BARBELITH underground
 

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


Modern art seems to be a pretty good racket

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Cop Killer
17:27 / 17.06.01
So, I was thinking of becoming an artist, but I can't draw or anything of the sort, so I figured I'd become one of those new fangled modern artist, cuz all I'd have to do is staple or duct tape a bunch of crap together, say it's art and suckers will buy it. If anyone asks about meaning I'll say "Pfft, it's painfully obvious what the meaning is and don't want to insult your intelligence by having to come out and tell you." Or will people actually be able to tell that I'm just in it for the money?
 
 
vajramukti
17:37 / 17.06.01
display an empty space as your work and say that you are making a statement about the dissappearance of art.

That's if anyone asks. If you act pretentious enough and fly into a rage every time someone doesn't "get it", sooner or later people will stop looking for you to make something physical, and pay you to come to their parties and show your "work", just by standing around.
 
 
Pin
18:58 / 17.06.01
No, Kent, no one will think you're in it for the money. After all, art is given a much higher importance in society then mere money, and all artists are considered as, as the famous and well used phrase goes "in it for the large ammount of respect they're work gains from an art literate society" and not merely out to look fat and rich.

Honestly, as if someone could be cynical enough to think you were only creating art for the sake of mere money...
 
 
Rollo Kim, on location
19:05 / 17.06.01
If you don't already know the right people it'll take you about fifteen years to get there - that's a hell of a long way to go for a gag!
 
 
Lee
19:14 / 17.06.01
I think you might have missed the boat;
modern art faces its greatest challenge yet.
 
 
ynh
19:51 / 17.06.01
See, Rollo, haven't you heard the "most of history's great artists were well funded, too," quote? Take Jeff Koons for example. HE madea potload of money on Wall Street and then decided he was an artist. People eventually start making the meaning for you.
 
 
Cop Killer
20:22 / 17.06.01
Is there any way to just go out and meet the right people? Cuz I can be charming if I really want to.
 
 
ynh
20:26 / 17.06.01
Find out where they hang out and who's catering. Dress as a caterer...
 
 
Rollo Kim, on location
20:31 / 17.06.01
Yeah, it's a tricky subject isn't it?

But it really bothers me because I've always loved art, but I'm from the middle of nowhere, and a bit too working class [even for those that aspire to it]. But even my welder-Dad painted - he 4ucking loved art.

create

I guess I don't care if I make penny one out of it - I don't even care about wether I'm really producing anything physical anymore! It's my 4uxking right to create stuff and if it pisses people off then that's there loss!


The Invisibles to me is art = it's 4ucking beautiful, "Like a beautiful 4ucking poem" and it makes your head spin. It expands the brain and makes you horny - how can that be bad?
 
 
Rollo Kim, on location
20:32 / 17.06.01
Meeting the right people? Dunno - how big are your boobs/buns?
 
 
Cop Killer
20:38 / 17.06.01
quote:Originally posted by Rollo Kim:
Meeting the right people? Dunno - how big are your boobs/buns?


Big boobs wouldn't help me at all, twould make me look rather odd, actually.
 
 
Rollo Kim, on location
20:44 / 17.06.01
well what about your ass/arse/buns/bumcakes then?
 
 
deletia
23:02 / 17.06.01
So, CK, are you saying that modern artists are talentless shysters, that modern art patrons are sufficiently vulnerable to be open to exploitation by talentless shysters, or that it is possible to make money by selling "modern art" despite being a talentless shyster, irrespective of the presence of other, truly talented modern artists?

And do not you think that at least one of these viewpoints is rather reactionary?

And, most importantly, how nice are your balls?
 
 
Cop Killer
00:10 / 18.06.01
quote:Originally posted by Rollo Kim:
well what about your ass/arse/buns/bumcakes then?


I like it.

And I never said modern artists were untalented, I said that I am, but I was wondering if I could get by on that within the medium of modern art.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:59 / 18.06.01
%Yes, Cop Killer, being a successful modern artist is easy as pie, financially rewarding, and there's no hard graft involved at all.%

The board's been up less than 24 hours and already it's making me want to drown things. Is this good?
 
 
Rollo Kim, on location
08:59 / 18.06.01
Oh yes, definitely, that's definitely a good thing.
 
 
bio k9
11:46 / 18.06.01
But only if you drown them in rhino vomit.

(edited because I can't spell worth a damn.)

[ 18-06-2001: Message edited by: Biologic K-9 ]
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
13:34 / 18.06.01
quote:Originally posted by Biologic K-9:
But only if you drown them in rhino vomit.

And charge money to those who want to watch. It's not a puppy-execution - it's a Happening! You'll be the new Hermann Nitsch.

Performance art, baby.

[ 18-06-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ]
 
 
Rollo Kim, on location
14:19 / 18.06.01
The thing that I love about performance art is the way it allows you to act like a total, shit-eating scary 4ucker, and you can call it art, and people wanna write books about you, put your sexy bits in their mouths, and give you cash to take pictures of you doing this stuff, in a big 4ucking clown constume with your feet in a bucket of Rhino sick, screaming at strangers with your eyelids taped open and your trollies around your ankles, until you lose a lung.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
20:03 / 18.06.01
CK, you say you're not talented, and yet one could consider this whole thread a performance art of sorts. It's very Andy Kaufman, if you ask me...
 
 
spoot
20:12 / 18.06.01
Just stand there all dressed in black and say "I don't deserve this award, but I have arthritis and I don't deserve that either."
--- that's by Jack Benny btw
 
 
Cop Killer
00:23 / 19.06.01
I just want money to get tattooed and go to Graceland, and this whole working thing is for the birds...
 
 
Rollo Kim, on location
08:40 / 19.06.01
I've just discovered Andy Kaufman - I mean, obviously I haven't discovered him, I mean "Have you forgotten how good it tastes" discovering!

I don't know if it's art but I like it!
 
 
Moth
03:06 / 20.06.01
cK, I assume you're just being cheeky with this whole thread, but you might want to check out the work of Maurizio Cattelan. He's all over your racket. Maong other things, he regularly sends more educated friends to impersonate him at interviews and speaking engagements, constantly comes up with new ways to avoid work, like the time he had a major installation due and on the last day, acted as if he had procrastinated so much that he had gotten nothing done, so he knotted together some bedsheets and climbed out the window. he has pulled pranks on every gallery that's shown him, including breaking into another gallery and stealing another artist's work, and then displaying it as his own without even bothering to take it out of the boxes. Another time, he organized an art show in the Caribbean, but put on no exhibit, basically meaning he got a bunch of sponsors to donate money so that he and a couple artists could go to the beach for a while. Much of it is staged, sure, but it's often about laziness, procrastination, and avoidance of effort. Other times, he puts an enormous amount of work into things, but they're usually equally subversive.

He hires other people to do much of his work for him, which means he makes barely any money on his shows - but it beats working. There's nothing interesting about him online: check out the book of photos and interviews Phaidon published about him recently.
 
 
Moth
03:10 / 20.06.01
quote:Originally posted by deletia:
And do not you think that at least one of these viewpoints is rather reactionary?


right on, deletia.

[ 20-06-2001: Message edited by: Moth ]
 
 
levon
03:32 / 20.06.01
The worst part is when your friend invites you to see their performance art and it's just an hour and half of them moving in slow motion putting potatoes in a basket. And then solicits you for a critique.
 
 
theroadtorio
06:46 / 20.06.01
How do you critique something like that? Stare at a pot of yoghurt for 75 minutes, then tap a spoon against your forehead for 3 hours. Should do it.

I saw a show a while back where the artist was inside a box. The idea being you open it, ta-daa, and interact with them for a bit. Only, no one actually opened the box. (The trick with this sort of thing is to have a transparent container, I think.) In the bar afterwards, she spent half an hour being stroppy and pissed off, and then her friends persuaded here that people not opening the box 'meant' she'd succeeded even more in getting her point across than if they had done so.

Well. At least that way she wasn't pissed off.

And modern art is no more of a racket than anything else. It's just easier to see the racket being done sometimes.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:26 / 20.06.01
I wouldn't even go that far, adrian - I think it's just that people are under the illusion that they can see the racket 'being done'. And I'd blame our continued foolish adherence to a Protestant work ethic, but what do I know...

[ 20-06-2001: Message edited by: Zenith ]
 
 
Liloudini
08:38 / 20.06.01
I think it's important, before describe more examples of what is mention as modern art, see several issues about it, discussed. I will put them in a question form:

Art is the same as art business and his representatives? Money/critics/galleries/artists circuit, is the place where we can find the definition of actual art?

Art= ability to draw , art= capacity to think and convey meaning or...?

Modern art, contemporary art or....?

The receiver of art and the convey of meaning in the work of art...what kind of relation between them? Immediacy or...?

Several questions I feel relevant to this topic...

[ 20-06-2001: Message edited by: liloudini ]
 
 
Saveloy
08:38 / 20.06.01
CK, if you were serious about it I'd say do a degree in fine art, preferably at Goldsmiths or St Martins in London. Any potential gallery owners or buyers are less likely to think you're just a cynical schmuck trying his luck if you've put at least 3 or 4 years in at college, especially if it's one with a reputation for producing 'names'. Despite all the 'anyone can do it' talk about art, when it comes to being accepted by the mafia (upon which success generally depends) education does, believe it or not, still count for a lot. That's not to say you can't make it without training (Francis Bacon for instance); if you want to try it that way, better to show skill at more traditional forms like painting, where the value (or otherwise)is explicit. With conceptual art, where the point of the whole thing is not so clear, you've always got the "is this guy taking the piss or what?" problem to contend with and you'll encounter more suspicion if you've not shown the commitment to your subject that a few years of education implies.
 
 
theroadtorio
10:49 / 20.06.01
Originally posted by Zenith: I wouldn't even go that far, adrian - I think it's just that people are under the illusion that they can see the racket 'being done'. And I'd blame our continued foolish adherence to a Protestant work ethic, but what do I know...

You might be right there. I was thinking along the lines of 'people are used to the idea that paint put into an arrangement and contained within a frame = art', so they tend not to question it. And complaints about 'my five year old coulda done that' are now understood to be tired. Art that exists in forms other than combinations of paint + frame continues to be viewed with suspicion (if at all) by many: they know there's a racket going on somewhere, and b'god they'll find it. And then go home, watch tv and quite happily accept what it's pumping out, whether in the form of advertising, news, soap opera or game shows, all of which -- like art -- depend on people being willing to enter into a bubble reality that has its own protocols.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:19 / 20.06.01
There was a very good article in the paper the other day about how people are suspicious of conceptual artists because a lot of them don't do the 'real' work, for example the assembley of a piece, themselves. The writer pointed out that we still give architects full credit for designing a building, so why should art be any different? It's an interesting side of the debate... I myself, despite what I said above, often find it hard to shake the gut reaction neatly summed up by Luke Haines: "signing your name is not enough".
 
 
Saveloy
12:40 / 20.06.01
Adrian:
"You might be right there. I was thinking along the lines of 'people are used to the idea that paint put into an arrangement and contained within a frame = art', so they tend not to question it... ...Art that exists in forms other than combinations of paint + frame continues to be viewed with suspicion (if at all) by many"


Yeah, that was sort of what I was saying at the end of my post above. I find it helps if you think of it as a transaction between artist and viewer. With a painting, the nature of the transaction is fairly explicit - whilst the viewer may not know exactly what the artists intends for them to get out of it (if anything), they at least know exactly what to do in order to get it: they just have to look at the damn thing. It's all there in the lines, shapes, colours etc. They don't even have to bother about the artists intentions, they are allowed to simply decide whether or not they like it. We feel comfortable doing this because we are used to deriving pleasure from visuals. It is in our nature to do it, it is instinctive. If you had never seen a painting before, if you had never even heard of art and were presented with a picture, be it the maddest abstract painting ever, you would probably still respond to it in entirely the 'right' way.

With a conceptual or installation piece, however, it is not at all clear what we are meant to do with it, not unless you are armed with some sort of explanation from the artist. [I can't be arsed finishing this, you get the gist, don't you?]
 
 
Saveloy
12:56 / 20.06.01
Zenith:

"The writer pointed out that we still give architects full credit for designing a building, so why should art be any different?"

Theoretically there shouldn't be a difference, but practically there is a world of difference between Sir Norman Foster spending months, possibly years designing something that takes into account all the needs of the client, that won't fall down, that works etc, and Jeff Koons giving some craftsman a model of a toy train and saying "make that in chrome".
 
 
Liloudini
17:39 / 20.06.01
quote: Theoretically there shouldn't be a difference, but practically there is a world of difference between Sir Norman Foster spending months, possibly years designing something that takes into account all the needs of the client, that won't fall down, that works etc, and Jeff Koons giving some craftsman a model of a toy train and saying "make that in chrome"

With no intentions of a value analysis of Norman Foster or Jeff Koons work and seeing the problem in a general way, i think there is in here a important distinction to do: the issues of art are not the same as the architecture ones. It's respective works don't have the same function and it's relation with persons that see/think about it/use them are not the same. Maybe this difference should be considered in the comparison and analysis of two such different fields as architecture and art. Maybe a value analysis related with use concept are not opportune when we talk about art. There is a world of difference between art and architecture because in it's theory (and consequently on practice) the difference it's intrinsic.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply