There's overhead involved with everything, it still doesn't mean that the end product is always worth the cost.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Art & Conflicts
- Thread starter Ziltoid
- Start date
There's overhead involved with everything, it still doesn't mean that the end product is always worth the cost.
I think there are two distinct but interrelated issues here. One is whether the pieces presented as "art" merit the title. The other is the question of whether public funds and public spaces should be given to shock art.
In abstract art, you have a lot of pieces that don't seem to have required any particular skill or vision to create, nor do they carry any particular message. I've been to museums with displays with titles like "Three Gray Squares" which consisted of - guess what? - three gray squares hanging on the wall. The only value I see in presenting this kind of thing as "art" is to provoke discussion of "what really is art, anyway?", which is fine as far as it goes, but frankly I find it to be a rather stale and unproductive discussion which doesn't mean anything to anyone except those who fancy themselves "artists" - many of them, only because they can put three gray squares on the wall...
The other issue is a little more tangled to me. I believe in artists' right to free expression, but I don't believe that this entails a right to receive public funding or the resources of public space. (I believe in the freedom of the press, too, but this doesn't mean I think the government has an obligation to buy me a printing press). Public resources are not infinite and should be used for projects that best serve the public interest. Saying "if you don't like it, don't look at it" is an empty reply, because it implies that some people have the right to take others' tax dollars for themselves and bully them out of public spaces with an offensive visual assault, and that the offended party has no right to object or protest (since that would be "censorship"). That, to me, is both egocentric and hypocritical. If someone has the right to express themselves by putting morally offensive imagery in my public spaces, then I have the SAME right to express myself by offending them back and setting their **** on fire. I'll make a piece of performance art out of the burning. Don't censor me!
All the same, I think this puts tough choices in the hands of the decision-makers about what to do with public resources for art. No doubt, art is valuable to a society's vitality, and part of its function is to challenge and question. I accept that I'm not going to agree with all the messages that come out of publicly-funded art. Lord knows I don't want sweet Thomas Kinkade paintings all over the place (gag). What I disagree with is a hyper-individualist culture among artists that presumes that what they have to say is worth everyone hearing just because THEY happen to want to say it - disregard of the public interest that funds them - and a corresponding sense of entitlement, that public funding and facilities are at their disposal, and that those they offend are somehow morally forbidden or wrong to voice their outrage. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
In abstract art, you have a lot of pieces that don't seem to have required any particular skill or vision to create, nor do they carry any particular message. I've been to museums with displays with titles like "Three Gray Squares" which consisted of - guess what? - three gray squares hanging on the wall. The only value I see in presenting this kind of thing as "art" is to provoke discussion of "what really is art, anyway?", which is fine as far as it goes, but frankly I find it to be a rather stale and unproductive discussion which doesn't mean anything to anyone except those who fancy themselves "artists" - many of them, only because they can put three gray squares on the wall...
The other issue is a little more tangled to me. I believe in artists' right to free expression, but I don't believe that this entails a right to receive public funding or the resources of public space. (I believe in the freedom of the press, too, but this doesn't mean I think the government has an obligation to buy me a printing press). Public resources are not infinite and should be used for projects that best serve the public interest. Saying "if you don't like it, don't look at it" is an empty reply, because it implies that some people have the right to take others' tax dollars for themselves and bully them out of public spaces with an offensive visual assault, and that the offended party has no right to object or protest (since that would be "censorship"). That, to me, is both egocentric and hypocritical. If someone has the right to express themselves by putting morally offensive imagery in my public spaces, then I have the SAME right to express myself by offending them back and setting their **** on fire. I'll make a piece of performance art out of the burning. Don't censor me!
All the same, I think this puts tough choices in the hands of the decision-makers about what to do with public resources for art. No doubt, art is valuable to a society's vitality, and part of its function is to challenge and question. I accept that I'm not going to agree with all the messages that come out of publicly-funded art. Lord knows I don't want sweet Thomas Kinkade paintings all over the place (gag). What I disagree with is a hyper-individualist culture among artists that presumes that what they have to say is worth everyone hearing just because THEY happen to want to say it - disregard of the public interest that funds them - and a corresponding sense of entitlement, that public funding and facilities are at their disposal, and that those they offend are somehow morally forbidden or wrong to voice their outrage. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
fyi the galleries rarely if ever pay for anything, they take a 50% commission, they are more than happy to give discounts starting at 20% from the agreed upon retail price, and you have to pay taxes on the sale of your work
IMHO art is in the eye of the beholder. Art needs to shock its audiance at times and does not need to be a pretty picture, contain a happy ending, or please the ears, eyes, and soul. Yes there is kitch (someone mentioned Kinkade [shudder]) Jeffry Koons comes to mind too). There is even awful shock art made meerly to shock rather than to induce a conversation either internal or external. Even if the "offensive" art is publiclly funded or presented in a public venue it should not be censored nor should the offended party be censored.
While I think that hrodbert696 makes some valid points I disagree with his comments regarding offensive art being displayed in public spaces and that the artist(s) are "bullying" others out of public spaces with displays of morally offensive imagery. Yes hrodbert696 has the right to find the art morally offensive but how does the poster have the the right to destroy the offensive/objectionable art. It belongs either to the artist or the owner of the artwork. Who decides what is morally offensive/objective. Should art exhibits be given ratings like movies, video games, and TV shows?
How does the offensive art show disregard for the public interest that funds them. If "the public interest" has a say over what the artist can or cannot do with the funds they receive isn't that a form of censorship? Is expressing your oppinion entitlement because you have gained access to a public forum to express it?
While I think that hrodbert696 makes some valid points I disagree with his comments regarding offensive art being displayed in public spaces and that the artist(s) are "bullying" others out of public spaces with displays of morally offensive imagery. Yes hrodbert696 has the right to find the art morally offensive but how does the poster have the the right to destroy the offensive/objectionable art. It belongs either to the artist or the owner of the artwork. Who decides what is morally offensive/objective. Should art exhibits be given ratings like movies, video games, and TV shows?
How does the offensive art show disregard for the public interest that funds them. If "the public interest" has a say over what the artist can or cannot do with the funds they receive isn't that a form of censorship? Is expressing your oppinion entitlement because you have gained access to a public forum to express it?
How about movies? (I'm not a sophisticate who studied art, so I can't really get in on all the smart people talk way up above ^)
Has anyone here ever seen Lars von Trier's film Antichrist? Very very provocative and disturbing film starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg.
Some like it, some hate it. I'm still not sure which camp I fall into, but I was definitely impressed. It's about grief, pain and despair, both literally and personified.
Here's a clip: Chaos Reigns
I havent seen it yet, but its on my Netflix queue.
Threatening to burn stuff was my own shock tactic to make a point, not a serious statement of intention.
The relationship between funding and censorship is genuinely a tangled one, and I meant that sincerely. If NOT getting funding is "censorship," then censorship is inherent in ALL public patronage of the arts because the amount of money is not infinite and not everybody can get some. So the arts councils and NEA etc. by nature have to make decisions about what art is "worth" funding and what isn't. If "art" is, indeed, in the eye of the beholder, and therefore not subject to any objective criterion of what is or isn't "good" art, they have an impossible task to do.
My opinions on these issues formed when I was a theater major in college and observed this culture quite up-close among my classmates and teachers (right during the Mapplethorpe controversies); we artists have a RIGHT to be funded; to be declined funding is a sign of fascist censorship; members of the public who find our work offensive are clearly a bunch of fascists too who should go hide at home and leave the public square to us. I found the attitude quite arrogant and self-centered and have not since seen a reason to alter that judgment. What I'm trying to call for is a new culture of mutual respect between artist and public rather than what seems to be the current culture of a defiant and parasitic avant-garde that demands resources in order to attack the culture that provides those resources.
Sure...
...and so is the bank that holds your mortgage telling you that you aren't allowed to burn your house down.
When you are dependent on the largesse of someone else, you can't be surprised when they put conditions on that largesse.
IMHO I don't see having an application for public funding rejected as a form of censorship. Artists regardless of the media they work in (theater, dance, music, visual and performance art, etc) don't necesarily have the "right" to be funded. When public funding is rewarded the person(s) receiving it should feel honored. Deciding who should receive public funding is a daunting task. How does one evaluate who is worthy?
I remember the Maplethorpe controversies as well. People in the art world were certainly endorsing that Jessie Helms in particular was acting like a facist. After viewing some of the controversial art work which was not to my taste I was not offended by it. Acheiving a state of mutual respect is something to strive for and parties on both sides can be in the wrong when cultural beliefs are challenged and questioned. The parties all have their right to their opinion and it would be incredible if all the parties involved could work toward recognizing and accepting this fact. What concerns me when some of these controversies occurr is that when people in power begin to decide what kind of art is acceptable and what kind of art is degenerate or offensive and prosecute and punish the artist who created the "unacceptable" work the erosion of personal freedoms is just arround the corner.
I remember the Maplethorpe controversies as well. People in the art world were certainly endorsing that Jessie Helms in particular was acting like a facist. After viewing some of the controversial art work which was not to my taste I was not offended by it. Acheiving a state of mutual respect is something to strive for and parties on both sides can be in the wrong when cultural beliefs are challenged and questioned. The parties all have their right to their opinion and it would be incredible if all the parties involved could work toward recognizing and accepting this fact. What concerns me when some of these controversies occurr is that when people in power begin to decide what kind of art is acceptable and what kind of art is degenerate or offensive and prosecute and punish the artist who created the "unacceptable" work the erosion of personal freedoms is just arround the corner.
Yes if you borrow money to buy something you don't have the funds for to do so your self sure there should be conditions.
When an individual comissions an artist or group of artists conditions for how the money is used is acceptable.
If funding is rewarded to an individual or group based on merit should conditions be put in place on the creative process
How about movies? (I'm not a sophisticate who studied art, so I can't really get in on all the smart people talk way up above ^
Has anyone here ever seen Lars von Trier's film Antichrist? Very very provocative and disturbing film starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg.
Some like it, some hate it. I'm still not sure which camp I fall into, but I was definitely impressed. It's about grief, pain and despair, both literally and personified.
Here's a clip: Chaos Reigns
I just watched Antichrist. Very well executed flick, the cinematography and actors were spot on. Now the actual content I'm not too sure what to say about it. It was good but not pleasant. I'm a bit unsure whether there's a promotion of misogyny or just nature, humanity, sexuality as evil in general. Or maybe I'm just totally wrong and I didn't "get it". Oh well, either way it was good.
