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.
Artist/Photographer Andres Serrano, who made himself famous back in the late '80s for photographic a crucifix in his own urine and also photographing a bull head dripping blood straight from the slaughterhouse placed over a white sofa is now photographing his own feces to show at an upcoming art show.
Does artistic expression follow the culture or help mold it? Was rock-n-roll an expression of rebellion against the emotionally repressive 50s or were Elvis' gyrations the catalyst for 60s free love?
I find this man's art tasteless (in more ways than one). My view is that his art is done for shock value and is not a real response to anything but done expressly for the notoriety of public derision and, ultimately, the money that comes with it. We are a society that glorifies the bad guys. We all remember Tonya Harding but forget that other skater she had knee-capped.
It appears bchris02 that you're waiting for anyone here to say, "Yes, the government should fund this stuff" just so you can argue with them. While I do believe if we fund art at least we aren't funding war, who would be the judge of where the funds are distributed? I like what I like (give me Ed Mell at his prime and many other landscape artists and photographers) and other people might, just might, like Serrano. Which brings me back to my question... is this guy responding to our addiction to gore and potty humor or is he forcing us to look at such things in a different fashion? I think he's a charlatan who's raping us for a buck and I pity the poor art crowd that's giving this guy more than a passing glance.
Edit: so, yes, I too ask where are the Van Gogh's and Picasso's of today? Are they not here because we simply don't know what art is anymore, because we don't appreciate it? Or are these mystery people employing artistic talents in other areas?
Have any of you been to an art gallery or museum lately? The world is FULL of brilliant artists, a few of which will prove to be the Picassos of the future. Unfortunately, **** in a jar gets more attention.
How is the painting above "crap"? It's composition is balanced and the color scheme is exquisite. It's not my cup of tea and I think it's pretty simplistic, but it's better than many things I've seen promoted as good.
I think it sucks, but I wasn't really referring to the painting as being crap. I was referring to art as "crap" if they want tax payer dollar to fund it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001
How is the painting above "crap"? It's composition is balanced and the color scheme is exquisite. It's not my cup of tea and I think it's pretty simplistic, but it's better than many things I've seen promoted as good.
People forget that Picasso actually had a solid education in traditional painting and sculpture before he started doing all that other stuff. I doubt many "modern artists" have anything close to that sort of background.
It's sort of like how poets used to be expected to read Greek and Latin and be familiar with the western canon before trying to add to it.
well if you knew anything about Van Gogh he didn't become famous until after his death.
Jmarquise there is beauty in simplicity but i would expect somebody who is more concerned about his tax dollar not to understand.
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.