What is Art?
mickwick
truths about Art. They might help us to seal the leaks in Harvey V's
admirable but flawed definition:
1: Art attracts beautiful women.
2: Art excuses bad behaviour (and beards).
3: Art makes beautiful women take their clothes off.
4: [censored]
5: Great Art is small and rather dull.
6: Very large Art is very large indeed (although not as large as Craft).
7: Craft in a large empty room is Art.
8: Art in a small crowded room is Craft.
9: Art explained is Craft.
10: The more risible the Art, the more solemn the explanation.
11: Art that can't be explained but looks nice anyway is Doodle.
12. Art that can't be explained and looks horrible is probably Mental
Illness.
13: Conceptual Art, with or without explanation, is usually Prank,
occasionally Doodle, and always Nice Work If You Can Get It.
14: All Art elicits muttering; this is an appropriate response.
15: Lewd Art elicits chin-stroking: this is an appropriate response.
16: Some Art elicits tittering: this is not allowed.
17: Giles Gilbert Scott was a helluva Craftsman.
18: Anish Kapoor does great Doodle.
19: The TV show _Jackass_ is Art: it does Prank. (It's bad Prank,
but then so is a naked man repeatedly punching himself in the face
in time to the music from _Rocky_.)
20: Benny Hill chasing a crocodile of scantily-clad lovelies around a
swimming pool elicits a 'non-functional mental/emotional response
through sensory perception' but they never would have let him do it
in Tate Modern. (The chin-stroking would have got out of hand.)
--
Mickwick
J. J. Lodder
> On a recent trip to Tate Modern, I observed or deduced the following
> truths about Art. They might help us to seal the leaks in Harvey V's
> admirable but flawed definition:
>
> 1: Art attracts beautiful women.
>
> 2: Art excuses bad behaviour (and beards).
>
> 3: Art makes beautiful women take their clothes off.
It's the other way round:
It takes beautiful women with their clothes off to get art made,
Jan
mickwick
Explain, then, the still life. Do you really think that craftsmen
declare themselves to be Artists so that vegetables will throw
themselves at their feet?
--
Mickwick
sand
wrote:
Vegetables are a bit more useful higher up. My feet are not even
interested in women.
Jan Sand
Marc
Do think when the Medici commissioned Sandro Botticelli to paint "The Birth
of Venus" they sat around and debated whether it was art or not. NO. They
just found a good painter and said, "I want you to paint me a real sexy
painting. Don't make it too crude. I don't want my wife to get pissed off
about it."
There are only two types of people who even think of these questions. First,
people who make their living off art selling, buying, or teaching art or
otherwise exploiting artist. Second, people who are so insecure in their own
taste that they need to have some pompous ass in the "New Yorker" to
convince them they aren't being made fools of.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw
Marc
Charles Riggs
>Vegetables are a bit more useful higher up. My feet are not even
>interested in women.
But do you take an interest in women's feet? Not that I'm saying you
have a foot fetish, necessarily.
--
Charles Riggs
For email, take the air out of aircom and
replace it with eir
mickwick
>On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:51:37 +0000, mickwick <mick...@use.reply.to>
>>Explain, then, the still life. Do you really think that craftsmen
>>declare themselves to be Artists so that vegetables will throw
>>themselves at their feet?
>
>Vegetables are a bit more useful higher up.
Jan Sand's 'Carrot Suppository #9' is an exciting new piece that
explores notions of threshold, intervention, installation and
discomfort. In the second half, filmed in Helsinki's Malmi Hospital,
Sand dramatises the difficulty of extracting meaning - the carrot - from
a world devoid of hope - the rectum. Challenging, thought-provoking and
deeply moving. Brings tears to the eyes.
Videotape. Running time: 4 hrs.
(If you can't pay your medical bills, Charles Saatchi will pay good
money for what's left of the carrot. Don't wash it.)
>My feet are not even interested in women.
That's probably bad circulation. Rub them with vinegar and wear sandals
for a few days.
--
Mickwick
mickwick
>Why would anyone ask the question? Why would anyone need to know?
>Do think when the Medici commissioned Sandro Botticelli to paint "The Birth
>of Venus" they sat around and debated whether it was art or not. NO. They
>just found a good painter and said, "I want you to paint me a real sexy
>painting. Don't make it too crude. I don't want my wife to get pissed off
>about it."
That's right.
>There are only two types of people who even think of these questions. First,
>people who make their living off art selling, buying, or teaching art or
>otherwise exploiting artist. Second, people who are so insecure in their own
>taste that they need to have some pompous ass in the "New Yorker" to
>convince them they aren't being made fools of.
There is a third type. Jealousy and sexual frustration are involved. I
can't say any more because of client confidentiality.
--
Mickwick
sand
wrote:
>Jan Sand's 'Carrot Suppository #9' is an exciting new piece that
>explores notions of threshold, intervention, installation and
>discomfort. In the second half, filmed in Helsinki's Malmi Hospital,
>Sand dramatises the difficulty of extracting meaning - the carrot - from
>a world devoid of hope - the rectum. Challenging, thought-provoking and
>deeply moving. Brings tears to the eyes.
>Videotape. Running time: 4 hrs.
>
>(If you can't pay your medical bills, Charles Saatchi will pay good
>money for what's left of the carrot. Don't wash it.)
>
You stole that bit from Henry Miller but he used it as a dildo, and it
was much funnier that way. Scatalogical nonsense is pure crap.
Jan Sand
mickwick
>You stole that bit from Henry Miller but he used it as a dildo, and it
>was much funnier that way.
Henry Miller? Who reads Henry Miller these days? You'll be recommending
Hubert Selby Jr. next.
>Scatalogical nonsense is pure crap.
Well yes, of course it is. But is pure crap necessarily a bad thing?
Crap has a long and honourable history in post-Dadaist Art. Consider the
works of Piero Manzoni, Chris Ofili and Wim Delvoye. Gilbert and George
may have celebrated the substance as well - I seem to recall seeing a
stained-glass window of a giant steaming turd realised with their
characteristic photo-realistic clarity subverted by over-saturated
colouring.
And, beyond the ever-expanding realm of Art, what of politics, ecology,
economics and philosophy? Scatology has something to say about all these
disciplines, indeed it is now taking the first faltering steps towards
establishing itself as a discipline in its own right.
The following is from _Scatology: An Etiology_ by M. Cortez.
===
The flipside of progress is shit. The concept of shit, in fact, of
something both disgusting and superfluous -- and disgusting precisely
because superfluous -- is uniquely capitalist; is uniquely the product
of a surplus-producing economy. Only within an economic system
predicated upon not only the possibility but the exigency of excess,
surplus, profit -- only within such an economic and cultural system can
there be a concept of uselessness, discardability, flushability.
===
I have no idea what that means but something tells me that she shares
your pessimism about the way the world is going. You should check her
out:
http://www.poopreport.com/Intellectual/Content/Scatology/scatology.html
For poop in Art, see:
http://www.poopreport.com/Intellectual/Content/Art/art.html
--
Mickwick,
Who has a Grade D Art A-Level from back when a Grade D Art A-Level really meant
something. (Actually, it didn't, not even then. I signed up for it to fill a
hole in my school timetable. One hour a week unsupervised in the art room for
two terms, then the exam. The exam was in two parts, practical and written. My
practical submissions were barely OK - I know my limitations - and, as I didn't
know anything at all about art history, for the written exam I invented all the
artists and architects I wrote about and scribbled bad drawings of their works
in the margins. The examiners seem not to have noticed that none of them had
previously existed. I sometimes wonder whether I was awarded someone else's
results and that somewhere out there might be a budding Artist whose life was
ruined by being saddled with my cack-handed efforts.) My niece got 100% in her
Art A-Level last year. I'm sure she is very talented, but 100%? She can't have
been all that impressed herself. She's going to study History at university.
sand
wrote:
I see you have disinterred a subject that excites you. I've had a dog
that was gifted in the same way.
Jan Sand
Raymond S. Wise
news:b3j0nc$1t0r$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Why would anyone ask the question? Why would anyone need to know?
> Do think when the Medici commissioned Sandro Botticelli to paint "The
Birth
> of Venus" they sat around and debated whether it was art or not. NO. They
> just found a good painter and said, "I want you to paint me a real sexy
> painting. Don't make it too crude. I don't want my wife to get pissed off
> about it."
>
> There are only two types of people who even think of these questions.
First,
> people who make their living off art selling, buying, or teaching art or
> otherwise exploiting artist. Second, people who are so insecure in their
own
> taste that they need to have some pompous ass in the "New Yorker" to
> convince them they aren't being made fools of.
>
In Europe, at least, there's a legal question involved. I forget the
technical term for it, but artists may sell a work of art but keep certain
rights to it, so that, for example, the person who buys it may not destroy
the work of art or alter it--although I'm sure the person could arrange with
the artist to drop those rights (for a price, of course). But I wonder if
this applies to anything that the person making it declares to be a work of
art, that is, could a craftsman declare a chair he made a work of art and
sell it, keeping some rights to it? (I presume that if he can, then he would
have to make it clear to the buyer that he was doing so.)
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Arcadian Rises
>In Europe, at least, there's a legal question involved. I forget the
>technical term for it, but artists may sell a work of art but keep certain
>rights to it, so that, for example, the person who buys it may not destroy
>the work of art or alter it
If you're refering to copyright, it's not only in Europe.
Harvey V
I think copyright -- pretty well by definition -- deals with the rights
to reproduce material.
I think what Raymond's referring to is art-specific intellectual
rights: that if you own a piece of original art -- a one-off -- the
artist retains rights for you not to alter it.
(You're breaking the law by adding a funny moustache to that painting
unless the artist agrees........)
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
sand
wrote:
As a historical note, the customs refused to admit Brancusi's "Bird in
Space" for the original Armory Show as art so it was imported as an
industrial casting.
I doubt Dali consulted Leonardo when he put the mustache above the
famous smile.
Jan Sand
R Fontana
These are called "moral rights", I think.
sand
Anybody who presents to the public an original work must permit
his/her ideas to be subject to criticism and analysis.Painting a
mustache on a reproduction to criticize the work is part of the
public's right to play games with whatever is openly presented.
Mutilating an original, however, has peculiar consequences. A painter
may feel injured by the effort, but an architect probably has no
rights as to the modification of his original concept by the current
owner. A writer whose work becomes extant through reproductions is in
an odd situation.The original is not mutilated as long as the revised
version is described as not the same as the original. Whether the
original author deserves to receive royalties for a bowdlerized
version of his work is an interesting question.
Jan Sand
Raymond S. Wise
news:Xns932FE8B1...@194.168.222.41...
(1) It also applies to books, because I first encountered the right in
question on the copyright page of a British book about three years ago. I
posted about the matter at that time, and learned from other posters that
the right also applied to works of art.
(2) One thing I failed to mention: According to some people who replied to
my post at that time (unfortunately, I can't find the thread via Google
Groups), the right doesn't take effect unless the artist asserts it. If he
doesn't, presumably the owner of one of his paintings *can* add a funny
mustache to the painting.
(3) I would expect Europeans to have passed laws to protect works of art
considered to be national treasures from such mustache-threats.
Raymond S. Wise
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.030228...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
That's it! Here's a link to the thread I began on the subject on October 29,
1999 :
And here's the post with which I began that thread:
[quote from Usenet post]
Recently I came across the following in _The Oxford Dictionary of
Slang_ by John Ayto, published by Oxford University Press:
_"© John Ayto 1998_
_"The moral rights of the author have been asserted_
_"First published 1998"_
Call me cynical, but I was rather startled to see the word _moral_ in a
legal notice. If someone in this group knows how this expression came to
be used in copyright law, I would be grateful to know.
[end quote from Usenet post]
Richard R. Hershberger
>
> As a historical note, the customs refused to admit Brancusi's "Bird in
> Space" for the original Armory Show as art so it was imported as an
> industrial casting.
> I doubt Dali consulted Leonardo when he put the mustache above the
> famous smile.
Several years ago there was in San Jose, California a piece of
abstract sculpture next to a building being demolished. When the
detritus from the demolition was removed the sculture was
inadvertantly hauled away as well. It took about a month for anyone
to notice, but the artist was very upset once someone did. I believe
there was a lawsuit, but I don't know how it came out. My favorite
comment was that the workers who hauled the sculture away were
professionals trained to identify trash. Who are we to question their
judgment?
Richard R. Hershberger
mickwick
>I see you have disinterred a subject that excites you. I've had a dog
>that was gifted in the same way.
A stoolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
--
Mickwick
Brown is the new black
sand
wrote:
>In alt.usage.english, sand wrote:
>
>>I see you have disinterred a subject that excites you. I've had a dog
>>that was gifted in the same way.
>
>A stoolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
The consistency of your stools is more a private than a public
concern.
Jan Sand
mickwick
>On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:18:19 +0000, mickwick <mick...@use.reply.to>
>>A stoolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
>
>The consistency of your stools is more a private than a public
>concern.
But I am an Artist, Jan.ą Publicity validates Art. Where have you been
these last eighty years?
ąComing soon, 'Doodle Squat #9', a poignant exploration of notions of
futility. Challenging, thought-provoking and deeply moving. Crayon on
Bronco. 10 x 13 cm.
--
Mickwick
The Avante-Garde is the (not so) new Establishment
sand
wrote:
>In alt.usage.english, sand wrote:
>>On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:18:19 +0000, mickwick <mick...@use.reply.to>
>
>>>A stoolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
>>
>>The consistency of your stools is more a private than a public
>>concern.
>
>But I am an Artist, Jan.น Publicity validates Art. Where have you been
>these last eighty years?
An artists who drools
In salacious delight
Over his stools
Strikes me as not bright
For his hunger for waste
Is great lack of taste
But each to his own.
So, bon appetite!
Jan Sand
sand
When speaking in French
Should display care
If splitting a hair
And rhyme all the words
While dealing with turds.
So, If the guy likes to eat
What comes from his seat
I'd say of this feat,
Bon appetit!
Jan Sand
mickwick
The Prudence of Cordon Brun (#9)
================================
The Vegan has to cook his slop
Of nuts and roots and pulses:
By burning all those fossil fuels
He gives the planet ulcers.
The Coprophage is far more sage,
He does what Sense espouses:
He just sits back and shapes his cack
With healthful peristalsis.
I thank you.
(What others have said about this poem: 'Challenging' - Martin Amis
'Thought-provoking' - Rowan Williams 'Deeply moving' - Salman Rushdie)
--
Mickwick
Where there's life there's shit
Raymond S. Wise
In "appetit" the second "t" is silent. The "n" in "bon" is pronounced,
however, because of the liaison with the following word.
sand
<illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
>"sand" <jan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mge16vcbc3tsjvg42...@4ax.com...
>> A normal mensch
>> When speaking in French
>> Should display care
>> If splitting a hair
>> And rhyme all the words
>> While dealing with turds.
>> So, If the guy likes to eat
>> What comes from his seat
>> I'd say of this feat,
>> Bon appetit!
>>
>> Jan Sand
>
>
>In "appetit" the second "t" is silent. The "n" in "bon" is pronounced,
>however, because of the liaison with the following word.
Consumption of discarded waste
May appear pernicious,
But each eater has his taste
To determine what's delicious.
Perhaps he'll even toast to me
With a sparkling flute
Of his yellow icy pee
An action most astute
And I'll nod to agree
(pinching closed my snoot)
It's up to him what must be.
I wish him then, bon appetit.
Jan Sand
frank green
mickwick wrote:
> On a recent trip to Tate Modern, I observed or deduced the following
> truths about Art. They might help us to seal the leaks in Harvey V's
> admirable but flawed definition:
>
> 1: Art attracts beautiful women.
>
> 2: Art excuses bad behaviour (and beards).
>
> 3: Art makes beautiful women take their clothes off.
>
> 4: [censored]
>
> 5: Great Art is small and rather dull.
>
> 6: Very large Art is very large indeed (although not as large as Craft).
>
> 7: Craft in a large empty room is Art.
>
> 8: Art in a small crowded room is Craft.
>
> 9: Art explained is Craft.
>
> 10: The more risible the Art, the more solemn the explanation.
>
> 11: Art that can't be explained but looks nice anyway is Doodle.
>
> 12. Art that can't be explained and looks horrible is probably Mental
> Illness.
>
> 13: Conceptual Art, with or without explanation, is usually Prank,
> occasionally Doodle, and always Nice Work If You Can Get It.
>
> 14: All Art elicits muttering; this is an appropriate response.
>
> 15: Lewd Art elicits chin-stroking: this is an appropriate response.
>
> 16: Some Art elicits tittering: this is not allowed.
>
> 17: Giles Gilbert Scott was a helluva Craftsman.
>
> 18: Anish Kapoor does great Doodle.
>
> 19: The TV show _Jackass_ is Art: it does Prank. (It's bad Prank,
> but then so is a naked man repeatedly punching himself in the face
> in time to the music from _Rocky_.)
>
> 20: Benny Hill chasing a crocodile of scantily-clad lovelies around a
> swimming pool elicits a 'non-functional mental/emotional response
> through sensory perception' but they never would have let him do it
> in Tate Modern. (The chin-stroking would have got out of hand.)
>
> --
> Mickwick
I love these. Thanks.
Art is, by the way, a combination of craft and vision.
sand
wrote:
>Art is, by the way, a combination of craft and vision.
>
Craft is useful, but not necessary.
Jan Sand
mickwick
>On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 03:41:42 GMT, frank green <fran...@attbi.com>
Thanks.
>>Art is, by the way, a combination of craft and vision.
>>
>Craft is useful, but not necessary.
Necessaries are crafty: knots are useful.
--
Mickwick
Simon R. Hughes
Tell that to the lucky person whose life has just been saved by a
skilled surgeon.
--
Simon R. Hughes
"We've found our elephants to be very intelligent animals--
if you take an iron rod and beat him, he turns around and
beats the hell out of you." -- Peter Musavaya (Who?)
Larry Preuss
shu...@tromso.online.no wrote on 3/5/03 9:10 AM:
> Thus Spake sand:
>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 03:41:42 GMT, frank green <fran...@attbi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Art is, by the way, a combination of craft and vision.
>>>
>> Craft is useful, but not necessary.
>
> Tell that to the lucky person whose life has just been saved by a
> skilled surgeon.
The surgeon would tell you that his practice is an art. Really, they say
that.
Larry
sand
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Thus Spake sand:
>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 03:41:42 GMT, frank green <fran...@attbi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Art is, by the way, a combination of craft and vision.
>> >
>> Craft is useful, but not necessary.
>
>Tell that to the lucky person whose life has just been saved by a
>skilled surgeon.
And also to a plumber fixing my water pipes. They, of course, all
exhibit in the most modish galleries.
Jan Sand
Simon R. Hughes
I don't doubt it. I wouldn't challenge their claim, either, in many
cases.
Marc
"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote in message
news:v5t520r...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> In Europe, at least, there's a legal question involved. I forget the
> technical term for it, but artists may sell a work of art but keep certain
> rights to it, so that, for example, the person who buys it may not destroy
> the work of art or alter it--
Under the Bern treaty, now also part of US Copyright law they are called
"moral rights".
The issue of whether it is "Art" or not doies not enter into it. If you
create a visual work that is copyrightable "moral rights" apply.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw
Marc
Robert Bannister
Macramé is art?
--
Rob Bannister
sand
Macrame´, like carpentry, painting, welding, videos, etc. can be art.
Depends upon what is done with it.
Jan Sand