From: Christopher Lovenguth (zantzant@hotmail.com)
Date: 10/07/02-12:41:23 PM Z
I just get worried because we have been down this path before. I don't even
care if the art is good or bad. In fact, this art sounds pretty worthless
(if true), but the fact is that people use articles like this one (even if
it is satirical) as a basis to validate their misconceptions about
contemporary art. People read this article and others like it and devalue
contemporary artist and their importance in society. Some people really
believe that their hard earned dollars are being spent in taxes to fund
loafers and drugged out people who think they are smarter then everyone else
and do work a two year old can do, or do such offending work (like Piss
Christ) that has no value to society. This idea hurts artist especially in
this country where the government has taken away a validation (NEA funding)
that artist used to enjoy from a peer group, believing that this country
cares what they are doing. The NEA grant wasn't about the money, it was
about artist getting validation. Of course the government didn't get rid of
individual funding for writers. Why do you think this is? Why do you think
that only "safe" art gets funding now from organizations? $500,000 MacArthur
'genius' award to a woman that makes president portraits with beads or a guy
who makes drawings of buildings? Liza Lou and Toba Khedoori are two of three
artist who just won $500,000 a piece. Hey I like Liza Lou's work but it
doesn't push any boundaries or make any comments, it's safe. If she didn't
do such large items like kitchens, etc. her work would be dismissed as
craft. The third artist Camilo Jose Vergara, I believe gives hope to the
selection of these artist. But again even though his art has comment, it is
still "safe" enough for the worried taxpayer (even though this award isn't
government money) to not be offended or have nightmares about the world and
society. They are removed just enough from his subjects to feel safe. Anyway
more power to all of these individuals and I totally don't think they are
unworthy of funding (all art IMO is worthy of community funding), but you
will never see this award given to sorts like Mapplethorpe, Golden, Serrano
or Mann.
Articles and thoughts like in this article only hurt artist(you). It's not
about the work, it's about censorship and what certain groups of people are
trying to control.
When you control art, you control society's imagination because art is a
gide wire for people to use to dream. -Chris
Sandy,
Very well said. Say, would you be interested in going halves on a case
of
Ball canning jars?
Mark Nelson
In a message dated 10/7/02 12:50:11 PM, sanking@CLEMSON.EDU writes:
<< Chris,
If Dave Berry were an art critic your comments might have some point.
He is not and they don't, at least in my opinion. The man is neither
an artist nor art critic. He is a satirist who makes his money
poking fun at our public and private habits, and by bringing them
into ridicule for their ignorance, exaggerations and pomposity.
Assuming that his story is true, i.e. that some enterprising artist
did in fact market his own canned excrement as Vision, and that some
museums indeed have purchased such for their collections, is this
activity in and for itself not a parody of art. And that which
parodies does not ask to be defended as sacrosanct.
To respond to his piece as a serious work on the aesthetics of art is
simply ridiculous. No one on the list is defending his argument
because there really is no argument to defend. His purpose was to
make us laugh, not to show either understanding or acceptance of
modern art or modern artists.
I read the piece and found it amusing. Not once did I seriously think
that it was in any way a serious commentary on modern art or on
contemporary artists.
Sandy King >>
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:26 PM Z CST