Art or Crap?

9/11 inspired "art". This has gone too far in my opinion.

A performance artist wearing a business suit and safety harnesses jumped repeatedly from a museum roof to create photographs that recall scenes from the World Trade Center attack, but his spectacle was scorned by some onlookers and victims' relatives.

Collaborating photographers snapped away as Kerry Skarbakka fell more than 30 times from the five-story Museum of Contemporary Art on Tuesday. The photographs will be retouched to erase the pulleys and wires that kept Skarbakka from hitting the pavement.

Skarbakka, 34, said he started thinking about falling after watching on television as workers jumped to their deaths from the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

news.yahoo.com...

Uhm...

I have some harsh words, but I think I'll just politely settle for "it's not art." In fact, it's offensive and could cause trauma and flashbacks.

Too personal to even be considered art, and what's with , at a loss for words are you.

These so called artists jumping off of buildings to recreate that disaster probably just don't care about anything let alone the victims of 9/11. A motivation for such action will be the media coverage which would account for free advertising which will drive up the price of the paintings. So what it all comes down to, is a business scam.

I don't like it. Not because of 9/11, but because it's just bad art.

To each their own, I guess. I'm not one to criticize what another might consider great artsh he had better taste.

I dont consider it as art either who would want to reenact something like that.. i agree its not art and should not be called art.. whats the world comming to -sigh-

"He's an artist? Go paint a bowl of fruit or something."

lol sock it to him

[edit on 16-6-2005 by ShadowMan]

Alright, I understand people's disgust, and I don't blame them.

But for the sake of presenting an alternative, lets look at it this way-

People see things in different ways. Ask any amount of people how they view an event as large as 9/11, and you will get an equal amount of different responses. Sure, common themes might emerge, such as fear or revulsion, but no two people are going to have a truly identical point of view. Otherwise, why would people bother to talk to each other about it? If we follow the premise that people viewed the event completely identically to its logical conclusion, people would have nothing to say or share, and there would be no point in discussion because everyone would feel the same and have nothing to offer or gain. Emotions, facts, and impressions would be identical without difference in perception and thought from person to person.

That being said, reporters are paid to present their facts to the world. They told us all about 9/11. Then came authors, columnists, film-makers, and talk show hosts. Politicians told us how we should react. Everyone had something to say to the public about 9/11, and everyone who could find a big enough audience got paid for it one way or another, be it in cash, votes, publicity, or ratings. Some may be blameworthy, but by no means all. Most were doing what anyone would have done, in the same place.

So why can't the artists present their view?

Sure, they may be getting paid for it, but being paid for something in itself is not nessecarily wrong. They are not forcing their perspective down your throat. They are merely presenting 9/11 in their own unique way. It may not be for everyone, just as Michael Moore or Fox News are not, but we shouldn't silence them. We should either ignore them, if we choose, or appreciate the different styles people have of conveying a message, theme, feeling, or impression.

-koji K.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by koji_K]

koji, I read your post, contemplated the different angles of the concept that you rbrought up, and I then came to the point where I figured I am able to clearly and succinctly state my thoughts:

That's not art.

Artists present their view of the world, that is what they do.
This guy put on a suit and bungee-jumped a few times.

That's not art. If that were the case, people pay 50 bucks a pop to be "artists" at the bungee-jump place on the beach at Panama City all the time!

I fixed 3 helicopters this afternoon. It took more action and more finesse to trouble-shoot and repair the 'hawks than it did to jump a few times, but I'm no "artist"; not in the real sense of the word.

Jumping to make some point is not art.

Give me a velvet picture of dogs playing pool any day! That's art!!

Hey, I'm from Alabama. What'd you expect?

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
koji, I read your post, contemplated the different angles of the concept that you rbrought up, and I then came to the point where I figured I am able to clearly and succinctly state my thoughts:

That's not art.

Artists present their view of the world, that is what they do.
This guy put on a suit and bungee-jumped a few times.

That's not art. If that were the case, people pay 50 bucks a pop to be "artists" at the bungee-jump place on the beach at Panama City all the time!

I fixed 3 helicopters this afternoon. It took more action and more finesse to trouble-shoot and repair the 'hawks than it did to jump a few times, but I'm no "artist"; not in the real sense of the word.

Jumping to make some point is not art.

Give me a velvet picture of dogs playing pool any day! That's art!!

Hey, I'm from Alabama. What'd you expect?

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

Well, I haven't actually seen the art in question, but I grant that if it's like 90% of what passes as art these days, it probably IS crap.

We're all free to make the judgment for ourselves, that's the risk the artist, or artist-wannabe, takes. Personally, the art didn't sound too great to me, but I felt I should speak out for the guy anyway to present a balanced view, and because I think attempts at art should be encouraged even at the risk of failing or even, sometimes, offending, because once in a while something truly thought provoking will emerge (although it seems rare).. I still say it could well be art, just bad art.

-koji K.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by koji_K]

i just can't see how something like this is art. granted, all art and what constitutes it has always been...abstract, but this, and any "act", i just don't see as art. my personal belief is that art is something that is meant to inspire and possibly evoke thought in someone. such as a painting that you just can't stop looking at but you don't know why. or a sculpture that you just can't get over because of how wonderfully "odd" it was.

personally, i like kandinsky (an artist) and my favorites artistic object was a "sword" made up entirely of shards of glass that was made post-vietnam. those things were art. they made me think, and they affected me in a very positive way.

this guy, just jumping out of a building, doesn't make anyone think (other then think of how offensive) and he didn't inspire anyone (possibly to beat him over the head for such an act). and even if he didn't intend to, what he did was incredibly offensive and insensitive to those who are still close to 9/11. it'd be like telling an AIDS joke back in the 80's in san francisco. this guy lacks common sense & sensitivity, and probably just wanted to cause a stir. such goals just aren't right.

I say drop the punk out of and airplane with no chute for bringing up bad memories. That's not art. It's CRAP!

I think this person is just out for the reaction and thats what he is getting.

Still hate this.

I can only imagine how I would feel if I knew someone that was involved that day.

Not good taste at all He wants to know how it feels to fall out of building, go bungee jump or something, no need to bring up such a sensitive subject for ones own profit or amusement.

I suppose it is art in a sense, 'simulation & simulacra' and all that post-modernist guff. Unfortunately I don't know his personal motivations for 'staging' the piece (he may be doing it as a memorial piece, and since people bang on about "we will never forget" etc, you'd think they'd be pleased), it seems something that a responsible artist would not take lightly and would treat the subject with sensitivity.

It certainly doesn't appear that he's shouting "Way-hay, I'm falling off a building". And it's not grusome like the Chapman brothers' portrayal of the holocaust via the medium of Airfix models.

I remember a while ago, not long after 9/11, a games company somewhere were making a survival game set in the WTC. Now that's in extremely poor taste.

P.S. I suppose we also have to remember that almost every event (great and small) inspire an artisic interpretation and something like this was inevitable, and will only become increasingly common as the years go by. And I'm guessing it's not going to look tacky like a cushion cover.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by DenyAllKnowledge]

I am undecided so far on this guy's art. Let me see the finished product before I say this is bad or this is good or this is insensitive. When we see the finished product we will be able to tell if this guy is the next great artist or if he is just a total knob.

Speaking of art...I decided to become an artist...and on EBAY anyone can be an artist. I needed to clean out my garage and found all this useless junk. So instead of throwing it out, I named the pieces of junk and will put them on EBAY as modern art pieces. The first piece is called FRUSTRATION. It is one of those office click-clack desk things that is just ultra annoying. Well mine had been in a box for 4 years and had tangled all the steel balls and wire up into a huge know. So instead of throwing it away...I have named it FRUSTRATION...because that is what you will get trying to untangle it. Here is the link to check it out.
cgi.ebay.com...
Be an artist on EBAY today......ha ha ha ha haha ha

Well, I haven't actually seen the art in question, but I grant that if it's like 90% of what passes as art these days, it probably IS crap.

What's to see? It's some fairy guy falling from a building....woopty doo!

Yeah this artist guy sucks....what a loser!

``


as for "Performance Artist", mr Kerry Skarbakka, 34.

(because of decency, the actual footage of people leaping to their deaths
from the Towers on 911...was and will continue to be politely & tactfully
censored from being broadcast.)
I kinda think this guys motivation is to copyright
these stunt scenes as a potential revenue source...?future 911 re-enactments?

You or the press might call him/them a 'performance artist', which is a flowery
term for 'antics'---just as mimes even protesters with signs are technically performance-artists

i too, once basked in that bogus hubris
it was a growing stage, not a lifelong pursuit, imo

Did they take the pictures? I'm eager to see them.

One man's art is another man's insult.

It's too subjective...there's no right or wrong answer on this one.

Even I did laugh at the "paint a bowl of fruit" comment. That was priceless.

(fwiw, I thought the entire debacle was tactless attention-seeking - but hey, if that's what the artist calls his "art", to each their own. I'd be loathe to see such things censored)

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge
I suppose it is art in a sense, 'simulation & simulacra' and all that post-modernist guff.

Nice to see someone else on the board with at least a reading in post-modernity and Baudrillard.

While some people might defend its value as "art" I think it is tasteless and doesn't have a place in society. It doesn't even meet the definition of the word art.

art1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt)
n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

I guess it depends on your idea of beauty, but re-enacting a moment of terror and desperation that motivated people to jump in a vain attempt to save themselves is just wrong/sick.

Some people...

I guess it depends on your idea of beauty, but re-enacting a moment of terror and desperation that motivated people to jump in a vain attempt to save themselves is just wrong/sick.

Some people...

Without wanting to defend the artist....

It's been long accepted that there is, to many, a type of beauty present in destruction and chaos - now I'm not convinced that this artist was going for that, but "beauty" is a very, very subjective term. Frankly, such destruction isn't beautiful to me at all....but the elements of destruction (ie, disintigration of familiar form) can also be recognised as a form of "beauty" - albeit in a somewhat unconventional way. And this is without touching on what some might perceive as the surreal beauty of knowing "that last moment when you realise that this is it".

I consider the branches of a lung, as seen through a bronchoscope, to have a surreal beauty. In the same way, the geometric forms of certain bacterial and fungal cultures share the same odd, fascinating beauty. But I wouldn't expect everyone (anyone, really ) to agree with me.

You know?