Modern art is crap (or piss): conclusive proof :)

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-03 01:09am

This is just unbeleivable. Is the entire art world bloody insane?

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europ ... index.html

By the way: should I not be able simply to take another person's work, turn it upside down and sign it, then pass it off as my original "artistic" creation? Surely the engineer who designed the damn thing should be getting the award? Or am I being too rational about this?

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2004-12-03 01:11am

Yeah, they ran out of ideas a while ago.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-12-03 01:14am

That's even more disturbing to me than your av, Zentai.

Alright, that does it for me. Duchess, shall I round up the modern artists of the world and force them to take Geometry classes?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-12-03 01:16am

Pcm979 wrote:Yeah, they ran out of ideas a while ago.

No they didn't. Professional artists are the ones who are the best, and who make a living and provide solid entertainment or make their pieces look kickass. This shit is made by those 'artists' who are awarded for being the most 'unconventional', which is just a polite way of saying they pull any old shit out of their arse, and call it art. I can't help but feel that this sort of behaviour is more encouraged than it is tolerated, though in my fantasies I often think they get their awards by being pitied by everyone else.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-12-03 01:16am

Ah, Duchamp. Let's here it for Dada, the artform that declares any object to be art based on the fact that the artist declared it so. It's not modern art though.

If you want some modern art that proves that Art is Dead; google something called "Seedbed" by Acconci.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2004-12-03 01:18am

As my sister and her husband are both artist. I can safely say that no, they are not... wait, let me rephrase that...

No, they are not all insane enough to call that piece of shit art, let alone consider it a masterpiece. Most real artists consider this kind of stuff absolute shit... And may I say this about the article.

"The choice of Duchamp's Fountain as the most influential work of modern art ahead of works by Picasso and Matisse comes as a bit of a shock," art expert Simon Wilson told the UK's Press Association.

"But it reflects the dynamic nature of art today and the idea that the creative process that goes into a work of art is the most important thing. The work itself can be made of anything and can take any form."

FUCK YOU CUMSTAIN! It's shitheaded little hippie fucktards that see a message in the cum they just ejaculated over the latest steaming pile of shit that are ruining the fucking artworld! I hope you die, I hope I'm the one that kills you, I hope I can piss on your ashes, I hope you burn in hell, and I hope I can visit to beat the shit out of you daily.

*pause*

Well, I feel better now.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-12-03 01:22am

Duchamp wasn't a hippie, he was a Pissed Off At the World French Guy who stabbed a dictionary to find a name for his artform once, because Dadaism had no rules that it could be named after.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2004-12-03 01:24am

Gil Hamilton wrote:Duchamp wasn't a hippie, he was a Pissed Off At the World French Guy who stabbed a dictionary to find a name for his artform once, because Dadaism had no rules that it could be named after.

Actually I'm talking about Simian Wilson (not a typo). And I don't know if he's a hippy but it's the first thing I could think of.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-03 01:42am

Enough with the god damn emoticons already. Christ.

As much as I despise "art" like this, you people have to realize something. They didn't have TV or radio back in the early 1900s, so people would entertain themselves by going to art galleries. And they would literally start riots if an artist unveiled a piece they didn't like. This particular piece was probably something like Fahrenheit 9/11 in its day in the amount of controvery it caused.

A lot of these people saying that this urinal thing is the most influential piece of art in the last century would probably tell you that because of how it was received. It probably sparked a lot of outrage among critics and art gallery tourers. What these people haven't considered is that the gallery goers weren't outraged because the piece sent some sort of "message"; they were pissed because they felt ripped off.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-03 01:53am

Durandal wrote:A lot of these people saying that this urinal thing is the most influential piece of art in the last century would probably tell you that because of how it was received. It probably sparked a lot of outrage among critics and art gallery tourers. What these people haven't considered is that the gallery goers weren't outraged because the piece sent some sort of "message"; they were pissed because they felt ripped off.

Indeed, but somehow I don't think they would care even if it was explained to them; artistic merit among modern artists and modern art critics seems to be measured by the volume of outrage, not the value of the actual ideas being presented. I.e. it is one big pissing contest.

And as I pointed out:

By the way: should I not be able simply to take another person's work, turn it upside down and sign it, then pass it off as my original "artistic" creation? Surely the engineer who designed the damn thing should be getting the award? Or am I being too rational about this?

Hey, I have an idea! I'll take Star Wars, reel it backwards and show it through a pink filter! My original creation!

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-12-03 01:54am

Kind of. What the Dadaists were doing was rebeling against the previous big thing in the art world. It certainly was designed to be provacative, but what pissed off alot of people more than just that they felt ripped off was that Duchamp and his boys set out to destroy the concept of art as their stated goal in their work. At the time, them putting a shovel against a wall and declaring it just as much as a valid work of art as a Matisse or Picasso (to use the artists the dipshit in the quote used) wasn't just controversial, it was offensive. That's why anyone noticed them at all, because by trying to redefine "art" as anything you declare to be art, they were trying to invalidate just about everyone else. In other words, they were being little shits.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-12-03 02:01am

Durandal wrote:As much as I despise "art" like this, you people have to realize something. They didn't have TV or radio back in the early 1900s, so people would entertain themselves by going to art galleries. And they would literally start riots if an artist unveiled a piece they didn't like. This particular piece was probably something like Fahrenheit 9/11 in its day in the amount of controvery it caused.

Just like the Armory Show? Oh, wait, that caused a much more dramatic shitstorm that still sucks.

A lot of these people saying that this urinal thing is the most influential piece of art in the last century would probably tell you that because of how it was received.

The point isn't whether or not it caused controversy. The point is that this sucks. If I took a dump on a portrait of Queen Elizabeth, froze the piece of crap, and sent it to the MET they'd call me a genius. Whether or not it was received enthusiastically, the point is that it SHOULD NOT have influenced anyone.

It probably sparked a lot of outrage among critics and art gallery tourers. What these people haven't considered is that the gallery goers weren't outraged because the piece sent some sort of "message"; they were pissed because they felt ripped off.

I agree. This is a perfect instance of an artist trying to tell people what art is, rather than putting out what people like. It's great that they can manufacture a tiny and completely worthless audience, but they must concede that they would accomplish many of their goals (ie. "Self expression," "Effecting Change," "Fighting Society") better if the public at large were to embrace their works rather than farting in their general directions. They refuse to even try, saying that their work is somehow better.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-12-03 02:09am

Mayabird wrote:That's even more disturbing to me than your av, Zentai.

Alright, that does it for me. Duchess, shall I round up the modern artists of the world and force them to take Geometry classes?

Go ahead. You are now the official High Inquisitrix of the New Roman Republic of America.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-12-03 02:27am

Wait they had urinals in 1917 ? That's something new.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-12-03 05:47am

And i thought "modern art" couldn't get any worse.

I doubt i have to repeat the dog crap joke

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-12-03 06:06am

I grew up looking at the wonderful paintings my father did, of sailing ships done in shades of orange and purple and blue. The ships were intricately detailed, each piece of rope and rigging carefully added on, with the sun setting and the sea calm. It was evocative and beautiful. That was art.

This is an autographed urinal. If that's art, I could go sign my toilet right now and call it the same. Maybe I'll leave a floater in there as a statement on the utter futility of life.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-12-03 06:53am

Dalton wrote:I grew up looking at the wonderful paintings my father did, of sailing ships done in shades of orange and purple and blue. The ships were intricately detailed, each piece of rope and rigging carefully added on, with the sun setting and the sea calm. It was evocative and beautiful. That was art.

This is an autographed urinal. If that's art, I could go sign my toilet right now and call it the same. Maybe I'll leave a floater in there as a statement on the utter futility of life.

You do realize that if you did that you could quite possibly make hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2004-12-03 07:05am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:You do realize that if you did that you could quite possibly make hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Frankly, I don't give a shit (no pun intended) about what 'is' and 'isn't' art. I might argue the matter, I might appreciate a particular piece, but in the long run I just don't care. It's the above that pisses me off. You can go to school for several years, spending tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process, in order to aquire a highly technical skill that's immensely useful to our civilization, and then spend the rest of your life getting paid a mediocre wage. Or, you can take a shit and sign the toilet for more money then I'm ever likely to see. That sort of thing is what makes me outraged.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-12-03 09:09am

Dalton wrote:I grew up looking at the wonderful paintings my father did, of sailing ships done in shades of orange and purple and blue. The ships were intricately detailed, each piece of rope and rigging carefully added on, with the sun setting and the sea calm. It was evocative and beautiful. That was art.

This is an autographed urinal. If that's art, I could go sign my toilet right now and call it the same. Maybe I'll leave a floater in there as a statement on the utter futility of life.

Actually, according to the guy who made that autographed urinal, you'd be absolutely correct. It would be art, simply because you declared it so.

Duchess of Zeon wrote:You do realize that if you did that you could quite possibly make hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Nah, because he's not an Established Artist with wealthy eccentric weirdos backing him. You've got to gain a certain level of notority before you can shallac a half-eatan Krispy Kreme dont that you had for lunch, give it a funky title like "Unrequited Love" (in order to make people think their is a metaphor, don't worry about making one, your viewer will do it for you) and convince a gallery to buy it from you for 50,000 dollars.

Only then may Dalton can sit on on a stool next to "Unrequited Love" wearing a black leotard, taking long drags on a smoke, shaking like withdrawling from cocaine (possible), and going "Don't you idiots get it?! The donut is there, the object of your desire, perfectly perserved, but you can not grab the donut and eat it, though you desire it! Why? Because I shellaced it! Gah! You've got to see!"

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-12-03 09:16am

Gil Hamilton wrote:Duchamp wasn't a hippie, he was a Pissed Off At the World French Guy who stabbed a dictionary to find a name for his artform once, because Dadaism had no rules that it could be named after.

That would have been funnier if he had stabbed the word MERDE.

This piece of art (C'est de la merde)

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-12-03 09:25am

Montcalm wrote:That would have been funnier if he had stabbed the word MERDE.

This piece of art (C'est de la merde)

That would be appropriate.

You've got to understand (this is the the thread in general, not to you, Montcalm), Pissed Off at the Art World French Guys can be very hit or miss. After all, the Impressionists were Pissed Off at the Art World too, with them leaving the stuff confines of the studio to paint the scenes of the world in true light and color. They produced some of the most beautiful art there is. Then on the opposite end of the spectrum you've got the Dadaists, who sink to the lowest of the low. Well, not to the lowest of the low. There is one step below Dadaists in the art world, in my opinion. That is not Pissed Off at the Art World French Guys, but Wannabe Pissed Off at the Art World French Guys, who very frequently aren't French but would very much like to be and got one too many wedgies in high school because "no one understands their art".

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-12-03 09:41am

Even though I wholeheartedly agree with Phil Foglio that art is whatever you can get away with, that doesn't mean I have to like the brain droolings of some miscreant artist who thinks he can crap on a pizza peel and call it art.

"Yes, it's art. But it's also shit on a paddle, and I don't have to pay you for it."

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-12-03 01:28pm

the art behind this work is not the piece itself. the art behind this work is the fact that numbnuts get outraged by something they could just as well ignore.

seeing that it still works allmost a hundred years after it was made makes it pretty clear that this IS a masterpiece.

duchamp was a fucking genius.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-12-03 01:45pm

salm wrote:the art behind this work is not the piece itself. the art behind this work is the fact that numbnuts get outraged by something they could just as well ignore.

seeing that it still works allmost a hundred years after it was made makes it pretty clear that this IS a masterpiece.

duchamp was a fucking genius.

Ah, yes, the "It's meant to be crappy; that's what makes it good" excuse.

That didn't work for your grade-school dioramas, and it doesn't work for professionals in any field other than art. If a novelist (by almost anyone's definition a type of artist) were to intentionally write a book that was a piece of shit do you think anyone would pick it up? Of course not. The fact that modern art cannot justify its existence with anyone but a tiny minority of the population is why it sucks so much. How can you possibly work to outrage people if no one sees it?

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-12-03 01:48pm

Lord Zentei wrote:Is the entire art world bloody insane?

Yes. Next question?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Modern art is crap (or piss): conclusive proof :)

Modern art is crap (or piss): conclusive proof :)

Re: Modern art is crap (or piss): conclusive proof :)