Accidental Cleanliness Destroys $1.1m Art Installation

[Owyn_Merrilin]

So wait a minute, you call yourself a fan of modern art, but you can't appreciate the absurdity that a piece of it was just destroyed, not because somebody wanted to censor it, but because a cleaning lady mistook it for a stain?

what i don't like, isn't that a work was accidently damaged, but the horrible reaction to it which goes beyond "well, that's a bit absurd" to a full on attack on the value of the art, the artist, the owner, the people putting on the show, anyone who might enjoy it, and even the entire field of creativity this one piece is part of.

Duchamp would be ashamed. Personally, I think the people who said the museum should re-brand it as a collaboration between two artists had the right idea. What that cleaning lady did actually, in a way, gave some meaning to the stupid thing.

collaboration has to have the blessing of both halves, the cleaning lady doesn't appear to have been making a point, just a very unfortunate mistake, and the artist is deceased so can not sign off on any alterations made. (it's also not for the gallery to "rebrand" anything, the work is on loan from a private collector)

the key thing here is intent, absurdism (which i'm not a fan of incidently* but hey, each to their own) was intended as such by the people made it, a work being damaged by accident doesn't become good, cause you can call it absurdist based on the fact that you don't like the work (which you've only seen in a picture).

*i like contemporary art, old masters, loads of stuff before and imbetween, but that doesn't mean i like all of it, or that the bits i don't like are of no value, the artists who make them pulling a con, or the people who like them wrong to feel that way. if the paint got washed off a picture i don't like it wouldn't be ok because it was an accident, or good because that made it blank and i like minimalism.

See, you're failing to get the reason we're having this reaction: a cleaning lady mistook a supposed work of art for a mess that needed to be cleaned up. In the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, she's the child who pointed out the emperor's nudity. The rest of us are enjoying this because her mistake shows a lot of truth abut the condition of modern art. Ironically enough, we're enjoying it on a highly artistic level.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Ladies and Gentlemen, total proof of one thing:

Modern Art is shit.

My favorite example of this, I saw in the Guggenheim museum.

[image/]http://www.toutfait.com/issues/volume2/issue_5/articles/merritt/images/04_shovel_big.jpg[/IMG]

No really. That's it. It's an unaltered snow shovel hanging from the ceiling.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

And people who haven't even seen the piece start commenting about how modern art is trash, typical.


Perhaps you guys don't realize this, but YOU'RE NOT THE CROWD THAT IT'S AIMED FOR.

Compare a lot of modern to games like limbo. Notice how stylized the game is, to the point where everything is completely abstract and seen only as shadows. That conveys a lot of meaning, but at the same time, principal one of modern arts is:

1. The more abstract the art becomes, the more meaning it can convey, but the more difficult it is to discern the meaning of the piece.


This is true to the point where some pieces intended to convey many layers of meaning are complete gibberish. This is the point where people can sneak bullshit in as "art". Since this is the level where telling the difference between something that has many layers of meaning that are simply difficult to discern and having no meaning whatsoever requires a significant art education, this is the level where people can give meaningless pieces to rich people who like being opulent.

If it requires an art degree to understand it, chances are it has no real meaning, and even the people with art degrees are just making stuff up so they won't look stupid in their peer's eyes. Again, the Emperor's New Clothes.

That's... silly.

Seriously, the idea of getting an education of in humanities is to be able to detect things that other people can't. Education in cultural artifacts symbolism, and meanings.

You assume that people are covering for their peers on purpose, why is it not more logical that they exploit the same knowledge that is being taught to the people they are making art for to create something that obviously means something to them?

Of course, some modern art is meaningless, some choose to revel in the absurdity (which seems pointless in my opinion), but thats usually only eaten up by "collectors" who use it as conspicuous consumption.

Of course on the opposite end, there are others so utterly blunt that it's pointless (ex. ten commandments in a bottle of piss).

 

[procrasty]

See, you're failing to get the reason we're having this reaction: a cleaning lady mistook a supposed work of art for a mess that needed to be cleaned up. In the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, she's the child who pointed out the emperor's nudity. The rest of us are enjoying this because her mistake shows a lot of truth abut the condition of modern art. Ironically enough, we're enjoying it on a highly artistic level.

you view this perticular story as something which validates how you already feel about a cirtain area of art, fine, whatever. the problem with the comparason to the "emperors new clothes", is that people use that to validate pointing and laughing at everyone who holds a different opinion to them.

culture is subjective, and people are going to like different things, but no one deserves to be mocked for what they like, or derided for what they create.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

And people who haven't even seen the piece start commenting about how modern art is trash, typical.


Perhaps you guys don't realize this, but YOU'RE NOT THE CROWD THAT IT'S AIMED FOR.

Compare a lot of modern to games like limbo. Notice how stylized the game is, to the point where everything is completely abstract and seen only as shadows. That conveys a lot of meaning, but at the same time, principal one of modern arts is:

1. The more abstract the art becomes, the more meaning it can convey, but the more difficult it is to discern the meaning of the piece.


This is true to the point where some pieces intended to convey many layers of meaning are complete gibberish. This is the point where people can sneak bullshit in as "art". Since this is the level where telling the difference between something that has many layers of meaning that are simply difficult to discern and having no meaning whatsoever requires a significant art education, this is the level where people can give meaningless pieces to rich people who like being opulent.

If it requires an art degree to understand it, chances are it has no real meaning, and even the people with art degrees are just making stuff up so they won't look stupid in their peer's eyes. Again, the Emperor's New Clothes.

That's... silly.

Seriously, the idea of getting an education of in humanities is to be able to detect things that other people can't. Education in cultural artifacts symbolism, and meanings.

You assume that people are covering for their peers on purpose, why is it not more logical that they exploit the same knowledge that is being taught to the people they are making art for to create something that obviously means something to them?

Of course, some modern art is meaningless, some choose to revel in the absurdity (which seems pointless in my opinion), but thats usually only eaten up by "collectors" who use it as conspicuous consumption.

Of course on the opposite end, there are others so utterly blunt that it's pointless (ex. ten commandments in a bottle of piss).

An education in the humanities, sure. But if you need a full blown degree to understand it -- not the basic instructions on how to interpret art that every college student gets as a part of their associates degree, I mean something specialized -- whatever art object you're looking at probably doesn't have much meaning to begin with. The lit major who posted above about just how much BS goes into interpreting poetry gave a very good example of that; sometimes, Mr. Freud, a chicken is just a chicken.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

See, you're failing to get the reason we're having this reaction: a cleaning lady mistook a supposed work of art for a mess that needed to be cleaned up. In the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, she's the child who pointed out the emperor's nudity. The rest of us are enjoying this because her mistake shows a lot of truth abut the condition of modern art. Ironically enough, we're enjoying it on a highly artistic level.

you view this perticular story as something which validates how you already feel about a cirtain area of art, fine, whatever. the problem with the comparason to the "emperors new clothes", is that people use that to validate pointing and laughing at everyone who holds a different opinion to them.

culture is subjective, and people are going to like different things, but no one deserves to be mocked for what they like, or derided for what they create.

They do when the people selling are con artists, and the people buying are little more than marks. Would you be saying the same thing if we were talking about patent medicine? A lot of that stuff actually contained opium, and therefore actually worked to a given definition of "worked," and the people consuming it certainly had good reason to enjoy it. However, the people selling it were still con artists.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

This thread makes me pretty sad. Half of you would be getting furiously angry if someone came out claiming that games are not art because "They're all just about shooting people and raping prostitutes", and yet here you all are claiming "This isn't art, it's just a bunch of sticks and wood."

No one's asking you to like it. No one's asking you to think it's better than anything by Picasso or something. But as soon as you start throwing up the "this is not art" claim you lose any right to cry about how people regard your favourite hobby.

For the record, it's not my kind of art.

 

[procrasty]

Modern art has too much of an obsession with work which isn't that insightful at all, which does not deserve the praise it gets. The unmade bed, heck mine is a masterpiece. I could have been a millionaire if I'd grasped the idea that it was "art" and wheeled it off to an art exhibit. Meanwhile, I've been to country art galleries with beautiful paintings which must have taken alot of dedication, yet these had generally modest prices compared to the exorbitant premium placed on rubbish heaps. The avantgarde-snobs brand it "kitsch". I brand them pretentious pseudo-intellectuals.

its important not to confuse the monatary value placed on works by the art market as being the be all and end all of how the art world values work culturally.
the super expensive bidding wars for perticular works (sadly) take place between a lot of people who view art from purely an investment point of view, which skews the market in all sorts of ways odd ways, overvaluing and undervaluing both contempory and classical art.

the market really is a seperate world from the vast majority of people creating, and appreciating all types of artworks.

i'd suggest just giving any gallery a go, there is more representational, or highly crafted art in contemporary galleries than this debate usually suggets.

i really think the best thing everyone can do (and wish they would do) is just focus on promoting and supporting the work you like, rather than getting annoyed at the stuff you don't.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This thread makes me pretty sad. Half of you would be getting furiously angry if someone came out claiming that games are not art because "They're all just about shooting people and raping prostitutes", and yet here you all are claiming "This isn't art, it's just a bunch of sticks and wood."

No one's asking you to like it. No one's asking you to think it's better than anything by Picasso or something. But as soon as you start throwing up the "this is not art" claim you lose any right to cry about how people regard your favourite hobby.

For the record, it's not my kind of art.

For the record, I'm the one who is most furiously debating that modern art sucks, and I'm not exactly a "games as art" proponent. Not that I think that it's impossible for a game to be art, but to me games are, first and foremost, games. I've seen plenty of games that are good games and mediocre at best art, plus a few that one could make an argument for being decent art, but not for being good games. I have yet to see one that is both a good game and good art. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think games are best when they stick to what they're good at -- being games. Also, I think the obsession with getting the medium recognized as an art form smacks of people who are embarrassed that they still play with toys as teenagers and adults, and would feel less embarrassed if it somehow made them art critics -- to which I say, "don't be embarrassed. Adults have toys; adults have better toys than kids. Revel in it."

 

[procrasty]

They do when the people selling are con artists, and the people buying are little more than marks. Would you be saying the same thing if we were talking about patent medicine?

erm, no, because medicine is a completely different thing, it's a field of science it's objective, where a art is a field of, well, art, and is subjective.

really, they're just completely different things.

 

[Irridium]

This thread makes me pretty sad. Half of you would be getting furiously angry if someone came out claiming that games are not art because "They're all just about shooting people and raping prostitutes", and yet here you all are claiming "This isn't art, it's just a bunch of sticks and wood."

No one's asking you to like it. No one's asking you to think it's better than anything by Picasso or something. But as soon as you start throwing up the "this is not art" claim you lose any right to cry about how people regard your favourite hobby.

For the record, it's not my kind of art.

For the record, I'm the one who is most furiously debating that modern art sucks, and I'm not exactly a "games as art" proponent. Not that I think that it's impossible for a game to be art, but to me games are, first and foremost, games. I've seen plenty of games that are good games and mediocre at best art, plus a few that one could make an argument for being decent art, but not for being good games. I have yet to see one that is both a good game and good art. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think games are best when they stick to what they're good at -- being games. Also, I think the obsession with getting the medium recognized as an art form smacks of people who are embarrassed that they still play with toys as teenagers and adults, and would feel less embarrassed if it somehow made them art critics -- to which I say, "don't be embarrassed. Adults have toys; adults have better toys than kids. Revel in it."

Yeah, what he said. On pretty much all counts.

If you're "art" gets mistaken for trash lying around, I think it's safe to say that it sucks. It is also hilarious.

 

[iDoom46]

This is what happens when you make your art out of trash you found on the street.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

They do when the people selling are con artists, and the people buying are little more than marks. Would you be saying the same thing if we were talking about patent medicine?

erm, no, because medicine is a completely different thing, it's a field of science it's objective, where a art is a field of, well, art, and is subjective.

really, they're just completely different things.

Patent medicine was pretty darned subjective, too -- it wasn't actual medicine. If you were lucky, it contained some opium. More often than not, it was water and food coloring. Way to snip the actual relevant parts of my argument, though.

Edit: Actually, probably less "food coloring," more "turpentine." "Snake Oil" is more than just a turn of phrase; it was a literal brand of patent medicine from back in the day.

 

[Sneezeguard]

Define art. Art is subjective.

My interpretation of art is something that creates a pure emotion or an idea or a point,
It can be open to interpretation but not too vague or abstract so it can be easily misinterpreted.

To me just is not art it is too vague and abstract to understand, I feel nothing from looking at this piece.

 

[procrasty]

Patent medicine was pretty darned subjective, too -- it wasn't actual medicine. If you were lucky, it contained some opium. More often than not, it was water and food coloring. Way to snip the actual relevant parts of my argument, though.

Edit: Actually, probably less "food coloring," more "turpentine." "Snake Oil" is more than just a turn of phrase; it was a literal brand of patent medicine from back in the day.

ok, so it was a type of medicine that existed before regulatory bodies, or circumvented them. the safety, effectieness, and content of an injestable product is still not comparable to art and personal taste.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I'm gonna make a nice blanket generalisation. If your piece of 'art' can be mistaken for a literal piece of garbage that should be tidied up, it's probably not art.

 

[The Random One]

She's a performance artist, guys.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Patent medicine was pretty darned subjective, too -- it wasn't actual medicine. If you were lucky, it contained some opium. More often than not, it was water and food coloring. Way to snip the actual relevant parts of my argument, though.

Edit: Actually, probably less "food coloring," more "turpentine." "Snake Oil" is more than just a turn of phrase; it was a literal brand of patent medicine from back in the day.

ok, so it was a type of medicine that existed before regulatory bodies, or circumvented them. the safety, effectieness, and content of an injestable product is still not comparable to art and personal taste.

Perhaps not, but the analogy still works; snake oil salesmen would come into town, make all of these extraordinary claims about what their medicine would do, and people not only fell for it, they actually believed it worked, thanks to a combination of opium and the placebo effect. Modern artists use very similar tactics.


Edit: Incidentally, have you honestly never heard of patent medicine? Educate yourself.

 

[procrasty]

They do when the people selling are con artists, and the people buying are little more than marks. Would you be saying the same thing if we were talking about patent medicine? A lot of that stuff actually contained opium, and therefore actually worked to a given definition of "worked," and the people consuming it certainly had good reason to enjoy it. However, the people selling it were still con artists.

seeing as you insist i edited something important from this.
i don't agree that the people creating art you don't like are conning anyone, or that the people who like it are "marks".
and i wouldn't say the same of a defunct area of medicine, because medicine is an area of science, even if it existed when people didn't know enough about the human body to make or sufficiantly test curative products. there are clear right and wrong answers, a product either works of it doesn't, does he body good or harm, or contain the ingrediants it's meant to or not.

art is an area of culture, and if you like it or not is a matter of personal taste.

i don't consider this comparason a like for like.

edit: i am aware of patent medicine, just not the name for it