I ask because I must have no idea what is really art. I mean much of what I appreciate as art others would not, and I see a lot of shit hanging on walls with price tags that make me laugh. To some it is an investment, to others it is ONLY about talent. I think defining art is tough, in a way it is like porn. Like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart is famous for having said "Hardcore pornography may be hard to define, but I know it when I see it.", and when you see how obscene some of what passes for art is you have to chuckle at how accurate my comparison is (send me a fucking dollar, paypal is bigfame@gmail.com). I can't tell you what art is, but I can point and tell you what is art to me.In the end my personal opinion is that art is expression, and expression is at it's core communication. I use the term art loosely, as I think it should be, many, many people make art, some make a living at it, SOME of those people even have talent (mind you only some). To me the point is that art is often the answer to ones inabilty to communicate something they need to get across. Many artists have to create, they really have no choice in the matter. They simply have something they NEED to get out, be it sadness, love, admiration, frustration, anger, or even ambivalance. If you can't say it you might be able to paint it, write it, sculpt it, or even sing it. I mean, I often write what I would never have the nerve to say, and I rarely pass on those thoughts (often when I do, it is with women, and more often than not I regret it). Maybe I would do better to share what I make but the other thing about art it is that it is often opening up and exposing a nerve, a part of you that you otherwise couldn't or wouldn't share. My art often embarasses me, so for me much of what I create nobody will ever see. Even the stuff that I am most proud of.
Often musicians are judged by record sales alone and in fact I think almost ANYTHING you could use to judge them would be better. First of all most people are idiots, mindless sheep who buy what they are told to, and listen to what Clearchannel decides they should. Art is similar, often what is popular is trash to me, while the artist having trouble selling their goods is the one who is really creating something of value, not monetary value but real true value. I am certainly not saying that if you sell a painting, or anything else you have created that you have given away your soul or that you are no longer truley an artist, only that that can not be the barometer alone. In the September issue of Forbes on page 120 they have some quotes that pertain to art and creativity, many were good, one stood out.
"True creativity often starts where language ends."
Arthur Koestler
"Whatever creativity is, it is in part a solution to a problem."
Brian Aldiss
"Make visible what, without you might prehaps never have been."
Robert Bresson
There are plenty more, some pretty good really but the one that really stood out to me is the first of those three. For me art is often about what I feel can not be expressed with just my words. Lots of people make art, some of you probably don't even know you do. You may do it in foods you prepare, or even in the way you talk, certainly in paintings, photographs, custom shoes (Mannie I want a wallet), writing, sculptures, even in how we do our jobs, and hell in whatever it is we use to "get our point across". I am not really sure where this entry is going, only that I am trying to use TWC as a means to share what I am thinking since not all of us have a visual medium that we feel like people need to see. So I guess in the end the message should be go make something, art is not beyond anyones reach. It is in much of what we do, as long as we stretch and force ourselves to reach beyond what is easy and instead ask a bit more of ourselves.
Okay so I am about done with a bottle of Cab and I no longer really have the energy to edit this so I am going to just post it, hopefully some of it makes sense, and I don't sound too damn crazy. Love you all.
BFO
Posts
I believe the paintings in the photograph are Rauschenberg's. They're about the relationship they have within the space their shown in. I.E. If you have the opposite an a pure black painting, it would be virtually the same in dark room or well lit room or a different color room. In certain instances it would effect how the room it was in appeared but the painting itself would always appear black. A white painting does the exact opposite.
People often misconstrue or think physical talents make an artist. Certainly there are instances where physical talents are needed but really art functions on intellectual level (obivously some more "intellectual" than others). Even though some would like to believe art is function of "so and so can draw, paint, photograph, etc." I would argue art is function of an ability to convey ideas.
Rauschenberg's work ironically is perfect example of what art really is. Virtually any of us with little discernible difference could paint a canvas white thus physical talent isn't really an issue. But none of us other than Rauschenberg came up with idea of how an all white canvas might function within a space and the relationship it would create with light, color, reflection, etc. And this is art. An idea conveyed through an aesthetic medium.
The fact of the matter is, art is defined differently by everyone.
To me, the pic that Fame posted with this entry is an insult to what i consider to be art. I mean, sure its conveying the guys idea/concept in an abstract way, but thats not art to me. Its not art every time you try to prove a point or convey an idea. But he hung the white canvas' on a wall, in a gallery, so people are pretty much forced to call it art due to the context.
This happens far too often in my opinion. Tons of crap thats in a gallery or exhibition etc, would be looked at as useless, pointless crap, if it wasnt in the context of implied art. A Gallery.
To each their own though, everyone has the right to consider whatever they want to be art.
Great post Fame.
I tend to live by the philosophy drawing a line in the sand narrowly defining art is a fruitless task. Rather than narrow what is or isn't art I would suggest that there could be simply art you don't enjoy or appreciate for any number of reasons (offensive, misunderstood, etc.). There is certainly good and bad art and that's certainly relative depending on who you ask. I just think you walk a slippery slope when you attempt to narrowly define art.
Sure he just painted canvas white and had it hung it some upscale gallery in Manhattan but like I said I think the physical task is reasonably trivial in defining what is or isn't art.
But like you say, to each their own.
But by that reasoning, just cause someone calls something art, im gonna concede and agree with them. Based solely on them calling it art.
There is a ton of art out there that i dont like or agree with, but i dont argue that its art.
Youre suggesting that i go along and concede no matter what. That just doesnt jive with me personally. If a drunken homeless man shits in the brown paper bag that was holding his 40oz, and throws it at a bodega window (or better yet, into an open gallery door) and proclaims it to be art, id have to go ahead and refer to him as an artist.
That just doesnt jive with me or my opinion on art.
ps - whos quote is that? The "fruitless task" one.
I agree that defining art iin terms of what is or isn't art is a trivial persuit, the point of my entry had more to do with MY personal defintion and I can tell you with the greatest of sincerity that the photo choice was not made for it's artistic merit, but for the laugh I get when I look at it.
I gotta admit, i chuckled too when i first saw that pic.
Dude is really studying those white canvas', really soaking it in.
Concede assumes one should have to convince you. I would suggest anyone who creates is an artist. That it requires no skill set beyond an ability to convey ideas through an aesthetic medium. If someone thinks their conveying an idea through a bag of shit then certainly they can be an artist. Whether they're a good artist or make good art I would highly question in your example but art and artist? Sure.
Painter, Photographer, Graphic Designer, etc. are artistic professions which inherently require skill sets particular to the medium which could certainly be debated. I'm would never suggest by the paintings in the photograph above Rauschenberg is a skilled painter. He's simply an artist who is using paint/canvas to explore/convey the idea at hand.
I certainly understand your sentiment, it's widely held. I just don't agree with it.
P.S. About the fruitless task thing I didn't know I was quoting someone, so I have no idea who it's from.
I would agree there is a humor in the photo of the paintings though. It begs to be PS'd. lol.
Now that I agree with, one does not have to prove ones worth or earn a license to be called an artist. you get to decide for yourself that you are, and I think if you create art you are an artist. It is up to others to either appreciate your work or not, but if you are a shit in a bag artist I am not likely to buy it.
Basically, im just stubborn and think that the terms "art" and "artist" are thrown around too much, and used too loosely.
Im just not willing to call a bag shitter an artist.
The main point of disagreement is that you dont think any skill whatsoever is needed to be an artist. I, on the other hand, think that skill is and should be, a requirement for an artist.
No physical skill or talent. Often that goes hand in hand with great physical skill or talent. I don't think it's required. Great artists are great minds, art is ultimately an intellectual endeavor through physical means. There are plenty of great artists (examples: Warhol, Koons, Murakami, Hurst, etc.) who simply think of the works they create and don't physical construct them. Perfect example of lack of required skill or talent but great minds at work.
I thought I had something to contribute but it got lost in the shit bag humor lol
as for the wallet....I'd been secretly plotting on a TWC version...just havent made the time to get it done-but if you have anything specific in mind, hit me up
My name is Robert Colbin and I am a curator at the MOCA museum in Los Angeles.
A reader of yours put me on to your blog this morning, and I wish to get in contact with you with regards to your artwork.
We are planning an exhibition for late 2009 that deals with the subject of homelessness in America. The piece that you described here would fit well with the theme of our exhibit and I feel that the act of shitting in a bag evokes a realness that is all too present in our society today for those less fortunate.
We would greatly consider purchasing this to add to our collection, with your consideration of course.
Please get in touch with me at your soonest convenience so that we may discuss this further.
Best,
Robert Colbin / Associate Curator, MOCA
MOCA / The Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles
r.colbin@moca.org
T: 213/626-6222 ext. 205
F: 213/626-6223
http://www.moca.org/
GOD DAMMIT!
Hey i was wondering too, how much for the bag of bum shit?
I got paypal ready.
Haha for a second I thought we were going to get an actual breakdown from a big time art professional.
I think the term art gets thrown around too much. I hate conceptual art like the stuff in the picture (though I got a laugh out of the picture). People that do stuff like that want to get a response out of people for their work, they want people to react to it, like one reacts to a truly great picasso, monet, etc. but since they're too busy chain smoking and going to hip williamsburg parties and lack talent, they come up with some half assed bullshit about how they want the viewer to react and feel emotion in hopes they become famous off of it, so they can actually shit in a bag and sell it to some jack ass one day.
While real artists just create and don't think about the reaction that it will create, sure they have some idea what they want, but to me making something to evoke a certain emotion or reaction is stupid, because each person feels things or interprets things different. I could see a painting of something and think it was just fine, while my mom might see it and think its disturbing.
good post BFO
First of all thanks Adam, I am glad to see that this post got some reaction (LOL). I disagree with Chris on the merits required to be labeled an artist I also do not agree that the picture shows art work.
Mr. Colbin, I am willing to shit in a bag for your exhibition but I think it best to wait so its fresh to help drive home the point that homelessness in America is a current and fresh issue, I would ship you my poo bag now but fear that the message, by the time of the show would be "Homelessness a problem of the recent past".
Also I have a home, and if you want more "real" and "grittyness" to the piece I will hold the bag for a real homeless person (I know a few) but the cost of the piece will go up significantly. Let me know.
So the funniest part of the photo to me is this. He took white canvas' and then he painted them white. That is kind of funny. I thought the photo wasa joke or a sarcastic commentary on the state of art or something, I really didn't believe that someone had painted white canvas' white and hung them in a gallery. Ok, so I got to go I am going to go and paint fake bricks on a brick wall.
^ Not quite.
Pre-stretched/gessoed canvas just sold at your local art store in the 1950's (when those were painted) didn't exist. And even if it did, I'd bed either himself or someone else custom built the stretcher bars and stretch the canvas on to them. And then probably primed it with gesso (possibly also done by whoever built it). And lastly painted the canvas white. Raw canvas is hardly "white".
I get the humor/irony in the photograph, but those are legitimately founded in the history modern art. Robert Rauschenberg is no slouch.
While i appreciate the art history lesson it was in fact not necessary as I have worked around enough canvas to know the process AND it changes nothing. Regardless of who stretched the canvas and who prepped it it still comes down to his painting a white canvas white. i find very little appeal in such art, maybe I would change my tune were I to see it in person but I doubt it. Now I got to run I want to go put a second coat on mt faux brick wall painting.