h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Paper money and concepts of value are strange commodities.

Here's a recent item placed under the hammer - "Roy Lichtenstein work sets new $43m sale record. A painting by pop artist Roy Lichtenstein has sold at auction in New York for $43 million (£27 million), setting a new record for his work." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15655752

I have a theory about the Mona Lisa smile - constipation.

Really

That sounds far too earthy and real.

I always think she's like someone in a passport photo booth..who's a bit nervous that she might not get a great shot for her passport photo..and is a bit hesitant..

Here's a link (originally posted in the What News Today thread
by Fizzymouse) to a couple of startling art stories in the news.

http://tinyurl.com/c4t75w7

All raise the question "But is it art Dahlink?"

The overzealous cleaner makes a good point, but the
crucified frog leaves me in no doubt that it is not.


~jwf~

Having done my own fair share of crucifixion mash-ups (and people have actually paid money to own 'em), I have to say that I think the crucified frog is sheer genius.

Any and all representations of 'the Crucifixion'
are by definition cliche dripping sentimentality.

No exceptions.

~jwf~

Just because it's cliché dripping sentimentality doesn't mean it ain't art.

No offense intended.
And not to further offend but...

The question of portraying crucifixions is an example
of the earlier and ongoing question of how much art is
entirely - and only - one of subjective appreciation.

I find the glorification of execution by any means,
represented in any medium, to be the purview of the
kind of counter-productive sentimenatlist mindset that
enables waffling and wallowing in personal angst. Seen
one Goya and ya seen 'em all. Picasso's Guernica is a
one-off experience that needs not to be repeated.

This opinion is mine and coloured by an over-exposure
to the bleeding heart Christian crucifixes that used
to adorn the living spaces of most Catholics of my
acquaintance. These were generally nice normal folks
and it was always a shock upon visiting their homes
to find a bleeding Jesus hanging on the walls of nearly
every room - including the loo where He often seemed
to be staring in a rather indiscreet and pervy manner.

Most young folks today seldom see the inside of an abattoir
or slaughter-house but I'm old enuff to remember when the
local butchers had entire animals hanging about on hooks.
Modern supermarkets do not allow the public to see such gory
details anymore but artists continue to glory in the gory.

Perhaps no other art subject matter (aside from sex obviously)
is so clearly a matter of personal taste.


~jwf~

My abhorrence of gore in art also likely results
from my residual faith in sympathetic magic.

I don't want gory images on my walls.
I want pretty things, colours and shapes
and happy fluffy bunnies and well formed
lady bits, swoopy aircraft and sleek cars,
green landscapes and stormy seas tossing
wooden ships.

Blood is for hospitals and vampires and butchers.


~jwf~

'No offense intended.'

and none taken.

Although, when I do crucifixion mashups, offence is usually very much intended.


And . . .

'Most young folks today seldom see the inside of an abattoir '

I haven't been inside an abattoir since Tuesday, when I picked up` another ten gallons of pigs' blood. (for black pudding, not an art project. Although . . . )

Ah yes, you live in the wild, wild west.
Where bloodletting is a way of life.

The last visible slaughterhouse in these parts
was closed down 20 years ago. They are still
around of course but well out of sight and kept
downwind of any populated areas.

In my rural area of Nova Scotia I often (too often)
find my progress along local highways slowed by
farmers' trailers full of animals on their way to
slaughter.

Their big eyes wide and wild stare out of the grilled
gates at me following in their 'wake'. In summer, with
the top down, I can hear their desperate bellowing and
smell their fear.


~jwf~

Up until about ten years ago there was a big slaughterhouse about three blocks from where I live in the middle of the city. They tore it down and built condos. The usual sort of plywood fence was put up around the construction site and it ended up being painted with all sorts of angelic s as a memorial to all the animals who'd been through the old building.

At the Hayward Art Gallery, London, this summer there was an exhibition from Tracey Emin. One of the works displayed her used tampons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387852/Tracey-Emin-admits-feeling-embarrassed-piece-work-ahead-new-exhibition.html

' Emin said the tent and her unmade bed were 'seminal pieces of work'.'

I have been thinking of a definition of art that would include Tracey Emin's unmade bed and used tampon work. I have come up with a practical definition: "Anything that is exhibited within an art gallery", where "art gallery" is any space defined as such; a space set aside for the "exhibition" of "works" that is accessible to the general public.

Perhaps a slightly wider definition is; any "work" "presented" outside of its normal context.

I am sure there exists more official definitions for such work (including expletives no doubt suggesting some emotional stimulation).

>>..any "work" "presented" outside of its normal context. <<

Interesting definiton.
It certainly applies to these sculptural pieces
of unmade beds and used tampons seemingly, even
shockingly, out of place.

Art though can encompass all the media. And in
some media, radio, TV, stage, etc., the content is
not really out of context. The medium is the message.
A film is art, a radio comic is art, a no trespassing
sign or a a name on a door or mailbox is art.

I think your first bit about "any work...presented"
is probably sufficient. It can embrace anything from tales
told round the campfire to regal pageantry and everything
from rock&roll to cartoon capers that might fall between.

Yes, I think you've boiled it down to the essential elements
with 'work' and 'presented'. Any conscious effort to create
and then present something to others could be called art.

This might include any medium from tall tales to dinners to
military ambushes to a freshly mown lawn or a garden. Yes,
any conceived and executed work designed to be presented
to others (or even just to the gods) could be called art.

Marshal McLuhan summed it nicely when he quoted a tribal
leader who said, 'We have no Art. We do everything as well
as we can.'



~HtH~

"any work... presented"

that´s not enough until the work is not received.

So could it be ...

any work- within the scope jwf says- that whether or not is done to be considered art, is receceived as such. It would fit the communication scheme of sender, message, receiver, code, referent... etc.

That way if my referent as receiver differs from that of the artist, I can´t say that their work is not art, just that there´s not syntony with them.
However... I still don´t see it...

I mean: it´s not enough if the work is not received too.

>> not enough if the work is not received <<

Y'mean like the tree falling in the woods
with no one to hear it.

Yeah, I can understand that.


Yes, a viewer, receiver, listener, observer, taster
(or whatever applies to the specific medium) is the
necessary context for any creation to be called Art.
And they don't have to like it, just be aware of it.


~jwf~

Way I look at it, if someone wants to call an unmade bed art they're quite welcome to... just as long as they don't expect me to call it art as well.