Subject:
|
Re: Art? (was Re: LEGO as Art)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:46:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
311 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes:
>
> John Neal wrote in message <37F305FB.3B2896F5@uswest.net>...
> >
> > I got into a big debate in RTL a while back regarding the piece of "art"
> > entitled "LEGODEATH" and what constituted Art and I'm not particularily
> > interested in starting another, but I will say that I *seriously* question • the
> > use of LEGO as the medium for Libera's work. It's a toy for God's sake; • what
> > does it have (seriously) to do with the Holocaust? And if it doesn't have
> > anything to do with it, then why in hell use it?! What next? Minifig • porn? To
> > me, He *trivializes* the Holocaust. If you want to be impacted by the
> > Holocaust, go to Yad Vashem in Tel Aviv or at the least see Steven • Spielberg's
> > brilliant Shindler's List. They will make you more than think; they will • make
> > you cry. All Libera did was shock me into wondering what kind of an idiot • would
> > construct such an exhibit.
> >
> > -John
>
> I don't know whether anyone can truly say what is and isn't "art", but I
> strongly agree with the idea that Lego was the wrong medium for this
> exhibit. It's all fine and well to try and give the Holocaust certain
> connotations due to the use of Lego, but it's going to work the other way as
> well, and (as was pointed out in the article) had real repercussions for TLG
> who have worked so hard to maintain a certain image of their toy.
> Frankly, it offended me because it was such an injustice to the image that
> the toy has for me. With even an ounce of sensitivity OR common sense this
> artist could have stuck to conveying his "message" effectively with the more
> generic types of toy.
> Can any artist simply be excused from the consequences of creating his/her
> "art" simply because it's "art"? Is "art" really a license to be
> irresponsible?
>
> Paul
hello, y'all ~
i just posted to RTL yesterday my belief that LEGO is ART... and then i see
this thread. i have been an artist my entire life, starting private classes at
12, figure drawing at 16, began working professionally at 19, and now on the
cusp of 35, i am teaching my own drawing classes. (just some background on
myself and personal connection rather than claiming any voice of authority)
i tend to agree with ian's post. "is art really a liscence to be
irresponsible?" no, it is not. is anarchry liscence to be irresponsible? no it
is not. anarchy is a society of personal responsibility. art is much the same,
but not as obviously dangerous.
art has every right to offend. last time i checked, to be offended was not
fatal. i'm offended that people are so easily offended today... but only mildy.
i'm outrageously offended that the general public is reveling in the glitzy
blight of hollywood and fast food collectors' cups and ignoring the brilliance
of matisse and paul klee. my point being: people don't value art or even know
what art is and because of that, art as a movement is as dead as classic castle
theme. art died in an onslaught of nazism disguised as soupcans (called
warholism). the worthless has become valued, and the valuable has become
worthless. alphonse mucha's astounding slav epic paintings, which survived
world war 2 thanks to brave, conscientious bosnian citizens, were probably
destoyed during the past ten years destruction there. who knows? and worse yet,
who cares? (other than me? anyone?) and yet warhol prints are coninually
churned out on sheets of paper he autographed years ago and fetch ungodly
prices on e-bay ~disgusting! and all the while, truly talented living artists
struggle to sell their work for whatever they can get. art has died from
neglect.
art can't be defined in set terms. true art forces the artist and the viewers
to make a series of value judgements on many different levels. (most people
don't want to do that. (which explains the popularity of thomas kincaid's work
~ blleech!) just being controversial doesn't make something art, but great
pieces of art generally are. the sargent painting, "madame x" charming and
elegant today, was the most outrageous scandal of its' day. shock and
controversy are as fleeting as fame.
ahem. to veeer this ramble back on track..
the lego death camp was one of the first lego sites i found when i got on the
internet back in march. probably because of its extensive media coverage. i was
shocked, but i got that same excited feeling whenever i find some new,
eye-catching lego creation on the web. "wow! who'd have ever thought of
building _that_!?!"
_all_ LEGO creations are ART; from a 3-yr old's first duplo scene to ed boxer's
legendary castle. you can build whatever you want out of LEGO be it sublime or
banal, subtle or gross, in impeccably good taste or offensively bad.(seen
examples of all) such is your or anyone else's right. Libera has proven this.
later ~ craig
ps ~ as for the "what's next? mini-fig porn?" don't rush me, man,i'm working on
it! (i just won't try to package it to look like an official set.)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art? (was Re: LEGO as Art)
|
| (...) i haven't been able to stop thinking about the issues presented in this debate, as it concerns the 2 great passsions of my life. i'd like to clarify another term and pose a question. art and illustation are separate things. illustation is a (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art? (was Re: LEGO as Art)
|
| John Neal wrote in message <37F305FB.3B2896F5@u...st.net>... (...) the (...) what (...) porn? To (...) Spielberg's (...) make (...) would (...) I don't know whether anyone can truly say what is and isn't "art", but I strongly agree with the idea (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
