I’m a philistine I know, but it just ain’t art.
Published 1 year, 4 months ago in My life.As you’re no doubt aware, the Guggenheim Collection is in town and media outlets have been falling over each other to take us on a virtual tour.
One of the exhibits is a pile of lollies dumped on the gallery floor and visitors are encouraged to take one and think about the message portrayed by the artist’s work which is something to do with the first Gulf War. I don’t know what; presumably something to do with the horror of tooth decay.
EXCEPT IT’S NOT ART IT’S A PILE OF LICORICE!!! And a gallery worker – most likely not an artist but a janitor of sorts - replenishes it at the end of the day.
I quite licorice but it plays havoc with my digestive system so I’ve another idea.
I propose a massive stack of Krispy Creme doughnuts that people could be encouraged to take and munch as they walked around the gallery, thinking about the over indulgence of a western society drunk on the sweet taste of success.
Any takers?
Come on. it would be delicious.
29 Responses to “I’m a philistine I know, but it just ain’t art.”
Leave a Reply
Your reply will not appear on the site until it has been approved
And some squeezer is going to pay this other squeezer a lot of money for they $15 worth of lollies! lol
Oh dear Fossil- terribly middle class of you.
Yes it is art. It may not be good art, in your opinion but it is still art. The fact that it has been included in a fairly prestigious collection shows that it has inspired somebody - probably somebody with a lot more knowledge and background in such matters than a self professed philistine.
That you have formed your opinion based on a virtual tour is a little worrying. Looking at an image of an artwork is a very different thing to experiencing it and participating in it. No one says that you have to like it, but please do it the justice of experiencing it as it was intended.
As to the janitor topping up the lollies at the end of the day - so what? Salvador Dali often had his students paint his paintings!
It depresses me so much that anytime someone views an artwork they either don’t understand or don’t like, they immediately start talking about money.
Any minute now someone will start jumping up and down, shouting about the number of hospital beds the money would be better spent on!
Who cares if the artist made some money out of this piece. There are plenty of people making money doing far worse things!
Contrary to popular belief, most artists do not make pots of money out of their work, particularly in this country! If someone has made a little money in an attempt (no matter how futile or inept you may consider it) to inspire thought about the gulf war then I say go for it!
I would rather spend a relatively small amount of money on this artwork, than the billions and billions of dollars poured into the pointless carnage in the Gulf any day of the week!
How do we all consider the piss christ painting…
cheerio
shadowmaster
Foss ring the NGV right now, your proposal is definetly art and far more relevant to todays society, the janitor (such an american word) would be part of it, reflecting society assumption their wants, thier indulgences are replenished without a thought by an invisible who toils behind the scenes.
I’m excited about the thought of visiting the exhibition.
and shadow I liked the piss christ, but what are your thoughts on Wim Delvoye’s “Cloaca”, would you pay $1000 dollars for a signed turd (though I think there’s a waiting list now and they’re fetching a lot more).
It’s not just the finished work it’s the process, sure there is some w##k amongst it all but thats part of it. The reactions, the discussion art provokes are as relevant as the artwork. Commuication, thought process could be deemed art in themselves and part of the whole.
Viv- again. we will have to have coffee at the chocy dragon fly one day.
Piss Christ- am an atheist, but i reckon,irrespective of the quality of the art, it was pretty bloody rude.
Cloaca- Hhhhhmh, you gotta applaud creativity, but i will leave this one for theshadow.
cheerio
shadowmaster.
Hows your exhibition art going.
don’t know that it’s exhibition quality, but I’m having fun and it’s provoking discussion when I have visitors (everyone is an art critic). I’ve put in to do a introduction to painting short course at TAFE next semester.
Hey Foss, good call. The oxford dictionary says art is the creation of something beautiful. mmmm, I’m not sure if a pile of licorice is beautiful. I hear tell is can give bowel cancer….not so beautiful……..people grabbing handfuls and eating it……mm, not beautiful……….And golden…….beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I do agree with you. Many form an opinion without thinking. And foss? the gulf war??? I hate it when i have to guess what something is. I suppose the positive out of it all, is that it does make people think, And some will go and look and then they may just happen to browse through other art at the same time. But yes, in the mean time, us poor struggling artists envy those who have the oportunities.
shadow where/what is the chocy dragon fly?
Goldy
I probably do rank amoung the middle class these days but I grew up in a very working class family. My father’s favourite parable was/is the Emperor’s New Clothes. It is not “terribly middle-class’’ to view illusory grandeur with suspicion and/or derision – it’s downright lower class. It is only the elite and the intelligentsia that applaud the Emperor’s nakedness.
I have a number of friends who identify themselves as artists and I happen to agree with them. None make a good living from their art as they and I wish they would. I do not begrudge the artist his/her commission but – as in so many cases – the artist in question here - Felix Gonzalez-Torres - is dead. He’s not making money from it. The money is being made by the organisers, curators and others with “a lot more knowledge and background in such matters than’’ this self professed philistine.
Artists are people with talent – people who create beauty. In my humble opinion, describing a pile of just anything as art, diminishes the talent of the true artist. Let’s not confuse them with philosophers.
I intend to visit the collection and get myself a piece of licorice. I’m sure I’ll enjoy the experience and I will continue to discuss the relevance of the piece and what it supposedly represents. That doesn’t make it art, not even bad art.
VIV
It’s not art it’s an analogy.
My pile of doughnuts represents the decadence of a western society drunk on the sweet taste of success.
Felix Gonzalez-Torres’ 700-pound pile of black-rod licorice pieces are supposed to resemble missiles and represent the heightened nationalism Gonzalez-Torres’ witnessed during the first Gulf War.
I can think of many other analogies, as I’m sure you can:
A pile of heavily perfumed, moist faeces covered in a double layer of wrapped Minties could represent a decade of power politics during which the Australian public has willingly accepted sweet smelling, thinly disguised turds in lieu of foreign policy; visitors could be invited to take as many as they like and judge for themselves just how much they’re willing to eat.
A pile of cheap, lead-weight sinkers to represent the way I and many other left wing bleeding hearts have felt during same decade of power politics. Visitors could be encouraged to take one, go fishing and forget about it.
Opposing piles of black armbands and white blindfolds representing opposing views of reconciliation; visitors could be encouraged to pick from a store of armbands and blindfolds and add to which ever pile they identify with.
All are clever (if I do say so) and at least as meaningful as a pile of licorice, but none of them are art. They’re just piles of stuff that mean other stuff because I say they do.
They only become art when those with “a lot more knowledge and background in such matters’’ say they do. They are most likely to this long after the artist is dead. They make money. The artist does not.
Meinrosebud
Not only did some plonker pay a lot of money for a pile of lollies, they’ve paid a lot of tax-payer money to transport that pile of lollies (and hundreds of kilos of reserves) out here.
Shadow, sorry for skipping you.
Piss Christ is often used as an example of controversy over freedom of speech rather than art and as a talking point it is a raging success. As a statement, piss Christ is a powerful piece. This is how large parts of modern society have come to regard Christ - an important religious figure and historical peacenik.
As a photograph it probably has some merit with regard to its technical execution. As art. I don’t like it I couldn’t replicate it in my driveway.
Viv and Shadow – you appear to holding a private conversation. Please elaborate.
I disagree foss (and I’m not taking the piss) but it’s is art, look at the photograph, I feel that it’s quite beautiful and powerful, the play of light and shadow (no relation) the amber hues. Look at it first without knowing how it was created and I defie anyone to say it has no artist merit.
Add that the artist is as entitled to use their works to comment and reflect on society as they see it. I interpret this piece as a reflection of society’s feeling & actions towards christ, from varying aspects, those who hold the christian belief in derison, those who abuse their christains beliefs to meet their own ends and those who believe christ is false/untrue. Whether this is what the artist is alluding to I don’t know, but it has inspired me to think and surely that is worthy.
I disagree, an anology can be art. Art isn’t just landscapes and pretty pictures, lovely though they may be they don’t truly reflect all that is life, ergo art can be ugly and confronting and offensive and a pile of crap (literally). Sure people exploit it and make unrealistic amounts of money from it or not, but again that is a reflection on life too.
It’s not such a private conversation, look up Wim Delvoye and join on in, and ‘cos I didn’t get to the day at Gulf Station I gather shadowmaster would like a meet to discuss exhibtions, art etc.
Maybe what we should have is a nooker day out to visit the Guggenheim. It could be fun, we could all argue about art and it’s central ‘cos being in the northern suburbs I find going to the other side of town can be a pain in the rear at times.
No, not a private conversation foss. Viv is one of the nook artist for my / our exhibition. Also, she mentioned at our first meeting ( i thought ) that she loved going to the chocolate dragon fly cafe in The Basin.
I thought, as this was also my local cafe, we might get together to discuss further the exhibition. Nothing sinister or private here old chap…
Also, i just think it is conicidendtal that we seem to be posting and commenting on the same wave length. O
cheerio
shadowmaster
i had more to say, but my finger slipt, and sent it, and now i have forgotten my train of thought. Oh year, coincidence, shadowmaster often has a run of converstation, often with Lady Chaos, or Nebs, tours 1, or many others. NOthing to worry about
cheerio
shadowmaster
I am an artist.
I spent 6 years studying Fine Art and Theatre Directing. I am the child of two artists and am one of four siblings, who are all artists. I am marrying an artist and all my siblings have married artists. My extended family is liberally sprinkled with artists, as is my circle of friends and acquaintance. I can safely say that not one of these artist’s primary objective in their art is to “create beauty”.
Quite frankly, I think that dictionary definition is old fashioned, boring and incorrect.
When working on a piece (no matter what medium) I do not say to myself, “first and foremost this must be beautiful”. Beauty may not be appropriate to the work and the message I am trying to communicate.
If I see a work that is not beautiful, I do not dismiss it as unworthy of the name “art” and therefore beneath my attention.
I agree with you Viv - of course art can be analogy. Analogy is a basic tool of communication and creativity!
Shadow - I left my observations on the Piss Christ photograph, but it was clearly deemed too sensitive to print.
Admin- If we cannot discuss the possible interpretations of an exceptionally well known art work without censorship we are in a bad way indeed!
I agree with some of what Fossil has said, art like music needs to have a degree of human talent involved in its creation. Electronically generated music doesn’t need a musician to create it, a pile of licorice without structure doesn’t require an artist. Having said that if I can see or hear even the tiniest little bit of creative talent in something I’m more than happy to call it art or music but sorry, not just a pile of anything or those throw it at the canvas paintings that I or my 7 year old granddaughter could easily do. What are future generations going to say about us. How can a genuine artist stand and admire the classics and this sort of rubbish at the same time.
Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder - a thing of beauty does not have to be pretty - but perhaps I should have dropped the word. Talent, however, I shall stick by. It takes no talent to make a pile of licorice, doughnuts or lead sinkers.
An analogy is a great tool of communication, as is art, but that does not make them one and the same thing.
I mean no offence to you Goldy nor your artist relatives, but just because you identify yourself as an artist does not mean you can sell me a pile of poo as art. Again, to do so diminishes the artist’s talent.
Viv, I didn’t think I argued against piss christ as art. It does indeed have artistic merit.
now I’m confused shadowmaster as we have never met, unless in your dreams (or nightmares more like) and I have no knowledge of the Basin or chocolate dragon flies therein, though I do have a thing for dragon flies, so must of been another.
and brian i disagree electronic music and or a pile of something still needs a mind to conceptualise the idea, and no doubt many of us could throw paint at a canvas but we don’t. Thats the whole point having the knowledge that you could do something and actually doing it and desiring, understanding and reflecting on why you’ve done it. It’s not as easy as one might think knowing when to stop is just one of lists of talents required.
Ok
As Viv points out “a pile of something still needs a mind to conceptualise the idea”. You have no idea of the process, the work, the thought, behind this particular piece of work. The “Emperor’s New Clothes” analogy only works if the artist is trying to perpetuate a deception, of which I am by no means convinced. I think this artist utterly believed in his work - for good or bad!
When speaking of beauty I am not talking of prettiness. Awhile back I directed you to Otto Dix’s work. It is grotesque, as the subject matter requires (World War 1) It is stunning work, it is brilliant work. It is not beautiful - War is NOT beautiful!
I’m not trying to “sell” this work to you, but maybe, just maybe, my study, my upbringing and my ongoing association with the art world means I might just know what I am talking about.
As a matter of fact the work isn’t really my cup of tea, but bad art (in my opinion) is still art. In the way that a bad play is still a play. A badly made cake is still a cake.
You say “Artists are people with talent”. Very true. But why should any artist’s talent have to be measured by your particular standard? Who made you the “talent police”?
“You’re nicked my son! I’m arresting you for being in possession of no talent! Any artworks you may produce will be taken down and used in evidence against you in any future grant application”
The emperor was quite convinced that he beautiful new threads. The analogy works well whether the artist believes in their work or not.
An art work that can be reproduced by anyone, anywhere, anytime - such as a 300kg pile of licorice - does not require any talent. I’m not saying the artists was without talent just that this “work'’ did not require any and therefore does not deserve the title of art.
Goldy, you speak of ideas as though they themselves are art. Socrates, Plato, Augustine, philosophers through the ages - all of them full of ideas, but were they artists?
I said “a thing of beauty does not have to pretty'’. As you say Otto Dix’s work is not pretty, but it is beautiful as is Les Carlyon’s prose on the same topic. Both ensnare the senses and capture the horrors of the Great War - they force you to look at something that should force you to recoil. That takes great talent.
I am not sure the question “What is art?” can ever be answered to everyone’s satisfaction. Is it merely something that provokes a response - for then life is art. What has artistic merit and what does not - and who decides? I think the job description of most artists has to include or allow for the response / interpretation of the public if their work is in the public domain.
Most jobs have a much smaller audience / stakeholder population but by its very definition the artist must be accountable to the public. If an artist wants their work to be displayed / viewed / read and responded to then the responses of the listeners, readers, audience must be taken on board.
One of the problems is that it is not only artistic merit which results in works of art being displayed, performed or purchased. Just as we can get a job on merit and talent, we can also get a job based on luck, on who we know or on the lack of other talent at the time! (it’s happened to me!)
When editors and publishers peruse the latest titles they are sure to have a good look at manuscripts from authors they already know, that are accompanied by references from famous or published authors or that come with similar recommendations from an array of sources - depending on the publisher.
While I think debate on art is healthy, interesting and enlivening it is also the right and responsibility of the audience to respond to the art they have experienced in whatever form they like.
So, over to you talent police fossil - let us know what you think after you see it in the flesh so to speak. Hope it’s not too stale!!
Sorry viv, yes, we have not met, was another i were thinking of. But you are indeed an arty nookster- the exhibiton!
Twas, i think, wini what mentioned the chocky dragon?
Ho hum, old age, fading memory, receeding hairlines, and burgeoning abdomens…
cheerio
shadowmaster
Viv, “the play of light and shadow the amber hues” are you talking about Fossil’s stack of Krispy Creme doughnuts.:)
gadfly has the right idea “life is art” ergo we’re all artists. But without a doubt the best artist of all is nature.
maybe if they’re immersed in urine
ewww… “piss doughnuts'’. You need to take a long hard look at yourself viv
never had a krispy creme, but to my mind what they represent, they deserve to be pissed on (hoping I’m not getting too crude here)
KC doughnuts represent yummy bad fatty things, thats all.
Saw it today. Loved it to bits.
For those of you put off by fossil’s rantings: go see it for yourself.