Re: "sophisticated art snot"

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Chunin Martinez (chunin@cimphoto.com)
Date: 10/07/02-01:41:54 PM Z


Letting people do this kind of crap and don't condem it also hurts you, the
artist. It is the same crap as corrupt police departments letting bad cops
go free by not investigating or doing cover ups in order to not hurt the
departments image or confidence or morale. It is true that there must be
freedom to perform art but I believe that most of us agree that this example
in particular is worthless as art. People don't use this article to
validate the misconception of contemporary art any more that others use it
to validate crap like this just for the sake of protecting the image of
contemporary art.

Chunin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Lovenguth" <zantzant@hotmail.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: "sophisticated art snot"

> 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


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:26 PM Z CST