In a way the whole idea is brilliant. If you describe the 'art' in loose and vagueish way, everyone sees what they want to see, and there isn't any of that "I didn't like such and such!". Everyone's a Rembrandt if out having to pay for things like insurance, security, proper lighting, humidity control, that go with physical pieces.
Art?
- Thread starter freakinacage
- Start date
There are some fantastic pieces of imaginary art in literature, for example the Ekphrasis of the painting in the whalers inn in Moby Dick. But that has NOTHING in common with this utter CRAP.
Hell, if they really wanted to pull this off (as a joke, or a cynical comment on "art") they could at least attempt to do it convincing and in style. But no, they are stuttering during the whole video, generally making a less than half-assed impression. My dog could probably do a better description of an artwork than the vaguely gothy looking lady in the vid.
Hell, if they really wanted to pull this off (as a joke, or a cynical comment on "art") they could at least attempt to do it convincing and in style. But no, they are stuttering during the whole video, generally making a less than half-assed impression. My dog could probably do a better description of an artwork than the vaguely gothy looking lady in the vid.
And isn't James Franco well known for his practical joking?
secretpaintgeek
New member
What the F......
And heres me, like a mug, going to work each day when i could just be selling my thoughts to pretentious idiots.
I've wasted my life
And heres me, like a mug, going to work each day when i could just be selling my thoughts to pretentious idiots.
I've wasted my life
I believe he is
This quote from Avelorn however "Let's hope and pray that more conceptual artists go into the realm of invisibility for their future works!" should become the guiding principle of conceptual art. So much museum space will be saved....
Legacy Account
Active member
The whole thing is a big piss take and a dig at the Art Establishment. Those backers paid peanuts for an original piece of art. Whether or not they've bought something that will gain value only time will tell, but it's a very low risk investment.
I like any 'art' that winds up the narrow minded...
I like any 'art' that winds up the narrow minded...
Kickstarter has a lot of art projects, and some of them are going to be more worthwhile than others. I find it depressing how many people pledged to this one, but as far as that goes, $16,000 isn't a vast amount for one of these things.
I'm not saying I approve, but this is no dumber than the performance and installation and conceptual art that was nearly all the art world was interested in when I was young.
I'm not saying I approve, but this is no dumber than the performance and installation and conceptual art that was nearly all the art world was interested in when I was young.
Shawn R. L.
New member
Annnd if this 'piece of art' is stolen from the gallery, who would know? . . . . :dance:
The whole thing is a big piss take and a dig at the Art Establishment. Those backers paid peanuts for an original piece of art. Whether or not they've bought something that will gain value only time will tell, but it's a very low risk investment.
I like any 'art' that winds up the narrow minded...
It probably is but taken at face value it leads us to an interesting place. If idea is the form of art, then an absence of idea is the form of art too, because the absence of idea is certainly "an idea". You cannot perceive "absence" without at least some understanding what "presence" is. Then we have to admit that either nothing or everything is a form of art.... I think I need a drink :mean:
Legacy Account
Active member
That's why the work relies so heavily on its physical and visual elements - the title card and description.
It's an impossibility for any artwork to be completely absent.
Do you mean "Seriously" or more perhaps "Pretentiously"?
I'll discuss Art (Painting and Sculpture) quite seriously with anyone who wants to.
However anyone who wants to discuss in "Pretentious manner" about "Art" may get a reality check that doesn't bounce.
Einion
New member
Talking about 'art' when it's obvious you take it seriously = pretentious IMB.
Case it's not clear, making the distinction between art and 'art' (pseudo-art).
Einion
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
How would you go about making that distinction, I'm curious?
Hmmn I suppose the things I take 'seriously' about ART are the technical quality and representational aspects. (Hence why I like some Picasso works and not others)
For example I 'understand' some levels of abstract paintings and can appreciate other pictures which don't take 1,000 words slapped onto the wall beside it to explain.
On the other hand something which is supposed to represent A,B or C and does take 1,000 words to tell me so, Fails, and for me gets dropped into the Pretentious category, which is why I find the likes of Tracy Emmin, Damian Hurst et al annoying and pretentious.
(No rant, no argument just straightforward discussion between sensible people.)
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
I don't think there's anything wrong with being pretentious actually. Many contemporary artists are however quite obscure to me and the level of self reference that some works contain flies over the head of someone like me with little interest and knowledge of where contemporary art is at the moment. Sure I get annoyed sometimes and can comment on some works with sarcasm but if I'm going to be honest, and not trying to be funny, I really wouldn't put myself over someone in that manner until I have at least tried understanding what they are about. The disrespect the likes of Damien Hirst, Tracy Emmin (as Mike mentions) receive is perhaps the thing that can make me do that plunge and make an honest attempt, read some books or whatever.
Until now my view has been that good art to me evokes a feeling in me (apart from annoyance that is...) or perhaps heighten my understanding of something and yes, some contemporary art I see does. It's just that when it's very little about skill anymore and all about concept the idea has to be very good and you have to share some kind of frame of reference with the artist.
This is a video an acquaintance did, she's an artist (not entirely safe for work):
She got a lot of scorn for it as people some people thought that this persona was truly her. I do think the irony and message is pretty clear and I think it's brilliant and hilarious (I don't know if it's clear for everyone though). The line between art and comedy for me is rather fuzzy though. I think perhaps that she goes in with it so committed makes it more art then comedy?
David Shrigley is a "contemporary" artist I do like maybe, again, because he makes me laugh? This one for example.
Until now my view has been that good art to me evokes a feeling in me (apart from annoyance that is...) or perhaps heighten my understanding of something and yes, some contemporary art I see does. It's just that when it's very little about skill anymore and all about concept the idea has to be very good and you have to share some kind of frame of reference with the artist.
This is a video an acquaintance did, she's an artist (not entirely safe for work):
She got a lot of scorn for it as people some people thought that this persona was truly her. I do think the irony and message is pretty clear and I think it's brilliant and hilarious (I don't know if it's clear for everyone though). The line between art and comedy for me is rather fuzzy though. I think perhaps that she goes in with it so committed makes it more art then comedy?
David Shrigley is a "contemporary" artist I do like maybe, again, because he makes me laugh?
This one for example.
Think we might have a differing view of the word,Sven
Pretentious = Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
Pretentious = Trying to sound intelligent by using long, complicated words, even though you don't know what they mean.
Exactly my point. Self reference.
Unfortunatley the Irony didn't come across to me. It seemed just like any other lowbudget "Europop Video".
Now that raised a smile from me as well.David Shrigley is a "contemporary" artist I do like maybe, again, because he makes me laugh?
Einion
New member
Case-by-case basis to some extent, depending on context. I do broadly classify conceptual art along with many installations as bollocks with no real artistic merit.
It's the art critics that are to blame! They should be hung up by their toes and bludgeoned with pickled sharks.
Those are two of the cornerstones for me too; I can't get away from effort and technical skill being key attributes for stuff to truly be considered good art (plenty of bad art is still legitimately art, by definition).
Einion
