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

Alex · 04-22-2008, 03:01 PM

Here's my approximate definition of art and it has almost nothing to do with the product involved (and it has definitely changed a lot over the years; not too long ago I would have been among those wondering why much in SFMOMA is considered art).

Art is the intersection of the ego implicit in standing before the world and saying "this thing, for which I am responsible for placing in this context/configuration/construction/composition, is worthy of your attention simply as the thing it is" and at least one other person saying "you're right."

Kevy Baby · 04-22-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Art is the intersection of the ego implicit in standing before the world and saying "this thing, for which I am responsible for placing in this context/configuration/construction/composition, is worthy of your attention simply as the thing it is" and at least one other person saying "you're right."

By that definition, a flasher (well, his appendage at least) is considered art. The cop who busts him is that one person saying "you're right"

Alex · 04-22-2008, 04:01 PM

Sure, perhaps. And getting arrested doesn't necessarily make something less art. Graffiti can certainly be art but I have no problem with the idea that the person doing it should be arrested if caught.

After all, no one really argues that it could be art (the flashing) when done on a stage. At which points in the millions of ways we can think to iteratively subtly alter that agreed upon starting point does it lose that essence? I would argue that so long as you maintain that connection between the "artist" and the "enabler" then it is still art. Perhaps art that gets you put in the slammer. Quite likely art that I have zero interest in seeing. But then if me liking/approving of something is a required element of being art the world of generally accepted art would get much smaller.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812 · 04-22-2008, 04:56 PM

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.

04-22-2008, 03:01 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Here's my approximate definition of art and it has almost nothing to do with the product involved (and it has definitely changed a lot over the years; not too long ago I would have been among those wondering why much in SFMOMA is considered art). Art is the intersection of the ego implicit in standing before the world and saying "this thing, for which I am responsible for placing in this context/configuration/construction/composition, is worthy of your attention simply as the thing it is" and at least one other person saying "you're right."
	Submit to Quotes

04-22-2008, 04:01 PM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Sure, perhaps. And getting arrested doesn't necessarily make something less art. Graffiti can certainly be art but I have no problem with the idea that the person doing it should be arrested if caught. After all, no one really argues that it could be art (the flashing) when done on a stage. At which points in the millions of ways we can think to iteratively subtly alter that agreed upon starting point does it lose that essence? I would argue that so long as you maintain that connection between the "artist" and the "enabler" then it is still art. Perhaps art that gets you put in the slammer. Quite likely art that I have zero interest in seeing. But then if me liking/approving of something is a required element of being art the world of generally accepted art would get much smaller.
	Submit to Quotes

04-22-2008, 04:56 PM	#4
Eliza Hodgkins 1812 Sputnik Sweetheart Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Long Beach Posts: 2,685	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.
	Submit to Quotes