 |
| |
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:28
|
|
I am now going to begin a rant against the stupidity which people call modern art or more precisely I'm going to rant about using tax payer's money to support this crap (and I mean crap literally). It appears the "prestigious" Tate Gallery paid 22,300 pounds (about $35,000) of British taxpayers' money for a sealed can containing the excrement of a deceased artist. The can was not painted or decorated it was just a can filled with ****. How on Earth can anyone call this art? More over how can any left wing MP justify wasting tax payer money on this in a time when Britain's health system is underfunded, it's train system is a mess, there aren't enough roadways to handle the traffic, and there isn't enough defense spending to deal with Arab terrorists?
Is this the only example of "artists" (I use the term losely) of questionable value being given vast sums of taxpayer money? Nope, not by a long shot. An artist named Martin Creed won the prestigious Turner Prize, plus 20,000 pounds (about $30,000), for a work called The Lights Going On and Off, which consisted of a vacant room in which the lights went on and off. I know it is hard to think of "art" getting any more inovative then this but the "artistic" community is trying it's darnedist. According to a London Times the prestigious Paul Hamlyn Foundation has awarded one of the biggest art prizes in Britain -- 30,000 pounds (about $47,000) -- to an artist named Ceal Floyer, for a work of art consisting of: a garbage bag.
Really. The work is titled Rubbish Bag, and to judge from the photograph in the Times, it is a standard black plastic garbage bag, just like the ones you put your garbage in, except of course that you have to pay people to haul your garbage bags away, whereas Ms. Floyer got $47,000 for hers. There is a compelling reason for this: Ms. Floyer's bag is empty. That's what makes it artistic. Ms. Floyer is quoted by the Times as follows:
''It's not a bag of rubbish, it's a rubbish bag. The medium is clearly portrayed: It says it is a bag, air, and a twisted top.''
Got that? It's NOT a bag of rubbish: It's a rubbish bag! If THAT'S not $47,000 worth of innovation, then I don't know what is. 
Link to Story.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
|
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:28
|
|
I can't stop myself. I'm going to quote the whole article.
quote:
It's time for an update on the British art world, which, as far as I can tell, exists mainly to provide me with material.
As regular readers of this column are aware, British art institutions have taken to paying large sums of money for works of art that can only be described as extremely innovative (I am using ''innovative'' in the sense of ''stupid''). Here are two examples that I've written about :
An artist named Martin Creed won the prestigious Turner Prize, plus 20,000 pounds (about $30,000), for a work called The Lights Going On and Off, which consisted of a vacant room in which the lights went on and off.
The prestigious Tate Gallery paid 22,300 pounds (about $35,000) of British taxpayers' money for a sealed can containing the excrement of a deceased artist.
It's hard to imagine art getting any more innovative, but I am pleased to report that the British art community is doing its darnedest. According to a London Times story sent in by alert reader Ronald Thurston, the prestigious Paul Hamlyn Foundation has awarded one of the biggest art prizes in Britain -- 30,000 pounds (about $47,000) -- to an artist named Ceal Floyer, for a work of art consisting of: a garbage bag.
Really. The work is titled Rubbish Bag, and to judge from the photograph in the Times, it is a standard black plastic garbage bag, just like the ones you put your garbage in, except of course that you have to pay people to haul your garbage bags away, whereas Ms. Floyer got $47,000 for hers. There is a compelling reason for this: Ms. Floyer's bag is empty. That's what makes it artistic. Ms. Floyer is quoted by the Times as follows:
''It's not a bag of rubbish, it's a rubbish bag. The medium is clearly portrayed: It says it is a bag, air, and a twisted top.''
Got that? It's NOT a bag of rubbish: It's a rubbish bag! If THAT'S not $47,000 worth of innovation, then I don't know what is.
The Times states that ''Floyer's sculpture is displayed by a doorway; the intention is that the viewer wonders whether it is full of air or rubbish.'' Actually, what it makes me wonder is whether the folks writing checks at the Paul Hamlyn Foundation have been smoking crack.
If so, they apparently have been sharing the pipe with the folks at Bedford Creative Arts. This is a group that hands out taxpayer money to artists committing works of public art in Bedford, a town in the county of Bedfordshire (which also contains the towns of Biggleswade, Flitwick and Leighton Buzzard).
An alert reader named Jane Weaver sent me an article from the London Daily Express stating that Bedford Creative Arts decided to pay a performance artist named Andre Stitt 12,200 pounds (about $19,000) to, among other innovative things, kick an empty takeout-curry carton through the center of town. In case you're wondering why that would be artistic, the answer, as far as I can tell, is that Stitt was going to wear silver platform boots.
Tragically, this work of art had to be canceled. It got a lot of media attention, and Bedford art officials were afraid that too many people would show up to watch. Don't you just HATE it when the public shows up to watch public art, paid for by the public?
But don't worry! Mr. Stitt still got his 12,200 pounds, because he also performed several other works of art for the people of Bedford, including -- I am quoting here from the Ananova.com news service -- ''locking himself in a derelict house and remodeling it using stuffed preserved albino animals, crematorium ash cans, vinyl lettering and talcum powder.''
A Bedford arts official is quoted as saying that it was ''not important'' that Mr. Stitt did not actually perform his curry-carton work, because it had ''created a huge amount of publicity'' and thus ''has already existed in the public arena.'' In other words, he didn't have to physically kick the curry carton to get paid for kicking the curry carton, because the public was aware of the curry-carton-kicking concept.
I bet that Michelangelo (a loyal reader of this column) is turning over in his grave right now. He's thinking: ''You mean I could have just announced that I was going to make a huge statue of David? I didn't have to chip away all that marble?''
Poor Michelangelo, born back in the bad old pre-innovative days of art. We can only imagine what he might have done with stuffed albino animals.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
''It's not a bag of rubbish, it's a rubbish bag. The medium is clearly portrayed: It says it is a bag, air, and a twisted top.''
|
Well, certainly sounds like rubbish. And the other stuff sounds like bullshit. Or something.
I'm more lenient than most when it comes to defining art, but spending tens of thounds on that stuff is a waste.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traianvs
|
 |
Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
Jan 2000
time: 06:28
|
|
It all started with that damned Duschamp 
Curse him!! 
Seriously there seems to be a problem these days in what people perceive as art. However, it's more than a pot of crap, I don't know exactly what that "more" means, but it's modern art you know, you don't have to question it. You simply have to enjoy the pot of crap!
Really serious now. Art has always evolved or deteriorated in some ways, but now it seems it is very hard to make anything creative. In my opinion many artists these days ridicule art, I don't call this pot of crap art.
The definition art now isn't how people used to see art these past millennia. Art usually has a purpose in some way (according to my philosophy prof art always has a purpose for ancient people but I don't agree ), and tends to try to be pleasing to the eye, decorating the surrounding, every culture sees it like that. I don't know of any culture deliberately making ritual objects ugly or deformed in any way.
Now however it doesn't have to be pleasing to the eye anymore, that aspect seems to be unimportant now. On top of that, art can be anything now, remember video-art (which is one of the most despicable and useless, and boring forms of modern art imo). That's sad I think..
Of course that doesn't mean there is no good modern art.. check out Hamilton for example, he rules! He's witty, knows perfectly how to make a great piece of art by combining photography and traditional ways of creating a painting or drawing, and his work is usually quite pleasing to the eye!
Of course that's popart... not quite the modern art pot of crap
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-05-2003 03:15
|