51–60 of 84 posts
I think museum is not right. Yes, de jure, artist is wrong. But this is kind of funny and people enjoyed this, and this is not so much money for a big museum. Europe is famous for tolerating art stuff, even if it is shocking or dumb or weird, and I like this tradition. It would be awful for Europe as a whole to become beaurocratic and dull, because eu commission and parliament already are boring enough
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the money was his? Well, the context is they paid him to reproduce previous works, such as "An Average Danish Year Income, 2010" [1] which was literally comprised of 278500 Danish Kroner, mounted and framed. If he's contracted to produce something, and decides to produce something different instead, it seems pretty clea…
> K Foundation's money-as-art works, "Money: A Major Body Of Cash" You cannot mention this without also mentioning "K Foundation Burn a Million Quid". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu... And yes, they really did do it. (This was the same blokes who, at the top of the UK charts, as an artistic statement deleted their entire music back catalogue, meaning you could no longer buy their music.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> John Cage "composed" a song consisting of just silence. I used to think 4'33" was the most ridiculously arrogant piece of pseudo-art in the history of pseudo-art. But people still talk about it today, 70 years after it was composed [0], and they will still be talking about it 500 years from now. So I've changed my mind. It does exactly what good art is supposed to do: It makes you ask questions. [0] https://en.m.wi…
Who decided that “good art makes you ask questions” or “art is about starting a conversation”? Sounds like an excuse for passing off garbage. “The Course Of Empire” is a beautiful piece of art for many reasons: it’s clearly masterful, it represents complex ideas simply, it conveys emotions we lack words to convey, it beautifully displays the human experience, and so on. It’s art even if you didn’t have a human to exp…
We did. By making it relevant here.
> Taping a banana to a wall isn’t art
The one thing baser than taping a banana to a wall is people categorically, doubtlessly concluding that it is or isn’t art.
It isn’t art for you. That this point needs to be made almost singularly means that I do consider it art, if only on the first iteration. (Anyone could have done it. But Cattelan did.) I’ll sidestep the question, too, of whether any comedy is art.
Unless we’re elevating art to a Kantian ideal like math, or arguing it’s subject to the scientific method, art has to be subjectively judged. If that’s true, anyone drawing hard lines is bloviating or attempting coercion.
This reminds me of a common theme in the art world. I wonder if there is a name for it. Maybe "Low effort art"? Examples off the top of my head: John Cage "composed" a song consisting of just silence. Marcel Duchamp exhibited a urinal which he simply purchased from a store. Yves Klein exhibited 11 paintings that were exactly the same. They were simply blue, no structures or subject. But he priced them all differently…
> John Cage "composed" a song consisting of just silence. I used to think 4'33" was the most ridiculously arrogant piece of pseudo-art in the history of pseudo-art. But people still talk about it today, 70 years after it was composed [0], and they will still be talking about it 500 years from now. So I've changed my mind. It does exactly what good art is supposed to do: It makes you ask questions. [0] https://en.m.wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have a different definition of original than me, it seems. Critics and art audiences: totally no "opinion monopoly" or manufactured consent at play, right? Monetary value? You mean money laundering?
Are you sure you aren't attempting to judge originality with the benefit of hindsight? The fact that these works have been mindlessly copied countless times since they were first conceived and now appear trite and simplistic, doesn't make the original concept any less original. As to the value and validity of the opinion of critics and art audience, surely the most import opinion about just about anything is the opin…
Regarding the fulfilment of expectation of the intended audience: I agree that it is an important aspect, but it will not make art good, merely makes it marketable. I have a feeling that museums are only serving as means of advertisements, to keep the perceived brand value of these items (and people) high. Criticising it is just as dangerous for this, as remote work is for the real-estate bubble. Criticists are stakeholders in this game, as well as the authors and the buyers. Their livelihood depends on the public agreeing to, or at least accepting the valuation of these items.
I think the real art in (post)modern art is this control of the public opinion, a large illusionistic trick. To me it seems similar to the "crypto" scam, so NFTs were kind of a perfect post-modern works of art! (when they were novel)
Museum director Lasse Andersson said that he had laughed out loud when he first saw the two blank canvasses in 2021, and decided to show the works anyway. "He stirred up my curatorial staff and he also stirred me up a bit, but I also had a laugh because it was really humoristic," the museum's director, Lasse Andersson So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the…
> So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the money was his? The contract decides who owns the money. It doesn’t matter if the museum director was amused or not. The money didn’t belong to the museum director, it belonged to the museum. There is no loophole in the law that says you get to keep the other side’s money if you can make them laugh in the process. Th…
However, as it now turns out the money was only "lent" to the artist, so it wasn't his to retain. THAT is the reason that the reaction of the director isn't relevant.
https://loa-shared.s3.amazonaws.com/static/pdf/Chesnutt_Baxt...
This reminds me of a common theme in the art world. I wonder if there is a name for it. Maybe "Low effort art"? Examples off the top of my head: John Cage "composed" a song consisting of just silence. Marcel Duchamp exhibited a urinal which he simply purchased from a store. Yves Klein exhibited 11 paintings that were exactly the same. They were simply blue, no structures or subject. But he priced them all differently…
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/01/14/time-art/
I think the moral of the story that whatever the domain, you can pull the low effort stuff in a profound way provided you put in the enormous leg work needed in proving your reputation in the high effort stuff.