Oh My - Controversial Artwork Destroyed!

[astra]

Originally Posted by tompe

So then you should respect this opinion and not defend the destruction of something that you happened to think was not art.

He doesn't defend the destruction of the item in post #160. Just states that it offends him.

I agree that probably in most cases desecrations of religious symbols is a cheap way to create publicity.
I disagree that the item in question should be destroyed. As I said before, no physical intrusion is allowed in a civilised society. However, the person who made it (I cannot say created, because I do not consider it a piece of art) would never earn respect from me and would be always looked upon with disgust, a cheap trickster. Someone who has no regard for how other people feel. A very selfish, cruel child (although child's cruelty can be forgiven).

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

astra, civilized people don't deliberately offend.

I guess that the world is filled exclusively of uncivilized people, then.
Yes, it is my opinion that every single one member of human race offends at least another human. Continuously. Willingly or unwillingly. Consciously or unconsciously. But everyone offends, because everyone has personal opinions, and opinions are offensive by their very nature.

[WT Sharpe]

In a 1945 interview, Pablo Picasso said, "[P]ainting is not made to decorate apartments. It's an offensive and defensive weapon against the enemy."

That being said, I still find it hard to accept Jackson Pollock's droppings as art. I find more meaning in the patterns found on used bird cage liners.

But that's just me.

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

In a 1945 interview, Pablo Picasso said, "[P]ainting is not made to decorate apartments. It's an offensive and defensive weapon against the enemy."

That being said, I still find it hard to accept Jackson Pollock's droppings as art. I find more meaning in the patterns found on used bird cage liners.

But that's just me.

You know I felt just as you did about Pollock's drip paintings - until I visited MOMA and stood in front of one of his canvases (don't remember which number it was) - WOW! It's art. You really have to see one of these in person to appreciate it.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

You know I felt just as you did about Pollock's drip paintings - until I visited MOMA and stood in front of one of his canvases (don't remember which number it was) - WOW! It's art. You really have to see one of these in person to appreciate it.

You may be right. Many things look better "on the big screen." If ever I get a chance, I may check it out in the flesh. It would have to look a lot better than the pictures I've seen.

But I'll never be convinced that Fountain is art. Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 by the same artist who did Fountain? Yes, I'll buy that, but not Fountain.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

You may be right. Many things look better "on the big screen." It ever I get a chance, I may check it out in the flesh. It would have to look a lot better than the pictures I've seen.

Maybe you can wait for a version like this:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/04...resolutio.html

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Maybe you can wait for a version like this:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/04...resolutio.html

Fantastic!

There was a movie made of Pollock's work, but it wasn't in hi-def.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well in post #160 in this thread you did say what was not art. If it is just your opinion that something is not art then this is a very weak argument and does not lead to the conclusions you came to. Everybody have different opinions about what is art. So you know that some people will think that something is art even if you do not think it is art. So then you should respect this opinion and not defend the destruction of something that you happened to think was not art.

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.


Regarding the artwork mentioned in the original post in this thread, I said:

Personally, I am offended when my particular religious icons are desecrated by those who don't share my beliefs. But a lot of the times the basis for my offense is not that the artist is making a sincere statement of their beliefs, it is because they are using the icons as a cheap target for quick publicity. It's really easy to throw shit on a statue of the BVM and call it "art" and then pretend to be all outraged and/or saddened when people react negatively (or violently) to it. I don't mind being offended, if what I am offended by makes me question the reason I feel offended and gives me a better understanding of how my religion appears to others.
...

Cheap shots that only make you react and not think are the work of poseurs, not artists, IMO.

The point that I was making in my posts is that the artist's surprise and sadness toward the destruction of his work seems to be crocodile tears - as an artist of what he should have known was a controversial image, he should not be surprised at all if a violent reaction occurs to it.

Nowhere did I say that I condoned the destruction of his work. I do not. Nor have I said that such images should not be displayed. I don't support censorship of art.

I think perhaps that you are getting hung up over the fact that I DO find certain works offensive when they mock my religion and that I'm willing to say that they offend me and not cut the artist any slack when the artwork they created shows very little thought or ability beyond being offensive toward one group or another. In real life, being offensive like that is bullying; in the art world, you're telling me that I have to respect the bully and his cronies.

No, I don't.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

You know I felt just as you did about Pollock's drip paintings - until I visited MOMA and stood in front of one of his canvases (don't remember which number it was) - WOW! It's art. You really have to see one of these in person to appreciate it.

Ditto for me regarding Pollock's work. Seeing the images of his drip paintings only in art books just begs for the statement "My kid could make a better painting than that" to be uttered.

I had the same conversion of opinion regarding his work when I saw his paintings at MoMA. You really have to see the large canvases to get the impact of them. I better appreciated the effort that went into making them look the way they do and realized that there was more thought behind their construction, though I still don't know if there's any point to them beyond that.

[Ea]

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.

[kennyc]

Good art makes a statement. I think all of the above examples have "made a statement." Some may not like the statement, some may argue that it's not art.

Okay.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Okay.

Sure.

[BenG]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Good art makes a statement. I think all of the above examples have "made a statement." Some may not like the statement, some may argue that it's not art.

Okay.

But making a statement doesn't necessarily make it good art. I'm thinking a an Atlanta Arts Festival several years ago where someone put an old jeep in the park and covered it with pine straw and with shrubs sticking out the windows.

On a side note, whatever happened to the man who attacked The Pietà with a hammer back in the 70s?

[recluse]

Let's try this:

I am a gifted artist.
One day, I create an amazing painting.
A stunning work depicting the NeverLand Ranch as Hell and Michael Jackson as a multiple faced, child molesting monster.
Will my artwork be displayed for the world to see or will I be a hunted man, my masterpiece destroyed?
There is a double standard.
Things you can and can't attack.
The honest can admit the truth.
The rest live in blind denial.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by BenG

On a side note, whatever happened to the man who attacked The Pietà with a hammer back in the 70s?

Ben, that was Lazlo Toth! Don Novello (Fr. Guido Sarducci) wrote a book called The Lazlo Letters in which he used that name to write funny letters to famous people.

I believe that Lazlo Toth was placed in a mental institution.