I think if the art inspires, it's good art.

Art is intensely personal and intensely subjective. This is not the purview of the state. I want my money back.

Like good people, good art survives DESPITE the government not because of it.

Originally posted by deevee
Art is intensely personal and intensely subjective. This is not the purview of the state. I want my money back.

Like good people, good art survives DESPITE the government not because of it.

i understand the last line......but the money thing..huh? what? explain? or am i just stupid?

Originally posted by Scat

Originally posted by deevee
Art is intensely personal and intensely subjective. This is not the purview of the state. I want my money back.

Like good people, good art survives DESPITE the government not because of it.

i understand the last line......but the money thing..huh? what? explain? or am i just stupid?

The Governor General's Award- The GG as the Queen's representative is Canada's head of state. This is a taxpayer funded arty/farty award

DeeVee, why do you say lefties? In Britain art has become the reserve of rich kids who see it as their divine right to enter acting, arts or some other art form because they perceive themselves as 'artistic' solely because their lifestyle leaves them no other avenue to achieve any self worth. They’re more likely to be right wing than anything, just because daddy says so, but that’s beside the point. I think it's equally spread on both sides.

The great irony of modern art is that those that call themselves critics are too scared to denounce anything. Art criticism has become such a clique that anyone who defers from the norm is shunned. The top dogs in the art critic world make the opinion on the art, the rest follow for fear of looking 'out of touch' or becoming 'blasé'. If the right person says it is art, then it is.

Apart from that, if enough people say anything is art, then it is. That seems to be the tenet of modern art. It’s a symptom of an art form under constant pressure to ever create something better, like music. When it becomes populated with people unable to do so, when it becomes a money making enterprise, like music, the best (The best now being judged as the most shocking or different) the best they can produce becomes the pinnacle of the art form. It's as much about saving face as anything. They don’t want to admit that it doesn’t work that way.

It's like the music industry, we get utter #e, but the best of the #e is proclaimed as great music. The people who finance and promote the music don't care as long as it makes money. The people who promote the art don't care as long as it creates prestige, for prestige is a commodity to them. To me, the fact is that art in its true form has become as shallow and commercial as any other human form of expression has in recent years, but because art is seen as the last refuge of the intellectual expression of humanity, the one true unassailable art form, the originator and protector of creativity, they do everything in their power to deny it. To deny that money at its base form has corrupted its soul and ours forever.

The way they do it is to still proclaim # as art.




[Edited on 4-3-2004 by kegs]

By Scat
this is entirely true, except for us curbside poets,60 second novelists, one line artists, and 12 month planners. if that doesnt make any sense ill explain but whateva

don't worry, I get you. I'm one of them too.

Originally posted by kegs

By Scat
this is entirely true, except for us curbside poets,60 second novelists, one line artists, and 12 month planners. if that doesnt make any sense ill explain but whateva

don't worry, I get you. I'm one of them too.

KICK ASH!
do you do spoken word?

Kegs- many many great points. My charactarization of the charlatans as lefties comes from my Canadian perspective and I just assumed that the Tate Gallery frauds et al were all leftie layabouts as well (having forgotten my Jarvis Cocker) Despite the hugely commercial aspect to music, true art transcends the commerce. More importantly, it flows forward drawing on the past. It is quite simple to follow the flow of music from Africa to the Delta to London to NYC etc.
Any idiot can defy all notions of rhythm , melody, and most importantly popular opinion, or for that matter stick vials of blood up their heiny, and history will judge whether or not it was art. If the artist doesnt want society to pass judgement,then he/she shouldnt take society's $

Originally posted by deevee
If the artist doesnt want society to pass judgement,then he/she shouldnt take society's $

GOOD!

but sometimes, judgement is the whole point.
but escaping it is even better. sheesh if somebody offered me $10,000 for one of my paintings i would most likely repons......youre not high are you? why would you want this?

if they were insistent, id either take the money and buy a bunch more art stuff or take it and spend it all producing lo life (my literary zine im starting up)

this is why artists seel pieces for thousands and are still sleepingon the corner. we dont retire once weve got money. we have money for a total of maybe 10 minutes befoer popping into the nearest art store and blowing it all away. or in my case, the art store, the bookstore, and blockbuster

Scat you are absolutely right Also it is interesting to note that Picasso would have no truck with the fascists. I can't see him accepting a "Governeral Generalissimo" Award
My point is let me spend my dough on art, not the government

whats even MORE amazing about picasso is that he had the picasso museum BEFORE HE WAS DEAD!

amazing?

yes!

but picasso is not my favorite, though he is mosts.i personally am madly,passionately, illicitly in love with richter, pollock (i touched his most famous painting, i actually put my hand on it! shhhh dont tell anyone!), matta, some twombly, some rauschenburg, kandinsky,carmont, cason, duchamp, man ray, lichenstein, warhol, some basquiat, an NO NOT VAN GOGH! i dont like impressionists. hahaha.


even though i did make out in front of starry night (yes, the real one), which was officially the coolest thing ever.

[Edited on 3-4-04 by Scat]

First of all, I’m referring to modern art as it has been for the last 20 years. Blocks of wood on another bock of wood painted white, Damian Hirst, Tracey Emin et al. Not Picasso and the like, he was an artist.

DeeVee, true art should transcend the commerce, but that’s my gripe, it doesn’t any more. The art world’s mode of commerce is different though. They know that to sell out to money is against all that it stands for, but they’ve sold out to ego. They wait so long for something great to come along, and when it doesn’t, they feel the need to create something in its place, call it great, and hope it won’t be noticed because if nothing great doesn’t come along they will get the blame.

They’ve spent so long in doing that that what art actually is has been lost to the perception of what art is that they put, initially temporarily, in its place. It’s obvious to everybody that the fire of creativity of art hasn’t suddenly died in humanity, so the blame will be placed on those controlling it. They’re stuck in a #hole of their own creation in my opinion.


Scat, no I’m a Musician.

"modern art" is stuck in a stage of minimalism and reaching out to find stupid, obsurd ways to life the boundaries.

at elast, popular modern art is.

to me, modern artists are us standing on the street corners with out bible sized notebooks, giant beautiful canvases, and hand me down instruments. us crazy kids (that may not really be kids) who arent willing to get off our soap boxes just yet, we're not done screaming. us happy volunteers jumping at the hint of open mike night, and nobody is too shy to go first.

thats modern art.

no wait, screw the whole modern in its entirety.

thats ART.. period. no matter what prefix or adjective you wanna tag alongonto it. thats art.

The trick is to become an art critic and force others to come up with original ideas. An emerging artist is under enormous stress, and faces an almost impossible task.