|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 39 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Articles: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally) |
Posted by
Anonymous-Coward on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 04:06 AM PST
Has anyone else noticed how much shitty art is out there, and how much of this crap is actually accepted in the art world?!
Has anyone else noticed how much shitty art is out there, and how much of this crap is actually accepted in the art world?! I mean it seems as though anyone can be an "artist". I saw this picture one time of marilyn monroe. Someone had stuck a penis between her legs and called it art. It's hanging in the fucking Los Angeles Museum of Modern Art! I've seen shit in a bucket on display in the same damn museum that Van Gough's and Munch's hung! Cripes! What is this?! The Shitty Art Movement?!
I swear, it's all about "shock - factor". That's fine the first couple times you see it, but after that it get's quite old. If you ask half these people what they are trying to say with their piece, they either can't, or, they recite some well-rehersed and rationalistic explanation of what they mean. This not only gives the unintelligent and trend-driven art critic something to gab about, but also, somehow, justifies their outlet of their own perversion in front of themselves and society.
What about the great artists who perfect their own style and portray their deepest thoughts and perceptions of the world through their own medium. What about them?! Whatever happened to talent?! Now all you have to do is bite everybody else's style. Use the medium of shock-factor, slap some penis on, well, anything, and taa-daa! you have a piece of modern art worth hanging in the flippin' Getty!
Yeah yeah, i know... Art can be anything that portrays thoughts or ideas... Well, Mr. Smartypants, that's all well and good, but then I guess it comes to a point of the deepness of the piece. I'm sorry, but "Shit in a Bucket"? No pun intended, but that's pretty shallow.
I saw this piece one time by this schizophrenic guy. He liked to draw cats. His drawings were normal until he came down with the disease. Then they became these odd tripped-out representations of cats. I found these pieces quite interesting as that is how he saw things, and through his medium, portrayed them. (phew!) :0
Sam
|
|
| |
|
|
This article has not been rated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shitty Art. (sometimes literally) | Login/Create an account | 21 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally)
by Monolycus on Feb 26, 2002 - 06:21 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Okay... here I go... I have pissed and moaned about this before. To begin with, it is not "art" if it expresses nothing. The reason that "starving artists" are a cliche is because in order to market something and get a return you could live on, you have to suck the soul out of the product. To be more precise, it is simply product at that point. An "artist" is attempting to express something... if they can sell it later, that's their own affair. If you are marketing a product, you are aiming at the lowest common denominator, you are not "saying" anything. At that point, "art" becomes overpriced, highly sought after, hackneyed garbage that says nothing to anyone. Disney and their associated sleazebags have made a mint churning out candy-coated crap to the greedy public who still haven't put together yet that the Emperor has no clothes on.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally) by pAris on Feb 26, 2002 - 09:28 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/279/unbalanced_load.html | Well, first of all I have to agree. As a holder of a BFA (or a Big Fuckin Deal as I call it...) in painting, it was/is frustrating to constantly see people produce a 10 second piece of masturbatory crap and move to the head of the class/art world. On the other hand, even though these people sometimes please their critics, and sometimes are deemed worthless by many, sometimes they do have something to say, just not to you or me. Who are we to judge what is acceptable art? That is the problem - not that there is definitely some truly bad art being produced every second, but that everyone really does like different things and finds beauty in many different things.
Imagine for instance, that the people who like water color pictures of pretty flowers and cute little angel cats decided that gothic art (okay, angel cats may be cross-genre...) is unacceptable because of its aesthetic or message. Imagine this entire site being gone or your favorite movie because it did not have enough "beauty" in it, or that it "does not say anything." Who decides what is worthy? The audience does (in theory). Of course, if the audience is spoon-fed a bunch of crap and told they are stupid if they don't get it (even when there is naught to get), well... you get where we are today. But if people actually attempted to educate themselves and their peers (and a lot of us do), things would improve.
True, it does not always work that way, and a lot of really BAD art slips through the cracks, but the alternative is worse. Imagine a world where your musical choices were Brittney and N'suck because goth and punk and industrial and funk and emo and other forms are ugly or simple or "could be played by a stoned monkey" or whatever and were not approved by the masses or the people in control.
I guess what I'm saying is that while agree that it sucks how much bad art is enthusiastically approved by the fuckheads that call themselves the Art World, it would suck more to only allow certain types of art or expression.
The only solution I see as valuable is to create as much good art as you can and never stop trying to learn more about you and your medium, and to try to be open to new things and influences. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally)
by Arthegarn on Feb 26, 2002 - 10:13 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I wouldn't know. As Phalkon13 once said, I "look like a classy bad-ass" (actually I am), so I have absoultely no taste for shitty art.
When I was a teenager, however, I admit I considered people like Kandinsky or Miro representatives of shitty art. Now I am older and never cease to amaze myself with their work, so perhaps it is that my taste is not developed enough yet as to understand the beauty in Marilyn having a penis. Then again, perhaps my taste IS developed...
When I don't like "art" I never say it's bad. I say I don't understand it.
|
Grave Sypmathies...
by Dolorosa on Feb 26, 2002 - 10:31 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I so totally agree...Maybe I'm just being a hypocritical posuer or something, but I know what you mean...I've gone to look at Salvador Dali or maybe even those cool Gorilla Paintings...and been intruiged all over the place. Real art is rare enough as it is...but even the museums aren't immune to self-indulgent hacks trying to make a cheap buck by hanging poop in a can. Gotta' give 'em credit for being crafty enough to pull it off though. I met one of these "artists" once...a guy from germany who would literally sneeze various paint colors onto a canvas and call it art...I called it kleenex, he called that an insult...I called him a sissy...and things went from there. Long story short...he stopped making those lame pieces of crap after I broke his nose.
But...you know, maybe it is art, in some retarded way...or maybe just a cry for attention. One of those "Look how bizarre and yet oddly fascinating I am" schpiels that makes really upper class people feel stupid if they don't understand...so they fake that they understand...and then.
Agh...we have the toreador...
|
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally)
by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com)
on Feb 26, 2002 - 12:01 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.plynlymon.com
|
I gotta jump in here.
Andy Warhol was right, art is dead.
That doesnt mean that creativity is dead but that art, in its older sense, is no longer a vaild and useful medium to potray the soul of the culture, the symbols and voices of the masses.
That doesnt mean that there in no one left to appriciate 'art' or create 'art', just that they are anachronistic, like people that make sweaters by hand, or make thier own jelly.
The fact that sooooo much 'bad art' is being produced is really a sign of the total disolution of the culture base.
Art as a weapon or a social outcry is, if you look at the history of western culture, only in evidence when the culture is in upheaval. And today we have lotsd of 'art' as a weapon or social outcry, and not all weapons are pretty, sexy, wonderous, or awe-inspiring. They are interesting in thier minutia, theier technical detail, or full of fatal fasination. They may even make you faint. But that doesnt make them 'art'.
And to be 'goth' is to be anachronistic, practically by definition, so a 'goth' may still produce art (because they arent part of the dead culture) and may appriciate art (ditto) and would find the art as weapon stuff particularly distasteful.
but that is my opinion, i could be wrong (snort)
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally)
by Anonymous-Coward on Feb 26, 2002 - 01:56 PM
|
Bob Ross for life.
1943-1996
"There are no mistakes, just happy accidents"
|
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally)
by Meranda_Jade (scurtis510@home.com)
on Feb 26, 2002 - 03:34 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Art has gotten so bad that I can't tell the difference between some things at the museum, and my kids' crayon drawings...
Took them to the art museum a few weeks ago, and they came home and drew lots of "modern art" that looked pretty much like what was on the walls there... one of the three year olds did one called "spiders in snow" that was rather interesting... now, if only I had canvas and paint for him... the folks at the museum would probably not be able to tell it was done by a 3 year old...
|
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally) by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com) on Feb 26, 2002 - 03:43 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://devin.vibechild.com/ | When I worked nights, I used to chat with a guy that worked the night shift at a Kinko's in the Midwest. Once he sent me a picture some people brought in of a field through very tall grass. They were getting prints made. It looked ok - nothing wonderful - but not bad either - good color choices, interesting brush strokes - just gave the impression of walking through a field with grass up to your head. Then he told me it was painted by a cat. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally) by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com) on Mar 14, 2002 - 11:49 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/ | I do agree to some extent, and sometimes when I'm low, I like to look at the art of little kids or the people who draw like children...mostly because it reminds me of when I was young, and the art is so simplistic and sort of..well, free. Like "straight from the head to the paper" without bullshit in account like technique and composition and technical jargon that pulls true art apart at the seams. I like big heads with no eyes and ear to ear grins (especially when the ears are on top of the head), no neck or torso and loooong legs. I don't know why, but when I'm at my lowest the art of little kids brings me up. Makes me feel less like the sourpuss and oversarcastic angry person I can be...makes me want to be the little girl in the picture of the sandpile in our backyard with mudpie on my face and a pink t-shirt that says "i'm a buckley babe"....and a grin from ear to ear, sand in my babyteeth and and chubby cheeks and curly blond hair.
Sometimes though, it makes me very very sad that I can never be that again. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally)
by Cashmere (-)
on Feb 26, 2002 - 03:44 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
First off, this debate has happened before. Marcel Duchamp hung a urinal in an art museum to see if it would be called "art", and it caused one of the reatest upheavals in modern thought. He did it for the shock value. There is a lot to be said for talent, and i can see where you are coming from, but most art is "shock art". imagine the uproar when Alfred Stieglitz (homemade fudge to whoever knows who that is) decided to do nonrepresentational photogaphy? Wha about Mondrian, what about Picasso? Picasso was thrown out of his first show for D'amoiselles D'avignon (not completely sure on spelling). I do not agree that art should be made solely for money , and I believe that each piece of work should have some meaning. However, don't debase "shock art" unless look at the reason behind it's creation. Also realize that every new art movement was "shock art" at one point in time.
One more thing: each of those "shitty" pieces was an original thought. Did you think of it?
|
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally) by Anonymous-Coward on Feb 26, 2002 - 10:36 PM | Yeah but the point is, what exactly was that thiught? how deep and/or meaningful was that thought? was there any?... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally) by Cashmere (-) on Feb 27, 2002 - 04:13 PM (User info | Send a Message) | The thought has become irrelevant in artistic society today. As an artist who puts actual thought and meaning into my art, it used to bother me immensely. I think its great that you can actually think beyond whether or not a piece is "pretty". Would you be happy if these "artists", instead of puttin on some bullshit rant on the tortures of modern society that caused them to put a penis on marylin monroe, told you it was only for the money? I don't agree with it, but i understand that to those people art is a career used only to make money.
I personally agree with you , though. It's just hard to judge for me if I understand from where the opposition is coming. I really hope that answers what you tried to ask me in response, but if not I hope my ranting isn't too obnoxious. Please understand i hold you in very high regard for actually wondering about the meaning. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally)
by pAris (dparis@columbus.rr.com)
on Feb 27, 2002 - 09:22 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/279/unbalanced_load.html
|
Actually, it is a lot of fun to try to produce shitty art just to see if it goes over. One morning before a critique (people sitting around making banal judgments on your art), I took a moldy piece of canvas that looked corrugated (I stole it from the bakery where I worked - it was for proofing bread), and spent about 5-10 minutes spraying water on it and sprinkling salt and cinnamon and various other herbs and spices on it until it looked like a rusty shit piece of metal. Then I hung it on the wall before anyone got there just to see reactions. It was pretty funny. Many people were "so impressed" by it's depth and "raw statement" and when the poseurs found out it was mine, most were all like "it's the best thing you've ever done!" Kind of a sad/funny moment, like a train wreck full of clowns. It felt kind of good to pull one over on the people I felt were always pulling one over on everyone with their "art."
|
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally) by Sticupus (sticupus@hotmail.com) on Mar 12, 2002 - 07:24 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.obolisk.com | To all that read, keep in mind that 12... yes, 12 artists work out of their galleries in the whole world. What I specifically mean is that only 12 can make enough money to pay the bills for life in general just from their galleries alone; So I am interested in how they are "cheating" everyone with their "art" when they are not earning shit from it. All they are gaining is sloppy quick judgments and weak intellectual ‘wastes of flesh’ making comments like "they're cheating people" (whine... whine.. fucking whine!!!!). To solve these issues I suggest you first ask the artist "What does this mean?". If they choose not to answer perhaps they have no comment; it is too personal to tell you; or they want you to crunch your feeble mind to figure it out on your own! Second the "Art" you made was valid, it was a wonderful way to show the weak stupid humans of society. But then again, you have given no example yourself of an "cheating artist" and a piece of art work. You yourself have made a crappy "meaningless" piece of cheating art. Thus you are your own enemy! You have committed a crime that you accused the art world of doing. You cheated out people and gloated about your art to make them say "it is the best thing you have ever done". I want you to think about that, consider what you said and what you did (you ingrate hypocrite). Finally I suggest humbly that if you don't like art, stay out of galleries, museums, cities (they have lots of art), and move into a cave. Here you will be exposed to sensory deprivation, protecting you from "cheating art". Last sever your spinal cord and your ocular nerves; rupture your ear drums. All of this, ALL OF THIS WILL PROTECT YOU FROM ART. Then you will never be cheated or exposed to bad art ever again. (but then again what you did is a profound statement about the modern outlook of art, and can be considered "performance art" so I guess you are cluster fucked by anything you do...).
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally) by Meranda_Jade (Meranda@mymind.com) on Mar 15, 2002 - 09:23 AM (User info | Send a Message) | I think you missed the point entirely there. Paris, as a joke, whipped up something silly just to see people's reactions, and thought it was funny that they couldn't tell that it wasn't a real exhibit... he did not gloat about anything, read the post, he thought it was sad and funny at the same time...
Why this offended you so badly when you didn't even remotely understand what he was saying is beyond me... I think next time, before you get yourself so worked up, you should think about the post you're reading and what it really means. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally) by Sticupus (sticupus@hotmail.com) on Mar 15, 2002 - 07:42 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.obolisk.com | From what I have been seeing around and about Shmeng, it seems the majority of people here seem to fine a center point/equilibrium with their surroundings. I must inform I am not one such person, I am angry, young, liberal, and see everything "black or white!". This is not helpful in every situation so I do try to adapt myself accordingly. I have been always taught by myself and teachers/peers to protect the arts with a "big fucking ice pick". Art today is experimental, and who knows where it will be in years to come. The National Endowment (he he) for the Arts, is well... pathetic. Pressure from people to end this funding, and criticizing from the general public (who for the most part do not understand the arts) scare me. I create art, and I am just the apex comprehending it's profoundness, so when any critique on the art world as a whole is made, good or bad, I attack; because it is a general statement that damns the masses, but I do how ever support critiquing an individual artist. This is healthy and with help that person evolve as a human and a artist. So I apologize disemboweled you all, and left your bodies to rot in sun. The public is important for the art, because society directly influences it. If everyone looks at Thomas Kinkade (also known as the Anti-Christ) and believes that is what art today is, and what it should be, then my generation of artists are damned to a long "nostalgic fuzzy warm old town painting" hell. I know not all art is not sincere; even Picasso pulled some bullshit before he died by making "Picassos!" (images he was know for) instead of art. There is no true way of telling that any art is sincere, unless you are the artist. The art that an artist shows you is for your intellect and enjoyment, (appreciate that) but I beg that you only challenge the artist instead of the art world necessary . On another note; next time I post I'll make sure I am not on the "male rag" like I was the first time. If my thoughts are too feeble to post here then I will move on from Shmeng, let me know. I apologize and thank you for reading my babble.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally) by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Mar 15, 2002 - 10:45 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | I personally know 36 artists that have thier own galleries and support themselves and thier familys on the procedes. I only know a small part of the the california art community anymore so i know this number is waaay to small to be representative of even just california, let alone the world.
My mom is an artist and supported herself and I on her art for a few years. All her friends were artists (she has since gotten more relaxed about playing with new people) and they all supported themselves and thier families with thier art as well.
The term cluster-fuck is grossly misused here.
The falacy that you are overworking is that all art from all people and all time periods holds an equal message and worth in understanding the artist, the society, and humanity. This is patently untrue. Take for example the portrature of the mid 1800s; this art tells us a very limited amount about the subject, the artist, or the times (the women that were painted wore peroid piece clothing often or with leopards, or some other pretense of immatation of past eras).
anyhoo..... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally)
by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com)
on Mar 14, 2002 - 11:55 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/
|
Also take into account that one of picasso's most controversial and culturally "shocking" pieces is now one of his most famous..
He became enthralled with tribal african art, and spent weeks locked in a basement with hookers as models and created "the virgins of somethingorotheriforgotshameonme"...he felt it was his masterpiece, the very thing he'd been trying to express for years...and when it was unveild the public was APPALED, disgusted, outraged, felt it was perverted, horrid, ugly and insane. It wasn't accepted even in the undergroud of the art world until decades later, when people were "ready for it" and then they hailed it as a "masterpiece".
Strange, isn't it?
A lot like the hullabaloo over the fecal drawing of the madonna that sent panties into spasms all over the world..
|
|
|