quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
Hoax

Does that make it art, or just st00pid?

I don't know, but the moniker Artful Dodger comes to mind.

Another project.......a different take.

a little more credibility...

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
Hoax

Does that make it art, or just st00pid?

Going along with this post and what Cyber said, it seems to me that if she was intentionally lampooning the art world and her stupid art circle pretensions then she at least gets some respect in my book. She's not making art yet, but at least I can respect her making fun at the art world and its gradiose assumptions of obscure, insular meaning.

I still like Rachel Weiz in The Shape of Things though. Her character was kind of evil/clever.

As far as I'm concerned they were just whoring themselves to the press.. Welcome to contemporary art people.

DO all Australians hate the art world, or just the ones here?

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
DO all Australians hate the art world, or just the ones here?

They're just bitter because they aren't allowed into the private aboriginal galleries.

It ultimately comes down to the culture of the art world as to why we hate it so much. They sell crap, they act like retards with their creative words and make a blank canvas some kind of science proposal where the board of directors go "hey someone fucking tell me in English already!".. That and they rip people off. Bastards.

What bothers me is that the art world is yet another system that has been created which is supposed to reflect some sort of deeper truth about being and it instead has divorced itself from the world as such and become it's own, incestuous sub-world.

It doesn't relate to informing man about his search for meaning, it references only it's own insufferable attempts at shallow spelunking of the human condition.

It has become artifice to the point of meaninglessness. I am so weary of all the human systems that we have created which have blated free from us and which we yet delude ourselves we have any control over. Art, which should be about cutting through that sort of semiotic bullshit has instead become a post modern paragon of it.

Why don't you just paint economics while you're at it?

quote:

What bothers me is that the art world is yet another system that has been created which is supposed to reflect some sort of deeper truth

Perhaps some of this blame belongs to the supposers?

"Why don't you just paint economics while you're at it?"

The results would probably reflect actual wealth production and distribution better than the real stuff. Put it in colored bar graphs and you've got art!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kenmeer livermaile,

quote:

Originally posted by RUR:

That was made in Herning, Denmark. Huge Manzoni fan here.

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
What bothers me is that the art world is yet another system that has been created which is supposed to reflect some sort of deeper truth about being and it instead has divorced itself from the world as such and become it's own, incestuous sub-world.

Err... no. The "art world" exists to make money from art. Perhaps art itself is supposed to reflect a deeper truth, but the "art world" isn't.

Agreeing, Krad, and thank you.

Krad said it better than anyone else

quote:

Err... no. The "art world" exists to make money from art. Perhaps art itself is supposed to reflect a deeper truth, but the "art world" isn't.

By Art, the Royal Scam of Art is implied here by the use of invisible quotation marks conferring irony, pretentiousness, authority, and elitism.

Done properly, it is a form of (*ahem*) Art visible only to those able to see the beauty of fleecing certain flocks of that most primary of aesthetic artistic creations: money, the most flexibly and universally beautiful art project known to man, so powerfully aesthetic it has made an art gallery of the entire extended provinces of human habitation.

It's most noble and populist example is the

quote:

flat store (plural flat stores)

1. (gambling, slang) A crooked gambling establishment, such as a casino running rigged or fixed (dishonest) games of chance.[1]

[edit] Quotations

* 1962: Saul Bellow & Keith Botsford, The Noble Savage, p59 (World Pub. Co)

He had told me that in the old days in Chicago he had run a flat-store with a partner who had tuberculosis and also smoked cigars.

especially not as conducted in fictional examples like The Sting or shows like this but as seen throughout America, from the early 19th century until the late 20th century, in carnival midway games of chance operations.

These midways served as the true art galleries of genuinely modern <*ahArtem*>, in which patrons could walk the corridors and admire, most of them cluelessly, unwittingly, unaware of their central role in the artist's creation, the many works of <*ahArtem*> on interactive display.

Some feel that precinct polling booths are also <*ahArtem*>, but only the higher level curators know for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Kradlum:

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
What bothers me is that the art world is yet another system that has been created which is supposed to reflect some sort of deeper truth about being and it instead has divorced itself from the world as such and become it's own, incestuous sub-world.

Err... no. The "art world" exists to make money from art. Perhaps art itself is supposed to reflect a deeper truth, but the "art world" isn't.

Actually, yes, it has to purport to represent more than that or it doesn't make money.

The art world hearkens back to medieval Europe which was about bringing glory to god by spending money and commissioning great works in his name. it had a reference group then, art referenced divinity.

The art world at that time was another means to get to God. granted, it involved patronage and money, but it is very different now and something of a recent change wherein art has become divorced from actually trying to address the phenomenal or noumenal world.

The art world itself has to perpetrate a kind of shadow play from the old medieval type insofar as it must convince the patron that they are "buying into" a secret world, that they are purchasing something deep and complex. In this way the art world is not about money alone, it is about creating the illusion that it has a reference group outside itself.

"The meaning of this piece is BLANK. Note the evocative use of BLANK to suggest the existential crisis of BLANK."

The interesting thing is that what the person is buying isn't art but a membership into the supposed club of intellectualism, refined tastes and worldliness.

In that sense, it hasn't changed. We've gone from selling a pass card to divinity to selling a pass card to depth of being. But at least the divine art referenced somehting other than its own pretensions.

I've always seen art not as being closer to god but rather mimicking his actions. This whole earth built in a week thing as such.

We're mimicking this idea of god when we try to create. In my opinion god is actually the first artwork as you can definitely see that the gods only exist in pictures. This is how the Egyptians got their power and in an essence caused religion to even exist. (granted there were others before this, the Egyptians were the first to mass produce it.)

I've found that with the invention of the industrial art world in the 1800s this is where you get this mass consumption of art, and where the smug pricks form big elitist walls to ensure their survival in such a brutal industry. Of course it shouldn't need to be that way.

It was Andy Warhol that created the culture in the art world that we all hate the most though. Who the fuck would buy a painting of a can of soup?! idiot.

quote:

"The meaning of this piece is BLANK. Note the evocative use of BLANK to suggest the existential crisis of BLANK."

I should get you a photo of my most hated of all paintings

quote:

I've found that with the invention of the industrial art world in the 1800s this is where you get this mass consumption of art, and where the smug pricks form big elitist walls to ensure their survival in such a brutal industry. Of course it shouldn't need to be that way.

It was Andy Warhol that created the culture in the art world that we all hate the most though. Who the fuck would buy a painting of a can of soup?! idiot.

I'm assuming you are being deeply and facetiously ironic here, yes?

I don't where where to start when you guys go off on your asinine Art critiques. I suppose i could start with this:

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
Art isn't supposed to provoke questions, it's supposed to disclose something essential about existence. She's doing politics.

Once you get past food and shelter, nothing is more "essential to existence' than questions.
As for the endless conflating of the Art World and the Art Market: Aliza Shvarts' existence does not invalidate Marcel Duchamp. Just like Uwe Boll's films don't render Andrei Tarkovsky's works meaningless.

quote:

Why don't you just paint economics while you're at it?

In case the image below doesn't hotlink right, it's Van Gogh's "The Potato Eaters," found at the the Artchive.



I always thought the avant-garde movements of the late 1800s (Impressionism, literary Realism and Naturalism), were intended to break out of Academic artistic modes and into depicting everyone, regardless of class, without idealism? Certainly that includes (in Van Gogh's case) painting economic situations, let alone economic systems and their effects on those who had previously been rendered invisible or idealized by the upper-class/mythological focus of Academic art.

There's a triptych from the early or mid-20th century I can see in my head but the name of which I cannot remember. It depicts aspects of the slave trade as a triptych (that is: it's a painting of an economic system), and I remember it from an old edition of Janson's History of Art from the 60s, and since I'm at work right now, I can't just look at the book! Anyone know what I'm talking about?