Today I got my images and ideas project back. 87%. Not bad. I'm pleased; especially because Sheridan marks with A's, B's, C's...so I have an A in that class ^_^

Today we talked about modern art, to be more precise - contemperary art. Bleh. you know, taking corpses and deranging the bodies? Ejaculating into glass jars and parading it around town? Pissing in a toilet and throwing a crucifix in there? Yeah. All this stuff has actually been done and the artists walk away with (sometimes) millions of dollars. It infuriates me to no end.

Case 1. corpses.

Reason I don't think it's art: The artist did not make the human body; it is not his own creation. He cannot, in any way, take credit for the 'piece.' He did not make the body with his own genes never mind his own ideas and conceptions. He had nothing to do with the death or life of the individual.
Why it's an outrage: It's total disrespect for the human body, nevermind the disrespect to tax payers who essentially pay the salary of this 'artist' and the more hard working people who actually care more about their art then collecting money asap.
What is missing from 'piece' that could make it art: If the bodies had been scultped from life in another medium, then yes, even if it disgusted me, there would be some element of craft involved, some element of workmanship.
Final Verdict: I'd like to see this art die with the medium itself.

Case 2. Ejaculation

Reason I don't think it's art: Once again, did he make the jars? No. Did he make the seeman? Yes. Is it his own doing that he can make seeman? No. Was this likely just an excuse to masterbate and get paid for it? Yes.
Why it's an outrage: He was commissioned to create art for the mexican people. He was paid good money to express some form of culture. Ejaculation doesn't express anything about the Mexican people. Proof of this? There was so much objection to it, his exhibition was cancelled.
What is missing from 'piece' that could make it art: Everything is missing. If he had painted a mexican couple having sex, it would have been art. If he had sculpted it, it would have been art. If he had done any of the art with his own two hands (disregarding the work he did with just one) and expressed his own unique conceptions in a manner that showed true craftmanship on his part then I wouldn't see a problem.
Final Verdict: Art is more than an idea; it also takes the ability to turn an idea into something you can understand. If a viewer doesn't understand the piece, the fault lies in the artist.

Case 2. Piss and crucifix
Reason I don't think it's art: Did he make the toilet, or crucifix? No. He may have made the pee but even that is debateable. Where is the effort? I could do that at home. Anyone could, people probably have; things get dropped in toilets all the time. Kids love to drop things in there.
Why it's an outrage: The whole thing probably took 1 minute to do. You can't claim creative rights over your own piss or a toilet that was designed before you were born or a crucifix that was made by someone else.
What is missing from 'piece' that could make it art: Worskmanship, workmanship, workmanship! If he had painted the image or photgraphed the image and enhanced it or made his own toilet and crucifix or something I would agree that it's art. I wouldn't like it but I would not deny it being art.
Final Verdict: If any idiot could do it at home in a matter of seconds, then you gotta come up with something else. It's not just what you are expressig, it's how. How refers to the effectiveness of the piece and the creativity behind it.

I think this is why I love Alanis and hate Britney. Alanis writes her own music, plays her own instuments, and sings very well. All the elements of an artist is there. You don't have to like her but she is without a doubt an arist. The idea, the craftsmanship and effectiveness are all apparent.

Britney does not write her own music, cheoreograph her own dancing, sing live or even pick out her own clothing. For everything she does, there is someone else behind her, responsible for her success. The only thing she does on her own is sing...and we all know just how well she does that.

But can we really blame the artists who shit in bowls and put it on display for $1,000,000? They know they'll be paid for it, so why wouldn't they, or shouldn't they? Perhaps if we stop paying money for shit we'll stop receiveing shit from people who are supposed to entertain us. But until then....

"Hit me baby one more time."

0 comments so far

<< tradition - modern >>

Thank You - 2006, June 7
The end - 2006, June 4
Canada Loves Me - 2006, May 31
In and Out - 2006, May 28
Where Have I Been? - 2006, May 25