Is that art? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SecretMethod70 · 06-05-2003, 12:59 AM

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:

Quote:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200..._bronson4.html

Maybe both
Is that art or a joke?

My favorite Cincinnati joke is the one about two sheriff's deputies standing at the Mapplethorpe exhibit back in 1989 at the old Contemporary Arts Center. The first one asks, "So, whaddya think? Is that art?''

The second thinks awhile, then replies: "I dunno. I've never seen Art with his clothes off.''

Now Cincinnati has a new $35 million arts center - the Lois & Richard Rosenthal Center for Contemporary Art - and the taxpayers who contributed $10 million to build it were thanked with another poke in the eye. On opening night, a Chinese performance artist in a police uniform, with a Doberman on a leash, walked on an American flag.

Was it art - or just a bad joke?

Naked emotions

"Performance art can trigger a wide range of emotions,'' assistant curator Matthew Distel explained. "Some is deliberately provocative to stimulate conversation and thinking.''

It stimulated me to think some nitwit deliberately insulted our nation and our city and the soldiers and cops who protect the rights of artists who perpetrate imbecilities in the name of free expression.

Distel said the "flag desecration issue'' was discussed with artist Zhang Huan before Saturday's opening-night performance. But, "I don't think he would have understood that as a gesture of disrespect.''

I guess that makes us even. Huan doesn't understand America, and most Americans don't understand contemporary art.

I admit I am clueless. But from what I gathered, it has a lot to do with pictures of naked people.

During my tour of the empty museum on Monday, I saw some pretty weird stuff that pretends to be "art". And it did make me think: Gee, if I hang a disco ball from the ceiling and call it art, will some "ahrts'' patron with ocean-deep pockets and a wading-pool mind buy it?

Meat the artist

What about that "artist'' who creates "schizophrenic'' pictures of someone cooking and eating human body parts? Shouldn't someone introduce him to the Chinese artist dressed in a "suit'' of raw pot roasts? Wouldn't that be "performance art?"

How about those plywood tepees with portholes and artificial turf?

Is that art?

"That's the right question to ask,'' said deputy director Andree Bober. "We're here to provide a forum to ask, 'What is art?' We're not here to provide the answers.''

And that made me think: That's a cool idea.

From one angle, the new arts center looks like a children's museum for demented adults only. From another, it looks like a hole in the fence where we can slip through occasionally to test the boundaries of our freedom of expression.

I'm in favor of that.

But gratuitously insulting the taxpayers who paid for it is still stupid.

So here's a new joke:

Two cops are standing at the Rosenthal center on opening night, watching a Chinese guy walking his dog on an American flag. The first one says, "Whaddya think. Is that art?''

The second one says, "No. It looks more like felony fraud by some bonehead impersonating an artist.''

E-mail pbronson@enquirer.com or call 768-8301.

So what do you think?
Where does "art" end? Is what this guy was doing "art?"

mystmarimatt · 06-05-2003, 01:13 AM

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.

Spungfoo · 06-05-2003, 01:25 AM

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.

yotta · 06-05-2003, 02:05 AM

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

Cynthetiq · 06-05-2003, 06:09 AM

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.

denim · 06-05-2003, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
So what do you think?
Where does "art" end? Is what this guy was doing "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.

krwlz · 06-05-2003, 07:17 AM

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

Charlatan · 06-05-2003, 07:46 AM

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.

THE MAC GOD · 06-05-2003, 08:13 AM

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.

silas · 06-05-2003, 12:48 PM

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?

denim · 06-05-2003, 01:13 PM

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...

TaLoN · 06-05-2003, 01:49 PM

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

hilbert25 · 06-05-2003, 02:48 PM

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.

eyeronic · 06-05-2003, 11:09 PM

Art is anything and everthing except for some things.

dmay · 06-06-2003, 05:51 AM

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

Frowning Budah · 06-06-2003, 01:36 PM

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?

06-05-2003, 01:13 AM	#2 (permalink)
mystmarimatt Omnipotent Ruler Of The Tiny Universe In My Mind Location: Oreegawn	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. __________________ Words of Wisdom: If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

06-05-2003, 02:05 AM	#4 (permalink)
yotta Irresponsible	I would not consider that art, but I have no problem with it. He should have got the dog to pee on the flag. __________________ I am Jack's signature.

06-05-2003, 06:09 AM	#5 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	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. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-05-2003, 07:46 AM	#8 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	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. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-05-2003, 08:13 AM	#9 (permalink)
THE MAC GOD Insane Location: In front of my keyboard.	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. __________________ Why continue fighting? Is it for Love? Illusions. All as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as Love.

06-05-2003, 01:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
Spungfoo Insane Location: Pittsburgh, PA	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.

06-05-2003, 07:17 AM	#7 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	It sounds more like asking for attention then art to me...

06-05-2003, 12:48 PM	#10 (permalink)
silas Upright Location: Texas	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?

06-05-2003, 01:13 PM	#11 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	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...

06-05-2003, 01:49 PM	#12 (permalink)
TaLoN Loser Location: MI	as soon as something pisses me off, it changes from art to a reason for me to pound the "artist"

06-05-2003, 02:48 PM	#13 (permalink)
hilbert25 Psycho Location: nOvA	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.

06-05-2003, 11:09 PM	#14 (permalink)
eyeronic I run E. Location: New York	Art is anything and everthing except for some things. __________________ I hold with those that favor fire.

06-06-2003, 05:51 AM	#15 (permalink)
dmay Tilted Location: west virginia	It may be art.But it's really bad art.

06-06-2003, 01:36 PM	#16 (permalink)
Frowning Budah Slave of Fear	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?