Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just like you can call anything a hamburger--whether it is an actual hamburger or a taco or lasagna--you can call anything "art" whether it is actual art or not.
Art should be inventive and push the envelope. But, sadly, what I see too often is people using "art" as a excuse to swiftly and bodly run far across "the line" (a moral line? ethical line? culteral line?). I don't necessarily have a problem with folks "crossing the line" (that's on them, as long as they aren't breaking the law). But I do have a problem with people doing that and calling it "art". To them, art is not the end, but a way to justify the ends. It's an excuse. They're calling a taco a hamburger. Sort of in the words of Ponderosa, they are not artists at an exhibition. They are freaks at a carnival posing as artists. And I think that does way more to harm actual art than it does to advance it some some way. I think it is an embarrassment to actual art.
But if you want to call it art, no sweat on my back.
Not really sure what you are arguing or rallying against here. You are arguing about what is art or what people call art without knowing what you are actually...talking about. You are making a remote judgment call and what you consider art or not acceptable without seeing anything for yourself or keeping an openmind. What may not be culturally acceptable to you is to others and what is appropriate to you may offend some as well. Your argument is no different from critics in the past who denounced Michelangelo, Picasso, or Frida...actually, it is exactly likes those "art critics" who opposed new forms of expression and styles.
I've been around the block a few times on this topic. I've seen things similar to what you have described (which was also labeled "art"). What your "artist" friend is doing is not particularly new or original. And (IMHO) it is not art.
Like I said, for many of these "artists", art is not the end, but a means to a [different] end. The term "art" is an excuse.
That's my opinion, anyway.
I've been around the block a few times on this topic. I've seen things similar to what you have described (which was also labeled "art"). What your "artist" friend is doing is not particularly new or original. And (IMHO) it is not art.
Like I said, for many of these "artists", art is not the end, but a means to a [different] end. The term "art" is an excuse.
That's my opinion, anyway.
LOL, I'm sorry I just have to respond to this with a slightly harsher tone. First of all, you don't know what his painting looked like when he was done or the political statement his art was making. Nonetheless, it was art and many appreciated it.
Was it "original" or done before; in one way not completely original but how he presented it, how he painted the models, and how the perception of those viewing his models slightly changed opposed to how he represented it on canvas was pretty original. He needs no excuse to continue creating his work. You don't have to like it but it is most definitely art.
Like I said, you can call anything you want a hamburger and you can call anything you want art. You can define any word how you wish to define that word (that's all a part of relativism, is it not?). You can speak harshly about anyone who is critical of your definitions (that's free speech). Whatever.
When art no longer is the end, but a means to an end (a different end, btw), that cheapens art, and waters down the meaning of art. One can (and has) put a crucifix in a jar of pee and called that "art". Is that really art? Or is that using "art" as an excuse for something else? Do you really think that Michelangelo, Picasso, Frida, etc, would consider some of what you call art actual art? Or would they be embarrassed to be in the same field as some of these so-called artists?
Now I don't want to focus entirely on these "artists", because making run-of-the-mill, copy-cat "art" is just as bad and is more prevalent. There should certainly be more criticism of that.
I guess to explain a little more, when I was in college I was in the "art scene" to some degree. I even had some of my photographs in an exhibition (that was pretty cool).
Anyway, the two most outrageous things I ever saw were: 1) an exhibition that borderlined child pornography (the "artist" was turned in to CPS by one of the students, don't know what became of that) and 2) an "artist" that painted with his own blood (he'd cut himself as he painted, and did this in front of an audience). I've seen plenty of other things, as well.
When you say that I don't know, well, yes, I don't know exactly what your friend painted, but I've seen something very similar, and have a pretty good idea.
"you don't know what his painting looked like when he was done or the political statement his art was making."
Let me guess: capitalism stinks and socialism is awesome. That seems to be the overwhelming majority of political statements made by these "artists". Am I close? Or was the political statement something else?
"actually, it is exactly likes those "art critics" who opposed new forms of expression and styles."
Who said that I oppose new forms of expression and styles? All I said was that these so-called "artists" use the word "art" as an excuse to be as extreme as they can. The use the term "art" as a means to an end. The "art" that they are supposedly creating is not the end--it's an excuse to "get away with" controversial things or send controversial messages (and I mean real controversial, that goes way beyond "the line"). To me, that's abusing the definition of art and cheapens the different genres. It gives art a bad name and a bad reputation.
I guess to explain a little more, when I was in college I was in the "art scene" to some degree. I even had some of my photographs in an exhibition (that was pretty cool).
Anyway, the two most outrageous things I ever saw were: 1) an exhibition that borderlined child pornography (the "artist" was turned in to CPS by one of the students, don't know what became of that) and 2) an "artist" that painted with his own blood (he'd cut himself as he painted, and did this in front of an audience). I've seen plenty of other things, as well.
When you say that I don't know, well, yes, I don't know exactly what your friend painted, but I've seen something very similar, and have a pretty good idea.
The only thing a hamburger can be called is a hamburger, it can be an hamburgesa in Spanish, but that doesn't change its definition; I find that example rather unfitting in this conversation no less. We aren't talking about a jar full of pee or painting in blood here. You are using "extreme" examples of what sounds more like protest than art. First, you should bring the conversation back into reality. I've never seen anything at First Friday dealing with children in a sexual matter, urination, blood painting, etc. What a ridiculous way to try to make your point and one that cannot be associated with any description of art that was presented.
Quote:
Let me guess: capitalism stinks and socialism is awesome. That seems to be the overwhelming majority of political statements made by these "artists". Am I close? Or was the political statement something else?
Actually, you'd be surprised to know he is a capitalist and enjoys his American way of life; he was protesting American compartmentalization of life; how separate our realities are in accordance with the real world and how we rush to judgment and don't look beyond a superficial vail; ahem! Sound familiar?
Quote:
Who said that I oppose new forms of expression and styles? All I said was that these so-called "artists" use the word "art" as an excuse to be as extreme as they can. The use the term "art" as a means to an end. The "art" that they are supposedly creating is not the end--it's an excuse to "get away with" controversial things or send controversial messages (and I mean real controversial, that goes way beyond "the line"). To me, that's abusing the definition of art and cheapens the different genres. It gives art a bad name and a bad reputation.
I don't find anything he did or what other artists did/do "extreme" at First Friday; maybe some controversial but nothing like what you described; that sounds very underground and fringe. Is nudity extreme and therefore, not art??? Of course not, maybe not socially or culturally acceptable to you, but as you want others to carefully consider what real "hamburger" is you should not judge from afar and blindly...
Perhaps your friend's art is not exactly as I imagined based on your description (or maybe it is), but it certainly reminded me of some other "art" that I saw. Perhaps "First Friday" isn't as extreme as the "art scene" that I'd seen 10 years ago in a different state (or maybe it is). I don't really know, because I've never been to "First Fridays". But, based on some descriptions (yours, and some others I've read on-line since learning about this event), it sounds like it could be just as extreme, at least some parts of it.
"maybe not socially or culturally acceptable to you, but as you want others to carefully consider what real "hamburger" is you should not judge from afar and blindly..."
You say I shouldn't judge, but then you judge me. Perhaps you did not learn the "political" message from your friend's art?
Perhaps your friend's art is not exactly as I imagined based on your description (or maybe it is), but it certainly reminded me of some other "art" that I saw. Perhaps "First Friday" isn't as extreme as the "art scene" that I'd seen 10 years ago in a different state (or maybe it is). I don't really know, because I've never been to "First Fridays". But, based on some descriptions (yours, and some others I've read on-line since learning about this event), it sounds like it could be just as extreme, at least some parts of it.
So ADULT models posing for a painter in the nude is as extreme as child pornography, urinating in a jar with a cross, or cutting oneself to paint in their own blood? Really???
Quote:
You say I shouldn't judge, but then you judge me. Perhaps you did not learn the "political" message from your friend's art?
I am not judging you, I am critisizing your rush to judgment. Especially since you've NEVER been to First Friday or have seen the work and art created; even saying you don't have to like it and the art may not be acceptable to you or offend you. But you should keep an openmind and not judge from afar...which you have done. I'd have to agree with you that urination is not art to me, and there is nothing to excuse some of the other things you listed but that isn't what we are talking about here.
You say I shouldn't judge, but then you judge me. Perhaps you did not learn the "political" message from your friend's art?
I agree! It works both ways.
Those who would picket and cause a stir to shut down something they find offensive are just as bad as the people who judge the picketers for not liking it.
Under the broadest scope of "what is art", a person engaging in a picket demonstration is in a sense expressing their own "art", correct?
So to judge that behavior as "unacceptable" is effectively denying them their right to artistic expression as well.
Take it all in as "ART" as this reaction is what is being solicited by those who create the controversy in the first place.
Those who would picket and cause a stir to shut down something they find offensive are just as bad as the people who judge the picketers for not liking it.
Under the broadest scope of "what is art", a person engaging in a picket demonstration is in a sense expressing their own "art", correct?
So to judge that behavior as "unacceptable" is effectively denying them their right to artistic expression as well.
Take it all in as "ART" as this reaction is what is being solicited by those who create the controversy in the first place.
I am lost, here...what are you talking about? I don't think anyone is trying to "shut down" anything or an expression of art, but how can one protest something they have never seen or judge it as "extreme" especially as extreme as urination and child pornography?
I'm not sure a political demonstration is an art but I know art can be used for political statements/demonstrations/etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are using "extreme" examples of what sounds more like protest than art. First, you should bring the conversation back into reality. I've never seen anything at First Friday dealing with children in a sexual matter, urination, blood painting, etc. What a ridiculous way to try to make your point and one that cannot be associated with any description of art that was presented.
