Thursday, February 23, 2006

Burn the Academics

Is it their art or yours? What does it mean? Who cares? Where's the toilet? Is it art?
Duration: 5 minutes


Evil Man said...

I belive that those that call themselves "artist" are also wrong. I think you should just say you do art either for a living or a hobby. Otherwise, it's like calling yourself perfect.

JTony said...

You've been Rocketboomed!

From what I saw on Rocketboom, it was unclear whether or not you are making fun of the idea of unconventional things being art or are trying to illuminate others that, in fact, unconventional art has its place. On watching your full video, it seems more like you are doing the latter, but still not completely clear. Just which way are you leaning on this?

I left the following on the Rocketboom site, but I figured I'd post it here, too:

God, this has got to be the most tired dead horse of a topic ever. Art is not dead, but the argument over what is, is.

It is simple folks. Art is what an artist says is art. An artist is someone who points at something and says "that's art".

Art is not about quality. It isn't art if it is good and not art if it is bad. It insn't art if it is expensive and it isn't art if it is recycled. It isn't art if it is handcrafted and it isn't art if it is readymade.

Art is simply looking at things from a different angle, or though a different lens. The street looks different if you call it art. You look at it differently, consider it from an aesthetic, political, social, even economic point of view rather than just the utilitarian "street" that you usually hardly notice.

Now, some art is more effective than other art at getting the audience to look, while some audiences are more effected by certain types of art than others, but whether or not it is art is just a dumb question.

Dr. Phibes said...

dude, your pretty funny and all, but... get a life

(and don't delete the flame-posts!)

Chuck Sillery said...

To kind of repeat what jtony said, after Marcel Duchamp the question "is it art" is at the very least a moot question, and at worst a philistine question. The question should be, is it good art, or is it bad art?

JTony said...

I'd even go further and say 'good' and 'bad', being totally subjective and non-quantifiable, is a moot classification.

I like 'effective' and 'ineffective' art. If the art is able to bring out a real reaction in a large number of the viewing population, it is effective (even if the reaction from half is 'ugh' and the other half is 'right-on'). If it gets folks to consider the 'subject' from a different angle, it is effective, and this can be quantified. Stronger reactions from more people means it is more effective.

Unfortunately this line of reasoning makes the likes of Thomas Kinkade a pretty effective artist, even though I think he's a total hack.

Speaking of hacks, Dr. Phibes, why don't you add to the conversation instead of just trying to tear it down?

BD said...

This comment is not art.

Bia Lamarca said...

greetings from italy!
im looking forward for the next episode... ;)
the greatest podcast of the day so far!

best regards,
bia lamarca