Is a giant metal pubic hair really art?
Questionable art
(3 votes, average: 2.33 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...
Add to favorites Tags: wtf
Processing your request, Please wait....
Leave a comment ?
(3 votes, average: 2.33 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...Add to favorites Tags: wtf
March 21, 2008 at 7:23 pm
No, it is not. Once you let shit like this be called “art,” you’ve declared that talent is no longer a requirement.
March 22, 2008 at 11:33 am
Ain’t denver great for questionable art?
March 23, 2008 at 12:06 am
I think the point of art like this is to suggest that art doesn’t have to be purposeful or realistic. People love Salvador Dali, but it’s fucking melted clocks…how is that art? For that matter, how is the Mona Lisa art–it’s just a woman sitting there, right? Does art necessarily have to be beautiful or realistic? Take a look at Peter Voulkos’s “Rocking Pot” which makes a case that pottery does not have to be functional, either:
americanart.si.edu/renwick/images/Rocking_Pot_lg.jpg
March 23, 2008 at 1:10 am
Just because you don’t find something artful, doesn’t mean it’s not art.
I prefer art that’s less about making a statement of the time or artist’s ego or intellect than about reaching into the soul of humanity and or the world and capturing something timeless and true about it.
That sculpture doesn’t appeal to me, because it’s got to be all statement. The rocking pot is similar, to me. It’s kind of more artful, though. Dali also, despite his technical ability, is a statement kind of artist – he lacks soul. I do like a couple of his paintings, but there are way more appealing surrealists.
Mona Lisa’s all soul to my eyes.
And all are art. If you can’t make it in a factory, it’s art.
March 23, 2008 at 2:11 am
bryanchiao.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/03/picture_16.png
March 23, 2008 at 3:21 am
^ Them’s fighting words =)
Interesting guy, just looked him up on the wiki. One of his pieces was posted here a couple of days ago, I notice. His anonymity reminds me of olden times, when artists were not Names, but Makers.
March 23, 2008 at 3:33 am
Ok I’m trying to figure out what this legitimate piece of art is *about*:
www.slashfood.com/2008/02/20/7-200-bananas-make-a-lot-of-banana-bread-or-art/
Here are my ideas:
1) Art is frivolous?
2) Art should not only have no substance, but should steal food out of starving mouths?
3) The artist really likes the colour yellow.
March 23, 2008 at 3:56 am
You’re onto something with 1 and 2, though 3 might mean that the guy’s paying for his self-indulgent 1 and 2 by the turning black and brown of his beloved yellow … symbolising moral decay, the fleetingness of perfection, societ -
ah fucksake. It’s bad, bad art and deserves a D-Day torpedo up it’s pretentious ass.
And the waste bugs me, too. There is only one Cristo. And he didn’t use bananas.
Where did you find that, Caio? Googling “Bad Art”?
March 23, 2008 at 4:17 am
ps should have capitalized Factory now that I look around, hehehe.