Not a new topic, not at all. But triggered by a couple of recent "events" in my life. Was not discussed in these forums yet.

 

One event was a conversation which upheld an opinion I have heard before: modern or not so modern "elite" or "museum" art (and photography) wants a viewers reaction, first and foremost. The crucial difference with classical art is that modern art does not care whether the reaction is positive or negative. This art piece is hated, despised, or shocking for some? Good! Because it's memorable or not boring.

 

Another event is right down the road from where I live, a few miles away, happening now. There is a Wellesley College, an expensive all women's college in Boston area, which was created in 19 century among some other all women's colleges to provide "women with the same quality education as for their brothers in Harvard, Princeton, and Yale" (citing from memory). This all women's college just installed a statue of a man in just his underwear, apparently in the middle of the campus's busy area. This caused a stir and a student petition to remove it. Does not look like the petition will succeed though. At this point you really must see how it looks like: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts-entertainment/blog/2014/02/04/wellesley-art-exhibit-students-creeped/ . "But it seems as though for Fischman (the lady responsible for the installation - AG) evoking strong feelings of wonder, disapproval, or even fear, is exactly what was intended. “As the best art does, Tony Matelli’s work provokes dialogue, and discourse is at the core of education,”"

 

So, is the best modern art shocking, or disgusting, or non-art at least for some?

 

Looking forward to your opinion,

Anna

Hi Anna,

 

I enjoyed this post, and saw the blog link and the "installation." Not sure this is art, but it's not as bad as some modern art I've seen. At least there was some skill and technique in evidence. I am not a fan of shock art, and I think most of us know when it is designed for that. I find a lot of modern art to be crap I am afraid - not a fan of Pollack at all. But at least the man depicted in this "art" is not a predictable Adonis, and skillfully rendered, for what it is. Why it is there and what the intended response is, is, well, probably sensationalism. If art shocks or offends, it is my point of view that the reaction should be the result of the art, not the intent or inspiration behind the creation of it.

I see a photo uploaded for curation here on the site. Its a bad photo, technique, composition and content. Basically its crap. I guess its a piece of high art because it produced an emotion in me of "not really liking it."

 

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/art_1?q=art

 

Being literal in the meaning every piece of photo created, including selfies with stupid duck faces, are works of art. I guess if I wear dark clothing to embody real life art and act like a stalker and scare people thats fine. Hey its just art, I'm a misunderstood artist, really .... No officer I wasn't stalking ... Its art ...

 

Theres good taste and there's bad taste.

 

Just like in some parts of the world you can walk butt naked and its fine, there are other parts you'll get punished. There are norms and there are the "not norms." Art doesn't have to follow norms but has to not be a "not norm" to be accepted. One day that statue will be accepted as a norm when new folks join the campus and its already there but that lady is a quack.

 

I understand, Michael. I think that in most cases artists know if their work is going to be shocking or offending for many. It's often hard to say though whether they are inspired by it or disregard it. There are sort of recipes that are used often for such art. Take a religion and couple it with pornography or terrorism. Or make "porno-art" and exhibit it outside of an environment suitable for pornography. Or show someone's suffering as funny or attractive. Works every time to stir a controversy. Are there any more controversial art recipes? The Wellesley example is more subtle though. Still his hands, hands of an almost naked man, are stretched outward as if he is ready to grab, well, someone. A woman, in an all women's college? There is certainly art that looks borderline offensive, not outright offensive. Is that, being borderline offensive, premeditated? I'd guess - yes, in many and many cases.

 

 

Almulla, I more meant not a random uploaded picture but more pieces that already have some serious stamp of approval, like being exhibited in a museum or a gallery, or bought by a serious collector. Yes, there is art outside controversial art.

 

Well, unless it was 3D printing from digital pictures. In a way it is too realistic to be completely hand-made. Software is available for free and 3D printers are not that expensive nowadays...

http://makezine.com/projects/make-ultimate-guide-to-3d-printing/print-your-head-in-3d/

Hi all,

I believe that art is "indefinable"

The definitions enslave

Art should not be a slave to anything or anyone.

Therefore, I believe that art is different for each of us.

The following spoke in this interaction: education received and the "empirical" knowledge acquired throughout your life.

In addition, also following the social circumstances of the moment, trends, fashions, social developments. And of course, the mood of each "reader" at all times.

However, according to my personal opinionthe true

"art" remains in through time.

"Time" is who grants the status of "art" to any creation of man

What we see now, which leaves us indifferent, what we do not like ... probably "ephemeral" ... will fade in time.

What we see now, what most excites us, makes us feel ... true art ... will continue to thrill over time.

The "academic standards" used to be used ... and finally, once controlled to be transgressed. The creative process of a work can not be slave of techniques, tools, approaches. The process of any creation should be free.

Thank you very much for your attention and your time! :-)

Sol

Anna I used that as an example to the literal meaning of art and something everyone reading this forums can relate to.

 

Yes, of course. I understood that but your example showed me that I need to explain more what I had in mind, like art already in museums.

Ah got it. Give anything enough time and its art.

But then, I wonder why you must define an art? You don't have feeling whats working on you, and what not? For me its impossible do define art and put it to selected box on what is writen "Art", "Not Art", "Crap", "Classic Art" etc. It's all question of convention what we, as a society should thought about what is well composed, what is bad, what is well balanced. Why don't try be attacked by an "modern art"? This is the same as the rest of works. Its just different kind of language used, language that had to change becaouse everything changed in such short period of time which was XX century. For example Abramovic - watch her performence - "Artist is a gift". I wonder how you feel it. She seems to be completly insane - but after all, I think we are completly insane and she is still "normal".

Cheers...

if you see the 'nudes' gallery of 1x, for you it is 'art'... trust me for many that is not and is just porn (try fb and let's see how many classify many as art or to bann it).

 

Art is made by the artist and with his/her intentions, people will see it as art or not.

 

Not everybody have to 'like' a piece, that is what make art, is a connection between what an artist create and the viewer.

 

Some people will like it and others not, but why the ones who not like it always have to be so claiming to destroy what others like?

 

We live in a world of not respect to each other rather than acceptance and every day more and more in a scarlet letter society.

 

if you don't like something... just don't look at it, if you find it offensive, don't look at it. no artist is asking you to like their work I think, and who like it is by freedom of will.

 

Art is for me something that touches me. And I do not care if it is famous or not.

For that I need to see the original especially when it is painting, installation or sculptures.

Disgusting, shocking etc might cry for audience and might be declared as art, at the moment when it is created, but I doubt it will last.

I mean even DaDa is not that easy to find in museums today. That might have been the first art which tried to shock and disgust.

I remember still in 1977 when I first heard the Sex Pistols it was so hard, and destructive music, it was unbelievable.

When I hear it today it is just a bit strange music. It might last as a foundation of a new music era but thats it.

I am also sure such kind of art will son be hidden in the magazines of museums.

Because it shocks, disgusts you one time and the effect is gone. It becomes boring.

But to look at a painting of Brueghel or Richter or an insatllation from Tinguely is alway a big pleasure and for me soemthing fascinatiing.

There is also a lot of modern art which is "just" art, without crying and begging for audience. Let´s call it the silent art, I am pretty sure it will have more impact over the long run.

 

I think for practical purposes art is declared as such not when it's created (unless it's a currently famous artist and then all he creates and shows is usually declared art). I think, art is declared art when it gets into serious museums, exhibitions, and collections, or when a serious critic declares it's art. And we, regular people, have very little say in what gets there. This is up to curators, critics, and collectors with reputation and money. They, not us, decide what is art to stay for subsequent generations, because art that stays is art in museums. In the particular Wellesley College example a single person in the whole college decided that the man in underwear is art, to be placed in the middle of a busy intersection (no looking away), and the rest of the college have a simple choice of agree or disagree with it but they have no choice not to put it there. So, for practical purposes freedom of serious art is freedom of a few, in the Wellesley College example freedom of one. We are free to create art and show it to our friends or on Facebook, sure. But we are not free to leave it to generations and it's not inanimate time that decides that and not rank-and-file viewers either.

I think that art is declared by the artist.

Few people decide if it is successful (moneywise as art is also a market) but they do not decide if it is art or not in my eyes. And thats good because as we all know the Nazis in Germany where once also those "few" which decided what art is and what not, same during the culture revolution in China etc.

 

Art must also not to be serve the taste of the masses and especially we in the western hemisphere should be so open minded and even accept a "Sleepwalker" as a piece of art.

Showing it at a sensible place (or where people are intolerant) is not the fault of the artist or the piece of art, it is the fault of the organizers or those "few" you mentioned.

When this sculpture would be shown in a normal indoor exhibition no one would even care about it.

 

Thomas I agree with you completely.

 

Anna, I don't think that a critique or curator can decide if something is art or not. For me street art can be art, Tattoo's can be art, and i don't think there is a curator.

 

The piece of the sleepwalker, i think if instead of underwear he is wearing some swimming wear then everybody will accept it, or if he is wearing a 'calvin klein' people will think is a fashion thing and accepted. People should stop judging, and i think i saw worse in Halloween sometimes but of course then no one complain? :)

 

To me that one is as representative of art as this one in Chicago

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gNKnv7ZD2rw/TknncgpWbmI/AAAAAAAAAJg/sCXypGire3o/s1600/Marilyn+Monroes+Giant+Statue5.jpg

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7062/6897682857_0226ac3fc5_o.jpg

 

to me.. this is art

 

http://www.elliottlemenager.com/2011/05/20/seoul-based-artist-choi-xooang/

 

http://english.sina.com/culture/p/2013/1118/647488.html

 

http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/the-creepy-life-like-giants-of-ron-mueck.html

 

As Thomas say and for me Art is defined by the artist and those who he will connect with on his expression.

 

That a piece doesn't get curated does not mean is not art, remember most of today's classic pieces of art were not recognized while the artist was alive and people at their time considered 'not art'.

 

:)

 

We are in a very sophisticated time. There are all sorts of theories, arguments, and historical examples to defend, justify, and promote all sorts of art or "art".

It seems that we cannot define art by words effectively anymore. But we still can define it by our personal choices.

As for the Sleepwalker, I have to admit that I am as naive as a little child, who simply cannot see the "new clothes" the curator tries to convince the public to see.