conceptual art debunked for the crap that it is
bkalem
A TOILET BOWL is a TOILET BOWL is a TOILET BOWL.
It is NOT ART. It was never meant to be.
The toilet was used as a metaphor by the Anti-Art movement otherwise
known as DADA equating Museums, Galleries, and CULTURE,
for the 'toilet' that they had become after the 'great' war.
Toilet bowls and other fashionably FOUND 'crapola' are now adorning
museum walls thanks to slimy art dealers and moronic critics.
What else should we expect from Capitalist/hyena market economies?
The pretentious rifraff who call themselves 'conceptual' artists, so
busy appropriating other people's work, wouldn't (without a doubt)
have the slightest reticense sharing their filthy laurels
with artisans, and common laborers (whose work they are so
feverishly thieving NOW).
Yea, they may even spare some crumbs from their ivory towers.
And where is the Muse?
Why in the shit bowl of course.
Dada is dead.
Long live MAMA.
Boghos Kalemkiar
(Toronto)
WYNNK
does not even know the difference between DaDa and Conceptual art.
ranting and raving is no substitute for saerious discussion. Let's have
some specifics as to what or whose art the poster does like or value.
For the record one of my favorite Conceptual artists is Sol Lewitt who,
incidetally, is also one of the most generous of men to young artists. His
walldrawings are often made available to schools, college museums and sim
ilar institutions and no charge.
wynn k
Rosa Amarillo
>
>This is one of the most moronic of posts in a very long time.
Probably really can't blame him/her for moronic postings. Probably
been reading Mani/Bruce rants too long in this group. Sort of the
same kind of reaction one expects from the "masses" who cannot
think for themselves and allow themselves to be led around like sheep
by the Adolphs, Jims, L. Rons, and Maharishis of the world. Someone
called it "brain washing" I think--what happens to those who are too
lazy to do their own cleansing.
--
=================================================
May the Peace Dove's wingbeat gently waft
the sweet smell of spring flowers your way
and blanket your pathway in rose pedals.
~ Rosa Amarillo ~
Visit with me at my place:
http://www.channels.nl/cantina.html
=================================================
Sculpture Center
Show specifically because that show claimed to have an open admissions
policy. It wanted to accept all art. The urinal was not accepted, and
Duchamp wrote a letter to the newspaper defending Mr. Mutt and his
urinal. The idea being to show that even when we aspire to the kind of
openmindedness, and inclusivity, that modern artists seek, we still fall
short.
Bruce Attah
> This is one of the most moronic of posts in a very long time. The "author"
> does not even know the difference between DaDa and Conceptual art.
Is Michael Craig-Martin's "Oak Tree" conceptual art or dada? If the
former, in what way does it differ from Duchamp's purported sculpture by
"R. Mutt"?
Was dada a coherent art (or anti-art) movement at all?
> ranting and raving is no substitute for saerious discussion.
No, but it can be a good starting point.
> Let's have
> some specifics as to what or whose art the poster does like or value.
> For the record one of my favorite Conceptual artists is Sol Lewitt who,
> incidetally, is also one of the most generous of men to young artists.
Generosity does not make a bad artist good, as I am sure you would note,
if I were to cite Lord Leighton's generosity to his younger colleagues.
> His
> walldrawings are often made available to schools, college museums and sim
> ilar institutions and no charge.
Would they have paid?
> wynn k
Bruce Attah
mm0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Michael Gerard Maranda) wrote:
> In <4iief0$i...@spinne.web.net> bka...@web.apc.org (bkalem) writes:
>
>
> >The pretentious rifraff who call themselves 'conceptual' artists, so
> >busy appropriating other people's work, wouldn't (without a doubt)
> >have the slightest reticense sharing their filthy laurels
> >with artisans, and common laborers (whose work they are so
> >feverishly thieving NOW).
>
>
> Uh, is there something wrong with 'artisans and common laborers'?
>
> Hmmm, seems rather ironic ocnsidering the political intentions of most of
> the interesting early 20th-c. artists ...
>
> --
> "Every age gets the renaissance it deserves." (Aby Warburg)
>
>
> Michael Maranda *** mm0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
There seems to be something terribly wrong with artisans and labourers,
judging from the way many conceptual artists behave. They seem to be
trying to separate themselves as far as they possibly can from any
suggestion of artisanship in their work. For some, this seems to be the
whole point of what they do.
Bruce Attah
Amarillo) wrote:
> In article <4iil14$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, wy...@aol.com says...
> >
> >This is one of the most moronic of posts in a very long time.
>
> Probably really can't blame him/her for moronic postings. Probably
> been reading Mani/Bruce rants too long in this group. Sort of the
> same kind of reaction one expects from the "masses" who cannot
> think for themselves and allow themselves to be led around like sheep
> by the Adolphs, Jims, L. Rons, and Maharishis of the world. Someone
> called it "brain washing" I think--what happens to those who are too
> lazy to do their own cleansing.
> --
It is interesting that you hold this opinion of those who use this group
to express their disapproval of certain recent trends in art.
Interesting, in part, because I wonder who you think they are following
when they say what they say. Who are the gurus who are telling them that
a latrine is not a masterpiece of art on a par with a Rubens painting?
Interesting, too, because you imagine the author of the post you are
attacking got his opinions from myself or MD. Do you seriously believe
that everyone who has read our posts (and presumably also their
follow-ups) over a long period of time must surely be persuaded to agree
with us? Then you flatter us both for our powers of persuasion, or imply
simply that at least one of us is right. (In which case, why have you not
switched sides?) Most of all, though, your post is interesting to me
because I have long seen you as a sheepish follower of critical fashion.
Jeff Mann
Sculpture Center <scul...@interport.net> wrote:
>[...]The idea being to show that even when we aspire to the kind of
>short.
>
to wit, from the "Kalemkiar (The Outsider Artists Collective)" website:
The Outsider Artists Collective is soliciting Art from ALL
self-taught, primitive, naive, lunatic or otherwise outcasted
artists. The Collective will entertain the works of the academically
trained so long as the latter, publicly espouse a primitive, naive
and/or genial temperament. On the other hand, self-taught artists
are at complete liberty to do any damn thing they please. This is
the re-birth of DADA and we call it MAMA. The Collective's primary
agenda is to make sure artists are able to exhibit their works
without needing a zillion degrees and/or academic
dissertations/pretensions to do so. The Collective also believes in
the sacrosanct right of artists to express themselves despite the
ravings of moribund critics and/or the lumpen public.
and then a quote:
The characteristic property of an inventive art is that it bears no
resemblance to art as it is generally recognized and in consequence
-and this all the more so as it is more inventive -that it does not
seem like art at all. Jean Dubuffet
It seems Kalemkiar completely misses M. Dubuffet's point, and perhaps
his own as well. Soliciting "Art" from "naive artists" in order to
ensure the exhibition of their works - in a gallery - the whole thing's
an oxymoron. Duchamp et al were never "naive" or "primitive"; they were
highly aware of the academy and were in many ways in reaction to it.
If one is to make such a loud denouncement of academic traditions (no
argument from me) it might make some sense to reject the cliches of the
system - the Artist, the Gallery, the Definition of Art - rather than
complain about being excluded from participation.
--
Jeff Mann - Information Consumer ___O___O__= --- jef...@utcc.utoronto.ca
___O___O__= --- jef...@interlog.com
David Swanson
wy...@aol.com (WYNNK) writes:
> This is one of the most moronic of posts in a very long time. The "author"
> does not even know the difference between DaDa and Conceptual art.
> ranting and raving is no substitute for saerious discussion. Let's have
> some specifics as to what or whose art the poster does like or value.
> For the record one of my favorite Conceptual artists is Sol Lewitt who,
> incidetally, is also one of the most generous of men to young artists. His
> walldrawings are often made available to schools, college museums and sim
> ilar institutions and no charge.
> wynn k
I missed the original moronic post. Why don't you fill us in on the
value of conceptual art?
David
Glaubt es mir, das Geheimniss und der grŸsste fruchtbarcheit und den
grŸssten Genus vom Dasein einzuernten heist: gefŠhrlich leben!
Edwin R. Mighell Jr.
Dada Drummer" by Hulsenbeck if I remember right. He thought DADA as he remembered it was a thing
of the past. He thought the rebellions of the youths from the 60's forward were a bit similar,
but still different. He and his friends were defying the establishment that was capable of world
wars and on top of that sought the death of the artists themselves.
I really liked the guy's sound poems.
Well, I like reading about the DADA-ists. I think that pursuing your own path, even when it goes
against the established way, carries the DADA spirit.
What's this MAMA?
I have an art-page:
http://www.alaska.net/~mighell
Two of the pages have Java applets.
Novara, Tesija & Michela, P.C.
>This is one of the most moronic of posts in a very long time. The "author"
>does not even know the difference between DaDa and Conceptual art.
>ranting and raving is no substitute for saerious discussion. Let's have
>some specifics as to what or whose art the poster does like or value.
>For the record one of my favorite Conceptual artists is Sol Lewitt who,
>incidetally, is also one of the most generous of men to young artists. His
>walldrawings are often made available to schools, college museums and sim
>ilar institutions and no charge.
>wynn k
Why do you suppose that "specifics as to what or whose art the poster
does like or value" constitutes a "serious discussion"? Do you
suppose your "analysis" is valuable since you admire artists who
allegedly give away their art? I would think that merely making
grocery lists like you propose is really only the beginning. Why, for
example, do you like Conceptual art? Because of practicioners like
Mr. Lewitt who, according to you, make walldrawings available at no
charge? Doesn't the importance of that gift depend in part upon the
value of the gift? Which brings us back to the question--why is
Conceptual art valuable or important?
Here's an easier question: Why do _you_find it valuable or important?
NR Nahat
Novara, Tesija & Michela, P.C.
>This is one of the most moronic of posts in a very long time. The "author"
>does not even know the difference between DaDa and Conceptual art.
>ranting and raving is no substitute for saerious discussion. Let's have
>some specifics as to what or whose art the poster does like or value.
>For the record one of my favorite Conceptual artists is Sol Lewitt who,
>incidetally, is also one of the most generous of men to young artists. His
>walldrawings are often made available to schools, college museums and sim
>ilar institutions and no charge.
>wynn k
Is this a non-moronic reply? I suppose your account of a "serious
discussion" is a list of "what or whose are the poster does like or
value." Why is this kind ofa grocery list a "serious discussion."
Moreover, you seem to conflate the value of art with the moral
characteristics of the artist--is the sole recommendation you have for
Mr. Lewitt's art his alleged generousity? I would think that the
value of such generousity depends in part on the value of his art.
So, what is so valuable about Conceptual Art?
NR Nahat.