Is that art?
 

I found this article pretty funny. Frankly, I wish I knew what people are thinking when they call some things art - because whatever it is, it sure isn't anything normal.

From the Cincinatti Enquirer:
So what do you think?
Where does "art" end? Is what this guy was doing "art?"

that kind of thing has been done before. i guess in a way it's performance art. but walking across it dressed up only lasts so long before it gets old, so it seems more like just like an "ok, i get it" sort of statement. real performance art is just that. a performance, with a message, not an act. but for most people, whether you agree or disagree with what he's saying is what will push most people to one side of the fence or the other.

Well it is art, maybe not good art, but it's art nonetheless. The problem is too many people rely on "hit you over the head" tatics. When someone claims they're "pushing the envelope" usually they're not. In order for a message to sink in, art needs to be subtle and subversive IMO, and it requires the viewer to analyze and deconstruct the piece, which doesn't happen often in this culture of instant gratification.

I would not consider that art, but I have no problem with it. He should have got the dog to pee on the flag.

Art is something that someone just calls when they are done making it.

You may not think it's art but someone else might think it is, just like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

Re: Is that art?
 

Not really, no. It might have been some kind of "art" (as in "art of insulting your patrons") the first several dozen times, but these days it's more of a cliche. It's become more "manufacturing" than "art". I think it'd be art to go up to the guy and hang a sign with "Cliche" on it around his neck while he was performing his "art".

I think that'd speak to all involved, very clearly.

It sounds more like asking for attention then art to me...

Sure it's art... It may not have been all that thought provoking in this day and age. However, performance art is just a tad difficult to speak about without actually being there.

As for contemporary art in general, I find that a lot of it is really about the theory behind the peice rather than the peice itself. It is meant to be discussed in the context of Art rather than as an end product.

As an artist, I know how strange the crowd is... but unfotunately, anything can be called art and have a price slapped on it... the more expensive... more high-end collectors will be interested in it.

Art is a personal decision, in my opinion. Just because one person thinks something is art doesn't mean the next person who comes along has to think that as well. For that matter, if I feel something is art, then I'm right even if no one else in existence agrees. It means something to me, so it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks unless I allow it to.

As to the performance piece in question, I think it falls short. The artists seems to be of the assumption that the viewer will know and understand his intentions. But the fact is that whether or not he meant to disrespect the flag makes no difference... each viewer is going to react in his or her own way regardless of what the artist desired. To some, that might mean anger. To others, perhaps confusion or indecision or even agreement. And so on. The bottomline is that an artist is rarely available to the average viewer to explain what they were trying to do in a work of art... rarely there to explain what they were trying to say or not say. The viewer is left to interpret the work by themselves and will generally do so in terms that are at least partially unique to that viewer. If I see a painting by Van Gogh, I can't ask him why he painted the chair red... I have to find my own answers if I want them. The best art, in my opinion, stands on its own.

Whatever message the artist is trying to convey has been squashed by other questions that emerged instead. I mean, it's safe to say this is concept art... it's trying to put across some idea, rather than just present an aesthetic vision like might be found in a landscape painting. But I have yet to see any discussion about what's actually going on in the performance... the discussion has been "Is this Art?" rather than "What does this mean?" It's a good debate, but I doubt it's the reaction the artist was after. The American flag is a loaded image and using it in a work of art is often going to provoke a lot of strong reactions. As an artist, you have to be careful how you use such images or your influence over the viewer's response can easily disappear. I think this artist lost that influence.

Of course, maybe this artist's goal actually was to call into question what is and isn't art. I don't believe that personally, but that does appear to be what he achieved. If that's the case then I think he should look to artists who have done a much better job with that concept, like Duchamp or Magritte.

So, is this art? I suspect that for most people who are angered by a work... this one or any other... their answer will generally be no: "I'm angry and I hate this... there's no way it can be art!" But I'm not really angered by it. Honestly, I'm more interested in this discussion than in the performance that provoked it. I'm kind of apathetic to the artwork itself, and that makes it difficult for me to call it "Art."

Let me pose another question: Was performance the best method for his art, or might he have been better served trying something like video or a series of prints?

It's possible that he used the wrong medium, sure. Maybe he could write, or draw, or make movies, or chain himself by the leg to a flag pole, or...

as soon as something pisses me off, it changes from art to a reason for me to pound the "artist"

I believe that as long as it's not destructive to something else or stolen from something else.

Blending a goldfish is not, nor are readymades, or any of that crap. But something like Mapplethorpe which is offensive, but really well made, that's art to me, although I dislike it.

Art is anything and everthing except for some things.

It may be art.But it's really bad art.

I remember reading the contemporary reviews that were included while visiting an exhibition of well known Impressionist art including Monets. They were scathing and did not consider the work as anything but garbage. Now they are considered masterpieces. Who is to say what Art is?