Is It Art?

[PureX]

Originally posted by granite1010 I was referring to the contempt many conservatives have for the arts, and their bristling opposition to them. No matter what, defending arts has always been more a leftist cause.

Most artists are considered liberals because they tend to be very experimental in their ideas about life, culture, and society, etc., and that tends to upset those who want to protect the status quo (ie: conservatives). The truth is that a healthy society needs both types of people. We need the experimenters because they help us recognize necessity for change and how to adapt to it. We also need those who protect the status qou because that gives society strength through accumulated wisdom and continuity.

It's only natural that these different types of people will have difficulty understanding and appreciating each other, but they should at least understand and appreciate their need for each other.

This is why it's good that conservatives are forced to support experimental human endeavors like art, just as it's good that the more adventursome and experimental folks among us are made to support and respect the satus quo. I, for example, don't like my tax money going to pay for our invasion of Iraq. But I have to keep in mind that I'm a pretty liberal member of a large and complex society. And just as that society needs people like me to treat it with sincere skepticism, and to argue with it's decisions, I also need the stability and continuity that comes from the very status quo that I doubt and question.

Unfortunately, in more recent times, religious fundamentalism has infected american conservatism, and radicalized it to the point where it seems to want to destroy all liberal expression completely. This is not healthy, and if they suceed it will destroy our culture and society all together. Even a quick glimpse at history will show us that this is so.

 

[Granite]

Well, it's a balance. Tilt too far either way and you've got a real mess on your hands.

 

[PureX]

Just out of curiosity, is there ANYTHING that the government makes you (this question is open to anyone) pay for through taxation that you think it SHOULD make you pay for even though you don't like it or agree with it?

I mean, if the objection is that we should never be made to support anything through our taxes that we don't want to support, then I think this is a foolish and impossibly unrealistic objection. There will be no program, ever, that everyone will want to support, and the fact is that the government has to support many of our essntial social functions through taxation. So the bottom line is that we are going to have to support some projects that we don't like or agree with. That's just reality.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by PureX

Just out of curiosity, is there ANYTHING that the government makes you (this question is open to anyone) pay for through taxation that you think it SHOULD make you pay for even though you don't like it or agree with it?

I mean, if the objection is that we should never be made to support anything through our taxes that we don't want to support, then I think this is a foolish and impossibly unrealistic objection. There will be no program, ever, that everyone will want to support, and the fact is that the government has to support many of our essntial social functions through taxation. So the bottom line is that we are going to have to support some projects that we don't like or agree with. That's just reality.

In my opinion, federal government should provide for national defense, national infrastructure...and that's about it.

 

[servent101]

PureX

Just out of curiosity, is there ANYTHING that the government makes you (this question is open to anyone) pay for through taxation that you think it SHOULD make you pay for even though you don't like it or agree with it?

There is the need for people who are educated and knowledgeable to make decisions that the rest of us cannot. Most of us know we are not capable to make the decisions that need to be made... so we trust that people of good education, moral and ethical background will know what is best for us as a whole.

This is a process that is subject to abuse by people who use propiganda to make their opinion count more than someone elses. It is the responsibility of each person to know a little of history - especially Hitler, and the means by which he carried out his diabolical plot to take over the world. Hopefully we will at least be educated to know history so that we will not make the same mistakes as in the past - but it seems the schools are just turning out drones for the factories.

With Christ's Love

servent101

 

[Granite]

The drones aren't creative and don't have anything to offer. And they're intimidated by art, refinement, and culture, so they either ignore or try to destroy it.

 

[Lighthouse]

Not everything called art is art. And anything that smears excrement is the complete opposite of refinement.

 

[Granite]

I'd agree. Not sure where this non sequitar came from, but I agree...

Trust me, I've got zero use for anyone who slaps some urine in a jar and expects a grant. Howard Hughes did it for free, people.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Someone once tried to convince people that they could produce an amazing piece of art by forceably expelling paint from their body cavity onto a really big canvas. I wasn't really offended but I also just couldn't agree with them either.

 

[Granite]

What was this cat's name?:shocked:

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by granite1010

I'd agree. Not sure where this non sequitar came from, but I agree...

Trust me, I've got zero use for anyone who slaps some urine in a jar and expects a grant. Howard Hughes did it for free, people.

It was a photograph of a crucifix in a glass of yellow liquid. The photograph was titled "Piss/Christ".

The art had little to do with pissing in jars. The art had nothing to do with expecting grants. If you're going to pass judgment on this particular work of art, at least be honest about it.

The intent of that artwork was to confront the way we allow photos to make images into icons. I think the artist wanted to call into question the automatic and often incorrect assumptions we make about photographs and their relationship with reality.

There was no urine involved in this artwork except for the word "piss" in the title. It was only a photograph. Nothing more. Yet because people make assumptions about photographs as 'documents of reality' we very often fool ourselves into thinking and believing things because of photographs that are not true. The advertizing industry inundates us with these intentionally dishonest photographs all the time, and we often never even question them. They never say: "Buy this car, get this girl!", but the advertizing photographs imply it and we rarely question it.

In fact, the only way someone could get us to question these kinds of automatic assumptions, I think, would be to shock us into reconsidering what we're looking at and what it's really telling us. And I think this is exactly what this artwork was trying to do. Were in not for the title, this photograph woud simply be a religious image shrouded in in some sort of yellowish haze. Most of us would very likely have taken this yellowish haze to be an implication of "golden light" or something and assumed that the photograph was glorifying the iconic image of a crucifix, because almost every image we see of Christ on the cross is intent on glorification.

So really, the only thing shocking, here, is the title, which completely destroys our assumptions about the photograph. And I think that's exactly what the title was intended to do. And once done, we're being asked to completely reconsider what it is that we're looking at, and to consider, too, how different it is to what we had assumed it was before we read the title.

We don't actually know if anyone pissed in a jar or not to make this photo, and frankly, it doesn't really matter how the photo was made. What does matter is that we don't know. What does matter is that we always think we know. What does matter is that this time we were shown that our assumptions would have been strikingly incorrect.

Now frankly, I would personally not consider this an especially significant artwork because I think it's what we used to call in art school a "one trick pony". That is it only attempts to do essentially one thing, and even though it succeeds, most of us are left with the feeling that we've been "tricked". There's a lot of artwork out there that falls into this category, especially when the one "trick" being presented is to shock us. It's an easy trick to perform, and it gets press, but otherwise it has little value, and because the press it gets is usually negative, it hurts the art endeavor in general. "Piss/Christ" is a little better then the average "one trick pony" in that there is a bit more to contemplate there than just the shock trick. But not a lot more.

 

[Granite]

Serrano's work is mediocre at best, and all he was doing with "Piss Christ" was deliberately pushing some buttons. The man is nothing more than an adequate photographer who happens to take (generally) lurid photographs.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by granite1010 Serrano's work is mediocre at best, and all he was doing with "Piss Christ" was deliberately pushing some buttons. The man is nothing more than an adequate photographer who happens to take (generally) lurid photographs.

That's better! *smile*

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by PureX



The art had little to do with pissing in jars.

It had everything to do with that. It's in the title for crying out loud!

The intent of that artwork was to confront the way we allow photos to make images into icons. I think the artist wanted to call into question the automatic and often incorrect assumptions we make about photographs and their relationship with reality.

So the artist was warped and playing mind games. He wanted to shock the far out of Christians.

There was no urine involved in this artwork except for the word "piss" in the title. It was only a photograph. Nothing more. Yet because people make assumptions about photographs as 'documents of reality' we very often fool ourselves into thinking and believing things because of photographs that are not true. The advertizing industry inundates us with these intentionally dishonest photographs all the time, and we often never even question them. They never say: "Buy this car, get this girl!", but the advertizing photographs imply it and we rarely question it.

Who cares what was really in the jar? It was meant to look like it, the title implies it. Yes, photographs can be very pursuasive. This one was to pursuade people to get really ticked off.

In fact, the only way someone could get us to question these kinds of automatic assumptions, I think, would be to shock us into reconsidering what we're looking at and what it's really telling us. And I think this is exactly what this artwork was trying to do. Were in not for the title, this photograph woud simply be a religious image shrouded in in some sort of yellowish haze. Most of us would very likely have taken this yellowish haze to be an implication of "golden light" or something and assumed that the photograph was glorifying the iconic image of a crucifix, because almost every image we see of Christ on the cross is intent on glorification. So really, the only thing shocking, here, is the title, which completely destroys our assumptions about the photograph. And I think that's exactly what the title was intended to do. And once done, we're being asked to completely reconsider what it is that we're looking at, and to consider, too, how different it is to what we had assumed it was before we read the title.

Yet the artist made sure that you didn't think that it was a "golden haze" and didn't leave any room for personal interpretation by giving it the title he did. In fact, it seems pretty obvious that you're trying to make all these excuses for this piece of trash but I really doubt the artist would. He wanted it interpreted exactly the way that it's interpreted by anybody with evidence of brain activity.

We don't actually know if anyone pissed in a jar or not to make this photo

Oh so now we don't know? Earlier you said

There was no urine involved in this artwork except for the word "piss" in the title.

and frankly, it doesn't really matter how the photo was made.

Exactly! It's trash even if it were merely water with yellow food coloring. Like you said, it doesn't matter what was really used. What was the artist trying to say/do/imply? His hatred for Christ.

What does matter is that we don't know. What does matter is that we always think we know. What does matter is that this time we were shown that our assumptions would have been strikingly incorrect.

You are nothing but a hypocrite. You're always using the word "we" when really you mean "I". The only thing that matters is the way PureX pretends to interpret it and nobody else is able to do so. You are nothing more than a decieving, sick and twisted liar.

Now frankly, I would personally not consider this an especially significant artwork because I think it's what we used to call in art school a "one trick pony". That is it only attempts to do essentially one thing, and even though it succeeds, most of us are left with the feeling that we've been "tricked". There's a lot of artwork out there that falls into this category, especially when the one "trick" being presented is to shock us.
It's an easy trick to perform, and it gets press, but otherwise it has little value, and because the press it gets is usually negative, it hurts the art endeavor in general. "Piss/Christ" is a little better then the average "one trick pony" in that there is a bit more to contemplate there than just the shock trick. But not a lot more.

You are really a piece of work, PureX. You spend half the post defending this trash, saying we're all jumping to conclusions and trying to tell us what the artist was really intending. Through this whole thread you've reacted as if we're just jumping the gun at our onset and I'm sure, intended inference of it and now you want to call it a "one trick pony" admitting that it was meant to shock us by what it was intended for us to view it as. I think you're so full of yourself and so worried to make sure that people realize that you, the oh so educated in art, can give the "real" idea behind art that you either don't realize you hang yourself with your own words or you don't care, hoping that your garbage will come off sounding so good that maybe people won't notice.

You're pathetic. You've got to be one of top 5 most sick and disgusting members to ever post here at TOL. So much so that I end up having to just ignore you because you tick me off almost as much as this garbage you call art. But sometimes when posts like this come along, honest people who actually know how to use a couple of braincells should be able to see just what kind of wickedness and perverseness actually exists in this world.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Poly So the artist was warped and playing mind games. He wanted to shock the far out of Christians.

Believe it or not, the art-viewing public includes lots of people who are not Christians, or who would not have been the least bit "shocked" by that image even if they were. I think he used a religious icon because it is an icon. And I think he used a Christian icon because virtually everyone will recognize it as such. The "shock" was not aimed at Christians, because they are Christians. The "shock" was aimed at anyone viewing the artwork because of the assumptions that they would make regarding such an iconic image. I really doubt that the artist had any idea that this artwork would create the fuss that it did.

Originally posted by Poly Who cares what was really in the jar? It was meant to look like it, the title implies it. Yes, photographs can be very pursuasive. This one was to pursuade people to get really ticked off.

You would never have considered that the image in the photo was submersed in urine until the title implied it. And you still don't know that it actually was. Don't you see? This whole hubub is based on nothing but perceptual assumptions. There was never anything in the gallery but a photograph and a title. And if you had not read (or been told about) the title, you most likely would have thought the photo was a glorification of the iconic image in it. The whole artwork, really, is about the contradiction between what you assumed you were seeing before you read the title, and then what you assume you are seeing after you read the title. That's what this artwork is about - those automatic assumptions that we make when viewing photographs. It was never really about insulting Christians. I doubt that the artist realized that so many people would be so insulted by this work. I think he was trying to create the most glaring (shocking) contradiction he could between our assumptions before the title and our assumptions after the title, because he wanted us to be made aware of these assumption - not because he wanted to anger anyone.

Originally posted by Poly Yet the artist made sure that you didn't think that it was a "golden haze" and didn't leave any room for personal interpretation by giving it the title he did. In fact, it seems pretty obvious that you're trying to make all these excuses for this piece of trash but I really doubt the artist would. He wanted it interpreted exactly the way that it's interpreted by anybody with evidence of brain activity.

You're wrong. Artists think very carefully about how their artworks "unfold" for the viewer/audience. Artists are trained to know where our eyes will begin looking at something and how our eyes will move through the imagery being presented to them. I'm sure this artist knew that most people would look at the photograph first, and form an idea about it in their mind before reading the title, and having the title completely contradict that preformed idea. Like the artwork or not, I think he succeeded at this part of it very well, which is why people were especially "shocked" by it.

Originally posted by Poly It's trash even if it were merely water with yellow food coloring. Like you said, it doesn't matter what was really used. What was the artist trying to say/do/imply? His hatred for Christ.

I don't think it has anything at all to do with a "hatred for Christ". I think you're simply unable to understand what it's really about so you're being kind of self-centered in your assessment of this artwork.

Originally posted by Poly You are nothing but a hypocrite. You're always using the word "we" when really you mean "I". The only thing that matters is the way PureX pretends to interpret it and nobody else is able to do so. You are nothing more than a decieving, sick and twisted liar.

BOO! (hehehe)

Originally posted by Poly You are really a piece of work, PureX. You spend half the post defending this trash, saying we're all jumping to conclusions and trying to tell us what the artist was really intending. Through this whole thread you've reacted as if we're just jumping the gun at our onset and I'm sure, intended inference of it and now you want to call it a "one trick pony" admitting that it was meant to shock us by what it was intended for us to view it as. I think you're so full of yourself and so worried to make sure that people realize that you, the oh so educated in art, can give the "real" idea behind art that you either don't realize you hang yourself with your own words or you don't care, hoping that your garbage will come off sounding so good that maybe people won't notice.

I'm not limited by the idea of absolutes. When I experience something, and then discuss it, I don't experience it as a "this" or a "that". I understand that to really understand something we have to include the contradictions. A coin isn't a "head" or a "tail". A coin is a flatened disc that has both a "heads" side and a "tails" side. In the real world everything is like this. Everything is related to everything else. Everything can be viewed from different sides and will appear differently depending of which side you're looking at. Because you don't understand this, you fear it. And because you fear it you hate me for continually reminding you of it.

Art is all about the relationships between things, and how they change, and how they change the way we see and understand things as they change. If you're too afraid to accept the relativism of reality then you're never going to be able to understand or appreciate art, and you're never going to understand or appreciate people like me. That's just the way it is. It's your loss, honey.

Originally posted by Poly You're pathetic. You've got to be one of top 5 most sick and disgusting members to ever post here at TOL. So much so that I end up having to just ignore you because you tick me off almost as much as this garbage you call art. But sometimes when posts like this come along, honest people who actually know how to use a couple of braincells should be able to see just what kind of wickedness and perverseness actually exists in this world.

I'm sorry that you're feeling so frustrated. I hope that someday you'll grow past your own fear and prejudice and finally be able to appreciate folks like me.

 

[Granite]

Whoa. Maybe everybody should just take a couple of deep breaths...

 

[HisLight]

Why is it that the art community calls on the general public to support their habit, then when we do they complain that we actually have an opinion to go with it?

The federal government has no business taking money from everyone, including those barely able to support a family to maintain art collections and artists so that a few "cultured" folk have a place with ambience to hold their black tie parties.

If you want art pay for it that way you support the kind of art you like and I support what I like. I think they call that a free market. What a concept.

 

[Granite]

I'd agree, more or less.

 

[PureX]

Why is it that the art community calls on the general public to support their habit, then when we do they complain that we actually have an opinion to go with it?

The federal government has no business taking money from everyone, including those barely able to support a family to maintain art collections and artists so that a few "cultured" folk have a place with ambience to hold their black tie parties.

If you want art pay for it that way you support the kind of art you like and I support what I like. I think they call that a free market. What a concept.

Except that the purpose of art isn't to present "what you like". In fact, that's why it's important. The point of art is to present you with ideas and perspectives that you need to be aware of, yet may not like at all. Understanding these other ideas and perspectives will make you a much better person, and will give you a lot more choices in how you live your life, as well as help you to understand other people who choose to live differently from you. Art is kind of like exercise for the mind and spirit. It's good for us even when we don't like it.

And just as individuals need to put effort into doing things they don't like doing because they know it's good for them in the long run, so do whole societies. That's why it's good that members of our society pay a tiny fraction of their tax dollars to support art that offends them. Everyone resents it when they're confronted with their own ignorance. But it's still good for them to be confronted, nevertheless.

Sometimes we need to be made to do what we don't like, because it's good for us. That's just the way it is.

 

[HisLight]

Except that the purpose of art isn't to present "what you like". In fact, that's why it's important. The point of art is to present you with ideas and perspectives that you need to be aware of, yet may not like at all. Understanding these other ideas and perspectives will make you a much better person, and will give you a lot more choices in how you live your life, as well as help you to understand other people who choose to live differently from you. Art is kind of like exercise for the mind and spirit. It's good for us even when we don't like it.

And just as individuals need to put effort into doing things they don't like doing because they know it's good for them in the long run, so do whole societies. That's why it's good that members of our society pay a tiny fraction of their tax dollars to support art that offends them. Everyone resents it when they're confronted with their own ignorance. But it's still good for them to be confronted, nevertheless.

Sometimes we need to be made to do what we don't like, because it's good for us. That's just the way it is.

I don't disagree with your comments about art being mind expanding. However....

If that is the purpose of art as you state it and enough people agree with you then you should find that there is enough funding to support your cause.

If we can fund other causes through voluntary contributions including causes that effect the human condition directly, such as health and welfare, why isn't that kind of funding sufficient for the arts?

The need of the arts and humanities community does not override the my rights to hold onto my own property. To each according to his need, from each according to his ability ...is that what you have proposed here?