Grubster
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,226
Likes โข 1
August 2008
|
Contemporary Art : Is it art or fraud?, by Grubster on Dec 11, 2008 8:03:50 GMT 1, Click here to see the painting :
www.juxtapoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4940&Itemid=1
Contemporary Art: Is it Art or a Fraud? by Da Hee Kong
Paint drops dashed straight onto the white canvas surface and splashed. The two happy chimpanzees giggled and swung the brush more fiercely. Vibrant color stains and streaks soon filled the canvas and began to resemble what we know as the famous โdripโ art Jackson Pollock has founded.
Without stating the name of the artist, the work was hung on one of the walls in an exhibition held in a rich town. Fixing their eyes on the piece with encrusted layers of meaningless lines and colors, highly educated spectators, appreciated, nodded as if they have understood the true meaning of the works of the two happy chimpanzees. If only they did not reveal who the real creator was, the piece would have been sold with a successful bid with a remarkable price.
We live in a century where chimpanzeesโ pastime creation is mistaken as artwork. Has art been oversimplified? It has become a widespread tendency to refer works that appear peculiar or strange as contemporary art. Contemporary art has broken the boundaries of art, overflowing like water in a narrow river. What is the boundary of contemporary art? Where does it commence and finish? Does it even exist?
A blank, white canvas entitled โThe invisible sculpture.โ A combination of red, yellow, and blue squares entitled โThe conversation between the tiger and the monkey.โ Both are examples of contemporary art, so different from the works of ancient fresco painters who must have worked weeks, months, even years, to see the fruit of their overly hard work. Things change as old generations die out. But what has not changed is the scent of society we can smell from the works in that particular era. To suit the taste of the contemporary populace, art is condemned to renovate itself. What society demands is what shapes art of the era. The modern public requests for new and innovative techniques. Their demand for uniqueness from past eras of art has struck modern artists to plaster and powder their works with uniqueness, giving birth to what we know as contemporary art.
The new era has set foot on the timeline of art. An era where a contemporary artist holds his huge stone stained with paints thrown randomly onto and very proudly informs us that it is an โillustration of his psychological oppression and exquisite emotional change.โ An era of art which its originality and experimental attempts should be revered.
Contemporary art is not a fraud. It is the fruit of the endeavors to survive and respond to the demand of people. It is the victim of the fraud of ones that do not realize every matter holds value. The main problem that contemporary art suffers is the communication. Marcel Duchamp, a contemporary artist who was tired to hear empty praises, โtossed something insignificant like bottle stands and toilet stools onto the faces of the art fans just to get on their nerves; to make them angry.โ But Duchamp himself couldnโt hold his anger as he saw them still praising the beauty of his creation in astonishment. Artist holds freedom of expression, and the viewers the liberty of interpretation. Contemporary art longs for the communication between spectators and artists. Not vacant praises, not recognition of the exact meaning of the work, but a simple appreciation of work, as art.
Click here to see the painting : www.juxtapoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4940&Itemid=1Contemporary Art: Is it Art or a Fraud? by Da Hee Kong Paint drops dashed straight onto the white canvas surface and splashed. The two happy chimpanzees giggled and swung the brush more fiercely. Vibrant color stains and streaks soon filled the canvas and began to resemble what we know as the famous โdripโ art Jackson Pollock has founded. Without stating the name of the artist, the work was hung on one of the walls in an exhibition held in a rich town. Fixing their eyes on the piece with encrusted layers of meaningless lines and colors, highly educated spectators, appreciated, nodded as if they have understood the true meaning of the works of the two happy chimpanzees. If only they did not reveal who the real creator was, the piece would have been sold with a successful bid with a remarkable price. We live in a century where chimpanzeesโ pastime creation is mistaken as artwork. Has art been oversimplified? It has become a widespread tendency to refer works that appear peculiar or strange as contemporary art. Contemporary art has broken the boundaries of art, overflowing like water in a narrow river. What is the boundary of contemporary art? Where does it commence and finish? Does it even exist? A blank, white canvas entitled โThe invisible sculpture.โ A combination of red, yellow, and blue squares entitled โThe conversation between the tiger and the monkey.โ Both are examples of contemporary art, so different from the works of ancient fresco painters who must have worked weeks, months, even years, to see the fruit of their overly hard work. Things change as old generations die out. But what has not changed is the scent of society we can smell from the works in that particular era. To suit the taste of the contemporary populace, art is condemned to renovate itself. What society demands is what shapes art of the era. The modern public requests for new and innovative techniques. Their demand for uniqueness from past eras of art has struck modern artists to plaster and powder their works with uniqueness, giving birth to what we know as contemporary art. The new era has set foot on the timeline of art. An era where a contemporary artist holds his huge stone stained with paints thrown randomly onto and very proudly informs us that it is an โillustration of his psychological oppression and exquisite emotional change.โ An era of art which its originality and experimental attempts should be revered. Contemporary art is not a fraud. It is the fruit of the endeavors to survive and respond to the demand of people. It is the victim of the fraud of ones that do not realize every matter holds value. The main problem that contemporary art suffers is the communication. Marcel Duchamp, a contemporary artist who was tired to hear empty praises, โtossed something insignificant like bottle stands and toilet stools onto the faces of the art fans just to get on their nerves; to make them angry.โ But Duchamp himself couldnโt hold his anger as he saw them still praising the beauty of his creation in astonishment. Artist holds freedom of expression, and the viewers the liberty of interpretation. Contemporary art longs for the communication between spectators and artists. Not vacant praises, not recognition of the exact meaning of the work, but a simple appreciation of work, as art. |
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
Posts โข 0
Likes โข 0
September 2012
|
Contemporary Art : Is it art or fraud?, by jamesreeve5 on Dec 11, 2008 9:04:14 GMT 1, That was a great essay for a 12th grader writing in a second language (Hell, even if english was his or her native language that is still impressive). I would assume they got an A.
That was a great essay for a 12th grader writing in a second language (Hell, even if english was his or her native language that is still impressive). I would assume they got an A.
|
|
raiden
New Member
Posts โข 512
Likes โข 3
April 2008
|
Contemporary Art : Is it art or fraud?, by raiden on Dec 11, 2008 9:13:07 GMT 1, Such a boring and tired point.
Nevertheless, I seek to put this to rest once and for all....
First, paint thrown on a canvas doesn't fly like it used to, mostly because gravity is different now versus when Jackson Pollack painted. Mostly due to polar drift, paint won't quite hit the canvas with the intensity it did pre-1960. Proven artistic fact.
Secondly - Yes, if a monkey throws stones covered in paint at a canvas, it is art, while its merely pathetic if you produced the same piece - because frankly yours was no better than the monkeys, and the monkey executed it better with more originality.
And if the monkey is represented by Steven Lazarides and he's smart enough to release a low edition straight on POW, he may excite enough of a secondary market to have a career in front of him.
I want to be particularly clear, however, in no way is the hypothetical simian in question committing any fraud against the art world, so long as 1) he produces his own originals, 2) clearly represents himself as a monkey or at least as an anonymous member of a collective of monkey artists working under a particular name or street tag, and 3) doesn't partake in any monkey business with edition numbers. Short of that, I don't see any fraud being perpetrated by an ape on the art world.
Fact remains, you can say "you can do that" but can you now? Or should I ask, could you if you were a monkey?
Think about it, its easy to say that you can produce the work that the chimp produced, but what if you are covered in hair and suffer from a raging tick problem? Would YOUR painting appropriately capture that monkey angst of yearning for a banana and a good screw, or at least jerk off, in the jungle when all you have is a crappy zoo enclosure, a piece of canvas, and distinctly non-banana tasting paint?
Contemporary art can be called a lot of things. Many of them true. Some of them Damien Hirst might sue you for saying. But fraud?
Fraud we'll leave to non-modern artists like Thomas Kinkade, whom the FBI investigated for just that.
So in closing...
Da Hee Kong WTF? I don't know how art is viewed in Jakarta, but around these part, we don't go around asking too many questions. Know what I'm saying? Art is art because we say its art, and smart Da Hee Kongs better shut their mouths about it if they knows whats good for 'em, or else they're liable to find us out in front of their house with a bat coming to shut it for them. Capiche?!
Such a boring and tired point.
Nevertheless, I seek to put this to rest once and for all....
First, paint thrown on a canvas doesn't fly like it used to, mostly because gravity is different now versus when Jackson Pollack painted. Mostly due to polar drift, paint won't quite hit the canvas with the intensity it did pre-1960. Proven artistic fact.
Secondly - Yes, if a monkey throws stones covered in paint at a canvas, it is art, while its merely pathetic if you produced the same piece - because frankly yours was no better than the monkeys, and the monkey executed it better with more originality.
And if the monkey is represented by Steven Lazarides and he's smart enough to release a low edition straight on POW, he may excite enough of a secondary market to have a career in front of him.
I want to be particularly clear, however, in no way is the hypothetical simian in question committing any fraud against the art world, so long as 1) he produces his own originals, 2) clearly represents himself as a monkey or at least as an anonymous member of a collective of monkey artists working under a particular name or street tag, and 3) doesn't partake in any monkey business with edition numbers. Short of that, I don't see any fraud being perpetrated by an ape on the art world.
Fact remains, you can say "you can do that" but can you now? Or should I ask, could you if you were a monkey?
Think about it, its easy to say that you can produce the work that the chimp produced, but what if you are covered in hair and suffer from a raging tick problem? Would YOUR painting appropriately capture that monkey angst of yearning for a banana and a good screw, or at least jerk off, in the jungle when all you have is a crappy zoo enclosure, a piece of canvas, and distinctly non-banana tasting paint?
Contemporary art can be called a lot of things. Many of them true. Some of them Damien Hirst might sue you for saying. But fraud?
Fraud we'll leave to non-modern artists like Thomas Kinkade, whom the FBI investigated for just that.
So in closing...
Da Hee Kong WTF? I don't know how art is viewed in Jakarta, but around these part, we don't go around asking too many questions. Know what I'm saying? Art is art because we say its art, and smart Da Hee Kongs better shut their mouths about it if they knows whats good for 'em, or else they're liable to find us out in front of their house with a bat coming to shut it for them. Capiche?!
|
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
Posts โข 0
Likes โข 0
September 2012
|
Contemporary Art : Is it art or fraud?, by jamesreeve5 on Dec 11, 2008 9:19:00 GMT 1, Such a boring and tired point. Nevertheless, I seek to put this to rest once and for all.... First, paint thrown on a canvas doesn't fly like it used to, mostly because gravity is different now versus when Jackson Pollack painted. Mostly due to polar drift, paint won't quite hit the canvas with the intensity it did pre-1960. Proven artistic fact. Secondly - Yes, if a monkey throws stones covered in paint at a canvas, it is art, while its merely pathetic if you produced the same piece - because frankly yours was no better than the monkeys, and the monkey executed it better with more originality. And if the monkey is represented by Steven Lazarides and he's smart enough to release a low edition straight on POW, he may excite enough of a secondary market to have a career in front of him. I want to be particularly clear, however, in no way is the hypothetical simian in question committing any fraud against the art world, so long as 1) he produces his own originals, 2) clearly represents himself as a monkey or at least as an anonymous member of a collective of monkey artists working under a particular name or street tag, and 3) doesn't partake in any monkey business with edition numbers. Short of that, I don't see any fraud being perpetrated by an ape on the art world. Fact remains, you can say "you can do that" but can you now? Or should I ask, could you if you were a monkey? Think about it, its easy to say that you can produce the work that the chimp produced, but what if you are covered in hair and suffer from a raging tick problem? Would YOUR painting appropriately capture that monkey angst of yearning for a banana and a good screw, or at least jerk off, in the jungle when all you have is a crappy zoo enclosure, a piece of canvas, and distinctly non-banana tasting paint? Contemporary art can be called a lot of things. Many of them true. Some of them Damien Hirst might sue you for saying. But fraud? Fraud we'll leave to non-modern artists like Thomas Kinkade, whom the FBI investigated for just that. So in closing... Da Hee Kong WTF? I don't know how art is viewed in Jakarta, but around these part, we don't go around asking too many questions. Know what I'm saying? Art is art because we say its art, and smart Da Hee Kongs better shut their mouths about it if they knows whats good for 'em, or else they're liable to find us out in front of their house with a bat coming to shut it for them. Capiche?!
Well written response.
Such a boring and tired point. Nevertheless, I seek to put this to rest once and for all.... First, paint thrown on a canvas doesn't fly like it used to, mostly because gravity is different now versus when Jackson Pollack painted. Mostly due to polar drift, paint won't quite hit the canvas with the intensity it did pre-1960. Proven artistic fact. Secondly - Yes, if a monkey throws stones covered in paint at a canvas, it is art, while its merely pathetic if you produced the same piece - because frankly yours was no better than the monkeys, and the monkey executed it better with more originality. And if the monkey is represented by Steven Lazarides and he's smart enough to release a low edition straight on POW, he may excite enough of a secondary market to have a career in front of him. I want to be particularly clear, however, in no way is the hypothetical simian in question committing any fraud against the art world, so long as 1) he produces his own originals, 2) clearly represents himself as a monkey or at least as an anonymous member of a collective of monkey artists working under a particular name or street tag, and 3) doesn't partake in any monkey business with edition numbers. Short of that, I don't see any fraud being perpetrated by an ape on the art world. Fact remains, you can say "you can do that" but can you now? Or should I ask, could you if you were a monkey? Think about it, its easy to say that you can produce the work that the chimp produced, but what if you are covered in hair and suffer from a raging tick problem? Would YOUR painting appropriately capture that monkey angst of yearning for a banana and a good screw, or at least jerk off, in the jungle when all you have is a crappy zoo enclosure, a piece of canvas, and distinctly non-banana tasting paint? Contemporary art can be called a lot of things. Many of them true. Some of them Damien Hirst might sue you for saying. But fraud? Fraud we'll leave to non-modern artists like Thomas Kinkade, whom the FBI investigated for just that. So in closing... Da Hee Kong WTF? I don't know how art is viewed in Jakarta, but around these part, we don't go around asking too many questions. Know what I'm saying? Art is art because we say its art, and smart Da Hee Kongs better shut their mouths about it if they knows whats good for 'em, or else they're liable to find us out in front of their house with a bat coming to shut it for them. Capiche?! Well written response. |
|
pezlow
Junior Member
Posts โข 5,388
Likes โข 254
January 2007
|
Contemporary Art : Is it art or fraud?, by pezlow on Dec 11, 2008 10:00:04 GMT 1, Yawn Yawn. Nice essay by a 12th Grader but hardly the most innovative point. I am amazed Juxtapoz picked up something like this.
Yawn Yawn. Nice essay by a 12th Grader but hardly the most innovative point. I am amazed Juxtapoz picked up something like this.
|
|
sfdoddsy
New Member
Posts โข 267
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
Contemporary Art : Is it art or fraud?, by sfdoddsy on Dec 11, 2008 16:20:50 GMT 1, I have a stock response to these kind of queries.
I've often been beside someone gazing at at a Pollock, or a Twombly, or a Mondrian, or a Rothko or even a Hirst and heard them exclaim "I could have done that!'
My reply is "Yes, but you didn't.'
Originality is paramount.
That aside, I like the monkey painting. A lot. It doesn't remind me of a Pollock, but it does match the efforts of any number of moderately obscure Abstract Expressionists. I wonder whether the chimps chose their own colours?
There is also a gallery where you can buy paintings by elephants (many of which I think are kind of cool too).
www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/
I myself am fond of pure Art Brut, or paintings by insane people.
But I don't call any of this Art.
The difference of course is that the monkey has done an accidental painting, whereas the minor Abstract Expressionist has made a conscious effort to produce the same work. It is his intent that makes it Art.
And it is the ignorance of those viewing the monkey work that makes them ripe for satire. We see it here all the time. You could easily swap a Banksy signature onto something else and folk would swoon, and vice versa. What would happen if Banksy released a completely anonymous piece? If NOLA had no signature, no POW, no nothing?
More interestingly, what would happen if the monkey, or elephant, accidentally produced a work that was identical to a Pollock, and meant to? There is a famous story by Jorge Luis Borges called Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote about a writer who rewrites Cervantes Don Quixote word for word, but believes that because he has rewritten it at a different time and as a different person then the work itself is fully original.
No doubt the artists redoing Warhol's Marilyn or Banksy's monkeys believe the same thing.
Cartrain gets slagged off here a lot, but what if he accidentally produces something as good as a Banksy? Would anyone recognise it?
I have a stock response to these kind of queries. I've often been beside someone gazing at at a Pollock, or a Twombly, or a Mondrian, or a Rothko or even a Hirst and heard them exclaim "I could have done that!' My reply is "Yes, but you didn't.' Originality is paramount. That aside, I like the monkey painting. A lot. It doesn't remind me of a Pollock, but it does match the efforts of any number of moderately obscure Abstract Expressionists. I wonder whether the chimps chose their own colours? There is also a gallery where you can buy paintings by elephants (many of which I think are kind of cool too). www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/I myself am fond of pure Art Brut, or paintings by insane people. But I don't call any of this Art. The difference of course is that the monkey has done an accidental painting, whereas the minor Abstract Expressionist has made a conscious effort to produce the same work. It is his intent that makes it Art. And it is the ignorance of those viewing the monkey work that makes them ripe for satire. We see it here all the time. You could easily swap a Banksy signature onto something else and folk would swoon, and vice versa. What would happen if Banksy released a completely anonymous piece? If NOLA had no signature, no POW, no nothing? More interestingly, what would happen if the monkey, or elephant, accidentally produced a work that was identical to a Pollock, and meant to? There is a famous story by Jorge Luis Borges called Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote about a writer who rewrites Cervantes Don Quixote word for word, but believes that because he has rewritten it at a different time and as a different person then the work itself is fully original. No doubt the artists redoing Warhol's Marilyn or Banksy's monkeys believe the same thing. Cartrain gets slagged off here a lot, but what if he accidentally produces something as good as a Banksy? Would anyone recognise it? |
|
|
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
Posts โข 0
Likes โข 0
September 2012
|
Contemporary Art : Is it art or fraud?, by jamesreeve5 on Dec 11, 2008 16:54:35 GMT 1, I have a stock response to these kind of queries. I've often been beside someone gazing at at a Pollock, or a Twombly, or a Mondrian, or a Rothko or even a Hirst and heard them exclaim "I could have done that!' My reply is "Yes, but you didn't.' Originality is paramount. That aside, I like the monkey painting. A lot. It doesn't remind me of a Pollock, but it does match the efforts of any number of moderately obscure Abstract Expressionists. I wonder whether the chimps chose their own colours? There is also a gallery where you can buy paintings by elephants (many of which I think are kind of cool too). www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/I myself am fond of pure Art Brut, or paintings by insane people. But I don't call any of this Art. The difference of course is that the monkey has done an accidental painting, whereas the minor Abstract Expressionist has made a conscious effort to produce the same work. It is his intent that makes it Art. And it is the ignorance of those viewing the monkey work that makes them ripe for satire. We see it here all the time. You could easily swap a Banksy signature onto something else and folk would swoon, and vice versa. What would happen if Banksy released a completely anonymous piece? If NOLA had no signature, no POW, no nothing? More interestingly, what would happen if the monkey, or elephant, accidentally produced a work that was identical to a Pollock, and meant to? There is a famous story by Jorge Luis Borges called Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote about a writer who rewrites Cervantes Don Quixote word for word, but believes that because he has rewritten it at a different time and as a different person then the work itself is fully original. No doubt the artists redoing Warhol's Marilyn or Banksy's monkeys believe the same thing. Cartrain gets slagged off here a lot, but what if he accidentally produces something as good as a Banksy? Would anyone recognise it?
great response. unfortunately this theead still has less responses than the "NIPPLE TWISTS" thread and only the usual suspects responding to it.
I have a stock response to these kind of queries. I've often been beside someone gazing at at a Pollock, or a Twombly, or a Mondrian, or a Rothko or even a Hirst and heard them exclaim "I could have done that!' My reply is "Yes, but you didn't.' Originality is paramount. That aside, I like the monkey painting. A lot. It doesn't remind me of a Pollock, but it does match the efforts of any number of moderately obscure Abstract Expressionists. I wonder whether the chimps chose their own colours? There is also a gallery where you can buy paintings by elephants (many of which I think are kind of cool too). www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/I myself am fond of pure Art Brut, or paintings by insane people. But I don't call any of this Art. The difference of course is that the monkey has done an accidental painting, whereas the minor Abstract Expressionist has made a conscious effort to produce the same work. It is his intent that makes it Art. And it is the ignorance of those viewing the monkey work that makes them ripe for satire. We see it here all the time. You could easily swap a Banksy signature onto something else and folk would swoon, and vice versa. What would happen if Banksy released a completely anonymous piece? If NOLA had no signature, no POW, no nothing? More interestingly, what would happen if the monkey, or elephant, accidentally produced a work that was identical to a Pollock, and meant to? There is a famous story by Jorge Luis Borges called Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote about a writer who rewrites Cervantes Don Quixote word for word, but believes that because he has rewritten it at a different time and as a different person then the work itself is fully original. No doubt the artists redoing Warhol's Marilyn or Banksy's monkeys believe the same thing. Cartrain gets slagged off here a lot, but what if he accidentally produces something as good as a Banksy? Would anyone recognise it? great response. unfortunately this theead still has less responses than the "NIPPLE TWISTS" thread and only the usual suspects responding to it. |
|
|
|
Contemporary Art : Is it art or fraud?, by onemandown72 on Dec 11, 2008 17:45:38 GMT 1, But I don't call any of this Art. The difference of course is that the monkey has done an accidental painting, whereas the minor Abstract Expressionist has made a conscious effort to produce the same work. It is his intent that makes it Art.
Whereas if an artist put on an exhibition, the centre piece being monkeys in a cage painting, and called it "Monkey's painting" it would be art!
I disagree on your contention that it is the through a conscious act that makes something art, and if I understand correctly on you believe that art is only created once someone claims it is such. I think that art is beyond this and to try and define art is near on impossible in my mind. By it's very nature art is beyond boundaries, as anything can be considered art.
But I don't call any of this Art. The difference of course is that the monkey has done an accidental painting, whereas the minor Abstract Expressionist has made a conscious effort to produce the same work. It is his intent that makes it Art. Whereas if an artist put on an exhibition, the centre piece being monkeys in a cage painting, and called it "Monkey's painting" it would be art! I disagree on your contention that it is the through a conscious act that makes something art, and if I understand correctly on you believe that art is only created once someone claims it is such. I think that art is beyond this and to try and define art is near on impossible in my mind. By it's very nature art is beyond boundaries, as anything can be considered art. |
|
๐ธ