Miscarriage Art. Or, how to make a name for yourself very quickly

[Not Afraid]

Being arrested does not make something art or not. Chris Burden, a very recognized contemporary artist, was arrested during a performance piece in LA. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. What the artist in the PS was doing was not illegal in any way.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Having read through all of these posts, I'm inclined to quote Alex and just say, "What he said."

When one considers both context and audience, just about anything can be called "art with a capital A."

On the whole, I'm often more interested in the ideas behind conceptual art than I am in the piece, work, presentation, etc. itself. I suppose in many cases that's its intention, but my frustration with art that's meant to be seen is that a lot of conceptual art, in my opinion, simply isn't interesting to look at. I often find myself thinking, "Write an essay," or "This would make an interesting short story," even if the discussions that come about as a result of the work are interesting and worthwhile. I usually avoid them, though, because my primary response is, "Meh, give me Rothko and Mark Ryden." I have an aesthetic/visceral response to that kind of work. Enjoyment of the work can be independent of its intention, meaning, purpose, etc. I suppose I personally enjoy artwork where my initial, knee-jerk response is something other than, "What art essay do I have to read before I can understand this..."

Nick Hornby wrote one of my favorite short stories for a collection he edited, Speaking With the Angel, called "Nipple Jesus," which beautifully and humorously explores the "It's art / It's not art" debate, and is well summarized here.

To quote:
One of the best stories in the collection comes from the amazingly well-connected Hornby. Narrated by a bouncer turned art gallery security guard, "Nipple Jesus" delivers a modern parable on the foolishness and intolerance characteristic of both critics and defenders of controversial artwork --- such as the portrait of the crucified Christ created from thousands of tiny nipples cut from porno magazines featured in Hornby's story. A long overdue smack in the face for the laughably ignorant censors, scarily religious zealots, controversy pandering artists, and free-speech soapboxers, "Nipple Jesus" should be required reading for those people waiting in line to gawk at the next "sensation" exhibit.

I would say this is a work of art. And the press ensured it's a rather successful piece at that, in that it's generating the sort of talk she was hoping it would, and then some. The presentation isn't to my liking. Again, I'm more interested in the story and the discussion in this thread. If I were reading a short story about an artist who did this, I'd probably enjoy the read. I have no desire to see the work, faked or real. Maybe 20 years from now she'll be featured in yet another feminist art exhibition that bores me to tears.

But that's a rant for another day.

Regarding the Nazi lampshade reference, I say that artwork should come with a tag that says, "No one (excepting the artist perhaps) was harmed during the making of this." So long as you aren't hurting anyone, fine. Hurting yourself? That's your business. Murdering someone and wearing their face as a mask? Bad form. Art? Maybe. Criminal, most definitely. Of course, if this girl really did get herself pregnant with the intention of miscarrying, some will argue that is harming someone else. I don't particularly agree with that argument.

HBO's Tales From the Crypt series has an AWESOME episode starring Tim Roth about someone who murders for his art. Excellent stuff. Most excellent.

Graffiti (art/not art) is always an interesting discussion. Some of it is very beautiful. In fact, some of it even beautifies (an ugly abandoned storefront, etc.). But a lot of the time it's just defacement of public property, and beautiful or not, it makes me sad to see it sometimes.

[Not Afraid]

I appreciate all art. I may not like it, but that's not the point. If it makes me think, if it causes discussion, if it creates an emotional reaction for me or others, it's probably good art.

I think many people come to art from a consumer culture point of view. "I wouldn't buy that or hang it in my living room" doesn't make something art. It makes it a consumable good, but art is not necessarily consumable.

I agree with AH about conceptual art. I ADORE conceptual pieces in their conceptual form often more often than I enjoy them in their fully realized form.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I think many people come to art from a consumer culture point of view. "I wouldn't buy that or hang it in my living room" doesn't make something art. It makes it a consumable good, but art is not necessarily consumable.

Very good point. And I don't undervalue that, either. Because there is a lot of art I appreciate but wouldn't hang on my wall. There is a lot of contemporary pop illustrators right now that I LOVE, and theirwork is very much a commodity. The size of the work and the price are very reasonable, and though an intent to create a purchasable good may not be the only or primary reason for the piece's existence, it certainly was a factor. And a lot of this work really is lovely, amusing, beautiful, etc.

Of course, I say this and have a velvet painting of a crying kid hanging up in my bedroom. I would, of course, prefer to have a Mark Ryden... And he would very likely want MY velvet painting...

Also, three huge cheers for H for starting the OP. HUZZAH!

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I appreciate all art. I may not like it, but that's not the point. If it makes me think, if it causes discussion, if it creates an emotional reaction for me or others, it's probably good art.

"Art" is just a subset of human expression. Do you appreciate all conversation? If you're in the middle of a mundane conversation or reading a book on a bus and someone interrupts with something provocative, shocking and phenomenally stupid, do you value their contribution? Do you go, "Wow, thank you for jarring me out of my routine?"

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

"Art" is just a subset of human expression. Do you appreciate all conversation? If you're in the middle of a mundane conversation or reading a book on a bus and someone interrupts with something provocative, shocking and phenomenally stupid, do you value their contribution? Do you go, "Wow, thank you for jarring me out of my routine?"

Depends on my mood and how "routine" I want to be. There are times I have no desire to be engaged. I would rather drool into a mindless magazine instead.

[€uroMeinke]

Hmmm - so many tings to comment on...

Art and human remains - age old tradition from shrunken heads to reliquaries. A favorite contemporary artist of mine, Eric Orr - kept viles of blood (his own) in his fridge for use in his paintings (along with bone fragments). Heck, I recall that Kiss at one point had a comic book of which one edition contained ink mixes with drops of their blood. Oh and what about the preserved skin of certain tattooed Sumo Wrestlers?

On the other side of this equation I can't but think of body wars, which almost painfully tried to defend itself as an "educational" endevour, when anyone who's seen it can't help but think sometimes it's the aesthetic and not scientific which drove the work.

Art and Morality - I tend to view art as Amoral, so yeah Art can be evil, boring, or erotic and still be art. Triumph of the will is a beautiful film regardless of it's promotion of Nazism.

Conceptual Art remaining a concept - There are some conceptual pieces that I think have to be done - if for no other reason that to break down the filter of, "but no body would really do that" - So Chris Burdon shooting himself in the Arm, yeah it's an interesting concept, but making it a reality and providing the artifacts of the event force you to confront it in ways beyond intellectual musing. I guess a good lie can work and may speak to the aesthetic nature of truth - but the example in the OP the lie diminishes the original outrage that I presume was intended.

Art and Outrage - I think many a novice artists seeks outrage as a way gain attention for their willingness to break boundaries, but honestly breaking boundaries for breaking boundaries sake is often just boring.

Art and Communication - I think in some ways art is a subset of communication but it's something that can be apprehended on many levels. I love whimsical art, so often that requires some intellectual engagement beyond offering something "pretty" But often art is intended to strike people on emotional levels - love, hate, outrage, etc. sometimes I can enjoy this kind of work as well, for the way it makes me feel.

Art vs. Craft - I really don't distinguish the two, rather craft seems to dennote a certain expertise in a certain skill or work in a certain media. I think in the past certain arts have been denigrated with the term "craft" (quilting & sewing being a good feminist example) - In this respect, craft is often used to acknowledge a good technician who may not have a greater vision (Usually associated with "High" Art).

Whew, but I always enjoy talking about art.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Art and Outrage - I think many a novice artists seeks outrage as a way gain attention for their willingness to break boundaries, but honestly breaking boundaries for breaking boundaries sake is often just boring.

Which was my reaction to the OP story. The point is ostensibly to engender conversation, but my feeling when it's so obvious that the artist them self hasn't even considered the implications thoroughly (which I believe is the case in the OP), then my general response is, "Well, then why should I care if you don't?" Unfair, perhaps, but I just am not interested in giving that person the attention they're seeking.

Art vs. Craft - I really don't distinguish the two, rather craft seems to dennote a certain expertise in a certain skill or work in a certain media. I think in the past certain arts have been denigrated with the term "craft" (quilting & sewing being a good feminist example) - In this respect, craft is often used to acknowledge a good technician who may not have a greater vision (Usually associated with "High" Art).

It's not a clearly defined line in the least, but as a generalization where there is a difference, I consider craft to be more about a repeatable product (or class of products) with emphasis on aesthetics, while art denotes a creative act more focused on conveying some level of meaning. That said, just because something is a craft, I wouldn't automatically disqualify it as art. The two can, and do, intersect.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Which was my reaction to the OP story. The point is ostensibly to engender conversation, but my feeling when it's so obvious that the artist them self hasn't even considered the implications thoroughly (which I believe is the case in the OP), then my general response is, "Well, then why should I care if you don't?" Unfair, perhaps, but I just am not interested in giving that person the attention they're seeking.

This was my reaction to the OP as well. I haven't actually said much about it, because, like EH, I prefer the discussion of general concept to this particular concept itself. So in that sense, I appreciate the work - it spurred this interesting conversation. But in terms of my immediate reaction to the piece, and from what I've read of her responses, it seemed rather hollow and meant to seek attention. And less than thoroughly thought-through; otherwise, the waffling about meaning and purpose wouldn't have been quite so waffly. So, to me? Art in the sense that it's provoking discussion. But that discussion (ours, anyway) is not the discussion I think she was hoping to provoke.

[€uroMeinke]

Of course, sometimes I think it a mistake to presume an artist fully understands the impact or sometimes even meaning of their work as most art can be grasped in so many complex contexts. Many an "outrageous" work has turned mainstream over time. (e.g. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, Jackson Pollock's "drip" paintings, Duchamp's "ready-mades," Godard's jumpy editing, etc,)