I have seen some contemporary art

[Bounty]

I have a definition of 'art'. It's a pretty inclusive one; I consider anything art if it's a project, which goes beyond the utilitarian, that expresses a view or idea through creative means. For me, fingerpaint is art. So is a nice bridge, or a well-drawn cereal box. Not everybody is an artist but if they make an effort to turn their thoughts into physical reality I will respect that.

Today I visited an exhibition on contemporary art, and there I did not see much art.

Now, there were a few installations I genuinely liked. A series of photographs had been taken of a particular mountain at various times and dates, then printed on canvas; that was nice. A Mac Mini printing texts via a machine that perforates sheets of paper obviously had some thought put into it. You can't not admire a giant paper Ghandi. And the "artificial beach", while silly, was obviously a labour of love (A pretty clever one too. The centrepiece was a Rube Goldberg-esque contraption that used hair dryers and sound effects to simulate sitting by the sea).

But the rest was shit. Pretentious, meaningless, overblown shit. I don't care what tomes of deep philosophical musings you can write about a cube, at the end of the day it's a cube of cement. A medium-sized set of bricks doesn't get any more special because you washed it in a stream. A grainy, two-minute video of hands playing with a piece of plastic is just that.

Then it got worse. The above are silly but essentially harmless. Some of the "installations" however were downright disturbing; I completely fail to see the "art" in a video of a man cutting himself with razors, or a female artist having herself inseminated with sperm of a deceased man, or a video clip of the "artist" shooting some guy with a .22 to see what happens. That is not art. There is no single meaningful definition of the word where this would be "art". Art creates, explores, makes things happen; it doesn't destroy just for the kick of it. I can safely say that at least a good half dozen of the so-called "artists" in that exhibition needed a straitjacket sooner than any sort of recognition.

I'm sure this'll peg me as some sort of artistic barbarian, or unleash a flood of people complaining about artists in general; I don't want either. I'm perfectly happy to let people create and enjoy anything they want, as long as I reserve the right to consider it irredeemable shit; I'm not calling for a list of Entartete Kunst. I am wondering though about what happened to the idea that you actually needed any semblance of either skill or honest effort before you work was deemed good enough to be exhibited. Are there actually people who like looking at an artist cutting her wrists and drawing circles with the blood? Is there anyone who considers this a valid contribution to the art canon, or is this a case of the emperor having no clothes?

Or am I just an old grumpy bastard?

[JointStrikeFighter]

Truly the snobbery of a Belgian does know no end.

[phred]

Abstract art = mule cum. Nuff said.

[Simplicius]

a video clip of the "artist" shooting some guy with a .22 to see what happens.

I looked this one up, and it's actually the artist getting shot by an assistant. Burden's gimmick at the time was personal danger, but he inflicted it on himself. Also, with reference to your straitjacket comment, he did undergo psychiatric evaluation after it was over.

I feel that your working definition of art is still narrower than it could be, but especially that you are excluding the installations from this show from that definition despite the fact that they meet its criteria. There were creative means, in the form of deliberate action and intent - putting bricks in the gallery, making the videos, playing with the plastic/getting shot/ etc. There were also views and ideas expressed. The existence of your post proves it, since you noticed and engaged a fundamental view: "This is art."

Judging whether a piece of art is successful or not, and therefore bad, good, or great, requires a different set of criteria. But bad art is still art, and deserves honest consideration as such before its merit is determined.

[Mayabird]

I like to think that art involves some combination of talent, thought, creativity, and labor. It could include shock value, but shock value alone does not make art, and frankly a lot of that crap is just shock value.

Who the hell pays those idiots to continue doing their stupid shit, anyway?

[Bounty]

I feel that your working definition of art is still narrower than it could be, but especially that you are excluding the installations from this show from that definition despite the fact that they meet its criteria. There were creative means, in the form of deliberate action and intent - putting bricks in the gallery, making the videos, playing with the plastic/getting shot/ etc. There were also views and ideas expressed. The existence of your post proves it, since you noticed and engaged a fundamental view: "This is art."

I'd like to make clear that I do not believe my concept of what art is has, or should have, any bearing on whether these displays actually are art or whether they should be displayed.

My problem with some of these pieces is that they fail to convince me that they are the result of a deliberate intention to create something meaningful. Many of them looked like the sort of thing you come up with on the back of a napkin; there's no thought or effort in them. I find that I can appreciate even the (subjectively) worst art when I see that the artist has actually taken an effort and hasn't just latched onto a shocking concept with the absolute minimum of execution. They fail my "through creative means" test, and with most of them I found myself doubting whether they had any deliberate view to express. Getting shot, cutting yourself, or putting a cinder block on a pedestal fail everything but the "beyond the utilitarian" criterion as far as I'm concerned.

I want to see the artist making a minimum of effort to make something that didn't exist before. If he or she can't meet me halfway on that, I don't see why I should make the effort to take in their work.

[Shroom Man 777]

Then again, if you were accepting artworks for your art show, would you deny the "work" of a person who sliced his wrists open and smeared his blood on canvas? Or a person who willingly had himself shot with a gun? The curator might've not wanted to upset those kind of people... lest they end up using him for their next masterpiece.



I think making portraits out of vomit, or by smearing paint on women's breasts, are more amusing art forms anyway.

[aerius]

I think making portraits out of vomit, or by smearing paint on women's breasts, are more amusing art forms anyway.

For my next masterpiece, I will take a photo of myself peeing in the snow as a commentary on why men are awesome, and why we should rule the world and put women in their place.

[Shroom Man 777]

You know, if you do manage to create a very interesting or intricate design on the snow by using your own urine, then that could be considered as art.

Imagine, writing Shakespeare in snow using your own piss!

[Samuel]

You know, if you do manage to create a very interesting or intricate design on the snow by using your own urine, then that could be considered as art.

Imagine, writing Shakespeare in snow using your own piss!

No, it is impressive if a women does it.