old fashioned shit from 100 years ago. And that's all it is - a label. Labels have absolutely no business in art, in any form of art, but human beings just can't fucking resist it can they? "Oooh that cunt was too fucking lazy to finish that picture but it looks quite nice, lets call it impressionist..", or, "that shit is just a bunch of random shapes, lets call it cubist"
Art is art - if you like it its good, if you don't then it sucks, that's subjective, tho. Don't let anyone with a degree in postmodernism tell you any differently. Ramones > Beethoven, there, I've said it!
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on January 11, 2011, 04:12:38 PM
"modern art" great fucking label for old fashioned shit from 100 years ago. And that's all it is - a label. Labels have absolutely no business in art, in any form of art, but human beings just can't fucking resist it can they? "Oooh that cunt was too fucking lazy to finish that picture but it looks quite nice, lets call it impressionist..", or, "that shit is just a bunch of random shapes, lets call it cubist"
Art is art - if you like it its good, if you don't then it sucks, that's subjective, tho. Don't let anyone with a degree in postmodernism tell you any differently. Ramones > Beethoven, there, I've said it!
Nice polemic, but there
is often a reason to group some paintings together as a "style", "school", or "movement".
I'm not saying there isn't a reason. Just that more often than not that reason becomes a constraint. As soon as there's a new bandwagon a bunch of people who might have come up with something new and exciting jump on it instead. This can provide good shit in it's own right. Sometimes people push the envelope or perfect the style but it's a double edged sword. Shit gets pidgeonholed, people form camps, it turns into a massive clusterfuck. Personally I try to avoid the whole "is this pre-raphaelite or is it renaissance" thing and just look at the shit. As soon as you say "I'm a fan of X" you close yourself off to Y, Z and a whole bunch of other cool letters.
my ex girlfriend took a bunch of classes in book making.
The first day of the class, the professor said something to the effect of this
"Listen, we're all artists here. So I don't have to tell you that the borders of any given medium are pretty blurry. So I was going to spend this class discussing the question What is a book?, but it's a waste of time because here's how the conversation ends: it's a blurry definition. Books don't have to have pages or words or be made of paper. So let's just agree that books are whatever we want them to be because I don't want to hear anybody say that's not a book this semester."
Two of the books Chlo made for that class: a wooden doll house, and a video of herself dancing with a cat :lulz:
:lulz:
Ok, I fully recognize that's the same spirit of the idea as the "glass of water is a tree" piece, but for some reason I find this much more enjoyable.
:lulz: A video playing with a cat? Nice! I think sometimes you can take a lot of licence, but then you're always going to find an audience willing to listen to such as well. The best part about art is when it STRETCHES that boundary you didn't even know existed in the first place. I think that's what Cram was talking about. And it's a righteous exercise, to my mind, when you allow that to happen or shit, as in Cram's case, seek it out.
The other best part about art is when it finds a voice for things that heretofore had none. An expression of things that a people were grappling with. I'm thinking here of the movements that came out of WWI, how modern life had seeped so far into the subconscious that all-out destruction by machine was so terrible and horrible and yet all-consuming. The ripple effect of this gave way to many of the staples in American life today, and looking at what those ripple effects caused can please or displease you, either way, it shaped who you are today. And it will shape how your children are as well.
The labels, really, in the end, don't matter, unless you're just learning about all of it. It just helps to put a name to a face, so to speak. Categorization is helpful to shuck information into whatever bin makes it easier to grasp and use, if you so choose to do so. Getting caught up in labels only matters if the definition is what's hard for you to take/conceputalize/use. And then the label takes on a life of its own away from what it represents.
And this can be a good or bad thing depending on your point of view.
And now I've probably killed the thread. :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 11, 2011, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 11, 2011, 03:29:09 PM
Don't get me wrong, 99% of the performance art I've seen has blown pigs.
I think I saw that one. It was called "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" right?
Thermite up the arse and send it to Afghanistan!
Quote from: Cramulus on January 11, 2011, 05:33:45 PM
my ex girlfriend took a bunch of classes in book making.
The first day of the class, the professor said something to the effect of this
"Listen, we're all artists here. So I don't have to tell you that the borders of any given medium are pretty blurry. So I was going to spend this class discussing the question What is a book?, but it's a waste of time because here's how the conversation ends: it's a blurry definition. Books don't have to have pages or words or be made of paper. So let's just agree that books are whatever we want them to be because I don't want to hear anybody say that's not a book this semester."
Two of the books Chlo made for that class: a wooden doll house, and a video of herself dancing with a cat :lulz:
:lol: That's brilliant.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 02:45:35 AM
Quote from: ϗ on January 11, 2011, 02:45:00 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 01:33:13 AM
I like that. It's sculpture (?) that is pleasing to the eye.
Contrast it with this crap:
(http://www.dallasartsrevue.com/art-crit/Here_Lately/AHL-pix/DanGraham-argonnePavillion-II_2252.jpg)
Yeah, it's sculpture usually, though I've seen it done in ways that makes it almost like a painting. Glad you like it.
As for the other thing, I don't know what to make of it. It looks like a bus stop.
Or a retarded green house.
It's ugly. It looks like an office building, which is jarring in juxtaposition with the bushes in the background. It wouldn't have that effect if it was in the city. It's certainly not a thing you would expect to see if you were out for a stroll around the park. It's kind of a thing that makes you feel like you're trapped in an office even when you're not.
I like the idea of performance art better than I like most performance art itself.
Now, here is a question that has been rolling around in my head for some time; is it still performance art if no one sees you do it? Or does it become conceptual art?
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 04:43:09 AM
I like the idea of performance art better than I like most performance art itself.
Now, here is a question that has been rolling around in my head for some time; is it still performance art if no one sees you do it? Or does it become conceptual art?
It becomes self indulgence.
You can perform art for yourself. Musicians do it all the time.
...and I'm glad the thread didn't die.
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 04:43:09 AM
I like the idea of performance art better than I like most performance art itself.
Now, here is a question that has been rolling around in my head for some time; is it still performance art if no one sees you do it? Or does it become conceptual art?
I think it's still performance art.
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 04:43:09 AM
I like the idea of performance art better than I like most performance art itself.
Now, here is a question that has been rolling around in my head for some time; is it still performance art if no one sees you do it? Or does it become conceptual art?
If an interpretive dancer falls in the forest, does anyone care?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2011, 06:15:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 04:43:09 AM
I like the idea of performance art better than I like most performance art itself.
Now, here is a question that has been rolling around in my head for some time; is it still performance art if no one sees you do it? Or does it become conceptual art?
If an interpretive dancer falls in the forest, does anyone care?
1) her orthopedist
2) her insurance agent
3) worker's comp check issuer
Quote from: Jenne on January 12, 2011, 07:29:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2011, 06:15:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 04:43:09 AM
I like the idea of performance art better than I like most performance art itself.
Now, here is a question that has been rolling around in my head for some time; is it still performance art if no one sees you do it? Or does it become conceptual art?
If an interpretive dancer falls in the forest, does anyone care?
1) her orthopedist
2) her insurance agent
3) worker's comp check issuer
So.... no?
Quote from: Hoopla on January 12, 2011, 02:38:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 04:43:09 AM
I like the idea of performance art better than I like most performance art itself.
Now, here is a question that has been rolling around in my head for some time; is it still performance art if no one sees you do it? Or does it become conceptual art?
I think it's still performance art.
That's where I'm leaning, too.
Furthermore, I think it has the potential to be conceptual art, if the performance leaves physical artifacts. Or, if the performer later describes the performance as part of the piece.
THREAD RELATED: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20959.msg708388#msg708388
Quote from: Jenne on January 12, 2011, 02:31:13 PM
You can perform art for yourself. Musicians do it all the time.
Yep, I do it all the time.
I find it to be very therapeutic.
from the thread I just linked - a moment in time when I was a bit better at articulating why Dada was so important:
Quote from: Cramulus on May 30, 2009, 02:49:37 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 30, 2009, 02:44:26 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on May 27, 2009, 03:18:25 PM
The dadaists. Absurdism. Nonsense.
It is common to think of these things as meaningless, effete gestures at the rational order. Random nonsense is often decried as a masturbatory means of expression, satisfying the communicator but boring the communicatee. Many people have a similar distaste for "modern" art. "Anyone can draw a single dot on a canvas, how is that art?" In part, they are reacting with frustration at their inability to grasp the expression with their rational mind. In this essay I hope to illustrate the intent of much "meaningless" expression.
I don't think that you should lump "modern art" and dadaism together in that manner. Modern art generally takes little or no real effort to produce, whereas Dadaism, (as I understand it), entails a concerted effort to be as bad as possible.
err, you know Dadaism is a form of "modern art", right?
a long long time ago art used to be entirely about skill. You were a good artist if you could paint realistic portraits or landscapes or whatever. The conceptual element was kind of minimal.
Many artistic movements are based on people coming up with a new way to conceive of something visually. Like the impressionists - that was the first time anybody tried to paint the "impression" of something. Largely, most artistic movements are in response to other artistic movements. The real story is invisible unless you understand the piece's context. Which means that most art isn't really meant to be understood by us chumps with no art history background.
In the 1930s, a cavalcade of renegades came along, including Marcel Duchamp and friends. They decided that the concept of the painting was more important than the technical skill involved in its production. By creating art that consisted of stuff like a single dot on a white canvas, they actually changed art. I think that's pretty impressive! Yes, it takes no technical skill to make a single dot, but they were saying that's not as important anymore. It's a new world.
It really irritated the art market, who was used to getting their pretty pastoral paintings to hang in the foyer and everybody thinks its lovely.
Mondrian (a "modern artist" whose paintings basically looks like lines and colored boxes) rejected symbolism entirely, trying to make paintings without even representing anything. Now you can look a a Mondrian painting and say "what a bunch of crap, any teenager could do that", but it's kind of missing the point. It's like criticizing ee cummings for not writing poetry in traditional rhyming lines and stanzas. It's not that he doesn't know how to capitalize. It's that he's intentionally breaking step from the last 2000 years of poetry.
Now, nobody can come along and make a single dot on a canvas and call it art again. Somebody already did that. You still have to be original to be an artist, although the current fad ("reappropriation") challenges the definition of originality.
that was kind of a tangent, and I'm sure I didn't do justice to the Dadaists. (like I said, I don't really have an art history background) But the point is that, critiquing the lack of technical skill involved in the production of "modern art" is missing the point.
Bringing it back to the topic, it only appears like nonsense if you're unaware of the piece's context.
Good rant, if it can be considered a rant.
I like this thread. I'm glad it has my name on it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 13, 2011, 03:42:38 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 12, 2011, 02:31:13 PM
You can perform art for yourself. Musicians do it all the time.
Yep, I do it all the time.
I find it to be very therapeutic.
A generic definition of "art" from dictionary.com yields the following:
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
I think this can be done alone, with no one watching, and still be considered an expression. I think such expressions seem to get a lot of flak because the relation and significance the observer takes away from it might not always have the impact the observer was looking for.
SO, I'm sure a few of us have heard about the "Piano Bar" incident. There's a thread about it in High Weirdness and a few posts about it in Internet Shenanigans.
Basically a grand piano was left on a sand bar in Florida and unexplained for some time.
Later on, a 16 year old kid fessed up and took credit for it, citing that he liked the idea and was also trying to build up his art portfolio.
A few of us, myself included, loved the actual deed to death. I thought it was a great bit of surrealism; that it's just the kind of thing that will get people to stop and look and really think about for a while. On top of it, the stunt gained national attention, albeit shortlived.
Then we find out it's some rich kid's ploy to get into art school. He was going to leave his name out of it, it seems, but someone indie filmmaker tried to claim credit for leaving that and several other pianos at various locations as some kind of publicity for a "controversial" new movie. So the reactions, it seems, are that the stunt itself loses value because of the person that did it.
I agree that it's a disappointment that it's some prospective art school kid instead of, say, a group of culture jammers. But is the value of it actually less because of who did it? Now this filmmaker, who comes across as all kinds of pretentious AND tried to steal someone's credit - would it have been worth even less if it was him instead of a 16 year old being helped out by his dad?
I'm not convinced that the effect is changed because the story is changed. If the piano was some kind of viral marketing attempt, the fact would remain that it got people's attention in a very real way.
And Able has already pointed out that this was apparently a Muse album cover?
I'm unsure exactly how I feel about this at the moment. I am going to reflect for a few hours and come back to respond.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 27, 2011, 10:11:02 PM
I'm unsure exactly how I feel about this at the moment. I am going to reflect for a few hours and come back to respond.
Santa Claus doesn't exist, Hoopla,
but we're still getting presents! :D
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 27, 2011, 10:16:27 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 27, 2011, 10:11:02 PM
I'm unsure exactly how I feel about this at the moment. I am going to reflect for a few hours and come back to respond.
Santa Claus doesn't exist, Hoopla, but we're still getting presents! :D
Yeah thats the way I'm leaning, but its hard to think about anything seriously at my place of work, especially with Janelle Monae playing.
As a complete threadjack, I had the same reaction to Janelle Monae's album that I did to Black Swan.
She was supposed to be a complete nutball, like a female James Brown on LSD who treats her band like a cult. And then the music is like a weaker Andre 3000 or K-os, and her voice is average.
I was expecting a funk soul Lady Gaga futurist, and I got pop music. Disappointing.
Ultimately, I think it would have had a bit more punch, though still short-lived, if no one had ever fessed up to it. Or perhaps it would've been one of those lingering, low-level urban legend things. Kind of like the "Poe Toaster".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 28, 2011, 01:07:50 PM
As a complete threadjack, I had the same reaction to Janelle Monae's album that I did to Black Swan.
She was supposed to be a complete nutball, like a female James Brown on LSD who treats her band like a cult. And then the music is like a weaker Andre 3000 or K-os, and her voice is average.
I was expecting a funk soul Lady Gaga futurist, and I got pop music. Disappointing.
Sounds like you suffer from a case of high expectations. I heard Dance or Die without even knowing who it was... I love it. Tightrope is pretty good too.
EoC, I thought about it last night, and I suppose what it comes down to is that I never thought of it as art, just a fun little mystery. Once the mystery was solved, and the solution was so blasé, it just sort of fell apart.
As art, I like the incongruence of the images of the piano and the water, but it's... mild. It doesn't have the kick I like in art. The fact that it was a rich kid doesn't bother me in the least.
Hoops, I think it's because I've been pleasantly surprised by a lot of new bands/albums recently, such as:
Robyn
The National
The Walkmen
Warpaint
The xx
Grinderman
Aloe Blacc
Quote from: Hoopla on January 28, 2011, 02:30:02 PM
EoC, I thought about it last night, and I suppose what it comes down to is that I never thought of it as art, just a fun little mystery. Once the mystery was solved, and the solution was so blasé, it just sort of fell apart.
As art, I like the incongruence of the images of the piano and the water, but it's... mild. It doesn't have the kick I like in art. The fact that it was a rich kid doesn't bother me in the least.
Art and beauty - both in the eye of the beholder. It shouldn't matter who did it but I think most of us probably fall into that trap somewhere along the line. Now and again some really twee, bullshit act will release a good song and I find myself hating it, deliberately, because it's a really pish act who did it. With Painty or scupty kind of art I tend to be a bit better at looking without prejudice, since I have no idea who the fuck artists are. So when I see a picture or sculpture I just soak it in and if I like it I like it. On one hand I'm closing myself off to a whole bunch of other, similar, cool shit that the artist or movement has produced but I find there's plenty awesome stuff out there for me to look at. I never go short. I mean, hell, I don't even differentiate between man made and naturally occurring art. I see an awesome photo and an awesome looking tree the same way - I just look at it and I feel something. That's art for me - more a reaction I have to stimuli than something somebody necessarily does.
So back to the piano - If I'd stumbled across it on my travels it'd have been at such and such a time of day, with such and such a level and angle of light hitting it. That'd have been the deciding factor - would have made it look beautiful or like an abandoned piece of trash. Who did it and the motive behind it is not important. I'd have filled those details in myself and then later, when I find out who actually did it? Makes no difference. The art happened when I was looking at it, that moment is gone now, so what?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 28, 2011, 02:30:35 PM
Hoops, I think it's because I've been pleasantly surprised by a lot of new bands/albums recently, such as:
Robyn
The National
The Walkmen
Warpaint
The xx
Grinderman
Aloe Blacc
Ah, quality overload... that's preferable. The only one I am familiar with from that list is The XX. It took me a while to warm to them, but I really quite like them now. For a time the only song I could stand of theirs was VCR, but I have since opened up.
To be honest, I don't know a lot of Janelle, only 3 or 4 songs, but I like them.
I tend not to pay a lot of attention to modern music, but my wife does, I absorb it through her. Yes yes, :lmnuendo:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 28, 2011, 05:12:33 PMI mean, hell, I don't even differentiate between man made and naturally occurring art. I see an awesome photo and an awesome looking tree the same way - I just look at it and I feel something.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who does that.
Well, I've decided, "enough is enough", and I'm building an art detector.
TGRR,
Protecting mankind from poker-playing dogs.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 28, 2011, 05:34:05 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 28, 2011, 05:12:33 PMI mean, hell, I don't even differentiate between man made and naturally occurring art. I see an awesome photo and an awesome looking tree the same way - I just look at it and I feel something.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who does that.
Make that three.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 28, 2011, 05:36:43 PM
Well, I've decided, "enough is enough", and I'm building an art detector.
TGRR,
Protecting mankind from poker-playing dogs.
I am Hoopla, and I approve of this idea.
SCIENCE MARCHES FORWARD!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 28, 2011, 05:36:43 PM
Well, I've decided, "enough is enough", and I'm building an art detector.
TGRR,
Protecting mankind from poker-playing dogs.
FOR SCIENCE!
I'll just leave this here:
Actual Salvador Dali/Walt Disney Collaboration Video (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=130347880321773&oid=15650321041&comments)
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 12, 2011, 02:38:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 04:43:09 AM
I like the idea of performance art better than I like most performance art itself.
Now, here is a question that has been rolling around in my head for some time; is it still performance art if no one sees you do it? Or does it become conceptual art?
I think it's still performance art.
That's where I'm leaning, too.
Furthermore, I think it has the potential to be conceptual art, if the performance leaves physical artifacts. Or, if the performer later describes the performance as part of the piece.
'The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid' Strikes me as one that would still work had it been not filmed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid
Also on the music note, I've turned full circle after a long time, and have wholeheartedly embraced pop music.