Art as a vision...
Maria Conlon
If you are unfamiliar with American humor writer Dave Barry, here is
your chance to get acquainted. In the column URLed below, he talks about
British art, or at least about certain art that the British paid
a ----load of pounds for. (Don't criticize me for the "----" until
you've read the article.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/421339
8.htm
I am taking Mr. Barry's word for all this, but it's true, innit?
("Innit" is another word I've been planning to use. I've already
forgotten the one I used earlier. Oh, yes...redux.)
Maria
Am I the first to use "URLed"? (Oh, I hope so!)
CyberCypher
news:anr45d$gl9fu$1...@ID-113669.news.dfncis.de:
> To Rightpondians (and others, if they are interested):
>
> If you are unfamiliar with American humor writer Dave Barry, here
> is your chance to get acquainted. In the column URLed below, he
> talks about British art, or at least about certain art that the
> British paid a ----load of pounds for. (Don't criticize me for the
> "----" until you've read the article.
>
> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/4
> 21339 8.htm
>
> I am taking Mr. Barry's word for all this, but it's true, innit?
>
> ("Innit" is another word I've been planning to use. I've already
> forgotten the one I used earlier. Oh, yes...redux.)
>
> Maria
> Am I the first to use "URLed"? (Oh, I hope so!)
A wonderful piece! Thank you.
--
Franke: Speaker and teacher of Standard International English (SIE)
MM
> To Rightpondians (and others, if they are interested):
>
> If you are unfamiliar with American humor writer Dave Barry, here is
> your chance to get acquainted. In the column URLed below, he talks about
> British art, or at least about certain art that the British paid
> a ----load of pounds for. (Don't criticize me for the "----" until
> you've read the article.
>
> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/421339
> 8.htm
>
> I am taking Mr. Barry's word for all this, but it's true, innit?
But, you see, compared to the amount of dosh that was squandered on some
huge marquee in Greenwich (aka The Millennium Dome), 22 grand for some
crappy piece of art is somewhat of a bargain .. innit? Know what I mean?
To add to the ludicrous excuses for art, Tracey Emin's bed was snapped
up by some art collector for about £150,000, I believe. This, I assume,
was after some Welsh woman felt the need to drive to London to tidy it
(the bed, not London) up. Bless her!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/wales/485270.stm
MM
John Dean
> To Rightpondians (and others, if they are interested):
>
>
>
> ("Innit" is another word I've been planning to use. I've already
> forgotten the one I used earlier. Oh, yes...redux.)
Modern grammar requires that innit may only follow a construction *not*
using 'it'. So the above phrase *should* read 'but it's true, isn't it?'
You could have written 'Mr Barry is right innit?' or 'I agree with Mr Barry
innit?' or even 'Do you agree with him innit?'
>
> Maria
> Am I the first to use "URLed"? (Oh, I hope so!)
Sadly, Sir Arfer Conan Doyle claims that privilege for 'Holmes urled
Moriarty to his death off the Reichenbach Falls'
But a 'Google on 'urled' shows others have thought of it too. Soz.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
AWILLIS957
>> If you are unfamiliar with American humor writer Dave Barry, here
>> is your chance to get acquainted. In the column URLed below, he
>> talks about British art, or at least about certain art that the
>> British paid a ----load of pounds for. (Don't criticize me for the
>> "----" until you've read the article.
Well, much though I like Barry, I consider that a lazy piece of writing. The
Daily Telegraph, a conservative newspaper, is not the best source he could have
chosen for information about the British art scene.
He says that art "snots" (a dislikeable term) look down on traditional art, but
that's far from the case. It is possible to like Tracey Emin and Damien Hurst
as well as Velasquez and Vermeer. It is the conservatives, not the
progressives, who divide the two and fail to understand that art moves forward
form an existing tradition.
As for the tubs of excrement, they represent a movement in art that doesn't
shirk from using bodily substances, or indeed the artists' own bodies to create
art. To the extent that it is characteristic of an age of self-scrutiny and
shamelessness, such art is inevitable. You may flinch but why should the
artist?.
As for the money spent, it is an investment by the gallery and a perfectly
safe one.
Peasemarch.
CyberCypher
news:20021007093104...@mb-mc.aol.com:
>>Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com> reported
>
>>> If you are unfamiliar with American humor writer Dave Barry,
>>> here is your chance to get acquainted. In the column URLed
>>> below, he talks about British art, or at least about certain art
>>> that the British paid a ----load of pounds for. (Don't criticize
>>> me for the "----" until you've read the article.
>
> Well, much though I like Barry, I consider that a lazy piece of
> writing. The Daily Telegraph, a conservative newspaper, is not the
> best source he could have chosen for information about the British
> art scene.
He doesn't write his column to present anything in the best light, only
in the most humorous light he can produce.
> He says that art "snots" (a dislikeable term) look down on
> traditional art, but that's far from the case. It is possible to
> like Tracey Emin and Damien Hurst as well as Velasquez and
> Vermeer. It is the conservatives, not the progressives, who divide
> the two and fail to understand that art moves forward form an
> existing tradition.
I don't consider myself a progressive or a conservative about art, but
I fail to see any redeeming qualities in the type of "art" that Barry
was spoofing in his piece. I especially find things like that Russian
performance artist who gets naked, chains and collars himself, puts
himself in a cage, and then barks for those who look at him, to be the
kind of excrement that Barry is making fun of.
> As for the tubs of excrement, they represent a movement in art
I'm sure you didn't catch this one.
> that doesn't shirk from using bodily substances, or indeed the
> artists' own bodies to create art. To the extent that it is
> characteristic of an age of self-scrutiny and shamelessness, such
> art is inevitable. You may flinch but why should the artist?.
What makes it "art"?
> As for the money spent, it is an investment by the gallery and a
> perfectly safe one.
I think you've taken the whole thing much too seriously. Dave Barry is
not an art critic, merely a humorist with an edge.
Mike Lyle
The beauty of the new-style art market is that for the first time the
"artists" get a lot of the money, and I'm all for that. It's a sort of
South Sea Bubble or dotcom racket. Interestingly, it isn't so much the
taxpayer who foots the bill as rich private collectors: what we may
never know is if those first-layer private collectors are actually
taken in by the performers' stories, or if they are part of the
conspiracy and waiting to sell on, so we don't really know who to
laugh at. But enjoy it while it lasts, I say. Feel sorry for the
drawing teachers who got put out of work, and the painters and
sculptors working away for nothing because they believe in it, sure:
but they'll be back one day.
Mike.
Robert Bannister
Your last sentence hits the mark: Art is no longer art, it is an investment.
--
Rob Bannister
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> But a 'Google on 'urled' shows others have thought of it too. Soz.
U R just SO 2 rinkerlE 2 sA "soz".
(Wo, ouch! therz a stone in my trainerz! CU)
Mike.
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> As for the tubs of excrement, they represent a movement in art that doesn't
> shirk from using bodily substances, or indeed the artists' own bodies to
> create art.
Perhaps Art, like flowers, requires a well-manured bed to flourish.
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> Your last sentence hits the mark: Art is no longer art, it is an investment.
When is art not an investment? Someone has to dust. The line separating
art from Art is the chain of tenders to whom a piece is more valuable on a
pedestal than in a rubbish bin.
I often wonder what happened to all the stuff that was in my grandparent's
homes. Tossed, 99.9% of it. No art collections there. Forget about my
great-grandparents, they've passed way through the veil, leaving behind
only a gene for middle-aged ear hair (plucking them keeps me awake during
boring conversations ... do you think anyone notices?)
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> as well as Velasquez and Vermeer.
Velasquez was always collected, but wasn't it only in the 20th century
that anyone paid attention to Vermeer? I think the rap among the
Victorians was that his paintings were too airy to be top shelf. Anyway,
I suggest to you time machine inventors, to go back and collect the 17
Vermeers, and pay their weight in gold. Unless you're fast forwarding
to 2100, when the worm turns and Vermeer is one drawer down, and you find
you should've been snarfing Jeff Koons.
http://www.sfmoma.org/collections/painting+sculpture/ma_coll_koons.html
ap
> > Well, much though I like Barry, I consider that a lazy piece of
> > writing. The Daily Telegraph, a conservative newspaper, is not the
> > best source he could have chosen for information about the British
> > art scene.
>
> He doesn't write his column to present anything in the best light, only
> in the most humorous light he can produce.
I like Barry. But the piece was too philistine and sneering for my
taste. I felt obliged to oppose it.
> > He says that art "snots" (a dislikeable term) look down on
> > traditional art, but that's far from the case. It is possible to
> > like Tracey Emin and Damien Hurst as well as Velasquez and
> > Vermeer. It is the conservatives, not the progressives, who divide
> > the two and fail to understand that art moves forward form an
> > existing tradition.
>
> I don't consider myself a progressive or a conservative about art, but
> I fail to see any redeeming qualities in the type of "art" that Barry
> was spoofing in his piece. I especially find things like that Russian
> performance artist who gets naked, chains and collars himself, puts
> himself in a cage, and then barks for those who look at him, to be the
> kind of excrement that Barry is making fun of.
I am not saying that I would appreciate the art in question, just that
it has a valid place in art. Art reflects society. Contemporary
society has fewer and fewer taboos. Individualism has led in one
direction to increasing self-revelation and a willingness to confront
aspects of ourselves that were once private, including our own bodies
and the contents of our bodies. People are more ready to pierce,
tattoo, maim, modify their bodies than they were fifty years ago. At
the same time people are prepared to talk about their most intimate
acts and display them in public. Art is bound to reflect these trends
and comment on them.
Conceptual art, which perhaps started with Marcel Duchamp's urinal,
contains the idea that what is important is not the technical skill,
which is seen as a form of elitism, but the idea. I don't agree with
that, but I'm not going to laugh it out of court, and I find it at
least interesting and worth addressing. Tubs of excrement, flayed
skin, living sculpure, and urinals may not be "made" but they fit the
terms of conceptual art and so they are art, and likely to be bought
by galleries, whether reactionaries from the Daily Telegraph approve
of that sort of art or not.
I don't know about the man in the cage you speak of, but he might be
more entertaining than many dull pictures hanging in our galleries.
Since bondage and sado-masochism are practised by many people these
days, it is inevitable that they will be made into art, because art is
influenced by social trends. We may dislike certain types of art
because they represent social activies we find distasteful - I dislike
the hunting art of Landseer - but that doesn't stop them being art.
What Barry might not understand is that many people enjoy looking at
contemporary art in Britain, and that Tate Modern is at present more
successful than its more traditional branch. The thing is that when
you visit many modern exhibitions, such as the Hirst and Emin shows,
you could have a three-dimensional experience, a lot to talk about,
and a great deal of entertainment and fun.
> > As for the tubs of excrement, they represent a movement in art
>
> I'm sure you didn't catch this one.
Hey, this is me, Peasemarch. Just watch out for the tubs of walnut
ice-cream in the gallery shop, that's all.
> > that doesn't shirk from using bodily substances, or indeed the
> > artists' own bodies to create art. To the extent that it is
> > characteristic of an age of self-scrutiny and shamelessness, such
> > art is inevitable. You may flinch but why should the artist?.
>
> What makes it "art"?
What makes it art is that it is a creative exploration of ideas,
experience, and the world, presented in visual and three-dimensional
form, in this case for the public to respond to in whatever way they
wish.
>
> > As for the money spent, it is an investment by the gallery and a
> > perfectly safe one.
>
> I think you've taken the whole thing much too seriously. Dave Barry is
> not an art critic, merely a humorist with an edge.
Edge?
Actually, conceptual art is often very humorous in itself. Emin and
Hirst are very joky people.
My best friend is an artist. Some of his works are so big that his
wife won't allow them in the living room until she and the kids have
gone to bed, so often he has shown his works late at night, when we
are all half cut. His stuff is very entertaining - done mainly in foil
and gaudy acrylic inks.
I remember one piece he had on a massive roll of foil. It was
designed to clad his house, so one night several of us wrapped it
around his house at about I.30 in the morning and then we all walked
round it with candles. It was a very vivid mixture of weird bright
colour splashes, hieroglyphics, and highly amusing or incomprehensible
graffiti. It was an experience in itself. This sort of art makes more
sense to see than to read about.
My favourite artists, by the way, are Palmer, Cotman, and Constable -
in that order. So I'm not a raving modernist (just raving, I suppose).
Peasemarch.
M.J.Powell
<qp1...@aol.com> writes
snip
>> What makes it "art"?
>
>What makes it art is that it is a creative exploration of ideas,
>experience, and the world, presented in visual and three-dimensional
>form, in this case for the public to respond to in whatever way they
>wish.
Hoe does this work in the case of the urinal? I've seen thousands of
them before, as have most people. What is 'creative', 'explorative' &c?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
CyberCypher
news:mEfb7gAq...@pickmere.demon.co.uk:
I think it must be that inevitable retort, "Yes, it does look like
something that anybody could have done, but nobody else did. I thought
of it and I did it. If you had thought of it and done it first, then
you would be an artist".
AWILLIS957
>From: "M.J.Powell"
>>>what makes it art?
> >what makes it art is that it is a creative exploration of ideas,
>>experience, and the world, presented in visual and three-dimensional
>>form, in this case for the public to respond to in whatever way they
>>wish.
>
>Hoe does this work in the case of the urinal? I've seen thousands of
>them before, as have most people. What is 'creative', 'explorative' &c?
Well, you have seen thousands of them, but probably not a single one
disconnected and presented in an art gallery. I imagine that if you went to see
it in a gallery, in a frame of mind to be stimulated, you would treat Duchamp's
"Fountain" to more a singular attention thanyou give the bog-standard urinal at
your local football ground. From the photos, I'd say that "Fountain" is usually
set higher than in a public convenience - probably to stop gallery-goers using
it - and you can also look at it from side on, where it looks a bit Henry
Moore, to me..
It is difficult for me to say much more about "Fountain" because I haven't seen
it, though I would like to. But I've seen Emin's bed, and I was fascinated by
thatt, as were the other people looking at it. I'd say the average time spent
looking at it was ten minutes. Emin's work is different to Duchamp's, though,
in containing biographical elements. The tubs of excrement probably stand
somewhere between the two approaches to readymade (or readyunmade) art.
Duchamp said of the readymade concept: "It allowed me to reduce aesthetic
considerations to a mental decision, thus excluding the skill and intelligence
of the hand, which I was rebelling against."
What constitutes art is constantly being redefined. That has always been the
way. If art doesn't define itself, someone else will - people like the Nazis or
Stalinists.
I'm not an art expert in the slightest, but it seems to me that what Duchamp
was trying to do was question the second-hand ideas and habits of mind that
define art, and to raise some issues about the overlaps between art objects and
real or manufactured objects. Is a painting of a flower better than a flower?
Why do we put a flower in a vase when there are thousands like them out there
on the roadside? Is there such a thing as intrinsic form, that might exist in
certain designs of urinal, shovel, or bottle-rack?
But what is art anyway? Is it for people in the comfort of their home, who
"know what they like" to decide what art is, or for the the artists, buyers,
gallery owners, and exhibition visitors to decide? I'd say most definitely the
latter. On the whole, they harm no one.
Peasemarch.
Javi
tomca...@yaNOSPAMhoo.com <tomca...@yaNOSPAMhoo.com> escribió:
> AWILLIS957 <awill...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> as well as Velasquez and Vermeer.
>
> Velasquez was always collected
Why most of you write "Velasquez"? Don't you know that it is "Velázquez"?
May I ask how is it pronounced by native English speakers? In Spain's
Spanish it is /be'lathketh/ (/e/ like in "bed"), in Latin America's
/be'laskes/.
--
Best regards
Javi
"There are no grades of vanity, there are only grades of ability in
concealing it."
- Mark Twain -
Javi
AWILLIS957 <awill...@aol.com> escribió:
- snip -
> Duchamp said of the readymade concept: "It allowed me to reduce
> aesthetic considerations to a mental decision, thus excluding the
> skill and intelligence of the hand, which I was rebelling against."
This is a very modern assertion, indeed. Excluding the skill and
intelligence, not only of the hand, but of everything is a characteristic
that I find in nowadays teenagers more than I'd like. Rebelling against it
is also a teenager characteristic, though I understand that the proper term
is not "teenager characteristic" but "(pos)modern characteristic".
> What constitutes art is constantly being redefined. That has always
> been the way. If art doesn't define itself, someone else will -
> people like the Nazis or Stalinists.
Art cannot define itself, because, AFAIK, art cannot speak. It is the
artists who speak. Nowadays, to be an artist, one only has to claim that one
is an artist, the only additional proof needed is that some gullible person
or institution spend money buying some of the so-called art work.
> I'm not an art expert in the slightest,
Nor am I, but I have an opinion.
> but it seems to me that what
> Duchamp was trying to do was question the second-hand ideas and
> habits of mind that define art
Of course, there have always been second-hand art and first-hand art. This
is why Velazquez is an artist, because he took the previous ideas on art and
reshaped them to create its own artistic view of art.
> and to raise some issues about the
> overlaps between art objects and real or manufactured objects. Is a
> painting of a flower better than a flower?
No, it is not a question of being better or worse, it is just, IMHO, that
the artist should find a new way to (re)present the flower. If not, my
mother has always been an artist, as she picks up flowers and put them in
the sitting-room.
> Why do we put a flower in
> a vase when there are thousands like them out there on the roadside?
> Is there such a thing as intrinsic form, that might exist in certain
> designs of urinal, shovel, or bottle-rack?
Maybe, but the artist's job, IMHO, is to present them in a new way. Taking
an urinal out of context and showing it in a so-called "art-gallery" can
hardly be called a new way of presenting it; well, maybe it is so for some
people who lacks imagination, but not for me.
- snip -
AWILLIS957
>Why most of you write "Velasquez"? Don't you know that it is "Velázquez"?
Yes.
>May I ask how is it pronounced by native English speakers? In Spain's
>Spanish it is /be'lathketh
The British, typically, find that this pronunciation doesn't come easily - so I
think that's why we (the less punctilious ones, anyway) have smoothed it over.
Nothing to be proud of, I admit.
Peasemarch
M.J.Powell
<fra...@seed.net.tw> writes
This looks like a cop-out to me. What do you mean by 'did it first'? Did
the 'artist' actually make the urinal or did he buy it?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
M.J.Powell
<awill...@aol.com> writes
>>Subject: Re: Art as a vision...
>>From: "M.J.Powell"
>
>>>>what makes it art?
>
>> >what makes it art is that it is a creative exploration of ideas,
>>>experience, and the world, presented in visual and three-dimensional
>>>form, in this case for the public to respond to in whatever way they
>>>wish.
>>
>>Hoe does this work in the case of the urinal? I've seen thousands of
>>them before, as have most people. What is 'creative', 'explorative' &c?
>
>Well, you have seen thousands of them, but probably not a single one
>disconnected and presented in an art gallery.
I have had this argument with an artist friend.
I put a house brick on end on the lawn. 'What is that?' I said.
He just looked at me.
I said 'It's mankind, firmly planted on this earth'.
I put another brick across the top and two more upright on the ends of
that one.
Same question. No answer.
I said 'It's mankind firmly planted on earth but reaching for the
stars'.
No answer.
I said 'Art? No, artistic bollocks'.
He hasn't spoken to me since.
Could I get $10,000 for it? (Patent pending)
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Skitt
> "M.J.Powell" burbled:
>> ap writes:
[someomne else wrote:]
>>>> What makes it "art"?
>>>
>>> What makes it art is that it is a creative exploration of ideas,
>>> experience, and the world, presented in visual and
>>> three-dimensional form, in this case for the public to respond to
>>> in whatever way they wish.
>>
>> Hoe does this work in the case of the urinal? I've seen thousands
>> of them before, as have most people. What is 'creative',
>> 'explorative' &c?
>
> I think it must be that inevitable retort, "Yes, it does look like
> something that anybody could have done, but nobody else did. I thought
> of it and I did it. If you had thought of it and done it first, then
> you would be an artist".
I think, I may have something here -- I just replaced both toilets in our
house, and I would be willing to part with the old ones for, oh, a couple of
grand apiece. They have some very interesting stains in the bowl, and thus
they are uniquely artistic, don'cha know.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
sand
As I have said before in this neighborhood, there are three aspects to
art.
The first is that of the creator/perceiver - the guy who assembles the
stuff and gets some satisfaction out of obtaining the arrangement of
materials, whether the artist actually manipulated the material or
merely observed it in such a way as to appreciate it as a new way of
looking at the world. Found objects, in that sense, are divorced from
their normal context and pointed to by the artist as worthy of
consideration in relation to other contexts.
The second is that of the observer - the guy who visits museums and
art galleries and wonders what the hell makes a certain object worthy
of contemplation. Sometimes the artist is successful in conveying his
revelation and the observer is rewarded. Sometimes the artist is
unsuccessful and the observer is unimpressed, and frequently angry at
not seeing the object as having any worth at all. Sometimes the
observer finds qualities in the object not anticipated by the artist.
There is not necessarily a connection between what the artist and the
observer feels, although the artist probably is unhappy over that
result.
The third is that of the mercantile world. This has only the vaguest
connection to the other two viewpoints. Van Gogh never sold a painting
in his whole life. Much of the monetay value of a piece of art has to
do with provenence. The piece of lead that killed President Lincoln is
merely a piece of lead of no particular artistic interest, but
probably quite valuable on the open market. I have heard that Picasso
would frequently pay for things by check in the secure knowledge that
the check with his signature was more valuable than its cash value so
it would never be redeemed.
It is dangerously misleading to confuse any of these three aspects of
art.
Jan Sand
CyberCypher
news:1St$ecBjZH...@pickmere.demon.co.uk:
Whether the artist bought the urinal or made it, as Andy Warhol did
when he *painted* all those soup cans, the "art" being praised is not
necessarily the "artist"'s technique but the idea behind the object. I
don't want to discuss Warhol, who was artistic and maybe even an
artist--I don't know enough about all his work and skills to make any
judgment about him, except that he did have his finger on the pulse of
American culture many times, so I will not condemn him as some sort of
poseur. And people who make sculptures out of junk can certainly be
classified as artists if their work is considered artistic. I know that
I could not do what Warhol did or what such sculptors do. But the kind
of thing that Dave Barry was talking about represents a type of "art"
that takes no artistic talent, it seems to me--and to Barry.
For example, when I was a freshman at Brown University, I hated the
institutional food there. One day, a big dog took a monstorous dump on
the lawn in front of my dorm. I saw it an instantly had an idea. I cut
a hole in a paper plate, put it around the megaturd, added silverware,
a paper napkin, and a student meal ticket, and wrote a sign that said
"Brown Breakfast". Most of my dormmates, classmates, and schoolmates
laughed when they saw my little bit of "art", my "sculpture". That
night, I illuminated it with a gooseneck desk lamp. The administration
were not amused and I was put on College Discipline for my statement.
Was I an artist? I don't think so. I was just a jokester who happened
to come up with a funny one.
I put things like the "art" that Barry was objecting to into that
category. The "artists" he's talking about and who make the kind of
retort I suggested are simply "arrangers". They probably make "art" as
often as that chimpanzee who won a fingerpainting contest in New Mexico
(was it?) about 30 or 40 years ago. Can a chimp be an artist? Can a
chimp produce art? Is the sunset art?
Mike Lyle
[...]
> As for the money spent, it is an investment by the gallery and a perfectly
> safe one.
Unless the bubble bursts: they and their network have to work very
hard to keep it inflating.
Mike.
AWILLIS957
>> As for the money spent, it is an investment by the gallery and a perfectly
>> safe one.
>
>Unless the bubble bursts: they and their network have to work very
>hard to keep it inflating.
>
>Mike.
>
Publicity, don't forget, is good for the gallery. The tubs of excrement will
attract visitors like flies to shit.
Peasemarch.
felix
BTW, Brian Eno claims to be the only person known to have actually
pissed in Duchamp's urinal, which he did after hours once in a gallery
in which it was exhibited.
felix
dcw
felix <fel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>BTW, Brian Eno claims to be the only person known to have actually
>pissed in Duchamp's urinal, which he did after hours once in a gallery
>in which it was exhibited.
Hours in a gallery can have that effect.
David
M.J.Powell
>
snip
Agree all.
>
>I put things like the "art" that Barry was objecting to into that
>category. The "artists" he's talking about and who make the kind of
>retort I suggested are simply "arrangers". They probably make "art" as
>often as that chimpanzee who won a fingerpainting contest in New Mexico
>(was it?) about 30 or 40 years ago. Can a chimp be an artist? Can a
>chimp produce art? Is the sunset art?
No, no and no.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
sage
AWILLIS957 <awill...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021009141347...@mb-fs.aol.com...
In North America, the proximity of Mexico means that the "ess" sound for
"zed/zee" is most common. Los Mejicanos laugh at you if go all Castellano on
them! :)
Cheers, Sage ( a sus ordenes)
>
>
M.J.Powell
>"M.J.Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<mEfb7gAqVBp9Ewwu
>@pickmere.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <e9706f6e.02100...@posting.google.com>, ap
>> <qp1...@aol.com> writes
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> What makes it "art"?
>> >
>> >What makes it art is that it is a creative exploration of ideas,
>> >experience, and the world, presented in visual and three-dimensional
>> >form, in this case for the public to respond to in whatever way they
>> >wish.
>>
>> Hoe does this work in the case of the urinal? I've seen thousands of
>> them before, as have most people. What is 'creative', 'explorative' &c?
>
>BTW, Brian Eno claims to be the only person known to have actually
>pissed in Duchamp's urinal, which he did after hours once in a gallery
>in which it was exhibited.
I can think of quite a few more for him to practice on.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In article <Xns92A38322D...@130.133.1.4>, CyberCypher
> <fra...@seed.net.tw> writes
> >Can a chimp be an artist? Can a chimp produce art? Is the sunset
> >art?
>
> No, no and no.
I'm not sure about the first, but I think I'd say that the second is a
"yes". It's often asserted that different apes have different,
consistent styles and that it's relatively straightforward to identify
who painted what, so there's almost certainly some degree of
intentional execution. They paint a certain way because they like
things that look a certain way. With the signing apes, you have the
added benefit that they often give names to their works, and it's
often quite easy to say why they got certain names. Often, these will
doubtless be titled retrospectively--once the painting is done, it
reminds the ape of something, but some of the works at
http://www.abslogic.com/AnimalArt.htm
were performed by either giving the ape (in this case, a gorilla) a
topic or a model to paint from, and even with those it's pretty easy
to see the connection. (Note in the "self portrait" that gorillas are
asserted to not be able to recognize themselves in the mirror, so it's
not surprising that this one isn't representational.) I'm especially
struck by the painting named after a dog, compared with the photo of
the particular dog. More gorilla paintings can be found at
http://www.koko.org/kokomart/art.html
http://www.koko.org/kokomart/art_2.html
The "toy dinosaur" one, especially, strikes me as artistic.
This seems to have all the hallmarks of art. Not necessarily good
art, but art. And I'd place it way above a fair amount of
acknowledged human art.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is no such thing as bad data,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only data from bad homes.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Charles Riggs
My most outlandish piss was off the roof of the US Capitol, once. I
was about 12, and probably wouldn't have done it if my father hadn't
been egging me on.
Charles