"ART" - a One Word Oxymoron

[jakesteele]

I'd like to put in a bid of $16,000 on that bottle of piss. I don't need the crucifix part, it's just taking up space. The rest is pretty cool, though. "Do I hear 16, 16, how about 16.5?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I was sitting in a small room we used for lounging and studying during my college years. There were about a dozen of us there in that room of the science building. Another student came in with a Dewer flask and heavy leather gloves. He proceeded to extract a substance, I won't tell you what, from a large container. During the process, a copious quantity of whitish material continued to form above his flask as the liquid came out.

A curious fellow I did not know asked out loud, "Is that steam?"

I laughed at his question and then inquired of him, "You're an art student, aren't you?"

He gave me a piercing stare, picked up his books, and walked out of the room.

Immediately a friend of mine confirmed that he was, indeed, an art student.

Perhaps, with any luck, he will produce some of that delightful work not unlike your own.

So why didn't you tell him what it was? did you not know?
If you don't ask you don't find out. It's called educting yourself.

Instead you laughed at him and ridiculed him.
What impression do you think that left of all you arrogant 'scientists'?

 

[JFrankA]

Edited by Cuddles: 

Edited response to moderated post.

What elements of "ART" do you see in Basquiat's Self Portrait?

Do you like the urine streaming down from his penis, or the creative way Basquiat drew his own hands better? Perhaps it's his face? Do you find that particularly attractive and appealing?

Lovely the way Basquiat died, isn't it? Of a heroin overdose.
Robert Mapplethorpe, on the other hand, died of AIDS, at the advanced age of 42. I mean, relative to Basquiat's, 28 was it?

As far as I understand what this form of art is, it's an expression or a representation of some aspect in life designed to invoke an emotion in the viewer.

It seems to have worked in your case.

As to the pieces you are referring to, no, I don't like the self portrait; "Piss Christ" makes a statement and certainly does invoke emotion; and I've seen the Mapplethorpe in the museum and found his work funny, beautiful and intelligent.

...why is when and how they died a make it less art?

Vincent Van Gogh died, insane, at the age of 37. Is he not an artist now?

Édouard Manet died of syphilis at the age of 51. Is that old enough to be an artist?

If I had time, I could give an example of many artists who died early in life by different ways. Why does that make what they produced not art?

Also, why do you get to choose what is good art and what is bad art? I liked Mapplethorpe's work a lot. I am not gay, but a lot of his works weren't either. I'd proudly hang some of his work in my house.

Why are you the expert in what is good or not?

If the government cut off funding for an artist who does art you like, promotes emotions and images you believe art should be, should the government cut off that person's funds too?

I'm sorry, Jonathan, even though, I understand that you don't like the government to give funds for art you see as bad or even disgusting, all I see as your stance from you is an emotional, angry, hateful, unintelligible rant. It seems that you are trying to appeal to emotion, using the standard I've seen from all sides of the political spectrum: anger, pride, superiority and a big dose of "us versus them".

 

[tsig]

JFrankA, I have never heard of Poe's Law.
You're doing a Liberal version of creating a Strawman, and Pathological, Condescending Narcissism.

What elements of "ART" do you see in Basquiat's Self Portrait?

Do you like the urine streaming down from his penis, or the creative way Basquiat drew his own hands better? Perhaps it's his face? Do you find that particularly attractive and appealing?

Lovely the way Basquiat died, isn't it? Of a heroin overdose.
Robert Mapplethorpe, on the other hand, died of AIDS, at the advanced age of 42. I mean, relative to Basquiat's, 28 was it?

Great artists die young, is that your point?

 

[tsig]

I'd like to put in a bid of $16,000 on that bottle of piss. I don't need the crucifix part, it's just taking up space. The rest is pretty cool, though. "Do I hear 16, 16, how about 16.5?

You wanna take the piss?

 

[Garrette]

I think you may be referring to Thomas Kinkade. I am a strong proponent of realism, but his stuff is: Utter. Schlock. Light does not look like that! I think Margaret Keane may be one of the few painters worse than him.

Yes. Kinkade. Thanks for that. I don't know Keane's work, but if she is worse than Kinkade I am afraid to Google her.

 

[Olowkow]

Finally, something worthy of the name "art":

You mean this Chris Dadd dude? [sic] Have a nice day.

Richard Dadd: Artist/Murderer
Murdered his dad. Poor choice for your "worthy" sample. It certainly explains the "Mercy" theme though. He was into some [sic] stuff. Just not the best way to make a point about "crap art". I personally prefer Picasso or Mondrian...who by the way was brought up in a strictly Protestant home. I'm sure he was secretly a lefty atheist though.

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]When the police searched Dadd's apartment in London, they found Dadd's sketchbook full of portraits of his friends and acquaintances, each one depicted with their throat slashed. Based on this incriminating evidence, his likeness was circulated, but of course, it was too late.[/FONT]

http://whencrapisart.blogspot.com

ETA:

Q'uelle surprise.

Nope, it's "quelle". Were you thinking of "qu'elle", (que+elle)?

 

[rustypouch]

Mr. Quick, it seems you are missing out on a great business opportunity. If this is just paint randomly throw on a canvas, as you seem to consider it, do it yourself. You'd be rich!

 

[JFrankA]

I wasn't familiar with Keane until you mentioned her. Now that I've googled her, I find I agree with you on about 98% of her work, but there are two or three works on this site that I find I like (moderately).

THE EYES!!!! THE EYESS!!!!! NO NO NO NO MAKE THEM GO AWAY!!!!! NOOOOO!

Holy carp! TBH, that was more horrifying set of paintings I've ever seen.....

 

[Taarkin]

You turn a corner, with your small children, and gaze upon homosexual erotic "art" in a public museum. Lovely, no?

Yes, Michelangelo's David is generally regarded as lovely.

 

[Cavemonster]

Better yet, this offensive trash, often intended to shock AND insult, was subsidized by TAX DOLLARS.

The very same Democrats who rage at money going for the military are ever eager to give tax dollars to filth, who intentionally degrade and insult.

And YOU support such filth with consummately simplistic Talking Points.

The total budget for the NEA 2010 was $161.3 million.

That includes Shakespeare in the park, poetry competitions for teens, jazz blues and classical concerts in schools and other venues across the country, keeping local museums open, women keeping alive quilting traditions, artist teaching residencies and a hell of a lot more. Occaisionally, a tiny percentage of that may fund an artist or buy a piece of work that you don't like.

As a comparison, an F-22 jet, one of 166 that was built and has never seen combat, will never see combat costs that much each just to build. When you add in maintenence, fuel transportation, exercises and training for the program, it swells to more than twice that. A total of 65 billion for planes that will never help anyone.

More government money has been spent on single fancy lunches for top military brass in any given year. You can try to push the philosophical point and scream your outrage, but it is of no practical import. The entirety of NEA funding could be cut and it would not lower anyone's taxes.

 

[Alan]

Whether something is a work of art is unrelated to whether you or anybody else likes it. "Art" does not mean "good".

 

[JFrankA]

Say, if you don't like meat, don't eat it.

If you don't like soldiers who keep America safe and free, don't enlist.

If you don't like cigarette smoke, don't smoke cigarettes.

How does one KNOW if one "likes" art until one LOOKS at it, hmm?

You turn a corner, with your small children, and gaze upon homosexual erotic "art" in a public museum. Lovely, no?

You know, I hate that. I'm walking in the Museum of Modern Art, minding my own business, just taking in the information, then suddenly, out of the blue a piece of homosexual art comes RIGHT AFTER ME!!!!

I can see the painting of the nude man, bouncing on its frame towards my direction!!!! I cleverly duck behind a woman, knowing full well that this homoerotic art won't DARE go after a woman.

Then without warning....a small child runs out of the gift shop, innocently looking for his mommy. The horrible homosexual art turns, the top of the frame salivating. I can hear it growl in a soft, sassy voice, "A CHILD TO CORRUPT! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!" And it lunges for the innocent child, his eyes not ready for the horrible images about to be plunged into his soft, malleable retinas.

Bravely, I lunge at the disrespectful art, grabbing it, touching it, yes, actually tackling it to the ground to save the child from the infection of homosexual artistic expression! I may get infected, but....think of the children.

In the struggle, the pansy painting bites my arm! Still I fight it, holding it down!

That's when museum security finally appears. They point their guns at the painting.

"Freeze you gay brushings!!!" one of the yells. The painting stops. Looks at the security team and knows it's defeated. They take the painting back into the dark room, deep in the museum, where no one can view it where it belongs.

I get up. I am proud and happy as I watch the young, uncorrupted son hug his mother - the same woman I hid behind in cowardice when the painting first chased me. She thanks me for saving her boy.

As I recover, covering my bite wound with a cloth, I realize that one of the security guards was kind of cute. I liked the way he cocked his gun....

....oh no.....

TO BE CONTINUED!





.....I am so so sorry. I just couldn't resist!!!!!

 

[MatildaGage]

Classical art has been corrupted by the contemporary Left.

I was trying to remember the story about Piss Christ so I did a little checking. If Wikipedia is correct, then the implications of the OP are incorrect….

This piece of art was the photograph, not the subject itself (which included urine). The photo happens to have the classic elements of art—composition, technical skill, creativity, etc. Whether or not you like it has nothing to do with whether or not it is art.

The piece was not meant to denigrate religion but rather the opposite--to criticize the denigration of religion.

The piece was on display, partially funded by a government grant, during the term of a conservative Republican president. (Ta-da!)

 

[GreyArea]

As I recover, covering my bite wound with a cloth, I realize that one of the security guards was kind of cute. I liked the way he cocked his gun....

....oh no.....

Duh-duh-DUH!

 

[Robin]

Whenever I find art I don't like, I just don't look at it any more.

Have you ever tried that JonathanQuick?
(underlined the part you forgot to read)

Say, if you don't like meat, don't eat it.

That is right. If you don't like meat you don't eat it any more. What is the problem with that?

If you don't like cigarette smoke, don't smoke cigarettes.

I don't think that a dud artwork is going to give you any health problems.

How does one KNOW if one "likes" art until one LOOKS at it, hmm?

What part of "...any more" did you have trouble understanding, hmm?

You turn a corner, with your small children, and gaze upon homosexual erotic "art" in a public museum. Lovely, no?

You are talking about inappropriate placement of the work here which has nothing to do with the value or otherwise of the work.

If some art gallery is displaying art that is inappropriate for children in an unsealed area and without any warnings then let me know when and where and I will send them a letter of protest.

Nevertheless, I have three small children and have so far managed to shield them from inappropriate images by taking a little care and personal responsibility in the matter.

Better yet, this offensive trash, often intended to shock AND insult, was subsidized by TAX DOLLARS.

So why are you frothing about artists who don't get any tax dollars? Why should you care about them?

The very same Democrats who rage at money going for the military are ever eager to give tax dollars to filth, who intentionally degrade and insult.

Can you give me an example of a Democrat who rages at money going for the military and is eager to give tax dollars to filth? Please cite their own words.

And YOU support such filth with consummately simplistic Talking Points.

Where did support filth? Please quote the part. I haven't seen the filth in question so I can't really say whether or not I support it.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Where did support filth? Please quote the part. I haven't seen the filth in question so I can't really say whether or not I support it.

May I take this opportunity to say that I unequivocally support any and all filth, seen or unseen, and wholeheartedly support the spending of quite literally squahillions of hard-working taxpayers hard-earned tax monies on filth? Unless it's Nazi Republican filth, of course.

 

[SatanicSheep]

I'm curious what the OP has to say about the treatment and display of the Warren Cup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Cup

 

[JonathanQuick]

I didn't say it was dreck. I think some of those pieces are quite lovely, and if I saw them on a hobby art market I would think a fair price would be in the tens of euros.

I do not quibble in the least about your valuation. Nor do I care about what people buy and display in their own homes.

My points are few:

1. The U.S. Government should NOT subsidize any paintings, of any kind, no matter how much I or anyone else likes them.

2. Tens and hundreds of millions of dollars... for paint spatterings... is insane, in MY opinion. Anyone disagreeing should put his money wherever he wants it.

3. Trying to shock and offend and even blaspheme and calling that "art" is simply ignorant and demeaning, to the sick individual who originated the sick piece, as well as to the fawning fools who defend it. These are generally the very same ones who make claims like "If you don't like _____, then don't _____ it." Somehow the point that their shock crap is precisely intended to be something almost NOBODY will want to look at.

//

I didn't vote for Barack Obama, being on the wrong side of the Atlantic. I would have supported John McCain as well. I think he would have probably been a better president than anyone before him. Actually it is kind of mean of the democrats that when McCain finally -- and probably for the last time -- got the chance to run for president, to thank him for all his years of loyal service by making him run against a candidate better than all previous presidents combined.

You had me with you UNTIL you called Barack Obama "better than all the previous presidents combined."

Obama is an incompetent left-wing extremist and zealot, and preening narcissist, whose only real talent seems to be mesmerizing and brainwashing people utterly unable to think.

Could you now explain how the craziness in the art world is leftists fault, if you please?

I will be happy to. Keep in mind that my remarks are based on the perspective of an American, who likes WOMEN, who is successful and unafraid to stand up to bullying that is epidemic wherever leftists congregate.

Democrats, or we may call them "Leftists," because that is the clear counterpart to "right wing religious extremists," the commonly applied term for Republicans, are the ones primarily responsible for filling the ranks of the Arts and Croissant Crowd. This follows from the clear words, opinions, and flaming rhetoric of the Left, which endlessly paints Republicans as "greedy, rich businessmen." Naturally, the counter to greedy, rich businessmen would be poor, unemployed Bohemian artistes.

Are you with me so far?

Likewise, while there ARE not a few Republican homosexuals, some of them even openly so, generally speaking, Republicans TEND to be ashamed of such perversion, and do not elect, much less reelect anyone known to be homosexual. Check for yourself if there is any known Republican homosexual within the ranks of 635 congressmen. I am not aware of a single one.

Barney Frank, on the other hand, is a drooling, ignorant oaf of a homosexual.

The Arts and Croissants Crowd revels in militant homosexuality, just as it revels in militant *feminism*, also a one-word oxymoron.

For much more on Barack Obama's ignorance, incompetence, and narcissism, have a look at the pages and pages of Obamian nonsense, much of it documented with links, or dates and locations.

He has just extended his foray of self-embarrassments by letting Muslims in India learn the name of his drug-sniffing dog is "Khan".

http://barackobamaisms.blogspot.com

 

[rustypouch]

Edited by Cuddles: 

Removed quote of moderated post.

Edited by Cuddles: 

So creating art is something you can't do. No need to get mad at those who can. But however you need to cope with your shortcomings, there's no reason to be rude to those who are talented.

I never claimed to be creative. I try, but know I am lacking, although I can see it in others and appreciate it.

So I have a challenge for you: since you seem to think creating art is so easy, do it. Get some stuff in a gallery. Have an opening. Don't do it for the money, since I am sure you have incredible amounts. Do it to prove how easy it is. If you have time to go out of your way to create a website, albeit poorly researched and edited, just for the stake of belittling those you don't like, you must have time to throw some paint at a few canvases.

Unless you can't do something you consider easy. We know you don't need the money, and you have the time. Do it to show us lefties how foolish we are.

I expect an invite to your first opening.