- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by rwingettYou are quite correct. Anything which has to be explicitly called "genuine art" isn't.
It's impossible to answer any question that has the phrase 'Genuine Art' in it.
I would add, by the way, that anything which has to be explained to a reasonably educated contemporary of the artist is, at best, very poor art indeed, and most often not art at all. Particularly if the explanation takes longer to take in than the work itself.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by scacchipazzoHold on - you're confusing two very different things here.
I disagree that all art is genuine art. Cow Dung Madonna comes to mind as well as Piss Christ.
Piss Christ was intended to shock. That's not art, any more than a schoolboy's primitively erotic doodles in his notebook are, or a random homeless drunk's "poetic" ravings at a slam.
Ofili's works, which I can only presume you mean by "cow dung madonna", are very different. Critically, it's not cow dung, but elephant dung. And that's not a symbol of decay, but of fertility. Remember, it derives from African culture, and on that continent, elephant dung is a very important fertiliser (and fuel, and building material, and more). Ofili does not mean its use as an insult, but as a link to his origins. I'll grant you that he overdoes it at times, but it is not meant to shock.
As for your opinions on Warhol and Pollock, I do agree with those, particularly in the latter's case.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI am aware of the terms origins. I was referring to myself. Arts' intentions evolve. I never minded modernism in almost all permutations, but Orfili used elephant dung to offend, not as a valid medium to attain effect. At any rate the "dung" is at the heart of the matter. As for pisschrist, it may not be art, but it was funded by NEA on this sanctimonious prig's tax dollars. I was horribly offended on both counts and I stand by my statement of cowardice on the part of these organizations and quasi-artists never daring to do a pisskoran or images of Muhammad in urine.
Oooohhh are you wrong.
"Impressionists" was invented as a derogatory name, by a sanctimonious prig from the petit bourgeois press of that time.
Richard
"On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France.[15][16] Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack."
I applaud the actions of the vandals. I guess according to the majority of the posters the vandalism might be considered "art". NO less destructive than forces at play in originating pissart. I was unaware of the ignominious end of a poor excuse for quasi-art. I also never thought the kind people of Avignon and proud former seat of the papacy would show the courage they did. Vive L'Avignon!
Originally posted by scacchipazzoI was right. You are a complete idiot.
"On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France.[15][16] Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack."
I applaud the actio ...[text shortened]... non and proud former seat of the papacy would show the courage they did. Vive L'Avignon!
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by scacchipazzoIf the artist considered the vandalism to be part of what he brought about, or intended to bring about, was it then art? If you or me or some other observer considered it to be art, was it art?
"On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France.[15][16] Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack."
I applaud the actio ...[text shortened]... non and proud former seat of the papacy would show the courage they did. Vive L'Avignon!
My answer is that to those persons, it was. Whether something is art is subjective. It is (or is not) art to a subject who experiences it as such.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by scacchipazzoWrong on two accounts.
but Orfili used elephant dung to offend,
Sorry, but it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of his own public statement: he never did mean the elephant dung to offend. He still uses it as a material, and he still does not mean it to offend. You might as well be offended because Raphael used eggs - eggs, I tell you! Aborted chickens! Shock, horror, outrage! - to paint the Madonna.
And his name is Ofili, not Orfili.
Richard
I wonder if the Impressionists had not done what they did; If cameras, filming and capturing images, as they were for the 'now and live' images, would have been developed as quickly as they were?
I see Degas as art. I see how he plays with light. He has various views of his own living experiences caught in light, live light. His portrayal of ballerinas, and if you've ever been to the Musse D'Orcay to see his work - it is unbelievable in light. His use of pastels, beyond simple skills but majestic skills, in mixing light is stunning. He also does the same with 'Apres le bain' where he also uses his experiences, but those of the torrid red-light district of prostitution in his time.
Those were certainly shocking in his day - but he also went to the gambling dens of horses, and used that experience to record and capture live life - as opposed to what had always been before - the pose.
In contrast, and I'll probably get slated here, and don't care, but Van Gogh was useless. The 'Flowers' is a load of crap to me. All of his work is a load of crap. It's like kindergarten work, awash with rubbish and swirls because one couldn't think of anything better than a young child could...... and if I HAD created such work I'd have also cut off my ear - out of loyalty of knowing I was just crap!
Monet, Manet were gifted. The impressionists were new, and what they did changed the face of art. Seurat, with hit dotting stlye - never seen before - was genius.
Van Gogh?? Complete crap.
So in whatever opinion or view point, there will always be those who appreciate what is good for the time, and what is bad, and will like the bad and ignore the good.......
As for bricks, or cows in acid..... hum... sorry - that is far from art for me - that's BS at its best!
-m.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI want to take a different tack with this by putting down a few words that reflect my recent thinking on art. Some of this is formative and may appear half-baked.
[b]Genuine Art
Genuine Art, in any genre, subliminally succeeds in capturing new tiers of pain and pleasure, restraint and abandon. If you agree, how about a few internet links to examples. If not, why?
gb[/b]
One thing that happens to or within various art forms, is a "movement". It is not always called a movement, sometimes it is an epoch or an age. I think Ragtime is a good starting example of an "age", because it is a relatively well defined in time and has recognizable stylistic trademarks and we associate it with a particular cultural milieu and chronological era. Usually such a thing is called a movement when it has an fairly well defined starting point in time, represents a stylistic innovation, and is explored by a number of artists working if not in collaboration, at least with some cross-fertilization between them. It can be an extremely prolific period of time for exploration of the possibilities of the stylistic innovation. The innovation is sometimes criticized by calling the early works "not genuine art" or some such thing, where "genuine art" is defined in terms that reflect veneration. A movement that has continuing new contributions and long term appreciation, becomes a genre, although some genres go into decline and eventually become part of art history. Ragtime does not really qualify as a movement, on some of these grounds, although it is considered a genre. For one thing, it seems to have been fully mined out, and mostly by one person, Scott Joplin after being developed largely by Ernest Hogan. If you want a pretty complete sampling of Ragtime, look for the recording The Red Back Book.
Do you have similar or contrasting thoughts on the various arts, and on any ages, epoch, or movements or other developments, that you think are especially important to the history of an art form? Do you think classical music has been pretty much mined out? Has Impressionism become the art form of the sentimental masses and wall decorators? What about Thomas Kinkade? Where is rock music going, or is it already gone?
Edit: I should add that "genres" might also be the invention of art sellers who need to label their aisles.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf each innovation is half of the previous one, then we must be getting close to nothing by now. Practice might bear that out.
Hey art lovers! Any genuine innovation since Lascaux?
But, just to be contrary, we could ask whether Lascaux was indeed an innovation, or whether it represented the first recorded alienation from 'being.' If all of language and art are stand-ins for the things-in-themselves, then the Lascaux cave paintings would represent the first time in history, where instead of 'doing' something, people sat around and rhapsodized about other people 'doing' things (assuming it wasn't the same people who did both). It might have been the grand-daddy of all vicarious behavior, and, as Guy Debord might have said, the very beginning of 'The Spectacle' itself.
Originally posted by rwingettThe Extensions of Man ... Let me think about this.
If each innovation is half of the previous one, then we must be getting close to nothing by now. Practice might bear that out.
But, just to be contrary, we could ask whether Lascaux was indeed an innovation, or whether it represented the first recorded alienation from 'being.' If all of language and art are stand-ins for the things-in-themselves, then t ...[text shortened]... vior, and, as Guy Debord might have said, the very beginning of 'The Spectacle' itself.