| |
 |
 |
|
While strolling around the Guggenheim last week, I realized that all modern art falls into three definitive categories: stupid, impressive, and crazy.
While strolling around the Guggenheim last week, I realized that all modern art falls into three definitive categories: stupid, impressive, and crazy. This doesn’t include stuff like photography and traditional paintings, which fall somewhere on a continuum of cool to lame according to personal taste. No, these three categories are useful in dealing with the really weird shit.
Stupid
This is the kind of stuff that makes people scoff when they hear the words “modern art.” The basic problem with it isn’t that anyone could do, but that anyone would have done it if they knew they could’ve made even $10 off of it. The artist in this case just happened to be lucky enough to find an eccentric millionaire with money to throw away. I guess that in itself is worth something, but I don’t know if it’s art.
Like this. What the fuck is this? And don’t tell me it’s abstract. Someone literally just painted this canvas black, then painted a slightly darker cross on top of that. Calling it abstract is just forcing the people looking at it to come up with a reason as to why someone paid any amount of money for this, and why the Guggenheim decided to hang it up. (My guesses: rich people have more money than they know what to do with, and curators get their rocks off by fucking with hapless museum goers.)
Impressive
Stuff in this category is easy to conceptualize, but practically impossible for a normal person to accomplish. For example: any guy can imagine having sex with a different girl everyday for a week, but you need to have a degree of talent to actually pull it off. (For arguement’s sake, let’s say only 6s and above count as girls.)
The very literal title of this exhibit is “Punching the Time Clock on the Hour, One Year Performance, April 11, 1980-April 11, 1981,” so you can guess what it’s about. And just in case you don’t believe him, the artist went to every possible end to prove he did it. He photographed himself next to the time clock each time he punched in, and then compiled all the shots into a film. He shaved off his hair at the project’s start and let it naturally grow back so you can actually see the passage of time. He had a witness sign an affidavit swearing it was all legit, as well as signing off on each time card. All the time cards, all the individual photos, the film, the witness’ and artist’s affidavits, are all on exhibition. Even the uniform, shoes and belt he wore every time are there. He did fuck up around 130 times because he overslept or was taking a shit or something, but that isn’t that bad considering he did this 8760 times.
Crazy
Things that fall into this category are impossible to conceive and even harder to create. They are the kind of ideas that most people wouldn’t have and wouldn’t know how to pull off even if they did. Like, who wakes up in the morning and says to themselves, “Today, I’m going to design a room that feels like an acid trip.” Even if you did have that idea, you probably wouldn’t know how to pull it off. You’d end up painting your bedroom tie-dye and filling it up with shit from the ’60s, like black lights and glow-in-the-dark Grateful Dead posters.
I knew this was going to be good when I saw a sign reading, “Warning: this exhibit may alter your psychological state.” After removing your shoes (mandatory), you enter the “Dream House,” a carpeted room that’s pitch black except for three sets of red and blue lights shining on a few sculptures. Steady, droning frequencies are constantly playing, and speaking is not allowed. The first sculpture (above) looks like one of those three-pronged optical illusions. The red and blue lights create shadows that jump out from the wall and really fuck with your eyes. It’s hard to describe, but it’s sort of like seeing reality in ultra 3-D. The other two sculptures are pairs of crescents hanging from the ceiling that slowly rotate around, the red and blue lights appearing to warp their shapes and shadows. I don’t know why, but taking in the lights, the sculptures, and the noise altogether almost made me have an acid flashback.
Modern Art & Porno
In the end, modern art is gambling. Artists churn out useless shit in the hopes that some rich guy will be stimulated by it and in exchange cough up thousands of dollars. At that point, it officially becomes art and can be hung in a museum.
But none of that effects how normal people look at art. Scholars might try to dissect these things to death (“What does the use of bodily fluids signify?”), but laymen just go with their gut. You like a painting because you like it. You dislike a sculpture because it’s boring. It’s sort of like your favorite porno: maybe you like it because the chick’s hot; maybe because of the A.T.M.; maybe you’re secretly gay and like the shape of dude’s cock. Who knows?
What if I like the shape of the cock because it resembles mine? C’mon I gotta delude myself into believing maybe one day I’ll land a chick like Lela Star or I wouldn’t be able to face the day.
i didn’t read this (it was too long.) so what the hell was going on over the weekend? open mic? glad i wasnt around.
Without the pictures that article was really short. With a mind like yours I’d advise looking into careers in janitorial work right away.
You’ve just edged past Modern Art on the list of things I most dislike.
Moder Art pisses me off. My related observations for what you call “stupid” art from an old post of mine:
http://www.sufferthefool.com/2008/11/modern-art-jokes-on-you-how-to-turn.html
Feel free to skip it if you’re of the ‘tldr’ persuasion.
^^tldr
for the most part art is absolute total garbage. u can do absolutely anything, no matter how stupid, weird or mundane. If you can convince some ass clown in pointy shoes and weird eyeglasses that there is meaning behind it and that you put tons of thought and effort into “pile of paperclips surrounding a banana” you’re an artist. It also helps to be good/weird looking, have an interesting background story, or be related to someone famous.
I have a friend who’s a classical portrait artist. She paints commissions for super rich people and Russian aristocrats who fly here and pay $10k for a painting. She’ll spend 6 months on it, the majority of which is getting the proper reflections off pupils and each strand of hair. It changed my perspective completely, even on the artwork of friends who make legit cool shit. It’s not quirky or thought provoking but their is some much skill, technique and decades of training it makes scoffing at the turd bags mentioned above all the more easier. Plus, she hates doing it, which to me legitimizes it even more.
^^ tldr
How is the time clock installation impressive? It seems typical of most modern art in that it amounts to accomplishing only a small fractions of what most people do in a real job.
“Whoa, I’m like a factory worker, bro.”
He should have to punch the clock and then /
^^^tldr
10TH POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Art=fag
IT’S ONLY ART
IF IT’S WELL HUNG.
@Val
Why was today’s 12 pics up for 30 seconds?
i thought this was a great article!
like most really boring and stupid people you have confused the bullshit of the art market with the art itself. yea, without engaging in any kind of thought a black on black painted canvas being sold for millions of dollars to an eccentric millionaire seems completely absurd. yea, the amount of money these things go for is mind boggling insanity. but to say the art itself has no value because of this is denying yourself something really rich and rewarding. works like these for the most part cant just be seen to be understood. they require reading about historical context etc. before their full meaning is revealed. maybe once you do that you can write an article about it. until then you sound like an idiot.
God do you bore the living shit out of me. I guess that all us peeps out in the stix wit no critical thinking skills needs you to break dis down for us.
love this post because its brining out the knee jerk reactions but the funny thing is that the article contains a highly uneducated opinion, and now we are seeing what scared people are out there.
arts not hard to get, it just takes a bit of thinking. ive noticed that art haters are people that are afraid of the unknown.
there is good art and bad art but dont shit on the industry cos you’ve managed to only expose yourself to horrible art and artmaking.
Oh please, this has nothing to do with class standards or the privileges of critical thinking. All three of the artists whose work are shown above come from working to lower class backgrounds, so grow up and get over yourself. Try googling “anti-intellectualism” and you’ll find it has some pretty sturdy roots in fascistic, totalitarian forms of control, you rabid Nazi, you.
Besides, this post is completely pithy and ignorant. This person obviously has no understanding of art history and might as well be a crippled nine-year old trying to talk about politics or philosophy. I’m never impressed by the sheer number of these feckless turds whose opinions ultimately stress the poor educational standards in the US. Highly opinionated, poorly informed.
RE: Street Boning
“Why was today’s 12 pics up for 30 seconds?”
We had a glitch here at headquarters. It’s now up for everyone’s viewing pleasure.
QUESTION: why do you guys support appropriation?
I LIKE TO CREATE ATMOSPHERE
@mike:
the irony of defending “anti-intellectual” artists and deriding all of these non-intellectual opinions on their stupid art is giving me a bloody pedo-boner for nigger faggot city pizza sauce. Dye sloe Ann Hiro. To the other defenders, no one cares.
fART.
“works like these for the most part cant just be seen to be understood. they require reading about historical context etc. before their full meaning is revealed. ”
@ kleigh and mike
Isn’t it the job of the artist to make their work accesible enough that you could ‘get it’ without having to hit wikipedia for a few hours researching ‘historical context’ ? And the historical context of what? WTF are you even talking about?
Please, I invite you and mike and bob right now on this very comment board to explain this piece and its significance to us peasants so that we can realize how ‘poorly educated’ we are and how you are all masters of the intellectual domain who can stare at this piece of shit and unlock the secrets of the universe.
“Oh it’s so deep”, “Oh it’s so meaningful! You’re too dumb to understand the historical context!!”
Yeah, somehow I don’t feel very dumb about calling a spade a spade. I’m eagerly waiting for your ‘interpretations’. Put em right her so we can all laugh at you.
*here
^ w00t
chanting: “2 men enter 1 man leaves 2 men enter 1 man leaves…”
i like pretty very much this yes.
hahah man! so angry! there are alot better people than me to talk about these art pieces so look em up. call me a pussy if you want blah blah blah i just honestly dont want to embarrass myself.
I meant the context of art history. This artwork makes more sense when you know what they were responding too.
I didnt call anybody uneducated peasants so chill the fuck out. Alls i said was that this guy wrote an article without knowing what he was talking about and thats a stupid way to write an article. This is interesting stuff to read about and I think its lame when people get all knee jerk calling it bullshit.
now. bring on the hate. ill start : “this pussy faggot is a pussy faggot.”
I liked this post. Good job.
The first half of my post was directed at Vanessa’s comment, re: “us peeps out in the stix with no critical thinking skills” This sort of posturing bugs the cacca out of my ass because it presupposes that “they” (the privileged intellectuals with their big words and ideas) are against us (the proletariat, working class) It’s like that whole joe-the-plumber shit that the Republicans tried to pull this election, and its been the preferred strategy of conservatives and fascists for the past couple of decades. Some of the more genuinely dumb people I know are privileged, lazy trust-fund babies with class-guilt who think they can align themselves with the workingclass because they wear Carhartt and live in Bushwick – in other words, the demographic of this site.
@ habitual drug user
No, artist don’t have the ‘job’ of helping you “get it”. That’s for fucking marketers and advertisers. If you are too lazy to put more than eight seconds into looking at something then tough titties to you. And next time you need some guidance on how to figure stuff out, just go buy an eight ball and suck on your own dick for a while. Works like a charm. I would know, because I can suck my own dick, and I do it ALOT.
@ mikey
FAIL. I’m actually positive art is about expressing ideas and communicating, something that is totally defeated by making something that is inaccessible. The artist is the artist because they are supposed to be able to articulate in a powerful, concise and creative way. Check out Orwell’s Politics in the English Language (I think that’s what it’s called) sometime for a better explanation of this. It’s an essay about writing but the same rules apply. Awesome that when pressed for a explanation you made some comments about people being lazy and then proceeded to talk about sucking dick and doing coke. Good one.
@ k-leigh
Didn’t mean to come off angry, I just think that my reaction and those of other commenters who responded in a similar way comes from the fact that your original comment seemed incredibly condescending. If your original comment was like what you put here in your response I don’t think I would’ve taken issue with you. I respect the fact you dropped a level headed reply and didn’t push this into a flameout, which I acknowledge my original comment was baiting.
Correct: that was my cheap stab at preempting your desire to incite others to laugh at my response to your condescending demands, which by the way is definitely NOT lazy or childish at all. Congratulations on that, habitual drug user.
All retarded web-talk aside, I still feel your description of the artists “job” better suits the work of a graphic designer or marketing team. I mean, come on, “powerful, concise and creative”? This sounds like the mantra Billy Mays repeats to himself in the mirror every morning. You smack someone down for suggesting the importance of history and context and then try to restrict Art History to fit Orwell’s rules to writing? Besides, he was being facetious when he wrote those. Surely someone so dedicated to pointing out the condradictions and hypocracy of totalitarian forms of government wouldn’t want to restrict his tools to five simple rules. Have you read his Sixth rule? It basically says “ignore all these rules to avoid saying something preposterous”. Google it and your entire argument crumbles to pieces, you Nazi Fascist (just kidding, calm down, breathe)
RE: habitual drug user
It’s “Politics and the English Language,” but close enough.
RE: mikey
habitual drug user’s got a point. You don’t need to read up on the history a good piece of literature to appreciate it. That will help you understand it and thus understand it to a greater depth, of course, but it certainly isn’t a prerequisite to accessing it. I don’t see why art should be any different.
@ mikey
Mikey, nice to see a considered response. Jesus, are we gonna have a respectful debate of ideas on the streetcarnage comment board? who would’ve thought right?
First off I get your earlier sentiment about people who are ‘underachievers and proud of it’. I’m not for dumbing down anything. That said, when I see a ‘piece of art’ that looks like the black on black design for an American Choppers long sleeve tee, I feel gypped. I read the FoOl’s post and agree that after having been to the Louvre to see some of the great old school craftsmen it’s hard to see a lot of what Arvind calls “stupid art” as being anything other than pretense and egomania. For me it’s not a political issue or an issue of wanting to dumb things down, I just don’t see any skill in the craft or concept. If art is supposed to be a statement, then I think it can only succeed if it’s affecting and you can only be affecting if your work is presented in a way that will connect with the audience in a visceral way. This can’t happen if your work is inaccessible.
Anyway that’s my point. Not trying to make anyone laugh at you or your reply, just think I’m making sense on this one.
do you honestly expect most people to appreciate rothko? give it up. not worth your time. chuckle and move on.
if you ever actually looked at a rothko painting you would see layers of subtle differences in the colors he uses but not a single brush stroke. it IS about skill.
i like rothco.
Mikey: Who are the other “privileged, lazy trust-fund babies with class-guilt ” that populate this site? I thought I was the only one, maybe we could have a meet up and go to bayonne to scoop up some neat work wear.
Seriously, does anyone know a real trust fund baby? There’s so much talk about them. I grew up in Manhattan and have yet to come across someone so wealthy they don’t have a job. And the rich kids I’ve known definitely don’t wear carhart and live in bushwick, they wear fancy clothes and “summer” in the Hamptons.
HDU- Although I can see what you mean about accessibility, my qualms remain with the reactionary claims of pretentiousness whenever an artist tries to do anything that isn’t entirely craft-based. The idea that art has a primary function in communicating to as general an audience as possible comes form a time when despotic Kings demanded all artists adhere to a set of symbols so they could understand what the work represented. Then a little event known as the Renaissance took place, followed by the The Age of Enlightenment, and somewhere between then and now all of the formulas that god told the kings to enforce went out the window, liberating artists from making the pretty sculptures and paintings that adorn their dusty palaces. What the past few centuries should have taught us is that there is no status quo, and any attempt to promote universal standards for classifying or dictating how artists, musicians, and writers should fulfill it is bound to fail, because it simply doesn’t exist.
ARV: Reinhardt made those paintings in the sixties, Hsieh’s performance took place in the 80’s and La Mont Young has been running the Dream House for almost twelve years – if knowing just that doesn’t affect the way you look at the work then why bother writing about it. Seems to me that when you refuse to consider the artists context (or even their name) you can’t seriously try and write something meaningful about art, or anything for that matter. No one is saying you should have to research the context of a work in order to appreciate or understand it, just that if you are confused, such details might help you locate the artist’s intentions.
jews did WTC
no means rape plz
i’m arting right now
All this fuckin art talk is peckin ma hear ya radge bastards!