Pavement pizza or just producing the same thing over and over again was something one artist did, he ended up depressed because whenever he did anything else it was mocked as not as good as just spraying paint on a canvas in an almost random manner. I do sympathise with him, sometimes your art is subjective and sometimes you can’t do anything subjective because of the pressure from pretentious art critics. Yes break the mould, no don’t keep doing the same thing, that just breaks the old.
I loved that he couldn’t do anything else because anything else wasn’t a Pollock, arbitrary is sad, and he died for his art. What art needs is originality of course.
Google the K foundation. An artist guild that burnt one million pounds in protest of the Turner Prize, even though it wasn’t art it was. Because it made a statement about the state of art.
How much money did they make from that? You can probably understand why many people are cynical about the shock value of art from that. It’s shocking to burn the queens image and illegal but ironically that was a brilliant way of making money out of art. A policeman who was there just said so be it. I can’t argue with that…
A brilliant art from only because they were fed up of the pretentious nature of modern art. And rightly so. Art isn’t objective totally, no one should judge what art is in a vacuum, the Systene chapel is art, is it? Not the Turner Prize committee not no one can be the definite arbiter of art. It’s not the fricking Nobel prize it’s just subjectively art. If you’re going to award people for making art at least award things that aren’t out to shock people solely, that actually say something per se. A lazy woman who lives in a tip and sells her bed as art, is the same as a lazy non artist who sells her bed, the finanical value shouldn’t be different if its saying nothing more than you are a tart.
Now and now only because of now, and what it meant to those who did it, that is art. At least it was shocking enough to matter, because most modern art is just banal.
Oh I know but it’s better than the shit that was on offer at the Turner Prize awards at the time. Sincerely they were awful, sheep in pickle? Clucking Bell that was lame.
I think that’s the point, it was so stupid as to highlight just how stupid you could get with making artistic statements and getting money off them in shock value, they made a fortune out of burning money. How the hell does that work? They sold more albums. Publicity.
Life is just ironic and you could not, not, not make this stuff up.
There are much easier ways to make money. The fact that some artists do art for…money (gasp!) should not be reason to dismiss all transgressive art. This has been my point.
That is a sort of the problem… In this land of individualism everyone buys off the rack… True individuals only have two forms of self expression…The legal one is art, and the illegal one is immorality, with porn being considered as immoral, and often, illegal…Since art represents skill at some level, art is rare, and crime is common, and it is art for the untalented…
I edited my post, because the second part is not quite right. I do think such a picture is beautiful in that case; but art? The question remains: what is art? I just made the mistake of trying to determine it from the perspective of the witness… In fact I think art is any creation that arises in a state of sublimated sexual arousal. But then, I suspect the sexual drive is man’s fundamental drive. I’m still pursuing that suspicion.
