Subject:
|
Re: Art? (was Re: LEGO as Art)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:29:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
474 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Craig Hamilton writes:
> 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.)
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 piece of art that
functions to communicate an idea. Libera's work is an illustration is it not?
the idea was communicated. art has a grander scope of expression, going beyond
basic communication. it's a blurry line, but trust me, it's there. in some
illustrations, the idea to be communicated over-rides the piece's artistic
value.
afols need to be respected. afols take a stand. we are allowed to play & build
with lego, but not allowed to create adult subject matter? food for thought.
i have lego creations of my own that i myself find "offensive". (the dark
horror page of transy-lego-vania) elizabeth bathory is right up there with the
worst nazi, and jack the ripper started a serial killer craze that has
snowballed for over a hundred years. i haven't caused a scandal with these
pieces, and although they're not everybody's cup of tea, no one has expressed
any offense. in fact nothin but praise on RTL, and LUGNET, inluding a clsotw
nomination. (still on a high from it btw, thank y'all very much! ~ makes this
newbie feel mighy welcome) why are these not considered "inapropriate" subject
matter for LEGO construction? most people even get a chuckle out of the jack
the ripper piece. what if i add pics of 'liz bathory draining virgin blood from
the forest babe who's trapped in a lego iron maiden in a lego dungeon of
torture? i guess i'm ok as long as i stay in a castle theme. i'm one of the
folks who loves that lego does't do war themes. i think it would be
innapropriate if they did. but i can't knock any one who wants to build tanks
or bombers.( i saw some _gorgeous_ ww2 planes somewhere recently) why are these
not offensive? they droped bombs that killed millions just as discriminatingly
as the death camps.( if you are jewish, romy/ gypsy, or gay, you must die; is
as discriminating as: if you live in the general area under this plane, you
must die. ~ imho)
from craig, who never thought i'd find a group of people having such a
discussion. s' great!
later y'all!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art? (was Re: LEGO as Art)
|
| (...) The key difference here is that the Holocaust, as bad things go, is pretty much the tops. You can't get badder than that. It's a plateau of nightmares -- once you're at the summit no one can out-climb you. The Holocaust is an event that (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art? (was Re: LEGO as Art)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
