Daniel, are you suggesting the decision to exclude the laughing head — the actual art — was a just one? That the committee should over-ride the artist’s intention? That maybe, Kate should simply change one of your posts to suit her own view?
If it has to be funded by GOVERNMENT,it isn’t art!(Well,unless it is a statement on government waste and troughfeeders,then the cheque should be displayed,not cashed!)
Sometimes, its just a sculpture, or just a picture, or just a story.
People tend to drag too much meaning into things. A great example is Shakesphere, the medieval Spielburg. He wrote plays for the lowest common denominator (the peasantry) and now we have intellectuals dragging all these “deeper meanings” into them instead of just enjoying good stories.
Which “work of art” is rated as “the most influential work of art of modern times”?
A white, gentlemen’s, urinal, The Urinal*, by Marcel Duchamp.
The urinal was first “exhibited” by Duchamp as a joke; it was hung upside down. (Some wit, on first seeing it, said it reminded her of a …….)
*En francais: Le Pissoir.
ALbertan Technophile: Make sure you have some Tylenol on hand, but check out the “might have intended” link at the beginning of the thread and read the “debate” there about “meaning”.
When I was in grade 10, MANY years ago, my art class was loaded onto a school bus and taken to an art gallery in Regina which was located on College Avenue. On display were the works of various up-and-comers.
Two, ahem…, “works of art” in particular remain with me still: a large jar of pickles, on a stand, entitled “Prickles”, and a large piece of clear plastic (looked like a ground sheet a painter would use) covered in brown smears, entitled “Guinea Pig Droppings”.
Only some kind of horse’s ass of a gallery director would allow that kind of unadulterated CRAP to be displayed in his gallery. Only a brainless twit could admire it as “art”.
Hey Dhimmi,
No I wasn’t trying to suggest that the “the committee should over-ride the artist’s intention” nor was I suggesting the decision to exclude the head was a just one. I was just pointing to the original article so that you could see a picture of the head and base in question.
I am married to a sculptress and I know that she would be infuriated if this were to happen to her.
Sometimes one has to scatch their heads when seeing the results of the adjudication process and wonder whether or not they even took the time to look at the submissions or if they just threw the submissions in a hat and drew the first 10 to “make the show”.
Further, art is so subjective and open to the whim and interpretation of the viewer that nothing really surprises me anymore.
I am not sure what you meant about “Kate changing one of my posts to suit her own view?” Kate is a big girl and no doubt has her own views, she doesn’t need my help.
Daniel
My apologies Kate, I went back to Protien Wisdom and took another look. I didn’t notice that the link to the originating article was there on my first visit. My friend had emailed me the link so I had provided it here.
Daniel
Daniel: Sorry man, I totally misread you [note to self: don’t comment if the post is not clear]. I had the impression that you were siding with the judges (beauty in the eye of the beholder) in their decision to include the plinth only, thereby changing the art. The mistaken impression led me to use the analogy of Kate changing the meaning of one of your posts. It doesn’t take much to get me going (having shouted at the radio probably for many more years than Kate has :).
Minor quibble: Wouldn’t it be more robust to call your wife a sculptor? Or does she prefer “sculptress”? You know like Poet for men and women, the “ess” being a kind of diminuitive version. I DO go on, blush.
I’ve always marvelled at the art icon status given Warhol’s huge poster of a Campbell’s Soup can. (Tomato, as I recall 🙂
A damn poster of a soup can, and the oh-so-sophisticated act as if it’s on an art level with a Michaelangelo statue or a Da Vinci painting or something. Bunch of pseudo-intellectual lemmings!
Hey, folks, it’s an oversized poster of a Campbells Soup can. Get a grip!
I am truley amazed that the egg salad police didn’t show up with the bleach.
Dhimmi,
Sculptress or sculptor? I don’t know. I am not sure that she is overly interested in being more “robust”. In any case “the beauty in the eye of the beholder” comment was just an expression of frustration that one often feels when you really don’t get it. I remember a few years ago, the National Gallery in Ottawa purchased a painting by some famous guy for about 1.8 million dollars. The painting consisted of three stripes, a blue, a red and another blue stripe on a length of canvas. The title of the painting, “Voice of Fire” became quite famous as ordinary people who obviously lacked the ability to appreciate art the way the National Gallery did and began to mock and make fun of the painting. It showed up on T-shirts etc.
Like the others, I obviously don’t have the ability to discern fine art either. To me it looked like three stripes painted on a length of canvas. Like the judges in the Royal Academy of the Arts who deemed the “base” worthy of display, our National Gallery must have more knowledgeable and discerning judges than us “ordinary” folk. Daniel
Fraud artist to be sentenced Monday.
Guite/Steele: which one gets the best room in the crowbar hotel?
Picasso/Rodin, et al, have met their match(es).
Typical of those Elitists who think they “know” Art. They don’t but they are scared to death we’ll figure that out!
Intentions? Pshaw.
Art is what WE say it is.
Here’s the link to the BBC story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/5081744.stm
Beauty in the eye of the beholder?
Daniel
Daniel, are you suggesting the decision to exclude the laughing head — the actual art — was a just one? That the committee should over-ride the artist’s intention? That maybe, Kate should simply change one of your posts to suit her own view?
If it has to be funded by GOVERNMENT,it isn’t art!(Well,unless it is a statement on government waste and troughfeeders,then the cheque should be displayed,not cashed!)
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0d957684-336c-4fc3-b125-b764123f62d5&k=70914
Sorry, but I didn’t know how to make the link smaller.
Anyway, I posted this, because if there’s a sick story about art, this link tells it all.
Sometimes, its just a sculpture, or just a picture, or just a story.
People tend to drag too much meaning into things. A great example is Shakesphere, the medieval Spielburg. He wrote plays for the lowest common denominator (the peasantry) and now we have intellectuals dragging all these “deeper meanings” into them instead of just enjoying good stories.
Which “work of art” is rated as “the most influential work of art of modern times”?
A white, gentlemen’s, urinal, The Urinal*, by Marcel Duchamp.
The urinal was first “exhibited” by Duchamp as a joke; it was hung upside down. (Some wit, on first seeing it, said it reminded her of a …….)
*En francais: Le Pissoir.
ALbertan Technophile: Make sure you have some Tylenol on hand, but check out the “might have intended” link at the beginning of the thread and read the “debate” there about “meaning”.
When I was in grade 10, MANY years ago, my art class was loaded onto a school bus and taken to an art gallery in Regina which was located on College Avenue. On display were the works of various up-and-comers.
Two, ahem…, “works of art” in particular remain with me still: a large jar of pickles, on a stand, entitled “Prickles”, and a large piece of clear plastic (looked like a ground sheet a painter would use) covered in brown smears, entitled “Guinea Pig Droppings”.
Only some kind of horse’s ass of a gallery director would allow that kind of unadulterated CRAP to be displayed in his gallery. Only a brainless twit could admire it as “art”.
Hey Dhimmi,
No I wasn’t trying to suggest that the “the committee should over-ride the artist’s intention” nor was I suggesting the decision to exclude the head was a just one. I was just pointing to the original article so that you could see a picture of the head and base in question.
I am married to a sculptress and I know that she would be infuriated if this were to happen to her.
Sometimes one has to scatch their heads when seeing the results of the adjudication process and wonder whether or not they even took the time to look at the submissions or if they just threw the submissions in a hat and drew the first 10 to “make the show”.
Further, art is so subjective and open to the whim and interpretation of the viewer that nothing really surprises me anymore.
I am not sure what you meant about “Kate changing one of my posts to suit her own view?” Kate is a big girl and no doubt has her own views, she doesn’t need my help.
Daniel
My apologies Kate, I went back to Protien Wisdom and took another look. I didn’t notice that the link to the originating article was there on my first visit. My friend had emailed me the link so I had provided it here.
Daniel
Daniel: Sorry man, I totally misread you [note to self: don’t comment if the post is not clear]. I had the impression that you were siding with the judges (beauty in the eye of the beholder) in their decision to include the plinth only, thereby changing the art. The mistaken impression led me to use the analogy of Kate changing the meaning of one of your posts. It doesn’t take much to get me going (having shouted at the radio probably for many more years than Kate has :).
Minor quibble: Wouldn’t it be more robust to call your wife a sculptor? Or does she prefer “sculptress”? You know like Poet for men and women, the “ess” being a kind of diminuitive version. I DO go on, blush.
I’ve always marvelled at the art icon status given Warhol’s huge poster of a Campbell’s Soup can. (Tomato, as I recall 🙂
A damn poster of a soup can, and the oh-so-sophisticated act as if it’s on an art level with a Michaelangelo statue or a Da Vinci painting or something. Bunch of pseudo-intellectual lemmings!
Hey, folks, it’s an oversized poster of a Campbells Soup can. Get a grip!
I am truley amazed that the egg salad police didn’t show up with the bleach.
Dhimmi,
Sculptress or sculptor? I don’t know. I am not sure that she is overly interested in being more “robust”. In any case “the beauty in the eye of the beholder” comment was just an expression of frustration that one often feels when you really don’t get it. I remember a few years ago, the National Gallery in Ottawa purchased a painting by some famous guy for about 1.8 million dollars. The painting consisted of three stripes, a blue, a red and another blue stripe on a length of canvas. The title of the painting, “Voice of Fire” became quite famous as ordinary people who obviously lacked the ability to appreciate art the way the National Gallery did and began to mock and make fun of the painting. It showed up on T-shirts etc.
Like the others, I obviously don’t have the ability to discern fine art either. To me it looked like three stripes painted on a length of canvas. Like the judges in the Royal Academy of the Arts who deemed the “base” worthy of display, our National Gallery must have more knowledgeable and discerning judges than us “ordinary” folk. Daniel
Fraud artist to be sentenced Monday.
Guite/Steele: which one gets the best room in the crowbar hotel?
Picasso/Rodin, et al, have met their match(es).
Typical of those Elitists who think they “know” Art. They don’t but they are scared to death we’ll figure that out!