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

[Lord Zentei]

Well since you asked...

How can our elected officials justify subsidising the arts with our tax money if this is the stuff we get as a result?

[Captain Cyran]

Well since you asked...

How can our elected officials justify subsidising the arts with our tax money if this is the stuff we get as a result?

Are you done being a dumbass? I'm just curious...

[Gil Hamilton]

Subsidizing the arts is a good idea because the vast majority of professional artists work for a living doing the millions and millions of art and design projects that go into our society. For every dipshit that signs a toliet, there are a hundred designers who completely contribute to society and the economy.



What strikes me as funny are the artists who thing that art should be for it's own sake and that putting it to practical purposes is insulting, like Duchamp did. It completely ignores history, as well. The old Masters didn't make the majority of their works for the sheer love of art or the passion in their hearts or whatever. Much of their work was paid commissions IE commercial art.

A good example is Michelangelo Buonarrati. Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel because their was a big white roof that needed an image celebrating the glory of God, it was because Pope Julius II was paying him the big Vatican bucks to make it happen. Almost all his works were commission and every single famous one was. The "David" was a commission for the government of the city of Florence. "Pieta" was another Vatican project. And of course, Pope Julius the Second's tomb. "The Last Judgement"... the Vatican yet again. As hard as it is for many snobbish art types to realize, the great Master Michelangelo was every bit as much of a commercial artist as any graphic designer today, and painted for money, the Catholic faith, and republican ideals (pretty much in that order).

[Col. Crackpot]

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.

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!"

I demand this be FUQ'd

[Lord Zentei]

Well since you asked...

How can our elected officials justify subsidising the arts with our tax money if this is the stuff we get as a result?

Are you done being a dumbass? I'm just curious...

Clarify, please.

[Lord Zentei]

Subsidizing the arts is a good idea because the vast majority of professional artists work for a living doing the millions and millions of art and design projects that go into our society. For every dipshit that signs a toliet, there are a hundred designers who completely contribute to society and the economy.

I agree; except the dipshits get all the gold medals for some reason. I am not by any means opposed to subsidy per se, except when I see garbage being produced.

BTW: the Sistine Chapel is a great example of reneissance art, and how subsidy used to provide quality.

[Captain Cyran]

Well since you asked...

How can our elected officials justify subsidising the arts with our tax money if this is the stuff we get as a result?

Are you done being a dumbass? I'm just curious...

Clarify, please.

Sorry, when people are blatantly ignorant I tend to loose all cogantive thought and simply go with insults.

Basically what Gil said. Sure there are the occasional pieces of shit that they turn out. But for every one of those dipshits there are 100 more that are putting out quality work. Just a question, do you know any artists? Attended any art shows? Or are you just trying to be an ass in an attempt to be popular? I've been to many art shows where the art has been EXTREMELY well done, hell my Brother-in-law spent 6 years perfecting an all new form of art with his bread dough that I still wonder how he gets it to stick to the canvas and not rot after a few months. He has amazing pieces of work.

But don't let that stop you. Hey, while we're at it, some schools don't do a very good job of teaching, let's pull their funding too.

[Durandal]

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

I don't even know what that is.

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.

...

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.

I guess you'd have to define what exactly "influential" is in the world of art. If this idiotic urinal piece inspired lots of artists to do similarly shitty work (which is debatable, but I think we can all agree that there's more of this kind of shit out there than anything else), then it certainly is an influential work. Whether or not it's worth any kind of time or consideration is a completely different question.

[Lord Zentei]

Sorry, when people are blatantly ignorant I tend to loose all cogantive thought and simply go with insults.

Basically what Gil said. Sure there are the occasional pieces of shit that they turn out. But for every one of those dipshits there are 100 more that are putting out quality work. Just a question, do you know any artists? Attended any art shows? Or are you just trying to be an ass in an attempt to be popular? I've been to many art shows where the art has been EXTREMELY well done, hell my Brother-in-law spent 6 years perfecting an all new form of art with his bread dough that I still wonder how he gets it to stick to the canvas and not rot after a few months. He has amazing pieces of work.

But don't let that stop you. Hey, while we're at it, some schools don't do a very good job of teaching, let's pull their funding too.

I have already qualified my answer for Gil. I agree that subsidizing arts is good in principle, but the dipshits get the gold medals. In particular, I don't think that urinals deserve any: "Hey, I just put my signiature on my old desk. Art - 'cause I say it is! Now your elected officials will pay me a hundred thousand dollars to display it in City Hall! I rule!"

As for your questions in order: yes, yes and no, how about you?

And cut out the strawman attacks.

[Captain Cyran]

I have already qualified my answer for Gil. I agree that subsidizing arts is good in principle, but the dipshits get the gold medals. In particular, I don't think that urinals deserve any: "Hey, I just put my signiature on my old desk. Art - 'cause I say it is! Now your elected officials will pay me a hundred thousand dollars to display it in City Hall! I rule!"

As for your questions in order: yes, yes and no, how about you?

And cut out the strawman attacks.

If you agree with subsidising, don't say that we should get rid of it. Bitching about the people who get all the worship is one thing, saying we should make everybody suffer because there are a few idiots is something else.

As for the questions, my sister and brother-in-law are both artists that spent 8 years in school to perfect it, this means I've gone to most of their shows.

And I am curious... on Mike's page we have a description of a Strawman.

The Strawman fallacy is to attack a distorted, weaker version of your opponent's argument. In the more egregious cases, a strawman is a complete fabrication which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the argument in question.

Your argument was...

How can our elected officials justify subsidising the arts with our tax money if this is the stuff we get as a result?

So how was my response a Strawman?

[Gil Hamilton]

I agree; except the dipshits get all the gold medals for some reason. I am not by any means opposed to subsidy per se, except when I see garbage being produced.

BTW: the Sistine Chapel is a great example of reneissance art, and how subsidy used to provide quality.

Keep in mind that Duchamp's piece was chosen by a survey of 500 people sponsered by a gin brewer and these people chose "Fountain" by Duchamp over "Les Desmoiselles d'Avignon" by Picasso... even though the latter work has been consistantly consider by wide groups of people to be the most important work of the 20th century. You should take their opinions with a bit of salt.

[Lord Zentei]

If you agree with subsidising, don't say that we should get rid of it. Bitching about the people who get all the worship is one thing, saying we should make everybody suffer because there are a few idiots is something else.

I never said any such thing. My post was in response to the following post:

Yes. Next question?

And I quite oviously posted it as a question, not a baldfaced statement to the effect that justification for crappy modern art is impossible, much less that all art subsidies should be cut. It was an invitation to an exchange of ideas on the subject.

As for the questions, my sister and brother-in-law are both artists that spent 8 years in school to perfect it, this means I've gone to most of their shows.

Good for you. The "and you?" bit was in response to your third question, which I found unneccesary.

[Lord Zentei]

What the heck is an FUQ? (Quoth the newbie)

[Pcm979]

Heathen!
http://www.daltonator.net/fuq/quotes.html
Dalton's ASVS and SDNet Frequently Unasked Questions Quote Database.

[Lord Zentei]

Keep in mind that Duchamp's piece was chosen by a survey of 500 people sponsered by a gin brewer and these people chose "Fountain" by Duchamp over "Les Desmoiselles d'Avignon" by Picasso... even though the latter work has been consistantly consider by wide groups of people to be the most important work of the 20th century. You should take their opinions with a bit of salt.

Yes, I guess so. Yet these fools still get most of the media and art critic attention. And photo ops with politicians. Why is this? Why do these guys have such a massive profile?

Heathen!
http://www.daltonator.net/fuq/quotes.html
Dalton's ASVS and SDNet Frequently Unasked Questions Quote Database.

Thanks

[Pcm979]

It's OK. Helped me through many a long winter evening.

[Captain Cyran]

If you agree with subsidising, don't say that we should get rid of it. Bitching about the people who get all the worship is one thing, saying we should make everybody suffer because there are a few idiots is something else.

I never said any such thing. My post was in response to the following post:

Yes. Next question?

Sorry to have jumped on you as bad as I did, but really, as someone who knows artists and has been to art shows (hopefully good ones) I don't know how you could seriously be asking that question. Knowing artists myself I can't see myself wondering something like that.

And I quite oviously posted it as a question, not a baldfaced statement to the effect that justification for crappy modern art is impossible, much less that all art subsidies should be cut. It was an invitation to an exchange of ideas on the subject.

Refer to above about why you are askign about it if you know artists. As 99% need these subsidaries and actually put out good work.

As for the questions, my sister and brother-in-law are both artists that spent 8 years in school to perfect it, this means I've gone to most of their shows.

Good for you. The "and you?" bit was in response to your third question, which I found unneccesary. [/quote]

Yes, I can be an ass. Usually it's not for attention though.

As for exchange of ideas about subsidaries being given to talentless hacks, there's nothing we can really do. First off, who gets to decide what's art and what's not. Who needs the subsidaries more? What is to prevent an artist from lying or doing something else to get the money anyway?

[Captain Cyran]

Keep in mind that Duchamp's piece was chosen by a survey of 500 people sponsered by a gin brewer and these people chose "Fountain" by Duchamp over "Les Desmoiselles d'Avignon" by Picasso... even though the latter work has been consistantly consider by wide groups of people to be the most important work of the 20th century. You should take their opinions with a bit of salt.

Yes, I guess so. Yet these fools still get most of the media and art critic attention. And photo ops with politicians. Why is this? Why do these guys have such a massive profile?

What sells better, the building that just burned down or the Boy Scout troop helping old ladies across the street? The 40 cult members who killed themselves or the man who may have just cured chicken pox? Bad shit sells papers.

[Lord Zentei]

Some more quality conrol in the art world is surely possible. I think that the idea that the artist himself claims what is art and what is not lies at the heart of the problem. For instance, science is also subsidised; and although there are rotten apples here as well, there is at least a social process in the scientific community that helps weed them out. If some similar form of internal quality control were in the art world, then those who would abuse the all too generous and uncritical (IMO) modern art culture would have a harder time of it.

Sorry to have jumped on you as bad as I did, but really, as someone who knows artists and has been to art shows (hopefully good ones) I don't know how you could seriously be asking that question. Knowing artists myself I can't see myself wondering something like that.

No problem. And I have seen both good stuff and bad stuff. The question was not entirely serious.

[fgalkin]

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?

Fucking postmodernist bullshit,

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Peregrin Toker]

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?

Fucking postmodernist bullshit,

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Surrealism predates Postmodernism and is generally considered closer to Modernism rather than Postmodernism.

Anyway, Duchamp's "Fountain" is definite proof of my opinion on Surrealism: When Surrealism is at its best, it's my single favourite art movement - just look at the works of Yves Tanguy, Max Ernst, Salvador Dali and H.R. Giger. (I dare you to say that these were not among the most vivid imaginations of the 20th century!) When at it's worst, however, it's just... meh.

However, I will never say that something isn't art just because I don't find it visually appealing or because I don't agree with the ideals promoted by it.

The fact that modern art cannot justify its existence with anyone but a tiny minority of the population is why it sucks so much.

According to this way of thinking, most insipid pop music is better than Stravinsky's The Firebird because it's more accessible.

A good example is Michelangelo Buonarrati. Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel because their was a big white roof that needed an image celebrating the glory of God, it was because Pope Julius II was paying him the big Vatican bucks to make it happen.

Yes, but it was still a depiction of God as Michelangelo envisioned him - or God as the Pope envisioned him, depending on how much freedom Michelangelo was allowed. Depictions of God are defined by the religious and philosophical beliefs behind them, and since I'm sure that Michelangelo was Roman Catholic himself, the Sistine Chapel is thusly an expression of Catholicism.

As hard as it is for many snobbish art types to realize, the great Master Michelangelo was every bit as much of a commercial artist as any graphic designer today, and painted for money, the Catholic faith, and republican ideals (pretty much in that order).

It still reflected the artist's mind (ie. his Roman Catholic religion and his republican ideals), which I mean that all good art does.

[Pcm979]

However, I will never say that something isn't art just because I don't find it visually appealing or because I don't agree with the ideals promoted by it.

I *will* say something isn't art when it's a public urinal turned on it's side and signed by some idiot.

Hey! I have a new idea! How about a vintage ww1-era German helmet with a doughnut bisected on it's spike? I could sign the doughnut in frosting!

[salm]

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.

wrong. it´s not meant to be crappy. it´s meant to annoy people. it works very well, so it´s not crappy at all.

How can you possibly work to outrage people if no one sees it?

what do you mean "if no one sees it"? tons of people have seen this toilette. and tons of people get outraged even though they could simply ignore it. they make up problems where there actually are non. it´s hilarious.

if nobody was outraged at this toilette it wouldn´t work. it wouldn´t even be art. it would be a plain and boring pissoire signed by some dead guy. no one would give a shit.

the fact that you people are getting annoyed makes it art. you are being exhibited. you are the main characters in this work. not that boring pissoire.

[salm]

However, I will never say that something isn't art just because I don't find it visually appealing or because I don't agree with the ideals promoted by it.

I *will* say something isn't art when it's a public urinal turned on it's side and signed by some idiot.

Hey! I have a new idea! How about a vintage ww1-era German helmet with a doughnut bisected on it's spike? I could sign the doughnut in frosting!

so ahead and do it. some dumbass will be outraged at it and we´ll get to laugh at him for creating problems where there are non.
i´ll bring the beer.

[Lord Zentei]

In literature as well as science you cannot get away with anything and everything. For instance, if I were to tear out a page from the phone book or some manual or other and sign it, I would not be able to pass it off as literature simply because I said it is literature before anyone else did.

There is also the question of propriety: if I were to tear out a page from some manual or other and sign it, I could not claim that it were my own work at all, much less literature.

Now let's look at the urinnal piece with regards to these points. Did the "artist" sculpt that urinal himself? No. Did it require any skill on his part at all? No. The idea that anything can be 100% inspiration and 0% prespiration and still worthy of respect is ridiculous.

These points stand quite apart from the fact that the urinal piece was rubbish regardless.