Junk art and music.

[cuttime]

Then there is the guy that signed his name on a canvas with out painting it, he said it was the absolute in minimalist painting.

Well, I definitely dispute this: I mean really, why not just a name card, or a title? Or a frame? Or a bottle of gesso? Or a card that says "Imagine Art Here."? Or a copy of the NEA grant?

twistedtom wrote:
My question is, would you want this in your house?

No, that's what the velvet Elvii are for!

[Phil O]

My wife and I go to the annual outdoor sculpture exhibit at Chesterwood. One year there was this giant wooden chicken. It stood about 30 ft tall. The base was broad and had wheels and you could see it from quite a distance in the woods. As you approached the exhibit the name of the piece came into view - "Trojan Chicken."

Another year there was a beautiful deer or elk like animal. Again it was placed so you could see it from a distance and as you got closer you could see that it was old pieces of rusty scrap steel welded together. Standing right next to it, it appeared to be a heap of junk, but from 50 feet away it was beautiful.

So who's to say what's art?

Phil

[MIDI Life Crisis]

...who's to say what's art?

Exactly...

[cuttime]

ART

[Prime Mover]

The other thing artists need to remember is that concept art, to have any value, has to be COMPLETELY original and different from anything else before it. The whole point of conceptual art is its concept. That's its entire artistic value. It really isn't meant to have any aesthetic or artistic value outside of the idea. So if the idea isn't original, I think then it is categorically, inherently not-artistic. Now the giant canvas painted one color that actually had texture that was meant to be appreciated aesthetically ceases to be completely conceptual, and different variations can be appreciated.

But what I am hearing here is a lot of conceptual art that doesn't make any new points. Hanging a blank canvas and signing your name has already been done before, many times. 4'22" has already been written, Christ has already been pissed on, raped, shot, and generally been used to shock people.

Surprisingly, I've read that 4'22" (silence) wasn't entirely meant to be conceptual. Cage actually intended it to have some aesthetic purpose. The audience was meant to listen to the sound of the room, the airflow, each other, the few sounds of the musicians changing position, etc. When I learned this, it totally changed the meaning of the work. I thought it was completely a statement that "art can be nothing", which I don't know I agree with. But it seems Cage was not actually trying to make so much of a statement then wanting people to actually listen and appreciate the sound of a concert hall at rest. This actually doesn't make it much different from any normal work of art, just that it's infinitely more subtle, but it's not actually a paradigm shift like we think it's supposed to be. Add to the fact that it had never been done before so it does present some new questions, and I think it completely holds weight as an artistic work.

It's the difference between an artist finding beauty in the subtle texture of a canvas that he'd carefully prepared and displayed for the audience to appreciate, to taping a piece of blank printer paper to a wall with no other intention besides stating that "art can be anything" (a statement which has already been made 1000 times over). Not that conceptual art isn't art, but it's infinitely easier to define and take art seriously when it's intended to have aethetic value.

My father is a professional photographer. Practically all his artistic pieces (non-commercial work) are black & white. I grew up appreciating b&w photos, but one time I had a conversation with him about why he's drawn to non-color photography. His explanation was obvious: when you remove one aspect of something common (in this case color), you can focus on things that you wouldn't normally pay attention to. He loves photographing people in their daily lives, taking away color allows you to focus just a little more on their emotional expression, the form and geometry of the environment and the people, and light and shadows... basically our senses are heightened to all other aspects because we've removed one distraction.

Hearing this, I came to a conclusion: any time a work intends for us see something differently that we wouldn't otherwise, then it has some level of artistic value.

In that sense, 4'22" isn't any different from a b&w photo, it just removes a whole lot more aspects.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

The other thing artists need to remember is that concept art, to have any value, has to be COMPLETELY original and different from anything else before it.

I don't know. Andy did pretty well for himself...

[Prime Mover]

I meant the concept, not the subject. Warhol took commercial products and presented them as art; as far as I know, no one was doing anything like that.

Warhol's also in a gray area. I've heard his art described as conceptual, but there's no question it has a whole lot of aesthetic value beyond the basic concepts.

I was more referring to "hang a blank canvas and call it art". Everyone knows it's been done countless times, and if it's not meant to have any aesthetic purpose, then what's the point if the concept has no originality either? Put it this way, if you have no aesthetic value to present, and your concept is exactly the same as someone elses, it's plagiarism, pure and simple, and has no merit anyway.

[Phil O]

Getting back to the OP:

...I like it to be more than paint tossed randomly at a canvas, junk painted and glued together...

So how much does intent count towards it being art? If one artist spends countless hours painting blotches of color on a canvas and a second one picks up some paint and tosses it randomly in just a few seconds and the results are identical, is one more valid as art than the other? Or are they both art? Or are they both crap? I think it's a tough call.

Getting back to what I posted earlier (the rusted metal elk), I think it's a wide spectrum. One artist might take junk and assemble it into something aesthetically pleasing with great skill and another might just end up with a heap of junk. Between those extremes there's a whole lot of grey. It then entirely becomes a question of what's aesthetically pleasing. Just sayin'.

Phil

[Prime Mover]

Yeah, there are so many variables, it's really hard to put any specific value one time vs. quality. For one, a skilled artist may be able to get his thoughts down quickly, while one at the beginning of their carrier may take a long time.

Around here we have a lot of the opposite problem from what I've been talking about, though, we have a lot of commercial "tourist" art passed off as fine art. For some reason this gets to me more than anything else, and I don't know why. Cheesy landscapes or pictures of native alaskan objects, obviously designed to sell to tourists and/or people who don't know good art.

[twistedtom]

Stuff like the metal elk can be good, there is good and bad, I am not picking on all art that may be odd, or even repurposed art. I hope to go to Burning Man some day, the creative art there from the photos I have seen, and from what I have been told by friends that went to it, is wonderful. After being told if I do not like some stuff that in my mind is junk, and the artist has no real talent, I look a low brow, I feel I need to put my love of art in perspective. Our house is full of art, and some of it is abstract or modern, but what we have has good use of color, design, and has a flow to it. We have a room that is set up as an art studio. In our library we have two large art filing cabinets with art in them that we have collected, but have run out of room to hang. Some of the art is from people we know, some we have traded our art for, some we bought and some we were given. We have a number of statues about the house. My wife took art in collage, we read lots of art books, and art history books, we go to a number of shows and museums. So I do not think I am a low brow because I do not think much of a bird cage with doll heads in it spray painted. Hell that is better than some of the stuff in the Portland Museum. I have done some repurposed art my self, I put it in my yard as yard art, as I am nobody it is not in a museum, nor should it be, even though it looks nicer than some of the crap I have seen. I just feel a art museum is for master works not junk. Do you think some one who puts a Garageband song together is as much a master as some one that studied for years? If a bum takes a crap on the sidewalk can he say it is performance art? Oh wait it has been done before, so it is not original, therefore not art? As for 4 minuets of silence, if it was not John Lennon doing it no one would even talk about it, don't get mad, I would never put Lennon down, I completely admire him, but be honest.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

For one, a skilled artist may be able to get his thoughts down quickly, while one at the beginning of their carrier may take a long time.

Then again, it can take a long, long time to reach the point where you accomplish being proficient enough to create that work. Brahms took 10 years to complete the 1st Symphony.

If you guys haven't seen the movie "Pollack" and are interested in "process" then I strongly suggest you check it out. Some folks HATE it, calling it too long and taking too long to make it's point. I felt that the movie itself really showed the process of the artist. Of course, some also feel that Pollack was a better fish than an artist...

So why is this painting (hanging at MOMA, btw) worth so damn much...? Would you buy it in a thrift store for, say... $100? $50? $5? Yet it would probably sell for in the 100s of thousands of dollars and only increase in value over time. And yet, Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime (except maybe one to his brother or something like that).

Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and there is no accounting for taste. There is no answer to "what is art" just as there is no answer to what is good music or bad music. If it sounds good, it is good.



ps- There was a performance artist in MYC when I lived there would would either crap or birth (can't remember which - maybe both!) a whole potato. I never did see her "performance" but she was something a a cult legend in her time. Art? Not for this kid.

[twistedtom]

I will give you that MIDI, like you said about the artist being a salesman. I like a number of Jackson Pollock's paintings, the one you showed is a bit dark, but some of his work has more form and color, and composition that gives the eye much to look at. I would not lump his work in with what I am talking about as he developed a craft to his art, and much was pleasing to the eye. If it looks good it is good.

http://www.dw.de/cleaning-lady-destroys ... a-15510231

[twistedtom]

Loved Lachachaise's work.

http://www.portlandartmuseum.org/gastonlachaise

And bikes can be art as well, check them out.

http://www.portlandartmuseum.org/special/cyclepedia

[MIDI Life Crisis]

And bikes can be art as well, check them out.

Picasso certainly thought so. I've seen this piece and a few others he did and they are quite interesting. Simple. So simple a child could do it.... but they didn't!



More here...

[Dan Worley]

Art has a relentless protector -- time.