BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


If art is this easy, what's the point?

 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
10:05 / 18.04.04
My friend Hank once told me he didn't buy Dada. I asked him to explain. "What, they can just grab shit and call it art? Nah. I don't buy it. They're not makin' shit. Fuck 'em." This was a couple years ago, and at the time, I defened Dada (partly because Hank was just being an asshole and I didn't want him to just get away with it). But a recent event has me reconsidering my opinion of it all.

I'm in Japan, I'm out shopping drunk, and I see a shirt with the hammer and sickle sitting on a red star. I thought to myself "hey, that's neat lookin'" and I bought it. Four days later, it's the only clean tee I have left. I wear it out. All day people, usually the elderly, are pointing at my shirt and asking me questions in Japanese (I assume they were questions). After a while I begin to go over what little Japanese history I know. I think I remember hearing something about Japan being at war with both Russia and China, and a slightly racist World History teacher once telling me "the real reason the Japanese called it quits in WWII was because they were scared of Russia and communism in general". I'm already paranoid about offending people while in Japan (because odds are they won't tell you if you're doing it), so I begin to look for an excuse for the shirt.

At the hostel, a dutch girl asks me if I'm a communist. By now I feel like I have to justify the shirt beyond "I thought it was neat" and I find myself telling her "Nah, it's a statement." "What's it say?" she asks. "Besides that you're a communist, I mean." I tell that a middle class white kid from Detroit wearing a t-shirt with a communist symbol is a statement that reflects on how much things have changed, things like people's views on communism and the power of American pop culture in general and t-shirts in particular. It's a statement, I tell her, that can say a lot of things. It could be about victory, if you're so inclined, or something involving irony, if you tried hard enough. All of it was off the cuff bullshit, really, but she bought it.

Anyway. If I can convince people and at times even myself that something is art, is it still art? If non-art can so easily become art, as the Dada (non)movement apparently tells me, where is the value?

A guy I met the same night I wore the shirt (who was also from detroit) tells me about a supposedly japanese-in-origin quote he had recently heard. "An artist is not a type of man. Every man is an artist." Alright, cool, so if art really is an expression of something, everybody does it all the time, whether or not they are aware of it. Even non-art is art. Sure, I can buy it. But if I do, why are people spending so much money on material works of art? Why am I? And besides, where's the fun when it's so easy I can do it for bullshit reasons?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:18 / 18.04.04
You remembered hearing something about japan being at war with Russia and China? Jesus Christ.

Anyway. If I can convince people and at times even myself that something is art, is it still art? If non-art can so easily become art, as the Dada (non)movement apparently tells me, where is the value?

Way-ull, what yoiu did wasn't art, was it? You said it was a statement. "I am a dirty robot" is a statement, but it isn't art. As such, in what sense are you claiming to have created art? You bought a T-shirt, wore it and then made up a rationale for wearing it. To be exact, you did not even make a statement. Specifically, you made an excuse. This doesn't strike me as exactly art-tastic...
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
12:12 / 18.04.04
The idea is that me wearing a shirt with a communist symbol on it can be called art, or at the least, I can convince someone else to call it that. She believes me wearing that shirt expresses something more than just what the actual symbols represent. And if everything I do is an expression of part of me, then why isn't it art?

The whole story was meant to be an example of non-art becoming art because it is all art anyway, wether one personally wants it to be or not. Well, there goes all the fun for me right there. All of a sudden I've got to block everything out before everybody fills my available senses with their...expressions.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
12:17 / 18.04.04
You remembered hearing something about japan being at war with Russia and China?

Jesus Christ.


I meant aside from WWII.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:22 / 18.04.04
Forgive my impolitesse. The wars between Japan and Russia (1904-1905) and Japan and China (1894-1895, then the occupation of Manchukuo in 1931 and full war with China beginning 1937) both took palce before the two countries came under communist control, so I don't think the hammer and sickle would have been particularly relevant.
 
 
Charlie's Horse
23:57 / 19.04.04
Wow. The meaning of art. Can't... stop... myself...

I think we need a definition of terms here, folks. "Art" as in, everything we do is art, is not the "art" you buy at a clothing store, which is not the "art" I write up in a composition notebook everyday (thereabouts).

Everything is art in the sense that every time you have conscious awareness, you've paired down all your senses to just that one impression, be it of a person, a meal, a jog, a shag, a whatever. Go check out this for an example:

http://www.thisisnotthat.com/sampler/dots1.html

Go to the dots, and you'll see what I mean. Kinda cheesy, but the site's worth a runthrough.


"Even non-art is art." - Johnny O

Right, it's a matter of expanding the term 'art' to include more things - childrens rhymes, pop cult(ure) cliches, trees. Keep in mind, though: just because everything you see around you through the filtering system of "I" is art, doesn't mean that art is easy. Jesus, you ever try to form an opinion on something you don't care about? Or notice the things you never notice around you because you're lost in thought? Ever try to see a different side of a 'dumb' person? It's quite the feat.

This leads our tragic hero to:

"If I can convince people and at times even myself that something is art, is it still art?"

Sure, to them, if they don't eventually think through your fast talk. However, if you're only partially convinced part of the time - because you know you've just spouted some bullshit - then of course not. If you don't feel the authenticity of the work you do to make 'art,' then it ain't fucking art. It's that simple. And of course it's completely subjective, and subject to your own self-doubt. The trick lies in putting so much of your heart's throbbing electric blood into a work to nullify your doubt or another's opinion. Easier said than done, but it's worth the happy tears.


"Why are people spending so much money on material works of art? Why am I? And besides, where's the fun when it's so easy I can do it for bullshit reasons?" - J O

Can you really do it for bullshit reasons? If you call your own work bullshit, if you know it to have no truth but that which exists in your charisma and the persuadability of some Dutch woman, then why do you call it art? It seems you confuse the idea of any given reality as art with the concept of art as a work done deliberately by a person to create (un)beauty, (un)truth, or some other metaphysical spook.

To wit: you can persuade me that some raw arsenic is a lovely steak, if you're good enough and I'm dumb enough, but that doesn't really make it food. If I eat it I'll still die.

Why would someone spend money on bullshitesque art? Let me tell you a story.

In the Tate Modern gallery at London, you can wander around and find a huge open room - tall ceiling, expansive floor, all dull white. The room is divided into a walkway for people and a much larger, empty area. You look into the empty area, wondering if the masses of bricks cover the art. They form three neat little rectangles. Behind you, against the people-side wall, there's a history of this exhibit. The bricks are the art. The Tate paid three thousand quid for 180 regular ol' bricks (cost: less than a hundred quid). The history of the exhibit, told in newspaper clippings, stretches 30 metres - all the way down the room's long wall. When you walk out, shocked and awed, you turn around at some unknown thought. Everyone's starring at the clippings, no one pays attention to the bricks. You can't blame them but you'll begin to see why the Tate would buy such art.

Media event. The Tate allowed the artist involved to persuade them into buying the bricks, then leaking the price. Suddenly, it's a media feeding frenzy, which means exclusive and lovely free advertisements for the Tate. Everyone wants to go there, to see this new aberration that the gallery calls art, and these people probably forget their anger by wandering into the restaurant or the gift shop.

Bullshit? Pure. Art? Absolutely.

Just not in the typical sense. It wasn't an easy wrangle to make, for either party. Hell, just coming up with this idea - these bricks, this leak, a 3000 pound cheque - that's pretty fucking creative, no? They turned three thousand pounds into hundreds of thousands worth of ads and merchandizing. That's not just art, that's magic.

keflexive
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
03:14 / 20.04.04
Shit! That was a lot more than I imagined I'd get. Awesome.

Thanks for the reply, keflexive. Plenty of food for thought. Very nice.
 
  
Add Your Reply