Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanthe
I gave my reasons in that post why the shit/statue example just seems to be a cheap and quick means of garnering publicity for the artist, and what he/she would gain by doing so. Why it is a mere superficial construct.
...snipped for brevity...
|
You're using your opinion that the artist had not put enough work into his work, to argue that it's thus more offensive. If, you argue, the artist had put more thought and more work into it than you think he's done, you would take it more seriously.
It's because you are arguing from personal point of view - that the work, in your eyes, is not a good work of art and that the artist haven't put as much work into it as he could have (you even give a suggestion of what he could have made instead that you would have respected more) - that I disagree with you, as I, like tompe, find this a weak and unconvincing argument.*
As for the actual art work in question, "Piss Christ", I don't really know enugh about it to form a qualified opinion, though I can definitely follow your scepticism whether this is actually good art. Though if the point of the artwork was to make us think and discuss, then you could say it's certainly acheived its goal very successfully.
*For example (without drawing any other other comparisons whatsoever), respected, well-known artists such as Monet and Picasso were deriled in their day for their style and approach.