|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 49 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.
|
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)
|
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 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 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 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..
|
|
|