Arty Tosser

Von

CALGARY - The Banff Centre, one of the country's most prestigious cultural institutions, has provided about $1,300 in financial assistance for a Mexican performance artist to ejaculate into glass vials as part of an international artist exchange agreement.

Story here.

With real life events rendering science fiction redundant it was only a matter of time before "art" went beyond self-parody.

Monkey

well may I ask what is your definition of art? Nice paintings of flowers ?

There was a similar thing a while back with an artist who breathed into glass jars and captured litres of water vapour from his breath which I thought was good, I've no views on the sperm yolk yet as I've not seen it but have you?

And it's hardly a lot of money now is it? Governments tend to spend millions of pounds of money of taxpayers money on crap eg the Irish Government spent loads to have a Luas train put opposite leinster house for a couple of days as little more than a publicity stunt

DadaKopf

Calm down, mate.

Evil Phil

sperm yolk

I am actually lol

Monkey

I was calm

Doc

In my opinion this all started when artists stopped trying to paint things exactly like they are (i.e. like a photo) and started trying to crate art for arts sake.

A lot of modern art is crap (some literally) but it is all generally is experimental, trying to evoke a reaction from the viewer or trying to get across an idea or feeling.

The problem I see developing from modern art is that you can no longer tell if something is a work of art or someone's half eaten lunch.

DadaKopf

Yeah, yeah. Anyway, art isn't the thing at all, it's the process. Whether it's made out of linseed oil and beetle shells or someone's lunch is less important than the effect it has on your horizon, your way of seeing the world.

It's the same as linguistic communication - it's not entirely language that's important, it's what's being conveyed. Art is the whole act of awareness, begining at one point of perception and ending where another one begins.

I know I was able to say this better before. I think this is where people get the notion of art all wrong; they concentrate too much on what it's made of instead of what it does and, more importantly, where it comes from and where it goes.

"The pictures I contemplate painting would constitute a halfway state and an attempt to point out the direction of the future - without arriving there completely."
- Jackson Pollock.

In fact, it's where they get everything wrong, even artists. There's this distinction between the art (object) and the viewer (subject). That's crap - it's the whole goddamn game. I mean, does language have a life of its own outside the human mind? Is it separate to the world? Are we separate from our bodies?

No.

Art shows the relationship between all these things. Look at how ancient cave paintings were about early humans merging with the rock - blending subject and object. They created stories - each piece wasn't atomised, hung on a wall and made to look significant on its own, apart from everything else.

rachel

Isn't a lot of art about getting a reaction?
Seems like this piece has succeeded then...

klong

The Turner prize nominations always generate controversy as to what is art. Last year's winning piece was a female artists bed with soiled blankets, used condoms etc on display. This years winner was a bundle of scrunched-up paper balls. Eurotrash had a Belgian artist who built a machine that, when fed, produced excrement on a conveyor belt. Is art becoming a way of shocking people, rather than giving an exact rendition of what something is, or is it trying to show us the realities of modern life, except in a newe and [extremely] different way?

adnans

well i would stop short and will not call a vial of jizzum art. thats just taking the whole modern art thing too far. as for the turner prize and the whole tate modern vs saatchi gallery, its all getting a bit out of hand. the most experimental and "mad out of it" art in general is picked while traditional art is put aside. must be the money thing? didnt madonna present the turner prize award this year? yeah thats right.

but if you want to call a light going on and off art, then im ****ing worth a fortune myself. my new piece is called "writing a post on boards.ie". bidding starts at €10,000

adnans

Evil Phil

Eurotrash had a Belgian artist who built a machine that, when fed, produced excrement on a conveyor belt.

That sound quite good actually, do you have a link?

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by rachel
Isn't a lot of art about getting a reaction?
Seems like this piece has succeeded then...

As someone with a modicum of a clue, I resent the fact that the above statement has become some kind of "get out of jail free" card for artists. The amount of times this has been used as an excuse for poor, second-rate ideas is, quite frankly, appalling.

So the artist expected people to turn around and say "This isn't art"? Way to go, braniac. That's exactly what you'll get when you put a light going on and off in a room and call it "art".

Happily, I think people are starting to come around to it. Almost every news report I saw and read regarding the Turner prize was given in a half-mocking tone, with a slight hint of "what-the-fuck-are-they-trying-to-pass-off-as-art-this-time". It was almost heartwarming.

As for the sperm in a jar thing... it only reaffirmed for me my belief that modern art is roughly five years behind porno - they've finally discovered bukkake.

rachel

I resent the fact that the above statement has become some kind of "get out of jail free" card for artists. The amount of times this has been used as an excuse for poor, second-rate ideas is, quite frankly, appalling.

At the moment too much of art comes across as pretentious rubbish and I'd be just as happy staring at the pictures hung up in McDonalds than going back to the Tate Modern.
So while I don't want to jump in and defend a mass amount of crap obviously the artist considered what reaction he was going to get at some stage in the procedure and although a reaction doesn't guarantee art, in some pieces, the reaction is the whole point of the piece.
I agree with you when you say that it has been used as an excuse in the past, but not everytime has been to defend poor, second-rate ideas...

Monkey

"This years winner was a bundle of scrunched-up paper balls" - no it wasn't one of the pieces was a single a4 sheet of paper scrunched into a ball, did you even see it? It was just one of the works the "artist" produced

"well i would stop short and will not call a vial of jizzum art" - well it's a good thing it's not up to you to decide what is or isn't art.

"didnt Madonna present the turner prize award this year? yeah thats right." yes, that's right apparently she's a collector of fine art and well music is art to isn't it? Regardless of whether it's good or not.

Change is essential and repetition is the enemy of creativity. The artists of the renaissance revolutionized art they changed the aproach to art the attitude to art and it's function, so did the impressionists so why shouldn't the artists of today?

Painting that is purely representational art has become obselete, the camera does the job better than any human being ever has. if you want to do it then it's up to you it might give you some pleasure and people may appreciate the work that has gone into it but I don't consider it good art.

For me art must invlove the communication of some idea and can involve whatever media the artist wishes to use. If you have no ideas of your own to communicate and have to resort to recreating what you see around you then i don't think you are a very creative artist or indeed a very good artist .

If you ask yourself "what am I trying to express with this piece of art?" and answer "nothing" is there any point in creating it?

If you have nothing to say keep your mouth closed

DadaKopf

To be honest, against my better judgement, Creed was deserving of the Turner prize (a basic jinxing of artists) and the committee was brave to award it.

Creed's basic manifesto is ultra-minimalism. When asked about his works, he refuses to say anything about them other than saying what they are. About four months ago, he was asked what his reason for sticking a piece of Blu-Tak to the wall of the Tate was; his only response: "it's my way of saying hello".

It takes guts to refuse to defend your ideas. With those idiots, the Stuckists protesting outside the award ceremony the other night, it certainly put the whole debate into focus.

Without saying it, like the Dadaists' anti-art mentality, Creed is addressing this whole issue of "does a pot of putrid fish smelling jizzum really pass as art?" Creed isn't making art, he's throwing a spanner in the works. It's the critics who are calling it art. Should we accept that?

Anyway, Creed's been doing the minimalist thing for a good while now and has been gaining fans - he has a band as well that plays really minimalist songs like 'Nothing'. When I heard it, it reminded me of guys like Jonathan Richman - and what's wrong with that!?

I think that Creed's (somewhat smug) spanner in the works of art has lulled not just the posh critics but the public out of some false sense of comfort with the role of art. For another few months, it's going to interest us - but moreso the artists and for the people whose living it is, maybe we'll look back at Creed as the one who helped rescue British art from the swamp it's pretty much found itself in.

I mean, safe isn't always good.

adnans

i was merely stating my opinion monkey. isnt that exactly what the artist that won the turner prize was trying to do? he created nothing because the world is already too cluttered with art.

im very sure that both artists are very talented and nice to their mothers, and that they deserve the art world recognition for doing something other then whats already available to us. which is nice.

but i still stand by my opinion of not considering a vial of jizzum art.

and as for madonna, an art whore like herself should know better then to curse before the watershed time. but then again, its all about the publicity.

adnans

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I think that Creed's (somewhat smug) spanner in the works of art has lulled not just the posh critics but the public out of some false sense of comfort with the role of art...

In spite of myself, I agree with most things you've said in your post. I guess every frustrated adolescent (Although I am past adolescence, I still maintain a healthy flow of frustration) will agree, since they like nothing more than to see an establishment getting asked a fresh batch of questions which they don't know the answer to.

Unfortunately, this is the same "question" ('What is art?") that people have been asking for god-knows-how-many years, since long before I was born. I resent the fact that people not only still get credit for asking it, but also get rewarded with ludicrous sums of money. As such, I cannot help but look at the Turner prize and think "£20,000"? That is roughly equivilant to a year's wages for an average, middle-class worker, and someone "earned" it by having a light go on, and then off again, and then on again [ad nauseum]. £20,000 for asking the same question (in pretty much the same manner) as has been asked since the 1920s (counting dadaism as the start of this misadventure).

In the end, I guess I'm just in the wrong business. I gotta get into this "art" business. I figure all I need is a labotomy and some tights.

C B

Originally posted by rachel
Isn't a lot of art about getting a reaction?
Seems like this piece has succeeded then...

Anybody can provoke a reaction.

My definition of art is simple. A piece of art is something that forces/allows the viewer to gain a new insight which they may not otherwise have seen. This insight must also be due to the intent of the artist.

There seems to be a school in modern art which believes that a piece can mean different things to different people. If this is the case the creator of the piece ceases to be an artist as s/he has not created the feeling/ insight in the viewer.

ykt0di9url7bc3

DaDaism;This stuff has been going on since 1916

And preformance art..well it started this thread....did it?



btw...Art kicks ass

Von

Last year, graffiti artist Banksy stencilled "Mind The Crap" on every step leading up to the Tate Gallery. Dunno what he did this year.

A few years before Tracy Emin won with the bed, Dan Clowes did a piece in his 8 Ball comic about his art school days.



My own piece "Bus In Liffey" somehow failed to even make the shortlist. Don't ask what it's about. I'm being minimalist. Also, I was very very drunk when I "created" it.

DadaKopf

What ObeyGiant said:
Unfortunately, this is the same "question" ('What is art?") that people have been asking for god-knows-how-many years, since long before I was born.

Well, like you said, it's very much used as a get out of jail free card by a lot of people. I went to see Arte Povera, a 'minimalist' exhibition of a movement of Italian artists from the 60s and 70s in the Tate last summer - one of the pieces was a huge bulb which went on for 7 seconds every seven years. Anyone could ask the question 'but is it art?' but that wasn't really a question. There was no doubt that these guys were serious artists and were continuing the ideas of Futurism. These guys were being constructive and minimal and the question of whether it was art or not wasn't really a question because they had already moved on. As has most of continental Europe. In fact, there's not much of this is-it-art-speak in Europe from what I can gather.

All this Turner prize art, or the 'Serota tendancy' of whatever you call it is most likely a symptom of the fact that Britain pretty much doesn't know what it's on about yet. These kinds of British artists are still getting off on stuff that was overcome by the rest of Europe in the 70s. British artists and critics are using this get out of jail free card because, in my opinion, they haven't anything constructive to contribute these days.

The reality is that it's always a fair question to ask but, like you pointed out, it's done (in the UK) ad nauseum. It's a fair question to ask but it takes time to get beyond it. I think it always comes about when there's significant technological or social change - when the playing field changes and people are dragged into a new kind of world. We're just going to have to put up with a lot more of this kind of stuff in the media for a while before something really worthwhile is created.

I don't resent the fact that Creed has won £20,000 for something that's been done before because being awarded the Turner Prize (for an artist like him) is the kiss of death. I don't resent the fact that someone like him can win £20,000 for such minimal effort compared with other artists but then, I like that kind of stuff. In the end of the day, it's just going to be a matter of time until we'll be able to look back on Creed and other artists and judge properly whether this was a good or bad turn for the art world. If anything, it points toward a real falsity and shallowness in British popular/artistic culture.

Monkey

"That is roughly equivilant to a year's wages for an average, middle-class worker" well its a yearly award and will allow the winning artist to live and give them freedom to work for a year.

I'm not sure you can say that a lot of work hasn't gone into Creeds art just because the actual pieces would not take long to put together - who knows how much thought went into them?

Zaphod Beeblebrox

OK this is going to get me a flaming from certain people on this post, but tbh I couldn't care less, because if I can't express my views then why the **** should these 'artists' be allowed to.

When I saw the story about the Turner on the News I didn't stamp around screaming at the outrage of it all. I just laughed. Then Creed said " I can't explain it except to say the lights are definitely on and off". I laughed so hard I nearly died choking. I knew he would say it. He had to. It was his duty. This kind of thing has been done before and will be done again. Anyone who thinks there is any kind of freshness or originality here is unfortunately being duped along with everyone else. Naturally those people will look down on me and laugh, as clearly they can see something in it that we can't. We are poor mindless plebians, while these people have expanded the boundaries of their minds. Or some other cliched ****e like that.
I can't hate Creed, in fact good luck to him, because as far as I'm concerned he's a con artist, which by definition is a form of art, and his form of conning us out of our money is perfectly legal.

Those who point out that art has always evolved, you seem to forget that in general art became 'bigger and better', more detailed, more complex, more meaningful. If you consider a lump of blu tac part of that natural evolution, then IMO you are a tit. But only IMO.
These things are only more meaningful because we use our imagination to make up anything we like. The effort required to make a piece of art like this is not creative - it's calculated. Mathematical. The artist can scribble down several concepts, then look at the different factors and choose whichever one is most likely to make people think there's 'something in it' which actually isn't there. It's not art. It's industry. Personally I don't need a lump of blu-tac to help my imagination or my creativity. These things don't help our imaginations. They destroy them. As some have mentioned, conventional art is seen as dead. So in theory if I had the most fertile imagination on the planet and some drawing and painting materials I could come up with a painting that interlinks reality and fantasy, fact and fiction, with incredible detail that no computer program or camera could ever match, a painting that makes people go 'wow'... and yet a room with lights going on and off would be considered better art. That may be your idea of a perfect world. It ain't mine.

---

On a not entirely separate note, please tell me what a semen collection means to art. Oh but I'm sure you can. In fact I have my own interpretation if some foolish mortal is to question my supreme knowledge - it's a reference to us "tossing" our lives away

Monkey

"Those who point out that art has always evolved, you seem to forget that in general art became 'bigger and better', more detailed, more complex, more meaningful" -

you've missed the mark there, bud, the impressionist's paintings were much less detailed than those that came before because the camera could capture all the detail a painter couldn't, they didn't tried to something different.

"bigger and better"? Art's function has changed over the years so the approach of the artist is different.

Zaphod Beeblebrox

And still I'd like to know what function the light room serves. Except to warn us of the dangers of hiring cheapo electricians

klong

Unfortunately, unlike you, Monkey, I'm a mortal and occasionally make mistakes.

Evil Phil, I haven't got a link, and I hardly think "excrement on a conveyor belt" would produce any definite results on a search engine.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Monkey
"That is roughly equivilant to a year's wages for an average, middle-class worker" well its a yearly award and will allow the winning artist to live and give them freedom to work for a year.

Unfortunately, I don't see this as quite the mellowdrama you make it out to be. £20,000 is a fair amount of money, but ultimately, it means little to the artists, compared to the recognition and publicity they will receive thanks to winning the prize. "Live and give them freedom to work"... how wonderful! Let me assure you, artists lives do not hang in the balance of whether they win or not. Let me also assure you of the fact that Richard Billingham has not slunk off to some low-paying office job to make ends meet, simply because he did not win the prize money.

Originally posted by Monkey
I'm not sure you can say that a lot of work hasn't gone into Creeds art just because the actual pieces would not take long to put together - who knows how much thought went into them?

Without meaning to sound facetious... although neither of us can be sure "how much thought went into ", one can at least be sure it was not TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS worth of thought.

Monkey

"how wonderful! Let me assure you, artists lives do not hang in the balance of whether they win or not" - phhh i never ever suggested that. Don't put words in my mouth

"Without meaning to sound facetious... although neither of us can be sure "how much thought went into ", one can at least be sure it was not TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS worth of thought." -

a)The award was NOT given for one single piece! It was not given on purely the strength of that installation, was it? It was given based on the artist entire work for that year, so it's a fair award for a years work by who they considered to be Britains best artist of the preceeding year. The best footballer makes a lot more.
b)money is not the key issue here.

"Unfortunately, unlike you, Monkey, I'm a mortal and occasionally make mistakes" - no, you've missed the point there, haven't you? You were discussing a piece of art you've not seen. That's why I corrected you. And before anyone points it out I know I discussed the sperm thing without having seen it, but I have no opinion on whether or not it is good art. You however appeared to take a somewhat dismissive approach to a piece of art you've never seen.