Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net  

Go Back  Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net > Sculpture Roundtable Discussions > Sculpture focus topics
User Name
Password
Home Sculpture Community Photo Gallery ISC Sculpture.org Register FAQ Members List Search New posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-25-2005, 07:18 PM
Merlion's Avatar
Merlion Merlion is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,716
Re: No art is fraudulent... is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by underachiever
I'm assuming you are referring to the CDL contest. Well, frankly, the main reason your work wasn't selected was simply because the CDL contest tends to prefer Modern looking works. Singapore's art scene is still generally stuck in the 90's, and if you really want to have a chance, you might do well to refer to something from that period. Or produce something that's especially weird like the winner did.

At least, that's what I got from one of the judges.
It is the CDL award, and your observation is correct. This is also what I also noticed and implied in my write-up.

It would be fantastic if I would win. And when I was working on my proposal, I took it very seriously proposing carefully how to construct a 40-ft tall full size sculptural installation making use of my technical background knowledge.

On the other hand, I would not go into planning and doing the currently fashionable contemporary or modern art to stand a higher chance of winning. Planning a creative proposal seriously is a part of the learning process.

It is like being an entrepreneur starting businesses, in that success is not guaranteed, and failing to succeed has to be regarded as a learning process until the next time.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-25-2006, 05:57 PM
GWayne's Avatar
GWayne GWayne is offline
Level 5 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 90
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

There is nothing new in art today, just new interpretations of earlier art movements. I read an article where an "artist" (I use the term loosely) was paid $1,500 to kick an empty food container down a city street. The museum had to cancel the event because there was such an overwhelming amount of support from the general public. The kicker is that the public paid for this event, but the "artist" didn't have to do his "live" performance and got paid for just thinking of the idea.

What are your thoughts?

Last edited by GWayne : 01-25-2006 at 09:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-25-2006, 10:16 PM
AugustusFire AugustusFire is offline
Level 2 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWayne
There is nothing new in art today, just new interpretations of earlier art movements. I read an article where an "artist" (I use the term loosely) was paid $1,500 to kick an empty food container down a city street. The museum had to cancel the event because there was such an overwhelming amount of support from the general public. The kicker is that the public paid for this event, but the "artist" didn't have to do his "live" performance and got paid for just thinking of the idea.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are wot a load of BS I did not spend 6 years of training to have people insult me and call that art. I think all artists who think the same way as me should tell the 'Museum' that is "performance art" not art.

A Firestone
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-26-2006, 05:08 AM
Cantab's Avatar
Cantab Cantab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 440
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Hey guys, chill out - we are all postmodernists now! No choice. So you want to impose your own definition of what art is on the world? A failed project if ever I heard of one. Live with the complexity. You are trying to make words hold true to some version of them you've got in your head from somewhere (pre-1960s?) when, in fact, the words ('art' and 'artist' in this case) will mean whatever we want them to mean, and you cannot control it. You just can't.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-26-2006, 12:29 PM
Landseer's Avatar
Landseer Landseer is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,250
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AugustusFire
My thoughts are wot a load of BS I did not spend 6 years of training to have people insult me and call that art. I think all artists who think the same way as me should tell the 'Museum' that is "performance art" not art.

A Firestone
I agree, I would hardly call kicking a food container down the street performance anything let alone "art." WHat's next? a guy taking a dump in a toilet and calling THAT art?

What about that "major work" that was in the news which was damaged by someone- it was a URINAL laid on it's back with some writing on it that someone took a hammer to.
If that's art then every plumber who lays those on the floor before installing them in a hotel restaurant is an artist no?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-26-2006, 01:55 PM
GWayne's Avatar
GWayne GWayne is offline
Level 5 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 90
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Landseer,

Hi! The work that you are referring to is by Duchamp ("R. Mutt"), "Fountain" (1917)

Peforming ordinary tasks that we all do on a daily basis does not equal art.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-27-2006, 04:00 AM
Merlion's Avatar
Merlion Merlion is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,716
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

To me, it is not important whether a upturn urinal with markings is called art, or an art icon. I would not spend time debating it.

Fraud is a loaded word. So is deception. But don't you agree it is an illusion created by some museum curators and some art collector advisors that when it is created by Marcel Duchamp it can command five, six or more digits of dollars.

When this urinal is a certified Duchamp reproduction, it is also worth a lot if not a similar sum. But it would be deemed close to worthless if it is done by another person, including a plumber.

If this reproduction is damaged by a hammer blow, it has to be replaced by another certified reproduction.

There would be many art theories advocated to explain this, and to analyse what went on in Duchamp's mind when he created the work.

This illusion makes many people rich and happy. It may continue to last for many years or decades. There is a lot of vested interest and this interest would try to make sure this illusion continues to last, and not burst.
__________________
Merlion
www.onesunartist.com
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-27-2006, 01:46 PM
Blake's Avatar
Blake Blake is offline
ISC Professional Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Monaco
Posts: 668
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Hello all
I have enjoyed reading this thread and will try to explain what little I understand about the situation, and you can let me know if I am close to understanding modern art.
The work by Duchamp ("R. Mutt"), "Fountain" (1917) "forced" or offered the opportunity for people to "see" this work as art where as before noone saw it as anything other than a place to pee. So this was new.
Koons tried to do the same with his pornagraphic work although he was less successful if you ask me. He tried to say that if he could put it on a museum wall we would have to accept it as art. So this was new but in bad taste.
D. Hearst did the same sort of thing with the cow cut in half as he "forced" people to see this ugly thing as a thing of beauty or at least that was the idea. So the critics say that he lead art to a new level of understanding and therefore he is an art hero.
"Art" for the critic is completely different than "art" to me. The critic claims that my work is not art at all it is decoration, as it does not push art to new hights, or depths. He also claims that art must be made without regard for economic compensation.
Easy to see that they aren't trying to feed themselves with their art work.
I think that "modern art" for the critic has to have an element of "never been done before" for it to be new, good "modern art".
Or perhaps I just don't understand any of it.
Regards Blake
__________________
Art that does not attempt the impossible is not performing its function. W.B. Yeats
www.facebook.com/blakesculpture
www.blakesculpture.com
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-27-2006, 04:03 PM
GWayne's Avatar
GWayne GWayne is offline
Level 5 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 90
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Blake,

Hi! You made some interesting points. My interpretation of Duchamp's "ready- mades" is that anything is art. If you are an artist and you physically label, or say that an ordinary object is art, then it is considered art. I think that he broke new artistic boundaries that had both a positive and negative impact on future artists and viewers. Personally, I respect Duchamp as an artist who was not only a techincally sound painter, sculptor and draftsman, but he also challenged the viewer with his ideas about art.

I think that his philosophy about ready-mades and art in general has helped artists and viewers who were mainly drawn to a representational subject matter to be more open-minded about different artistic styles from impressionism-minimalism . In my opinion, I don't feel that Koons and Hirst are doing anything new with their work. The only difference is that the "packaging" has changed, but the contents are the same. They are just riding the coattails of Duchamp, Judd, Flavin and Andre. These concepts were explored and executed with greater success by the artists that I just mentioned.

Today, most art critics serve the purpose of only stroking an artist's ego instead of offering an objective review about the work. I recently read an article about an art critic who wrote a semi-negative review about an artist, and the gallery that represented the artist tried to have the critic who wrote the article fired. There is nothing new in art today, just new interpretations of earlier art movements. To make it in the art world you need a connection, or a gimmick to get noticed.

GWayne
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-27-2006, 05:24 PM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Hi, I in NO WAY wish to defend nor to become the devil's advocate for some of the work that is being passed off as art today, BUT, I think that this question "Is contemporary art a fraud?" is no more valid than asking if the art of the past was a fraud?
There are many serious, dedicated, hard working and sincere artists out there whose work, frankly, I don't understand. Are they frauds because "I don't understand their work? I think not.
We don't live in the same world as the artists of the past so why should we try to emulate them? Because we understand them? NO!
We, as artists, have to find our own way in the world of today and our own unique way of expressing our reality.
Perhaps, if you don't understand some contemporary art, you should read some books on art theory, esthetics and criticism.
Have a nice day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-28-2006, 01:03 PM
Landseer's Avatar
Landseer Landseer is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,250
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Probably most know I don't like contemporary art at all, as far as fraud goes I don't know... but I think very poorly of someone who buys an Electrolux vacuum cleaner, installs a florescent light on it, hangs it on the wall and calls it "art"
Ditto for taking an ordinary commercial urinal anyone can buy at a plumbing store, laying it on it's back and calling THAT art.
A jar of nasty looking urine with a cross in it? I won't even go there...

While I was looking for something I happened upon this image and text, I thought some of you with a contemporary mindset might appreciate how modern this LOOKS!

But I look at it and wonder.... did the guy who poured the bronze make a mistake and this was actually one of his casting REJECTS from an incompletely filled form that chilled the metal too fast, that was discarded?

Bronze Horse, c. 750 BCE, Greek Geometric Period.

Statuettes of horses like this were one of the most popular subjects of Geometric period at the beginning of the historical period of Greek culture. Along with the invention of writing, this period of the middle of the eighth century witnessed the rise of the distinctive Greek political unit, the polis or city-state

Last edited by Landseer : 01-28-2006 at 06:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-31-2006, 12:51 AM
Merlion's Avatar
Merlion Merlion is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,716
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

I found these two write-ups about Marcel Duchamp's urinal aka 'fountain', while surfing around, waiting for the resin cast of my lizards making babies to set.

The first is a BBC article dated Dec 2004.

Duchamp's urinal tops art survey

Duchamp's idea that art could take any form shocked the art world
A white gentlemen's urinal has been named the most influential modern art work of all time.

Marcel Duchamp's Fountain came top of a poll of 500 art experts in the run-up to this year's Turner Prize which takes place on Monday.

Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907) was second, with Andy Warhol's Marilyn Diptych from 1962 coming third.


The next is taken from Wikipedia's write-up on Duchamp's 'fountain".

Duchamp submitted the piece to the "unjuried" 1917 Society of Independent Artists (of which he was a board member) exhibition, and it was rejected as "not being art." ....

In December 2004, Duchamp's Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 of the most powerful people in the British art world


Note these 500 art experts from Britain are regarded in this Wikipedia write-up as '500 of the most powerful people in the Bristish art world'. This is about 90 years after he created the work.

Perhaps this is one of the intentions of Duchamp, that the artists themselves decide what is art, and not these powerful 'art experts'.

The problem which he probably didn't forsee, is that he started the trend of artistic freedom which caught on with fervour, until decades later, these modern art forms are adopted by the art establishment as the fashion, as high art. So those that do not follow this modern art trend, like some figurative sculptors, are regarded as making 'decorations' and low art.
__________________
Merlion
www.onesunartist.com

Last edited by Merlion : 01-31-2006 at 03:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-31-2006, 06:15 AM
Cantab's Avatar
Cantab Cantab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 440
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Reading this thread, I feel that there may be a case for knowing the artist’s wider creative career more fully. If we take any one object, say a urinal by Duchamp, then maybe the internal logic of the artists intentions, or the preoccupations of the art community of his era, are not particularly evident. Yes, we may even be able to argue that the local plumber could come up with this. I feel that a larger perspective is helpful, and may also help to resolve the issue of ‘fraud’.
If we take Damien Hirst, referred to earlier in the thread, as an example – he is very famous for ‘the cow’. His wider career as an artist is quite fascinating and reminds us of his seriousness. I have been particularly impressed by the sequence of works he has produced over the past 15 years relating to medical ethics and drug consumption. Some of you will know about the chemists installation (at Tate Modern, London, a few years ago), with an entire gallery given over to the pills we consume! His hospital foetus disposal containers are chilling. One of his most astonishing installations was shown at the ‘Sensation’ exhibition at the Royal Academy of the Arts in London a few years ago – it was made up of two massive glass containers. In one lay the rotting head of a cow. Both containers were full of flies buzzing around in their thousands, with the floors of the containers covered in dead flies. Visitors were awestruck, for quite quickly we realised that we were watching the life cycle in progess and its impersonality and endlessness. The flies used the head for eggs, they grew to maturity (those flying) and died (those on the floor). All of this offered in a set of clinical glass tanks – cold and bleak. But we were awestruck! Anyone interested in Hirst will be aware of his interest in the relation of life and death - the famous shark installation is actually called ‘The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living’. Not ‘the shark’. In fact, if you were to walk through the cow piece (actually called ‘Mother and Child Divided’, by the way) - the cow is cut into sections, placed in tanks, which visitors call walk between - you would become very aware that it is a pregnant cow that is being exhibited. A mother and child (with all the art historical, and religious, meanings that has). Much of this is part of Hirst’s attack on the conventions of our society - after all, a cow and its offspring are merely products for us, this epitomised by the fact that we can cut them up and put them on display! Well, do anything we want with them really! Hirst grew up as an artist in the 80s and 90s in Britain, and his work reflects an interest he has in the world he belongs to and, at the same time, the fundamental realities, and crudities, of being. Furthermore, his work conforms to classic aesthetic criteria: he has a primary interest in form and line, and his use of colour is often starting, and illuminating. His use of media is also interesting - the history of Western art for 600 years has been dominated by paint, stone, bronze. Hirst, like so many artists today, has moved to new media to reflect new realities and open up new possibilities for communication and expression. So, perhaps urinals can be OK too.....
Perhaps, then, it may be possible to miss the seriousness of modern art, and perhaps too easy to see ‘fraud’. My own feeling about modern art is that we, as viewers, have to work harder than we used to. These artists are dealing with difficult matters, and we, if we are to take part (and I think this perspective on the viewer is worth considering) will have to put in the effort. We are being invited to do this by modern art works – we are not going to find ANY modern art where we can be passive consumers. Looking at art, in any case, has always been a discipline, just as producing it has been. No good art today is easy, and perhaps it never has been. Try reading Giotto, Michelangelo, Manet, Henry Moore, Andy Warhol. I teach modern poetry – it’s hard work too! At first glance, it’s hard to penetrate. But my students put in the work – and are often astonished. Discipline, and a serious desire to understand are the keys.

Last edited by Cantab : 01-31-2006 at 06:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-31-2006, 07:48 AM
Landseer's Avatar
Landseer Landseer is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,250
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

"Duchamp submitted the piece to the "unjuried" 1917 Society of Independent Artists (of which he was a board member) exhibition, and it was rejected as "not being art." (He resigned from the board shortly after the incident.)"


I note below a sampling of reader reactions to this from the top of the list of them, seems most readers feel as I do as did the jury he submitted it to in 1917- it's not art it's a toilet, and in any case the manufacturer is the one who designed and created it NOT Duchamp who only put his name on it;


Your reaction

It's a urinal. If true artists like Leonardo Da Vinci saw this they would turn in their graves.
Phillip Evans, UK, Wales


How the Hell can something that I wee in be considered art? Surely there are better and more intelligent ways of making art more accessible.
Aaron David Hall, Worcester, England


These artists are taking the proverbial, surely!
Josh Chapman, Ammanford, Carmarthenshire


This is a travesty, pure and simple. A disgrace to art in general, brilliant though it is.
John, Woodstock, USA


This is ludicrous! I mean what ISN'T art these days? These days you can stick your name on anything and call it art. I see no beauty in a sculptured toilet.
Maya McKee, Southampton, UK


Finally - a piece of modern art to receive my opinion of it.
Graham, London, UK


Another fine example of the degradation of society. The urinal company should get the credit for this.
Pat Connolly, Santa Clara, US

Last edited by Landseer : 01-31-2006 at 07:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-31-2006, 09:53 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Hi Cantab, thank you for that post.
Hi Landseer, Instead of these cheap shots taken at poor old Mr. Duchamp, perhaps you could enlighten us further with a better explanation of his work and why you feel as you do.
That urinal was exhibited almost 90 years ago and it's still stirring up controversy within the art community. It, more than any other work of art of the last century changed our view of what art is or what art can be.
Have a nice day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-31-2006, 11:00 AM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Cantab, you write "Visitors were awestruck, for quite quickly we realized that we were watching the life cycle in progress and its impersonality and endlessness....his work reflects an interest he has in the world he belongs to and, at the same time, the fundamental realities, and crudities, of being" That ain't art! That is just life, or some part of it. Intelligent people can say and be impressed by the most mundane events when they live narrow lives, are stuck in some ivory tower, or are searching for ways to make things difficult or problematical in order to have "intelligent" conversations about "serious issues". You appear to have no experience with war, third world poverty, ghetto life, crime, accident, disease, birth, death and need a museum piece to remind you that you are alive. If that's what it takes to wake you up, then its art. But if that is the case, then soldiers, policemen, firemen, doctors, nurses, cancer victims, crime victims, even farm kids must be connoisseurs. In fact, any one who knows that he is alive and is experiencing that life knows more about the "the fundamental realities, and crudities, of being" than you or Hirst.
I enjoy 20th century art much more than that of the past. I guess I've just been around the block.

peace, Joe
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-31-2006, 11:29 AM
ExNihiloStudio's Avatar
ExNihiloStudio ExNihiloStudio is offline
Level 6 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 105
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

I'm still not convinced the question "Is it art?" is productive, if only do defend the freedom of the artist and the surprises the future may hold. The real question comes back to "Is it good?" Working through that question and cultivating one's taste should help distinguish hype, rubbish, and banality from great art.

This is from Clement Greenberg's Avante Garde Attitudes essay which I think supports my argument:

"Things that purport to be art do not function, do not exist, as art until they are experienced through taste. [Ask yourself, is it good?] Until then they exist only as empirical phenomena, as aesthetically arbitrary objects or facts. [In other words, it's not art] These, precisely, are what a lot of contemporary art gets taken for, and what many artists want their works to be taken for--in the hope, periodically renewed since Marcel Duchamp first acted on it fifty-odd years ago, that by dint of evading the reach of taste while yet remaining in the context of art, certain kinds of contrivances will achieve unique existence and value. [Arguing that the Fountain is not art does not get on to the question of taste] So far this hope has proved illusory. [I agree] So far everything that enters the context of art becomes subject, inexorably, to the jurisdiction of taste--and to the ordering of taste. [And the more you learn, the broader and more nuanced your taste becomes] And so far almost all would--be non-art-in-the-context-of-art [i.e., the ReadymadeŽ] has fallen rather neatly into place in the order of inferior art. This is the order where the bulk of art production tends to find its place, in 1968 as in 1868--or 1768. Superior art continues to be something more or less exceptional. And this, this rather stable quantitative relation between the superior and inferior, offers as fundamentally relevant a kind of artistic order as you could wish."

So there it is. I don't think it could be put more succinctly. Deconstructionists can have at it but on an individual level as artist or viewer we have to work through the question of taste. To avoid it would mean obliterating the artist, art, humanity even. If your response is "Whose taste? Which good?" my response is "Start with the tradition you are in - and you are in one, like it or not."
__________________
- Mark G. Taber
Ex Nihilo Studio
http://www.ExNihiloStudio.com
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-31-2006, 01:01 PM
Landseer's Avatar
Landseer Landseer is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,250
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman
Hi Cantab, thank you for that post.
Hi Landseer, Instead of these cheap shots taken at poor old Mr. Duchamp, perhaps you could enlighten us further with a better explanation of his work and why you feel as you do.
That urinal was exhibited almost 90 years ago and it's still stirring up controversy within the art community. It, more than any other work of art of the last century changed our view of what art is or what art can be.
Have a nice day,
Jeff
Jeff, those were quotes taken from the UK newspaper- reader comments, and it appears the majority of readers agreed with one another, or at least the concept that dropping an ordinary toilet on it's back and submitting it as "art" is not the same as a Rembrandt oil painting, Michaelangelo's David or Saint-Gaudens Shaw memorial, all of which as a side note here-were a labor of love.

Duchamp's toilet as art submission was done as a PRANK, submitted under a pseudymn and meant to taunt his avant-garde peers according to a web site about his life and works. The toilet was one of 23 similar, including a bicycle wheel stuck on a stool upside down.

Most of these works are gone, replcaed by "replicas" and that includes the toilet which had vanished after the 1917 show where it was "misplaced". It's replica was made in 1964.

I'm not even sure how I feel about the validity/authenticity of a REPLICA being made of a long vanished work like this- by someone else- there is no substitute for an original which are one of akind anyway.

Be that as it may, if you read me long enough you know I am strictly, 100% a classic/traditional works/theme kind of person, I don't "do" plastic, resin, foam, fiberglass, abstracts, cubist, modern, or contemporary at all.
The latest "style" I like would be Art Deco, after the Art Deco period was when to me the styles in architecture, furniture, art etc started going into these flat, abstract, boxy, streamlined styles I don't like at all and which to my eye doesn't represent "art" it more represents to me something more to do with corporate corner cutting to save costs than "style"

The fact remains it costs a LOT more to build a building with stone carvings, ornate plaster ceilings, tin cornices, wainscotting and woodwork than it does to build a flat box with glass on the outside and flat sheetrocked walls inside that look like the inside of a cereal box.

To me, the only value I see in the toilet is maybe using it for what it was originally designed for, and given a choice of that or the bronze horse I received yesterday, I'd happily trade ten of those toilets for the one bronze horse without a moment of hesitation.

Blake's art is to me- ART, he is one of the few here who seems to work pretty exclusively in traditional styles and materials, his preference is toward the human form, torsos and figures, mine is almost exclusively towards animals and architectural.
Have to run for now!
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-31-2006, 01:59 PM
Cantab's Avatar
Cantab Cantab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 440
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Lanseer - interesting stuff this! -quote- 'Duchamp's toilet as art submission was done as a PRANK, submitted under a pseudymn and meant to taunt his avant-garde peers according to a web site about his life and works. The toilet was one of 23 similar, including a bicycle wheel stuck on a stool upside down'. - unquote
Yes, it may be worth considering that Duchamp was influenced by Dadaism of the early part of the 20th century, and that the urinal is not in fact a work of art at all, but a work, in the Dadaist tradition, of 'anti-art'. The 'artists' signature on the urinal, 'R Mutt', may signify this conclusion. To use this work as an example of bad modern art may, therefore, be self-defeating. Duchamp himself may in fact have agreed with you! I'm not over-familiar with Duchamp, so I cannot pretend to be knowledgeable, but I believe he was also influenced by the period he belonged to in other, historical ways too, living as he did when the First World War made all conventional art activity look absurd (many artists felt that conventional art practice could only facilitate an inadequate response to the horror of war and the failure of civilisation that the war was felt to be). Hence the rise of Surrealism as well as Dada, which Duchamp was also influenced by, and which is apparent, I think, in the bicycle and stool.
I think we would be better discussing artists with a less paradoxical relationship to art and the art world. After all, didn't Duchamp give up art, prefering chess?!!
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-31-2006, 06:53 PM
Landseer's Avatar
Landseer Landseer is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,250
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantab
Lanseer - interesting stuff this!
Yes, it may be worth considering that Duchamp was influenced by Dadaism of the early part of the 20th century, and that the urinal is not in fact a work of art at all, but a work, in the Dadaist tradition, of 'anti-art'. The 'artists' signature on the urinal, 'R Mutt', may signify this conclusion.
Yes it is interesting, that was why when this issue came up I did the research into this so I would have something to refer to. One site I used is this one, and it contains a number of photos, background info etc:

http://www.understandingduchamp.com/

Scroll over to the 1915 period where the toilet is detailed, and there it states the apparantly discarded or ignored fact that Duchamp created this as a PRANK on his fellow board members, remember he was a board member of the committee which was another reason he used a pseudonym.
In that regard, HE didn't even consider this serious art- it was a prank from the start. One can argue that his prank caused a CHANGE in the art world and how people started to VIEW art, and that this was a pivotal piece that started this and I would agree with that. In other words he was the "Martin King" or "Rosa Parks" of the art world in a sense, at the time, and took a daring step either by accident or design into a new transisional period.

All that I would agree with- he caused a change, but the fact that he caused a CHANGE does not mean to me that his toilet or other "ready made" items are art, nor will this change my opinion that this is a piece of plumbing for a commercial restroom to piss into, nothing more nothing less. Laying it on it's back and submitting it as "art" as a prank on your fellow board does not MAKE it art, it is still a piece of mass produced commercial store bought plumbing that had virtually NO modifications of any kind to it,( unless a pseudonym is modification) nor did it encompass additional materials, designs, nor was it incorporated into a larger work such as using it's shape as a NOSE on a collossal face, or a smaller work incorporated into it's cavity- a miniature model village for example.

Had Duchamp oil painted something inside using the rim like a frame, or carved a little model village and built it up inside the cavity of the thing, and gave it some creative title like "Society flushes away" or something, and have a little stream of water flowing in and out, then one could say he created something, call it art then.
But all I see is (prank aside) ~lazy~ for anyone can buy "readymade" a toilet and do that, there was zero work involved or anything else for that matter. Artists like Saint-Gaudens puts stuff like this and that Electrolux vacuum cleaner guy to total shame and I believe this kind of thing is an insult to true artists who dedicate significant portions of their lives, income, health and energy- much of it little more than a labor of love for which they receive a pittance.
I look at that Saint Gauden's Shaw memorial and it's stunning, it's moving, it's emotional, it brings tears to my eyes, it makes me feel like ordering 1,000# of clay or plaster and creating something like that, it's timeless and there's a connection for me to it I relate to.

Even I find this toilet kind of thing insulting and I haven't gone thru 6 years of art school for a degree or done the work that way, I relate to Saint-gauden's work, I DON'T relate to a TOILET, I don't care what position it's in or what someone chooses to "call it," and if you show it to anyone one the street the firt thing they will say is- it's plumbing.

All this hoopla about this PIECE came about later and it's misdirected, it was Duchamps ACTIONS which caused the change, much like Rosa Parks caused a "change," NOT the bus she happened to be sitting on per sei.

Quote:
To use this work as an example of bad modern art may, therefore, be self-defeating. Duchamp himself may in fact have agreed with you!
You may very well be correct on that.


Quote:
Hence the rise of Surrealism as well as Dada, which Duchamp was also influenced by, and which is apparent, I think, in the bicycle and stool.
I think we would be better discussing artists with a less paradoxical relationship to art and the art world.
Ok, now there's something I DO like- Dali's surrealist paintings- the melting watch etc, as well as Grant Wood's paintings, but while these are not sculptures, they are paintings and usually recognizable items in them depicted in an almost dream-like state, colorful, creative, interesting and they draw the eye around.
Wood was known for his peculiar style, he had an amazing ability to paint despite being little more than as I understand it- a simple farmer by day with no formal training in art, and he lived in kind of a dumpy little place.

Last edited by Landseer : 01-31-2006 at 07:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-31-2006, 07:33 PM
GWayne's Avatar
GWayne GWayne is offline
Level 5 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 90
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

A book titled "Art" by Eric Gill is a very interesting read about what is considered art. The book was published in 1946 and is out of print, but you should be able to find it at Bibliofind, or at your local library.

GWayne
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-01-2006, 12:19 PM
anne (bxl) anne (bxl) is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ibiza (Spain)
Posts: 426
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

I just saw a few days ago a passionate and delightful theater piece about this question in Paris "L'Affaire Dussaert" at Le Petit Hebertot theater.
But I still don't have an answer to this...

well,I heard at the radio a philosoph telling that (and this is close from my philosophy) art is a mystic search a search of the essential, everything else (provocation, craft, esthetic...) is a fraud.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-01-2006, 12:46 PM
rderr.com's Avatar
rderr.com rderr.com is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston, Texas/Cuidad del Carmen, Campeche, Mexico
Posts: 832
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

"...essential, everything else (provocation, craft, esthetic...) is a fraud...." end quote Anne


I believe that art is the provocation that starts the mystic search

RD
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-02-2006, 04:12 AM
AugustusFire AugustusFire is offline
Level 2 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13
Exclamation Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantab
Hey guys, chill out - we are all postmodernists now! No choice. So you want to impose your own definition of what art is on the world? A failed project if ever I heard of one. Live with the complexity. You are trying to make words hold true to some version of them you've got in your head from somewhere (pre-1960s?) when, in fact, the words ('art' and 'artist' in this case) will mean whatever we want them to mean, and you cannot control it. You just can't.
1. I have controlled it, I call it using your brains http://www.sculpturepainted.com/

2.As for Duchamp I think we should call him Mr Brown Duchamp (AKA Brown Dump)

Loenardo once said if art is more theory than art it is no longer art.

Damien Hirst is no longer art he is entertainment and at worst he is performance art.

Future generations will only be able to read about what Damien Hirst did and will never experience what he created as for most artists they will surpass millennia over Mr Hirst

AF
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-02-2006, 10:25 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Hi, Yes, I did know that R. Mutt's urinal was a prank, but it exposed to the art world that the powers that be would show anything.
I do know that Duchamp gave up making art (how could he not after the urinal) sometime later and spent the rest of his life studying and playing chess.
I think that what burns us up most about stuff like this, is that we've learned to draw, paint, sculpt, etc. and spent many hours studying and making art and someone (like Duchamp) comes along and makes a mockery of our serious and lifelong pursuits.
In spite of that, I consider Duchamp an artist, he made us think, and has influenced the art world tremendously.
Have a nice day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Sculpture Community, Sculpture.net
International Sculpture Center, Sculpture.org
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Russ RuBert