PDA

View Full Version : Art gallery loses its head, displays plinth



mattclary
06-15-2006, 08:13 AM
You have to love this.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060615/od_nm/britain_sculpture_dc_1

Art gallery loses its head, displays plinth


LONDON (Reuters) - One of Britain's most prestigious art galleries put a block of slate on display, topped by a small piece of wood, in the mistaken belief it was a work of art.

The Royal Academy included the chunk of stone and the small bone-shaped wooden stick in its summer exhibition in London.

But the slate was actually a plinth -- a slab on which a pedestal is placed -- and the stick was designed to prop up a sculpture. The sculpture itself -- of a human head -- was nowhere to be seen.

"I think the things got separated in the selection process and the selectors presented the plinth as a complete sculpture," the work's artist David Hensel told BBC radio.

The academy explained the error by saying the plinth and the head were sent to the exhibitors separately.

"Given their separate submission, the two parts were judged independently," it said in a statement. "The head was rejected. The base was thought to have merit and accepted.

"The head has been safely stored ready to be collected by the artist," it added. "It is accepted that works may not be displayed in the way that the artist might have intended."

Safe Harbor
06-15-2006, 08:35 AM
Lol!!

Kurtis
06-15-2006, 08:59 AM
What does that say when a museum decides that the stand has more artistic merit than the sculpture? What's next, taking out the canvas and displaying the empty frame?

oDDity
06-15-2006, 09:07 AM
I'm not surprised, given the risible modern attitude that literally anything can be considered art.
It's getting harder and harder to distinguish between a blob of paint that's been splattered on a canvas by a 5 year old, and a blob of paint splattered on a canvas by an 'aritst' and then given some pretentious tagline about the profound statement it's making about the essential futility of existence.

mattclary
06-15-2006, 10:10 AM
We see eye to eye on this, oDDity. :thumbsup:

Wasn't there some dude a few years back who would give himself a paint enema, then... "expel" the paint at a canvas? Hey, now if that isn't art, I don't know what is! ;)

iDV8
06-15-2006, 01:24 PM
Wasn't there some dude a few years back who would give himself a paint enema, then... "expel" the paint at a canvas?

I could have gone the rest of my life and not heard of that and would have been perfectly fine. I may need therapy now.

Captain Obvious
06-15-2006, 01:33 PM
What's next, taking out the canvas and displaying the empty frame?
I think that's been done already.

ShawnStovall
06-15-2006, 01:36 PM
I could have gone the rest of my life and not heard of that and would have been perfectly fine. I may need therapy now.


:i_agree:

colkai
06-15-2006, 01:41 PM
We see eye to eye on this, oDDity. :thumbsup:
Amen my Brothers!
A stripe on a blank canvas using a paint roller, an unmade bed, rubbish, bricks, a half-completed animal autopsy. Urrgh, I laberl those folks "Artistes" with a capital 'A' ..which stands for something, but not Art. ;)

Mind you, it is a museum, not a gallery, so, to cut 'em some slack, I could accept maybe they thought the plinth ws an old and valued piece of architecture a la the top off some Roman column or some such.

Even so, I'll bet there were some red faces :p


I could have gone the rest of my life and not heard of that and would have been perfectly fine. I may need therapy now.

I think we can file that gem from Matt under "too much information" nes pas? ;)

ColinCohen
06-15-2006, 02:07 PM
I think that's been done already.

There's a famous painting by Rauschenberg:

http://collections.sfmoma.org/OBJ25855.htm

And I saw another one once at the Smithsonian.

Wonderpup
06-15-2006, 02:35 PM
A few years ago a tv channel here set up an exhibition featuring 'abstracts' painted by monkeys, then invited a group of well known art critics to see the works of this 'new artist'. So these guys stand around for an hour talking about how great this stuff is and how talented the painter- then the truth is revealed. Most of them just folded, but there was this one guy saying " This doesn't change my opinion at all- I think those monkeys may have real talent!"
Priceless.

My other favourite art story is this italian expert who had spent years explaining why Michalangelo had used subdued colours in his paintings, only to find that when they finaly cleaned some up the colours were garishly bright and vivid- Not to be contradicted, the expert explained that, knowing the centuries of dust and grime that were to accumulate on his works, Michealangelo diliberately painted them brighter so that centuries after his death they would finaly look as he intended- I nearly fell off the sofa laughing.

ercaxus
06-15-2006, 06:41 PM
Anyone remember the painter dude from the "Spaced" tv series?

Digital Hermit
06-15-2006, 09:15 PM
I'm not surprised, given the risible modern attitude that literally anything can be considered art.
It's getting harder and harder to distinguish between a blob of paint that's been splattered on a canvas by a 5 year old, and a blob of paint splattered on a canvas by an 'aritst' and then given some pretentious tagline about the profound statement it's making about the essential futility of existence.

Or like what Wonderpup stated, giving legitimacy that Elephants and Monkeys are doing art...

Speaking of monkeys...my major is in art right now... Having taken a Modern Art History Class, we obviously covered the paintings of Henri Matisse i.e. “The Dance.” When my professor asked our opinions, I spoke up, saying, "That’s great! When is he going to finish it?" (I made an enemy from that point on…) I also made comments like, “I thought the artist failed if they had to explain their art?” Where she replied, “Well, the artist of today has to be quite articulate in being a mouthpiece for his or her art!” … Talent or no talent, I knew I had been dismissed as “bumpkin” from then on.

I think that 3D is one of the few bastions of hope for the "Representational or Figurative Artist." Reason being, that one of its highest goals is to "mimic nature" much to the chagrin of the abstract or non-objective artesian. (I mean come on, how many 3D fractal images can one person take! - heh)

In my opinion, conceptual art is only valid (and just barely) when the artist has somehow demonstrated a profound understanding of the "foundational arts. "

Like Da Vinci said... "Drawing is everything!"

Digital Hermit

P.S. Oddity... what you are doing with 3D is really high caliber stuff!

lots
06-15-2006, 09:35 PM
It kinda reminds me of a discussion I had with a traditional arts major my freshman year. She got into this debate with me on wheather or not 3D was a form of art. She apparently thought that we hit a bunch of buttons and out poped a pre generated thing.

Though after hours of conversation I finally convinced her that it is a valid art form after showing her a few things in LW... Just a different medium. Still she dislikes it, but hey, at least she accepted it as an artform right? *shrug*

ColinCohen
06-15-2006, 10:05 PM
I think that 3D is one of the few bastions of hope for the "Representational or Figurative Artist." Reason being, that one of its highest goals is to "mimic nature" much to the chagrin of the abstract or non-objective artesian. (I mean come on, how many 3D fractal images can one person take! - heh)


This goal will change once "mimicing nature" has been fully achieved, just as the advent of photography led to modern art. For once it's achieved, it will no longer be a challenge for a serious artist.

I don't particularly care for much abstract and non-objective art, but I do like impressionism, expressionism, dada, surrealism, etc. It's dangerous to lump all modern art together as one.

In the end, I believe, art is subjective. As President Eisenhower supposedly once said, after visiting the Louvre, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

parm
06-16-2006, 12:44 AM
This goal will change once "mimicing nature" has been fully achieved, just as the advent of photography led to modern art. For once it's achieved, it will no longer be a challenge for a serious artist."

Quoted in agreement

Digital Hermit
06-16-2006, 12:51 AM
This goal will change once "mimicing nature" has been fully achieved, just as the advent of photography led to modern art. For once it's achieved, it will no longer be a challenge for a serious artist.

I don't particularly care for much abstract and non-objective art, but I do like impressionism, expressionism, dada, surrealism, etc. It's dangerous to lump all modern art together as one.

In the end, I believe, art is subjective. As President Eisenhower supposedly once said, after visiting the Louvre, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

When you get right down to it, all art is a subjective abstraction. Therefore, I don't dislike any art over the other... and you are correct, each movement of art has its own special significance, each worth exploring and/or pursuing...

What I do abhor is this current pooh-poohing of representational art and the mindset that conceptual is cutting edge and so by default “it must be better, because it is different.” To me it is the same as saying, Alternative Rock is better than Classical Symphonic... you and I may like Alternative... but it is the common consensus that the performance of Classical is considered a noble pursuit of music. In other words... Musicians who pursue playing the classical compositions are not thought less of… in fact they are praised for trying to master it.

I just loathe the elitist attitude in the high-art community that representational work is considered bourgeois.

In the near future I am looking to seek a MFA and I find that most colleges are looking for a student’s portfolio to be more conceptual and seem to disregard representational work, no matter how good.

No, I am not bitter… not me… no sir’ee. :devil:

Best regards,

Digital Hermit

parm
06-16-2006, 01:12 AM
I agree with you. One of the most unattractive human qualities, is the tendency to hold up to ridicule, anything other than ones own mindset. Be it religion, culture or Art.

I'm not sure that I agree with your statement about the art establishment attitude, to Figurative or representational art in general.

Could it be that representation in Art, has had such a long tradition, and even today is practised, by far, the majority of artists. That it is really difficult to find something really fresh and not too derivative.

parm
06-16-2006, 01:15 AM
What does that say when a museum decides that the stand has more artistic merit than the sculpture? What's next, taking out the canvas and displaying the empty frame?

I think it probably says more about the quality of the artists work. When it's judged that the plinth or the frame is more interesting :D

iDV8
06-16-2006, 01:41 AM
Art is very subjective and there for I can understand that there will be very differing opinions, likes and dislikes. I can respect art that is not to my liking if there is some sign of discipline in it. A lot of the controversial art is there to just stir things up and not necessarily to be artistic and sometimes I like that while other times I hate it. Luckily most places have enough freedom to allow it.

My favorite story from my film school experience is when the professor and class would make comments and critiques after watching each others projects. After about five minutes of critique of this guys short film the professors says, “What I don’t understand is why you decided to do it in Black & White.” Every one in the class looked at each other a little baffled as the kid reluctantly said, “It wasn’t Black & White. It was in color.”

That was the guy grading our work.

Wonderpup
06-16-2006, 01:55 AM
One thing that does make me smile is when I see Job adverts for artists that say "must have a degree in fine art." The people that place these ads obviosly don't realise that to obtain a degree in fine art you only have to turn up and remain consious enough to produce some form of mark on a flat surface.

Digital Hermit
06-16-2006, 03:11 AM
Could it be that representation in Art, has had such a long tradition, and even today is practised, by far, the majority of artists. That it is really difficult to find something really fresh and not too derivative.

Therein lies the rub. It seems, in the search for artistic originality, "shock value" is the current vanguard. In presenting my portfolios for review and critique, I have observed a thick bias against the representational. The impression I catch is, "Your compositions are technically very good works, but not creative.” Also, I get the distinct impression of being pigeonholed as craftsman. Talk about subjective…

In reference to long traditions... I would like to reflect back on my previous post about music... If a violinist performs a beautiful but difficult piece flawlessly, even though it has been done countless times before, is it still considered trite, because it is not fresh and too derived?

Now, again, its not that I am deriding other movements or styles. I just don't see the "serious" representational artist being afforded the same opportunity to hone their skills in the advanced institutions. Especially since the focus of most of these institutions is conceptually driven.

(Also, I think I misquoted the statement about… “It is not the duty of art to ‘mimic’ nature.” I think the motto for the moderns was… “It is not the duty of art to duplicate nature.” and “Art for arts sake.”)

Regards,

Digital Hermit

parm
06-16-2006, 03:48 AM
One thing that does make me smile is when I see Job adverts for artists that say "must have a degree in fine art." The people that place these ads obviosly don't realise that to obtain a degree in fine art you only have to turn up and remain consious enough to produce some form of mark on a flat surface.

If you see any more job opportunities that require a fine Art degree. Please PM me the details. Would be most appreciated.

Digital Hermit. I do sympathise with What you are saying. And it may be so, in particular places, but overall not so. A cursory glance through the artists in the Saatchi collection for example, shows a very diverse spectrum. Including strongly figurative. See the recent success of the painter: Jenny Saville. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Saville

I would suggest that you shop around, you may find very different responses from different art schools. Royal Academy versus Goldsmiths say.

Bog
06-16-2006, 03:56 AM
Personally I think it's bloody shameful. If I were the artist in question, once I'd gotten over the punched-in-the-gut feeling I'd be tempted to say "Sod you all" and take my plinth back.

Then again, I take things too seriously sometimes.

parm
06-16-2006, 04:04 AM
apparently the poor guy knew his work had been accepted, and was wandering around the gallery looking for it. good labelling is important, the two items were submitted in separate boxes.

Still publicity is publicity, he should milk it for all it's worth imo.

oDDity
06-16-2006, 04:14 AM
This goal will change once "mimicing nature" has been fully achieved, just as the advent of photography led to modern art. For once it's achieved, it will no longer be a challenge for a serious artist.

I don't particularly care for much abstract and non-objective art, but I do like impressionism, expressionism, dada, surrealism, etc. It's dangerous to lump all modern art together as one.

In the end, I believe, art is subjective. As President Eisenhower supposedly once said, after visiting the Louvre, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

I don't agree with that. Early traditional aritsts and modern CG artists are trying to portray reality for the same reason, and that's because ti's the most difficult thing to achieve as a technique. Artists before photography did not all try to do photorealism, they had their own stylised ideas, they just weren't totally OTT with them such as you get in modern art.
I don't think the advent of photography had so much of an impact on he development of impressonism as people think, It was more of a coincedence really - John Constable and to a greater extent Joseph Turner were heading firmly down the road to impressionism before photography had any impact or widespread use at all. I think it was a natural development that would have happen anyway, due to the fact that the technique of realism had already been perfected as much as it was going to be and artists were looking for more freedom to express their ideas.
Photorealism is already possible in CG, but that won't stop artists wanting to use that style. It will become less about technique - 'wow, great skin shader!' - and more about the pure artistic content of an image that's important, and that's a good thing.
No matter how easy it becomes to produce a photoreal CG image, the great artists will always be separated from the rest.

Bog
06-16-2006, 04:27 AM
I freely admit that one of the reason I grizzle and complain about modern artists is that if the wifeoid didn't keep badgering me to keep the bedroom tidy, I could have sold my bed for £20,000. Come to that, my desk's about as bad as Tracy Emin's bed. Maybe I should sell that to the Tate Modern?

http://www.atomicfish.co.uk/images/desk_normal.jpg

Captain Obvious
06-16-2006, 04:50 AM
(I mean come on, how many 3D fractal images can one person take! - heh)
Back around the year 2000-2001, I did quite a bit of math-based 3D graphics, and they actually displayed my works at the student art show thing... :p




In reference to long traditions... I would like to reflect back on my previous post about music... If a violinist performs a beautiful but difficult piece flawlessly, even though it has been done countless times before, is it still considered trite, because it is not fresh and too derived?
This is a flawed comparison. A computer graphics artist is not comparable to a violinist, but rather both composer AND musician. So if a band plays a song that sounds pretty much exactly like "Maxwell's silver hammer," then yes, it is considered unfresh and too derivative. However, if they play a cover of it, and do it well, they will get plenty of applauds.

parm
06-16-2006, 05:54 AM
Bog. What's the toilet roll on your desk for?

colkai
06-16-2006, 06:00 AM
Everyone knows, a roll of toliet paper is far preferrable to a box of tissues for blowing the ole nose-a-roony. :p (There is the risk of getting a box which is too 'girly' in appearance - not very manly)

Also handy for wiping the glasses and screen when you can't be ar*ed moving from the computer to get something "proper-like". ;)

Captain Obvious
06-16-2006, 06:03 AM
Toilet paper is pretty awful for wiping monitors.

parm
06-16-2006, 06:03 AM
I see :)

Maybe he means that soft velvety stuff Captain

Captain Obvious
06-16-2006, 06:27 AM
Anything that leaves fibers behind is less than optimal. Microfiber cloth is probably the best.

Bog
06-16-2006, 06:53 AM
Bog. What's the toilet roll on your desk for?

I get hayfever, so it's handy to have a low-cost nose-cleanser handy. Sometimes I use it to scrub the coffee-rings off my desk (you can see that I need an all-terrain mouse to get past some of those guys. It's handy for accidental spills (no lid on that coke bottle - drink safe, kids!), and it's always good to lob out the window and shout "In ger LUUUNNND!" during a World Cup Game if I feel the urge.

See? And I bet you thought it because I browse lots of pr0n! :devil:

omeone
06-16-2006, 07:26 AM
Bog... you're one funny b*st*rd :D :D
Just read your profile.. hope TCD get you to do the Book of Kells some time.
But if you're stuck for something to do in the meantime... you could stick this story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie) into one of your books... see if anyone notices :)

oh and for the thread... Wilde was right all along, all art is quite useless.

Wonderpup
06-16-2006, 08:03 AM
If you see any more job opportunities that require a fine Art degree. Please PM me the details. Would be most appreciated.

Hi Parm,

I'm not sure if your request is meant seriously or as a rebuke to my wild generalisation re fine art degrees. If I did offend, I apologise.

It just amuses me that people trying to hire artists cling to the idea of 'qualifications' as some kind of rubicon. One of the ironys I have encountered in looking for work as a creative is how uncreative and unimaginitive those who hire such people can be.

When I worked as an illustrator there was a legend about an artist who specialised in painting fruit for product packaging. So he goes along to an interview, shows his portfolio of fruit paintings. " Yes, your work is really very good," says the client, " But we really wanted someone who could paint rasberrys."

The scary thing is- I belived it!

zebrafish
06-16-2006, 09:46 AM
This goal will change once "mimicing nature" has been fully achieved, just as the advent of photography led to modern art. For once it's achieved, it will no longer be a challenge for a serious artist.

I don't particularly care for much abstract and non-objective art, but I do like impressionism, expressionism, dada, surrealism, etc. It's dangerous to lump all modern art together as one.

Excuse me, but that example of the guy giving himself a paint enema, that IS
soooo Dada, and dada is dead. In copenhagen a few years ago, some guy had an exhibit with goldfishes in clear water - inside blenders. Anybody
could push a button and have fish soup. It was closed down by the police.


I prefer 3D cgi because it's closer to illustration, and in ilustration you still find actual talent is a requirement.

zebrafish
06-16-2006, 09:52 AM
I just loathe the elitist attitude in the high-art community that representational work is considered bourgeois.

In the near future I am looking to seek a MFA and I find that most colleges are looking for a student’s portfolio to be more conceptual and seem to disregard representational work, no matter how good.

But, conceptual art is more of a west coast thing, and it's been dying for some time now. People are starting to do more representational art. Oil paintings that is.

zebrafish
06-16-2006, 10:13 AM
I don't agree with that. Early traditional aritsts and modern CG artists are trying to portray reality for the same reason, and that's because ti's the most difficult thing to achieve as a technique. Artists before photography did not all try to do photorealism, they had their own stylised ideas, they just weren't totally OTT with them such as you get in modern art.
I don't think the advent of photography had so much of an impact on he development of impressonism as people think, It was more of a coincedence really - John Constable and to a greater extent Joseph Turner were heading firmly down the road to impressionism before photography had any impact or widespread use at all. I think it was a natural development that would have happen anyway, due to the fact that the technique of realism had already been perfected as much as it was going to be and artists were looking for more freedom to express their ideas.
Photorealism is already possible in CG, but that won't stop artists wanting to use that style. It will become less about technique - 'wow, great skin shader!' - and more about the pure artistic content of an image that's important, and that's a good thing.
No matter how easy it becomes to produce a photoreal CG image, the great artists will always be separated from the rest.


Beggin your pardon, but so-called modern non-represential art is all based on
on an admiration of western occultism. They like it's all sooo spiritual like -
Mark Roth's stripes for example - but it isn't. There's nothing spiritual about western occultsim, and people that are into it would be far better off to
sit around drinking beer and eating salami while they try to corner the
orange juice market. I'd rather hang with you guys. You're not as freaked out as the goodart people either:

http://www.goodart.org/

Nasty group of people. They'd like the work of the "masters" of the French Academy of Art in the late 19th century even if it was on velvet.

ColinCohen
06-16-2006, 10:17 AM
Excuse me, but that example of the guy giving himself a paint enema, that IS
soooo Dada, and dada is dead. In copenhagen a few years ago, some guy had an exhibit with goldfishes in clear water - inside blenders. Anybody
could push a button and have fish soup. It was closed down by the police.


I'm sorry, but I wouldn't consider that dada. If it's anything, it's performance art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada

parm
06-16-2006, 10:41 AM
Wonderpup. Don't worry, it was neither a serious request or a rebuke. It was just a bit amused by the notion of anyone attaching value to a fine art degree. I wish they would.

Bog. Very funny. I was looking forward to seeing how you'd wriggle out of that one :D

Captain Obvious
06-16-2006, 10:44 AM
http://www.goodart.org/

Nasty group of people.
Heh. That site amused me. It seems they think that just because it's representative realistic art on a canvas, it's art. Even when it's clearly 19th century pornography (http://www.goodart.org/blog/WilliamBouguereau-FemmeAuCoquillage-1885Large.jpg). They have this (http://www.goodart.org/blog/LuisRicardsFalero-AFairyUnderStarrySkies-Large.jpg), but no Luis Royo! :screwy:

nthused
06-16-2006, 11:02 AM
Funniest stories I've read in a while.... "here's your sign..."...er, your art...

zebrafish
06-16-2006, 11:10 AM
[QUOTE=ColinCohen]I'm sorry, but I wouldn't consider that dada. If it's anything, it's performance art.


What, they let the guy eject the paint onto the canvas in a public performance? Oh yuck! I'd think even an art gallery would have better taste than that.

You don't think that this kind of "art" is replete with absurdism, nihilism, deliberate irrationality, disillusionment, cynicism, chance, and randomness? I sure do.

As for rejection of the prevailing standards in art, well I dunno. When Dada
becomes one of the prevailing standards, I guess all it can do then is eat itself.

ColinCohen
06-16-2006, 11:42 AM
You don't think that this kind of "art" is replete with absurdism, nihilism, deliberate irrationality, disillusionment, cynicism, chance, and randomness? I sure do.

Actually, I don't. I don't see any intelligent underpinning whatsoever to what he did. The intent seems only to shock.

What is he rebeling against? In what way is he demonstrating of the absurdity of anything? What is he out to destroy? In what way is he disillusioned? What cyncism is he expressing?

I'll give you "chance and randomness." :)

And finally, as you've already said, dada is dead. It was a short moment of time, specifically in response to the first World War, and so I think it's difficult to apply the term to our own time.

Tzan
06-16-2006, 12:05 PM
I'm not afraid to admit to having a roll of toilet paper within arms reach too.
I did many years of pencil on vellum and mylar drafting and used it to clean off the tip after sharpening. Old habits die hard I guess.

Darn those tissue paper boxes! :)

Bog
06-16-2006, 12:09 PM
used it to clean off the tip after sharpening

Is that a euphamism? (Sorry, after the fooforaw over my having a bog-roll on my desk, I couldn't resist ;) )

Tzan
06-16-2006, 12:16 PM
Heh heh, uhm... no. :)

( deleted the tastless portion of my responce :) )

Bog
06-16-2006, 12:29 PM
Oh gosh Tzan, I wouldn't worry about that. You know how you have a "flock" of sheep, a "school" of fish, and a "murder" of crows? Well, the collective noun for us lot is an "embarassment" of animators... ;)

Tzan
06-16-2006, 01:10 PM
Actually I was trying to come up with something suitably tastless but I didnt like the results. So I settled for assuming I had and then claiming the fictional high ground by imaginarally removing it.

Sort of like pretending to make art. Then sending a large empty box to the museum that contains a post-it note which reads.

"This work of art was too tastless to be displayed"
- Tzan


Then wait for the reviews :)

Bog
06-16-2006, 01:12 PM
A marvel of post-deconstruction insight. Like facism... but kind.

- 3D World.





*runs for cover*

zebrafish
06-16-2006, 01:30 PM
Actually, I don't. I don't see any intelligent underpinning whatsoever to what he did. The intent seems only to shock.

I woudl say the same aobut Dada in general.


What is he rebeling against? In what way is he demonstrating of the absurdity of anything? What is he out to destroy? In what way is he disillusioned? What cyncism is he expressing?

Oh come on :). He's rebelling against (and trying to destroy) society's strictures about defecating in public. The act itself is absurd. The cynicism is against any form of virtuosity.

http://www.spa.ex.ac.uk/drama/dada/page4.html


The Dadaists cultivated interesting performance techniques which were used in provoking the audiences into challenging their current ideals at the times of performance. Which, consequently usually meant attacking the circumstances of culture which had precipitated the coflict surrounding the Dadaists. Shock and unconventionality were two tricks at the desposal at the hands of the Dadaists and in the hands of the dynamic personalities of the likes of Tzara, Schwitters & co they were bound to make many ripples in the world of art. The power of belief which was inherent inside the movement, meant that although it was always going to have a short life span the reverberations and influences, the questions and the provocations which those at the heart of the movement always refused to answer meant that the legacy of Dada is still prominant in the world around us today.

He's using shock and unconventiality.


People will tell you that Dada is dead and it was pointless. True, Dada imploded in 1924, but it is not dead, as long as you continue to get angry about things, as long as you get irritated at the current state of affairs, as long as you find current art annoying and self-indulgent then Dada is not dead. In short, as long as people are prepared to complain and to make a noise then the Dada spirit is still alive and wreaking havoc!

Actually this would be a case of it eating itself.


I'll give you "chance and randomness." :)

Thank you :)


And finally, as you've already said, dada is dead. It was a short moment of time, specifically in response to the first World War, and so I think it's difficult to apply the term to our own time.

In that regard it's true, but duchamp's bycicle wheel or urinal didn't have much to do with the war either.

mattclary
06-16-2006, 01:45 PM
OK, found it! The anal dude's name was Keith Boadwee, look him up on Google!

And for all of you who now need therapy, you are welcome! Just send me the bill! :thumbsup:

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:esw9vAo1KqoJ:www.gettingit.com/article/284+%22Keith+Boadwee%22+paint&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Keith Boadwee

Giving Freudian theorists a shove off the toilet seat, Los Angeles artist Keith Boadwee is what we might call an "anal explosive" personality. While not strictly working with fecal matter, his stellar use of the anus as a painting tool qualifies him for this survey. Fueled by egg tempura paint enemas, Boadwee squatted over fifty canvases. His expulsions were shown in 1995 at Ace Contemporary Exhibitions in L.A., along with a video documenting the process. "I wanted to prove that I can make just as good a painting (as the abstract expressionists can) with my butthole," Boadwee told Buzz magazine. Not surprisingly, he's also created art coming out the other end: colorful vomit abstractions via his patented projectile puking process.

Digital Hermit
06-16-2006, 02:06 PM
This is a flawed comparison. A computer graphics artist is not comparable to a violinist, but rather both composer AND musician. So if a band plays a song that sounds pretty much exactly like "Maxwell's silver hammer," then yes, it is considered unfresh and too derivative. However, if they play a cover of it, and do it well, they will get plenty of applauds.


You ever have a "Eureka!" moment after you hear yourself talk... I had one this morning thinking about what I wrote...

You are correct about my flawed comparison... I was comparing the violinist to the artist, when in all actuality, even thought the violinist maybe extremely talented, he is really the "craftsman." reproducing what the composer "the artist" has created for him to play. (Similar to how bronze foundries work when the craftsman reproduce the artist’s sculpture, esp. when reproducing the sculpture in differing sizes. Yes, the craftsman is an skilled artist but craftsman's creativity is not desired, rather it is his skills that are required.)

The composer may or may not be as specialized as the violinist but he is "usually" competent in knowing many instruments and the dynamics that goes beyond the violinist purpose of creative capability.

So an artist has two defining qualities his technical skills and creative abilities. Each one has its value and need… So, I think I understand what the moderns meant when they said, “It is not the duty of the art to replicate nature.”

Therefore, an artist can wear many hats. When reproducing a work from reality or from something that already exists, one is really playing the “artist craftsman.” When one rearranges the reality, or something that already exists, into ones own composition, one is playing the “artist engineer,” and finally when one creates something that has not been created, or thought of before, by what the moderns implied, one is then “artist originator.”

I hope this is making sense? :screwy:

Regards,

Digital Hermit

Bog
06-16-2006, 02:06 PM
My Muse has Spoken.

I need a can of paint, two hundred square metres of canvas and a fragmentation grenade, stat.

parm
06-16-2006, 03:14 PM
Keith Boadwee

Giving Freudian theorists a shove off the toilet seat, Los Angeles artist Keith Boadwee is what we might call an "anal explosive" personality. While not strictly working with fecal matter, his stellar use of the anus as a painting tool qualifies him for this survey. Fueled by egg tempura paint enemas, Boadwee squatted over fifty canvases. His expulsions were shown in 1995 at Ace Contemporary Exhibitions in L.A., along with a video documenting the process. "I wanted to prove that I can make just as good a painting (as the abstract expressionists can) with my butthole," Boadwee told Buzz magazine. Not surprisingly, he's also created art coming out the other end: colorful vomit abstractions via his patented projectile puking process.


Crikey!!

Tzan
06-16-2006, 03:41 PM
For those that didnt see the link in the text.

WARNING: contains nudity and projectile color!

http://www.capitantrash.com/deposito/06/ARTIST3.HTM

iDV8
06-16-2006, 03:48 PM
Just got back from therapy and need more! In my wildest imagination I couldn't come up with the stuff found here. I once put paint on the palm of my hand and then put it on some paper... in 2nd grade! And that's about as sick as it got. Actually if you make the four fingers look like feathers and draw a face on the thumb it looks like a turkey or a peacock, but that's as far off the deep end as I've ever gone.
Oh the humanity! Stop the madness, rage against the machine that is raging against the machine!

Bog
06-17-2006, 04:36 AM
*lights ciggie, swigs Dr. Pepper*

Anyone remember the days when artistic protest against The Man was more than an inchoate scream?

Stooch
06-20-2006, 12:48 PM
I get hayfever, so it's handy to have a low-cost nose-cleanser handy. Sometimes I use it to scrub the coffee-rings off my desk (you can see that I need an all-terrain mouse to get past some of those guys. It's handy for accidental spills (no lid on that coke bottle - drink safe, kids!), and it's always good to lob out the window and shout "In ger LUUUNNND!" during a World Cup Game if I feel the urge.

See? And I bet you thought it because I browse lots of pr0n! :devil:

Really? im glad that you cleared it up for all of the dirty thinkers here who immeiatelly thought of beating off.

WAIT a second!!! you claim that the toilet paper is for your nose, yet there is clearly a tissue box behind your laptop, hmmmmm....

http://www.stooch.net/gallery/d/1815-1/desk_normal.jpg

ravantra
06-20-2006, 01:54 PM
We see eye to eye on this, oDDity. :thumbsup:

Wasn't there some dude a few years back who would give himself a paint enema, then... "expel" the paint at a canvas? Hey, now if that isn't art, I don't know what is! ;)

I frown as I put away the paint and funnel... :D

Has anyone seen the movie "Art School Confidential". Makes great fun of the Art "Establishment". I saw it a few weeks ago in the theater.....kind of obscure film but lots of laughs.

ravantra
06-20-2006, 02:02 PM
"Play It Again, Sam", Paramount Pictures, 1972

WOODY ALLEN: That's quite a lovely Jackson Pollock, isn't it?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: Yes it is.

WOODY ALLEN: What does it say to you?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: It restates the negativeness of the universe, the hideous lonely emptiness of existence, nothingness, the predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity, like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void, with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless bleak straightjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

WOODY ALLEN: What are you doing Saturday night?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: Committing suicide.

WOODY ALLEN: What about Friday night?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: [leaves silently]