| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
>
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > > > Christopher Lannan wrote:
> > > > > You really can't tell people not to be "obscene", "vulgar" "profane" or
> > > > > "indecent" and expect them to follow those instructions exactly unless • they
> > > > > have been very well coached to know what • is "obscene", "vulgar", "profane",
> > > > > and "indecent" to you. Everyday in the news there is an art exhibit • that a
> > > > > great many people feel is all of the above. A crucifix submerged in a • jar
> > > > > of urine or a Madonna with feces for nipples come to mind.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, one of my favorite debate topics - what is art, or more specifically,
> > > > where is the line between pornography and art? Your examples of "art" • IMHO
> > > > aren't really art, but are (very intentionally) vulgar, obscene attempts • to
> > > > offend particular groups. The artists who create such things are weak- • minded
> > > > non-Christians who are too lazy or dim to come up with anything profound.
> > > > Their work says more about their own ineptitude than their subject matter.
> > > >
> > > > <Donning flame suit and beaming to .debate> John
OK fasten your seatbelts, this subject is one which is of tantamount
importance to me.....
This is the brilliant thing about art, what is vulgar and obscene to you is
brilliant social commentary to someone else.
This kind of art, to me, can be more about the gut reaction it produces in
the viewer, than anything else. If you have an extreme aversion to an art
piece, that reaction speaks about who you are, not just who the artist is.
Thus the reaction *is* the "artwork" often. (and the artists intention,
though, in my practise, although my work usually shocks and offends some, this
is always a surprise,to me. I do the work out of a need to communicate with
myself, I never consciously think, "if I do that, it will get attention")
As an adult, (and a fine artist) I am not offended often by an artwork. On
the rare occasions that it happens, it is a surprise, jolting me out of
complacency, to examine my reaction. Which is exactly what you guys are doing
here. (contemporary fine artists rejoice!)
It is often the artists intention for you to scrutinise your own response to
an artwork, this scrutiny will only happen with strong emotion,thus the artist
has succeded in creating a piece that is pertinant in some way to a majority,
not a minority. Art reflects society. In this society it is the amazing, the
shocking, the gross, the visceral that gets noticed. Many of us have become
immune to everything but the visual slap in the face. Of course art reflects
this, how could it not?
Strong emotion opens a line of communication between the work and the viewer.
What does your reaction say about you?
Sure, we could be like the millions that go to kmart and buy a cheesy sunset
print, and never actually get off our behinds to watch a real one.
An extreme reaction to an artwork, will always take you by surprise, and thus
forces you into communion with self.
Art as reflection of society must often be extreme, to reflect the extremes in
our society.
> > >
> > > Yikes! Well, I won't flame you because I expect that neither of us is
> > > qualified to define "art." However, you've mounted some ad hominem attacks
> > > against prospective artists, and, in the end, these can weaken your own
> > > credibility and do nothing to discredit their targets.
> > > I'm concerned, though, that some of your points might be untenable. Why,
> > > for instance, can't art be obscene? Does one condition preclude the other?
> > > If so, why? Can art not be created intentionally to offend certain groups?
> > > Does this, too, preclude a work from being art?
In my opinion, here, an artist shouldn't set out to shock as the only agenda.
(and I can't think of one whose sole intention is to shock, an artist doesn't
get anywhere without being able to speak intelligently about thier own work,
there are far too many brilliant art theorists who will shoot an artist down
in flames, if thier work is gratuitous without rigid theoretical backup ) The
work must be meaningful and relevant to the artists own observations and
experience.
Have I just muddied the waters even further? Its the wee small hours so please
forgive the lecture
Oh, and I for one, love Warhol, as social commentator (for that matter Jeff
Koons is a similiar case in point) And I loved Serrano's crucifix in urine. I
think it is a beautiful object. Suffusing the figure with this brilliant
golden glow. So what if it was urine, its a body fluid. Isn't the body the
temple of the holy spirit? (I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, I really
do like Serranos work a lot, sorry if anyone takes offence)
> > > Guilianni (sp?) made an interesting observation during the whole • obscenity
> > > debacle last year when he noted that, had the work slandered a Star of • David
> > > or a rendition of Muhammed, it would likely have been reviled as Hate • Speech,
> > > followed by public outcry for its removal.
> > >
> > > Dave!
> >
> > Art is whatever you can convince people is art.
Art is nothing if not subjective.
> >
> > Yeah, I know, a provocative and somewhat cynical statement designed to drive
> > art historians nuts (it helps to be familiar with the French Academie and • the
> > Impressionist movement).
> >
> > There isn't a convenient hard line between "art", "social commentary", and
> > "political op/ed". Some art is intended to be provocative. Some may truly • be
> > art, but Really Bad Art, nevertheless. I haven't seen any art as obscene as
> > subsidizing cigarettes, but hey, I'm sure it's not for want of trying!
> >
> > Bruce
>
> So what you are saying is that everything is art?
No, here I would be inclined to say that anything can be art, not everything
is art.
Would you call child
> pornography art? How about performance art where the artist kills an animal-- • or
> a human? I can think of many things I (and most others) wouldn't consider • art.
> Why is that? What is it about certain things that make them not art? I think
> there is a working definition somewhere. And instead of calling *everything* • art,
> let's call some things what they are-- Pornography, Murder, Racism, Bigotry,
> Misogyny, Sadism, etc.
>
> -John
Lets not call the *act* of murder, rascism, pornography (though this is a grey
area) or misogyny - art.
But there are some brilliant artworks dealing with these issues.
Lets just say that performance art, isn't art, but becomes abuse, if it is
directed at an unwilling third party, and emotionally or physically damaging,
to that individual. No one, here, I think would be inclined to call these acts
art.
However, I must add here, that a performance involving one's own body, is a
different case in point. (Rachel ducks and runs for cover)
I'd have to exclude animals here, though. An art event, where a cow, or a
pig, or a chicken, is slaughtered, merely points to the millions of animals
that are killed everyday, in the name of beef stew, pork chops etc. An art
event such as this, would force every viewer to re-examine thier predilecton
for meat. Hey, might've come up with something here!
Rachel :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| Rachel Kingston wrote in message ... (...) Its nice to find someone new to read, who happens to think (at least in this instance) a little like I do! (...) this (...) My definition of art: Art is that which man creates. Creation is a reflection of (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) So what you are saying is that everything is art? Would you call child pornography art? How about performance art where the artist kills an animal-- or a human? I can think of many things I (and most others) wouldn't consider art. Why is (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
