# Art > Art & Art History >  art definition

## cacian

when does art draw the line ?
in todays world art can be a painting and a piece of cardboard hugging a side of a wall.
art is a transformation not an information.

----------


## stlukesguild

I'm not certain what you are after. "Art" can pretty much be anything that an artist says is art and/or that which an audience accepts as "Art".

Whether the resulting work is "good" or "bad" is another question altogether.

Where do YOU draw the line?

----------


## Pompey Bum

> art can be a painting and a piece of cardboard hugging a side of a wall.


Art's the one that costs money to look at.

p.s. Salut Cacian!  :Smile:

----------


## Danik 2016

I found this video (5 minutes)interesting. It may fuel the discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> I found this video (5 minutes)interesting. It may fuel the discussion:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc


Typical, very snobbish and narrow definition of "modern art", and those artists who don't paint pretty pictures.

When you go to an art gallery or stuffy museum are you really moved by portraits of the noble class, wealthy merchants, pastoral landscapes, plump white women with one breast showing... cavorting with a satyr in a forest clearing, etc? On a technical level they are indeed masterpieces, on an emotional level it's like being forced to watch an episode of Downton Abbey.

----------


## YesNo

Good video, Danik. 

When we were in Colorado Springs, we stopped by the galleries along Colorado Avenue and Manitou Avenue. The one that stood out was the Hunter-Wolff Gallery and one artist represented there, Clifford T. Bailey, stood out the most although there were many other artists there who produced work of high quality: http://hunterwolffgallery.com/galler...fford-t-bailey

Although I liked the video, the demand for "objective standards" in art may not be aiming high enough. Art standards cannot be "objectified". Quality must be subjectively acknowledged otherwise we are caught with another problem of modernism--the belief that subjectivity can be reduced to an objective computer program. The art that offends today is similar to mechanistic beliefs: both deny our subjectivity. The art does so by assaulting our subjectivity directly. Those who believe they can, say, dump our consciousness into a computer assault our subjectivity through our intelligence by presenting their pseudoscience as if it were science.

I hope that encourages the discussion. The negative presentation of art in the video represents a growing negative social mood.

----------


## YesNo

> Typical, very snobbish and narrow definition of "modern art", and those artists who don't paint pretty pictures.
> 
> When you go to an art gallery or stuffy museum are you really moved by portraits of the noble class, wealthy merchants, pastoral landscapes, plump white women with one breast showing... cavorting with a satyr in a forest clearing, etc? On a technical level they are indeed masterpieces, on an emotional level it's like being forced to watch an episode of Downton Abbey.


Although we might occasionally disagree, I do like the art you produce. Here's one you linked to in the Tattoo thread: http://mockingbirdoutpost.deviantart...late-541728186

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Good video, Danik. 
> 
> When we were in Colorado Springs, we stopped by the galleries along Colorado Avenue and Manitou Avenue. The one that stood out was the Hunter-Wolff Gallery and one artist represented there, Clifford T. Bailey, stood out the most although there were many other artists there who produced work of high quality: http://hunterwolffgallery.com/galler...fford-t-bailey
> 
> Although I liked the video, the demand for "objective standards" in art may not be aiming high enough. Art standards cannot be "objectified". Quality must be subjectively acknowledged otherwise we are caught with another problem of modernism--the belief that subjectivity can be reduced to an objective computer program. The art that offends today is similar to mechanistic beliefs: both deny our subjectivity. The art does so by assaulting our subjectivity directly. Those who believe they can, say, dump our consciousness into a computer assault our subjectivity through our intelligence by presenting their pseudoscience as if it were science.
> 
> I hope that encourages the discussion. The negative presentation of art in the video represents a growing negative social mood.



I think what's at the heart of Mr. Florczak's disdain for modern art, is that fine art has been removed from the realm of those with extraordinary talent, and can now be produced and appreciated by everyday people. Personally, I've come to appreciate folk art more than I ever thought I would, as well as modern art and architecture.

That said, I do believe certain aesthetic standards never go out of style. I just think the standards put forth in that video are way too rigid. Not just with the visual arts, but even if you apply such criticism to modern literature... no matter the artistic discipline, it needs to be dynamic and respond to the world as it is. The world changes, art changes with it.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Although we might occasionally disagree, I do like the art you produce. Here's one you linked to in the Tattoo thread: http://mockingbirdoutpost.deviantart...late-541728186


Thanks!
I think I fall into that most inglorious of artistic categories... being an, Illustrator_(whore)_. :Wink5:

----------


## YesNo

> Thanks!
> I think I fall into that most inglorious of artistic categories... being an, Illustrator_(whore)_.


I don't think what you do is inglorious at all.

I agree with you that art has to be able to change which is why there can not be a complete objectification of its standards. Also I agree that folk art is valuable. Besides, whether the art elite turn their noses up at it or not, people will do whatever art they feel like doing. 

However, the white canvas at the end of the video and the huge stone midway seem to me to be overpriced assaults on our subjectivity. They are nothing that we need to train our subjectivity to learn to appreciate.

----------


## PeterL

> when does art draw the line ?
> in todays world art can be a painting and a piece of cardboard hugging a side of a wall.
> art is a transformation not an information.


Art is anything that humans have created that is not strictly natural. The arts include mechanical, military, domestic, etc. Anything artificial is art. If you wish to restrict art to the fines arts, then say the "fine arts".

----------


## Danik 2016

> Typical, very snobbish and narrow definition of "modern art", and those artists who don't paint pretty pictures.
> 
> When you go to an art gallery or stuffy museum are you really moved by portraits of the noble class, wealthy merchants, pastoral landscapes, plump white women with one breast showing... cavorting with a satyr in a forest clearing, etc? On a technical level they are indeed masterpieces, on an emotional level it's like being forced to watch an episode of Downton Abbey.


I agree with you, Sparrow, this definition of modern art is narrow, but your views on traditional art seems equaly narrow, maybe because the selection offered in the video is very small. 
I chose it not because I agree with it because it is didactic and may help people think about the different concepts of art. It would be nice if you or someone else posted a different evaluation of art.
I didn´t know you were an artist until Yes/No posted the link. I think book ilustration is as noble as any other kind of art. There are famous book ilustrators in the Victorian Age, there is Saint Exupery, there are many known ilustrators of children books, including an American lady (can,t remember her name), who became famous for her ilustrated animal stories (bunnies).

----------


## Danik 2016

> Good video, Danik. 
> 
> When we were in Colorado Springs, we stopped by the galleries along Colorado Avenue and Manitou Avenue. The one that stood out was the Hunter-Wolff Gallery and one artist represented there, Clifford T. Bailey, stood out the most although there were many other artists there who produced work of high quality: http://hunterwolffgallery.com/galler...fford-t-bailey
> 
> Although I liked the video, the demand for "objective standards" in art may not be aiming high enough. Art standards cannot be "objectified". Quality must be subjectively acknowledged otherwise we are caught with another problem of modernism--the belief that subjectivity can be reduced to an objective computer program. The art that offends today is similar to mechanistic beliefs: both deny our subjectivity. The art does so by assaulting our subjectivity directly. Those who believe they can, say, dump our consciousness into a computer assault our subjectivity through our intelligence by presenting their pseudoscience as if it were science.
> 
> I hope that encourages the discussion. The negative presentation of art in the video represents a growing negative social mood.


Thanks Yes/No! As I told Sparrow, I chose the video because of the didactic presentation not because I agree with its opinions. I'm not at all an expert in art, but I agree with those critics who say that art is an historical product.
We evaluate art according to our subjectivity as you say, but this subjectivity IMO is formed by the values and standards of our time and enviroments. Maybe great art is the one that transcend these boundaries becoming 
universal and timeless.
I get the feeling that contemporary art is a bit lost. But as one critic said (don´t remember his name) you can only evaluate well an art period after it is over.

----------


## Danik 2016

> I think what's at the heart of Mr. Florczak's disdain for modern art, is that fine art has been removed from the realm of those with extraordinary talent, and can now be produced and appreciated by everyday people. Personally, I've come to appreciate folk art more than I ever thought I would, as well as modern art and architecture.
> 
> That said, I do believe certain aesthetic standards never go out of style. I just think the standards put forth in that video are way too rigid. Not just with the visual arts, but even if you apply such criticism to modern literature... no matter the artistic discipline, it needs to be dynamic and respond to the world as it is. The world changes, art changes with it.


I quite agree with you there.

----------


## kev67

I think it can be difficult to define the borders between art, entertainment and record. They overlap. By record I mean things like documentaries, portraits or biographies. In a different way, art merges into craft and design.

----------


## Pompey Bum

Then an eccentric looking man said, 
Speak to us of Art.
And he said:
It might as easily be said that man could live without Art as that man could live without water.
Look upon the innocent scribblings of little children.
Doubt not that each of us emerged from the womb an artist.
Art is freedom.
That which is called Art, yet is made subservient to commerce is not Art. 
That which is called Art, yet is made subservient to a Nation or State is not Art.
That which is called Art, yet is hanging in the Museum of Modern Art is not Art. That crap my six year old son could do, the Master explained.

--- from The Profit by Kehlog Albran

----------


## stlukesguild

Typical, very snobbish and narrow definition of "modern art", and those artists who don't paint pretty pictures.

I agree that Robert Florczak's concept of Art is rather narrow. Even the works of the "Old Masters" employed elements beyond the traditional concepts of "beauty":









When you go to an art gallery or stuffy museum are you really moved by portraits of the noble class, wealthy merchants, pastoral landscapes, plump white women with one breast showing... cavorting with a satyr in a forest clearing, etc? On a technical level they are indeed masterpieces, on an emotional level it's like being forced to watch an episode of Downtown Abbey.

Obviously, one can me just as close-minded and ignorant with regard to the art of the distant past as to the art of here and now. Art is more about the "How" than the "What". There are masterpieces that I most certainly am moved by among paintings of wealthy aristocrats or merchants, pastoral landscapes, nudes and near nudes, etc... Of course one might point out that the notion that all Art must speak to us an an "emotional" level is a rather sophomoric approach to Art Appreciation. Not all Art aims for an emotional impact... and ultimately, the interpretation of Art... emotional or otherwise... owes much to the viewer and his or her prior knowledge and/or experience... in Art and elsewhere.

Yes/No- Although I liked the video, the demand for "objective standards" in art may not be aiming high enough. Art standards cannot be "objectified".

The problem with art "standards" is that there is often an assumption that a given body of art from a given period of art history represents the "standard"... the "ideal" toward which all art strives... or SHOULD strive... and the further a work of art falls from this standard the less merit it has as art. The reality is that different artists and different eras/cultures often have very different goals and standards. We can take two very different artists such as Rembrandt and Matisse:





If we assume that Rembrandt, in this instance, represents THE standard, then Matisse will seem a failure. His painting lacks the traditional drawing skill of Rembrandt, the illusion of form and space suggested through modeling with light and atmospheric effects, to say nothing of the success is suggesting a unique individual and conveying emotion. On the other hand, one might just as well argue that Matisse represented THE standard. Then we might argue that Rembrandt fails to achieve Matisse' mastery of color and his ability to capture or suggest a scene or an individual with the most reductive, simplified means. 

I think what's at the heart of Mr. Florczak's disdain for modern art, is that fine art has been removed from the realm of those with extraordinary talent, and can now be produced and appreciated by everyday people.

Actually, the opposite is far closer to the truth. Many Modern/Post-Modern/Contemporary works of art lack the extraordinary technical elements of the art of many of the "old masters"... but it often depends upon a greater degree of prior knowledge of the artist's intentions and the developments of recent art. As a result, the "everyday" viewer lacking this prior knowledge often finds Modern/Contemporary art to be a fraud... something akin to the "Emperor's New Clothes"... while they have little problem appreciating a lot of the art of the older masters. 

I just think the standards put forth in that video are way too rigid. Not just with the visual arts, but even if you apply such criticism to modern literature... no matter the artistic discipline, it needs to be dynamic and respond to the world as it is. The world changes, art changes with it.

Certainly.

I get the feeling that contemporary art is a bit lost.

The period we define as "Modernism"... dating roughly from Manet... if not Courbet (1850s/60s) through the end of WWII saw the greatest paradigm shift in the history of Western Art since the Renaissance, and IMO (and in the opinions of many others) produced the greatest innovations and the greatest body of artistic achievements also since the Renaissance. The Renaissance was immediately followed by a period of some 100 years known as Mannerism. The Mannerists struggled to come to terms with the achievements and the innovations of the Renaissance. While they rarely rose to the highest level of Renaissance art, there were more than a few Mannerist artists of real merit (Bronzino, Pontormo, Rosso Fiorentino, Cellini, Giambologna, Cranach, etc...) I have long felt that artists of this "Post-Modern" period are confronted with a similar situation. Confronted with the grandiose smorgasbord of artistic possibilities, it is quite easy to feel "lost"... especially when confronted with the gross nature of the contemporary art market and the commodification of art.

----------


## Clopin

> A tin was sold for 124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23, 2007; in October 2008, tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of £50-70,000. It sold for £97,250.


Wow!






> Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition, which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects without controlling content.


Good thing the arts are funded by the government! Otherwise we'd be a society of drones with no appreciation for beauty! It's good that the government steals money from people who have jobs, takes a cut, and then redistributes some of it to important artistic movements like this! 






> It consisted of her bed with bedroom objects in an abject state, and gained much media attention, particularly over the fact that the bedsheets were stained with bodily secretions and the floor had items from the artist's room (such as condoms, a pair of knickers with menstrual period stains, and functional, everyday objects, including a pair of slippers).


Wow! What a strong, powerful woman this is! Used condoms and menstrual blood? Wow I'm speechless... so brave... I'm stunned. 



This **** is just a convoluted money laundering scam.

----------


## YesNo

> Yes/No- Although I liked the video, the demand for "objective standards" in art may not be aiming high enough. Art standards cannot be "objectified".
> 
> The problem with art "standards" is that there is often an assumption that a given body of art from a given period of art history represents the "standard"... the "ideal" toward which all art strives... or SHOULD strive... and the further a work of art falls from this standard the less merit it has as art. The reality is that different artists and different eras/cultures often have very different goals and standards. We can take two very different artists such as Rembrandt and Matisse:
> 
> If we assume that Rembrandt, in this instance, represents THE standard, then Matisse will seem a failure. His painting lacks the traditional drawing skill of Rembrandt, the illusion of form and space suggested through modeling with light and atmospheric effects, to say nothing of the success is suggesting a unique individual and conveying emotion. On the other hand, one might just as well argue that Matisse represented THE standard. Then we might argue that Rembrandt fails to achieve Matisse' mastery of color and his ability to capture or suggest a scene or an individual with the most reductive, simplified means.


I think we agree more than disagree. I am not in favor of objective standards, let alone "THE standard". I don't think such standards can exist. What that means is that art is a subjective experience. People will differ as to what they like and want to create. Contrast this with a computer which has no subjectivity. Computers do not experience or appreciate art. They don't "like" anything because they have no subjectivity. However, computers are objects that can manipulate standards. Having "THE standard" means we have a complete and consistent axiomatic system for art. Such systems don't even exist for mathematics.

That doesn't mean everything is relative, but it does mean that we can't stand on more than our subjectivity and our ability to convince each other of our perspectives.

What I don't like about the white canvas or the rock in the video is that I perceive these to be assaults on subjectivity. They are saying that subjectivity doesn't matter. Any object placed in front of us should be given equal weight by us regardless of our subjective liking or disliking of it. That is how a computer would approach the white canvas or the rock. That is not how human beings approach those objects.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Good thing the arts are funded by the government! Otherwise we'd be a society of drones with no appreciation for beauty! It's good that the government steals money from people who have jobs, takes a cut, and then redistributes some of it to important artistic movements like this!


The $146 million budget of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) represents just 0.012% (about one one-hundredth of one percent) of federal discretionary spending. One Navy F-35C Fighter Jet costs a mind-boggling $337 million.

You god damn Conservatives have such a disturbing, and distorted view of things.

----------


## Clopin

One red cent is far too much to spend on that slop. And don't blame me for your military industrial complex either. As if I support runaway military spending and perpetual warfare. I believe I outlined how much I hate the U.S foreign policy - and all the marionette, neocon, ****s who pretend to run your government - in the France thread which you also posted in.

----------


## stlukesguild

Clopin- A tin was sold for 124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23, 2007; in October 2008, tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of £50-70,000. It sold for £97,250.
Wow!

As the horrors of the First World War became obvious a group of artists known as Dada positioned themselves as anti-War, anti-Art, anti-Bourgeois, and anti-Capitalism. They sought to create an art that mocked the middle-class and wealthy collector class that were largely responsible for the War. Their art rejected usual notions of what Art is with the aim of making Art that could communicate... yet would not be desired by collectors, thus freeing art from any allegiance to the marketplace. Unfortunately, they underestimated the market. Dada artists such as Marcel Duchamp and Kurt Schwitters remain highly sought-after.

Following the Second World War there was a revival of Dada concepts. Jasper Johns, Robert Rauschenberg, Manzoni, etc... were frequently termed "Neo-Dada". Manzoni's _Merda d'artista_ was a comment upon the avaricious nature of the art market. Picasso had purportedly suggested that he could wipe his rear on a piece of paper and sign it and there would be collectors willing to pay a small fortune for it. Manzoni took this idea of the "cult of personality" to a literal extreme. He supposedly had his own poop canned and labeled and then sold these at the same price as the going rate per ounce for gold. 

The work is a stupid joke. Nothing that should have been taken seriously. But just like Duchamp's _Fountain_ (the urinal) the market... the collectors fail to get the joke... and are obsessed with owning the art object.



Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition, which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects without controlling content.
Good thing the arts are funded by the government! Otherwise we'd be a society of drones with no appreciation for beauty! It's good that the government steals money from people who have jobs, takes a cut, and then redistributes some of it to important artistic movements like this! 

Piss Christ is quite an attractive image... but the title makes clear an intention mocking religion... or rather mocking the commercialization of religion. Personally, I don't think much one way of the other of the work. I agree that the government should not be involved in direct funding of art/artists (and in the US they haven't been so involved since the late 80s). On the other hand, I don't think the government should be controlling or censoring any art exhibited at an arts institution that they support. Museums, theaters, ballets, the opera, symphony, etc... all receive government support. I certainly don't want some Neo-Con idiot determining what art should be hanging in the museums or what operas I may attend. Of course the argument is always made that such public support should not exist as it only benefits a wealthy or educated "elite"? But is this true? How big is the government support for the Arts as opposed to support for Sports through tax abatement, parking percentages, and stadiums built at taxpayer expenses? Ultimately, no one is going to wholly agree with how public money is spent. Personally, I would have no problem with seeing the US military budget slashed by 50% or more. 



It consisted of her bed with bedroom objects in an abject state, and gained much media attention, particularly over the fact that the bedsheets were stained with bodily secretions and the floor had items from the artist's room (such as condoms, a pair of knickers with menstrual period stains, and functional, everyday objects, including a pair of slippers).
Wow! What a strong, powerful woman this is! Used condoms and menstrual blood? Wow I'm speechless... so brave... I'm stunned.

_My Bed_, by Tracey Emin may be a piece of crap... but it's fame and worth are solely owed to a wealthy private collector (Charles Saatchi). There's a scene in the comic strip, _Calvin and Hobbes_ which addresses the issue of the art market and why collectors buy certain works of art that most of us find ridiculous. In the strip, Calvin explains his artistic concept: 

_"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world. As my artists statement explains, my work is utterly incomprehensible and is therefore full of deep significance."_

There certainly is "good" and "bad" art. The vast majority of all art is mediocre at best... and as a result of the vast possibilities and lack of any single dominant style there are no clear standards in contemporary art. Add to this the fact that many now enjoy the luxuries of leisure time and an expendable income and we now see far more people making art... even declaring themselves to be artists. As a result we now have far more real "crap" than at any other period in history. But there is still just as great a percentage of artists of real mastery and achievement found across the broad spectrum of art from "High Art" or "Fine Art" to "Outsider Art", Folk Art, Illustration, etc...

----------


## Clopin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIa-NtGV-ZM

Taxpayers fund 'art' education. 

I want off this ****ing ride.




> There's a scene in the comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes which addresses the issue of the art market and why collectors buy certain works of art that most of us find ridiculous. In the strip, Calvin explains his artistic concept:


Watterson lampooned terrible examples of modern art many times, and very accurately.




> Piss Christ is quite an attractive image


No. It's no more attractive, interesting or thought provoking than anything your typical high-schooler could come up with. Everything about it makes me embarrassed for the 'artist' and for everyone who would take it seriously as a work of art. It's on about the same artistic level as the 'dark emotional poetry' written by sixteen year olds the world over.

----------


## Ecurb

"Piss Christ" is beautiful, at least (if, perhaps, sacreligious). 

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?...&hsimp=yhs-003




> Good thing the arts are funded by the government! Otherwise we'd be a society of drones with no appreciation for beauty! It's good that the government steals money from people who have jobs, takes a cut, and then redistributes some of it to important artistic movements like this! 
> 
> .


"Stealing" refers to taking things illegally, which is clearly not what the government does. We would be equally correct to say that capitalists "steal" the fruits of labor from their employees. Without property laws (created and enforced by the government), "stealing" (as well as the jobs people have) would be impossible. (We've had this argument before, too, Clopin.)

Also, people pay a lot of money for (say) autographs, first editions, and lots of silly stuff. Who cares? 

In any big organization there is a lot of waste -- and funding experimental arts is clearly likely to produce what many see as waste. I'll bet (though) that if we look at the art (as a whole) funded by the Government and that funded by the people (mainstream movies, for example) you would find an equal percentage of the good, the bad and the ugly. (I have no idea if this is true; I'm betting blind.) Picking out a few examples of bad, government-funded art is simply not a good argument against public funding for art, although it may appeal emotionally to those with a predisposition to see government funding as theft.

----------


## Clopin

> We would be equally correct to say that capitalists "steal" the fruits of labor from their employees.


No. Taking a job is a voluntary exchange of labour for some compensation negotiated between employer and employee. I'm free to quit my job but I'm never free to quit paying taxes. 




> Also, people pay a lot of money for (say) autographs, first editions, and lots of silly stuff. Who cares?


I don't care what people do with their own money. I care what the government does with money it takes from my pay cheques. 




> I'll bet (though) that if we look at the art (as a whole) funded by the Government and that funded by the people (mainstream movies, for example) you would find an equal percentage of the good, the bad and the ugly.


It doesn't matter. Art that's funded by private collectors or private patrons is funded voluntarily by those individuals or organizations. It can be the worst crap in the world and it doesn't have anything to do with me. People can like what they want to like, but they shouldn't expect the public to be roped into paying for it. 




> Picking out a few examples of bad, government-funded art is simply not a good argument against public funding for art


I'm against it all on principle regardless of the quality.

----------


## Ecurb

> No. Taking a job is a voluntary exchange of labour for some compensation negotiated between employer and employee. I'm free to quit my job but I'm never free to quit paying taxes. ...
> 
> I'm against it all on principle regardless of the quality.


I understand your position, Clopin, and I think it's reasonable although I personally disagree. However, you are free to quit paying taxes. Quit your job, go off the grid, and you won't have to pay taxes. The "job" (in 99.99% of the cases) is utterly dependent on the infrastructure, property laws, and legal system provided by the government (as well as those protected borders which prevent cheap competition). So although you negotiate and choose your particular employment, your employer is utterly dependent on coerced (i.e. tax-funded and legally enforced) behaviors. The worker in the shoe factory cannot legally take a pair of shoes he made and wear them home. 

So although the distinction you make between "free choice" and "coercion" is somewhat reasonable, it is not so clear as many (perhaps you?) suggest.

----------


## North Star

> No. Taking a job is a voluntary exchange of labour for some compensation negotiated between employer and employee. I'm free to quit my job but I'm never free to quit paying taxes.


You are free to move to another society, if you do not want to participate funding the one which keeps you fed, clothed, sheltered, and gives you the opportunity to work.

----------


## Pompey Bum

I have a funny feeling Clopin takes care of those things for himself.

----------


## Danik 2016

Art and politics. What about this one?
http://digitalsynopsis.com/inspirati...wel-kuczynski/

Some more:
http://twistedsifter.com/2012/05/sat...wel-kuczynski/

----------


## YesNo

> "Piss Christ" is beautiful, at least (if, perhaps, sacreligious). 
> 
> https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?...&hsimp=yhs-003


It occurred to me one could replace the "Piss Christ" with a lot of other "beautiful" art. Remove the crucifix and put in the piss vat a copy of a book by Richard Dawkins. 

Make it even more beautiful and get the government to pay the artist to piss in the container. To make it even more beautiful have the government display it in a public place so everyone, including those offended, get a chance to look at it. That shouldn't bother anyone. It's art.

If I were a computer or a zombie, I could look at any of those works of art and not care. As a human being, I have enough subjectivity to respond and care.

----------


## YesNo

> Art and politics. What about this one?
> http://digitalsynopsis.com/inspirati...wel-kuczynski/
> 
> Some more:
> http://twistedsifter.com/2012/05/sat...wel-kuczynski/


I would click the "like" rather than the "dislike" button for Pavel Kuczinski's art. What does the "f" stand for in some of these pieces?

----------


## Clopin

> The "job" (in 99.99% of the cases) is utterly dependent on the infrastructure, property laws, and legal system provided by the government (as well as those protected borders which prevent cheap competition).


What exactly does provided by the government mean? The government does not create or provide anything. It redistributes what it takes from other people and everyone who pays into the system has a right to criticize how that money is spent. 

Anyway we've discussed this before and the difference here is that nearly everyone in the world understands that roads and infrastructure are important. We need well maintained roads to live our lives and we're willing to pay for them. If you put it to a nationwide vote today I think you would find that a strong majority of Canadians would heavily support spending money on infrastructure and most likely border control as well. Nobody needs "piss christ" and that's why it's an unfair use of public money because it's taken from people who more often than not don't have much money to spare and redistributed (in this case) to a small number of absolute ****wits who are able to game the system into getting themselves grants and bursaries for masturbating on a canvas or urinating into a fiberglass condom or finger painting with their own menstrual blood, and it benefits quite literally no-one apart from them; as I've said before, you can take the worst managed public health system in the world and you can at least point to some people who have benefited from its implementation.




> You are free to move to another society, if you do not want to participate funding the one which keeps you fed, clothed, sheltered, and gives you the opportunity to work.


No, you have this upside down. Besides I never said that I don't want to pay taxes, I said that since I don't have a choice in the matter I'm going to complain about grotesque uses of public money when I see them.

----------


## Danik 2016

> I would click the "like" rather than the "dislike" button for Pavel Kuczinski's art. What does the "f" stand for in some of these pieces?


Maybe "follow", Yes/No. One of these sites prompts one to follow it.

----------


## North Star

> I would click the "like" rather than the "dislike" button for Pavel Kuczinski's art. What does the "f" stand for in some of these pieces?


It's the f from Facebook's logo.

----------


## Ecurb

> What exactly does provided by the government mean? The government does not create or provide anything. It redistributes what it takes from other people and everyone who pays into the system has a right to criticize how that money is spent. 
> 
> Anyway we've discussed this before and the difference here is that nearly everyone in the world understands that roads and infrastructure are important. We need well maintained roads to live our lives and we're willing to pay for them. If you put it to a nationwide vote today I think you would find that a strong majority of Canadians would heavily support spending money on infrastructure and most likely border control as well....
> 
> .


Actually, the government prints the money, and regulates its use. The paper itself is practically worthless. In any event, it's reasonable to want the government to spend money on whatever we want it to spend it on. But, since you said you object to the funding of art on principle (not because the art is bad), I just thought I'd point out that it's also reasonable to object to funding gigantic walls on the borders, or police and laws that protect personal property, or the military on the exact same principle. It is doubtless true that publicly funded roads are supported by a larger percentage of the population than "Piss Christ". However, the "principle" of "stealing money" to fund road-building remains identical to such "theft" designed to fund art. So it seems to me that you want the government to spend money on things YOU think are valuable, despite the "principle" involved. (Again, I think this is a reasonable position --most of us feel the exact same way, and only differ on the details. Still, your supposedly "principled" stance seems paradoxical)

----------


## Clopin

I want the government to spend money sensibly on things that most people who pay taxes value. If I were somehow convinced that the list of things that most working Canadians would support their tax dollars going towards included Piss Christ then I would be okay with it. I personally think art is EXTREMELY valuable, but that doesn't mean I want money taken from people who work in, say, rural Alberta to pay for me to go to school for a literature degree. For example, if I told someone working in the middle class that I expected to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars - repurposed money, gained entirely through non voluntary donations from working Canadians - to finance four years of doing book reports because this would enhance _my_ life, I would realistically expect anyone who actually works for a living to tell me to go **** myself. And, even though I would personally enjoy very much going to school for literature, without spending any of my own money, I would never vote for the public to subsidize such a thing. 




> Actually, the government prints the money, and regulates its use.


Paper money has no intrinsic value. The government does not "create" wealth, it only prints symbols of it for use in barter. The government creates nothing. No government gives people anything other than what they first give to the government, and in every instance the return is less than that which was paid in.

----------


## YesNo

Ah, Facebook. That makes more sense now.

I was thinking about art, human subjectivity and government involvement. Both liking and disliking art even with prejudice is an authentic human response to art, something computers are incapable of doing. I think some artists deliberately want others to dislike their art. Part of their success is to be condemned for their art.

Here is a video titled "Afghanistan Taliban Muslims destroying Bamiyan Buddha Statues": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYYBlPWYb7Y

This is how the story goes. Once upon a time there were statues of the Buddha in what is now Afghanistan. To create them was a work of art likely supported by whatever government was there at the time. Eventually the Taliban moved into the area. The Taliban wanted to create their own works of art by which they could be remembered. So they created a pile of rocks.

If it were me, having heard about the "Piss Christ", I would have done it differently. I would have walled in those statues with clear, waterproof plastic and then pumped urine from the villages into the huge container. It would take some time to fill it, but I would set up tourist booths and charge pilgrims to watch the vat get filled.

----------


## stlukesguild

In any big organization there is a lot of waste -- and funding experimental arts is clearly likely to produce what many see as waste. I'll bet (though) that if we look at the art (as a whole) funded by the Government and that funded by the people (mainstream movies, for example) you would find an equal percentage of the good, the bad and the ugly. (I have no idea if this is true; I'm betting blind.) Picking out a few examples of bad, government-funded art is simply not a good argument against public funding for art, although it may appeal emotionally to those with a predisposition to see government funding as theft.

From my experience the art championed by the wealthy "elite" collectors, by the masses, and through government support is prone to the same level of "the good, the bad, and the ugly". We can blame the wealthy collectors for purchasing Tracey Emin, Damian Hirst, and Jeff Koons. We can blame the government for supporting the museums that placed these "artists" on public exhibition, and we can blame the masses for the likes of Justin Bieber.

----------


## stlukesguild

Nobody needs "piss christ" and that's why it's an unfair use of public money because it's taken from people who more often than not don't have much money to spare and redistributed (in this case) to a small number of absolute ****wits who are able to game the system into getting themselves grants and bursaries for masturbating on a canvas or urinating into a fiberglass condom or finger painting with their own menstrual blood, and it benefits quite literally no-one apart from them; as I've said before, you can take the worst managed public health system in the world and you can at least point to some people who have benefited from its implementation.

You are tilting at windmills of your own imagining, here. Serrano, the photographer of _Piss Christ_, received no direct government aid. The work was exhibited publicly two years prior to the great outrage by American Neo-Con politicians after the work was brought to their attention as part of an exhibition at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art. The assumption was that if the government is to offer public money to any arts institution, then they should be given oversight and the ability to censor was is to be seen/experienced. Considering that the government subsidies do not amount to anywhere near the majority of the funding for such institutions, it seems more than pretentious to suggest that the government should have such control over all that such institutions do. As for grants from the federal government (from the NEA and the NEH) these do not exist excepting in the instance of support of National Heritage Fellowships to master folk and traditional artists, NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships to jazz musicians and advocates, and NEA Opera Honors to individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to opera in the United States. Most of the extremist crap you are railing against is paid for by wealthy collectors who are able to use their wealth and connections (often as members of the board trustees of museums and arts institutions) to push exhibitions of the art they have collected at museums and other arts institutions as a means of increasing the visibility and "worth" of their art.

----------


## Pompey Bum

> It occurred to me one could replace the "Piss Christ" with a lot of other "beautiful" art. Remove the crucifix and put in the piss vat a copy of a book by Richard Dawkins. 
> 
> Make it even more beautiful and get the government to pay the artist to piss in the container. To make it even more beautiful have the government display it in a public place so everyone, including those offended, get a chance to look at it. That shouldn't bother anyone. It's art.


Let's try it with Martin Luther King and see what happens..

----------


## Danik 2016

> It's the f from Facebook's logo.


Yes, of course, NS. As I don´t have a facebook account it´s not a ready association for me.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Some more:
> http://twistedsifter.com/2012/05/sat...wel-kuczynski/



Excellent work, satire with wit and humor.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Paper money has no intrinsic value. The government does not "create" wealth, it only prints symbols of it for use in barter. The government creates nothing. No government gives people anything other than what they first give to the government, and in every instance the return is less than that which was paid in.


Another conservative rant with no substance. Something Donald Trump would say. 

The government does indeed propagate wealth through infrastructure (transportation, communication, etc, etc), standards, regulation, policing, judicial oversight, investment in new technology and innovations, product testing and safety, labor laws, and dozens more not listed.

----------


## Ecurb

> Let's try it with Martin Luther King and see what happens..


Good one. Everyone knows Americans revere Martin Luther King (and probably George Washington and Abraham Lincoln) more than Jesus, although few know why. 

To Clopin: everyone wants the government to spend money sensibly. But, first, when you're spending trillions of dollars, some small percentage (but massive amount) will inevitably be spent frivolously. Second, the rural farmer who wants to hire Mexican workers to pick his apples might not want to spend multi-millions of dollars preventing illegal immigration. Nor would he donate to vigilantes policing the borders. The principle is the same (although, of course, we are all entitled to our voice as to how the government spends money).

The government has an intrinsic role in creating wealth, because property (i.e. wealth) exists because of laws enacted and enforced by the government. If (for example) the government was Communist, individuals would be unable to amass wealth (and, based on the evidence of history, the nation as a whole would be less wealthy).

----------


## Ecurb

By the way, after a few beers, I confess that I like "Piss Christ". I saw it at a museum once, in a high-quality, framed print, and it's gorgeous. I don't know anything about it's history, except that it was originally entitled "Immersion". Under that title, it looked like a crucified Jesus, floating in an ethereal and bubbling golden liquid, As a work of art it was gorgeous, but minor. A snapshot, very beautiful, evocative of, perhaps, spiritual and significant questions. 

One question: does relabeling the photo as "Piss Christ" add to, or detract from, the virtues it had as "Immersion"? I'd suggest that it may add to them, not by being blasphemous (although it is), but by adding an aesthetic question of whether "piss" (by virtue of our associations) can be beautiful, or even holy. I'm curious what other Litnetters think.

p.s. One more thing: isn't Christ immersed in urine somewhat analogous to God, immersed in a human body? That, I think, adds to the interest of the re-naming.

----------


## Danik 2016

I think the word for it is desacralization.

----------


## Clopin

You are tilting at windmills of your own imagining, here. Serrano


Am I? I have at least one example of this crap from my home town, a municipality of less than 10,000 permanent residents and not exactly a hub for experimental jack off art. 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/584127/posts




> Israel Mora, 33, masturbates privately into seven glass vials that he says represent seven members of his family. The vials are then placed in a cooler, which Mr. Mora currently has strung up between two trees at the Banff Centre.





> Mr. Mora is at the centre on a $4,000, seven-week residency. The government of Mexico is covering two-thirds of the cost and the Banff Centre, which receives about 22% of its $42-million budget from government funding, is covering the rest.





> Connie MacDonald, communications director for the Banff Centre, said she has no complaints about Mr. Mora's project.
> 
> "A lot of people have this concept that art is beautiful and it hangs on the wall. What we focus on is trying to help people understand what contemporary art is. By definition it explores current issues in society and creates dialogue often on topics around poverty and death and sexuality."





> Mr. Mora teaches theory and practice in the department of Visual Arts at the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico.


 it seems more than pretentious to suggest that the government should have such control over all that such institutions do.

Considering that the government subsidies do not amount to anywhere near the majority of the funding for such institutions, it seems more than pretentious to suggest that the government should have such control over all that such institutions do. 

I agree, get the government out all together, they don't belong together. 




> Another conservative rant with no substance. Something Donald Trump would say. 
> 
> The government does indeed propagate wealth through infrastructure (transportation, communication, etc, etc), standards, regulation, policing, judicial oversight, investment in new technology and innovations, product testing and safety, labor laws, and dozens more not listed.


Iain the government does not "provide" policing or infrastructure. Where do you suppose the government gets the money to pay for roads and the salaries of cops in the first place? Government regulations more or less always get in the way of wealth production as well; not that I necessarily think of them as being bad things all the time. I don't want to see the wealth produced by humanity end up being concentrated in the hands of a tiny global minority anymore than anyone else does. Your caricature of me as some sort of neoconservative drone doesn't hold up against any of my actual views, unfortunately.

----------


## Clopin

> The government has an intrinsic role in creating wealth, because property (i.e. wealth) exists because of laws enacted and enforced by the government. If (for example) the government was Communist, individuals would be unable to amass wealth (and, based on the evidence of history, the nation as a whole would be less wealthy).


Government laws can easily make people poorer, or obfuscate wealth creation, but the government does not create wealth itself. If for example the state government of California made it illegal to create films and forbade people from working in any technical industry then the people living in California might become a good deal poorer. If, later, the government revoked those rules and the people became wealthier again it would be totally absurd to say that the government 'created this wealth' by removing their own restrictions on filmmaking and on the technical industry. It's like saying that I built a condominium because I didn't strap myself to a bulldozer and refuse to allow construction to continue. After the condominium has been built, if the only thing I contributed to the procedure was 'not obstructing it to the point that it could not be carried out', then I don't think I have any right to say that I 'created' the building in question.

In short, no, the government does not 'produce' wealth simply by not preventing wealth production, that would hardly fall under any reasonable definition of the term 'produce'.

----------


## YesNo

> By the way, after a few beers, I confess that I like "Piss Christ". I saw it at a museum once, in a high-quality, framed print, and it's gorgeous. I don't know anything about it's history, except that it was originally entitled "Immersion". Under that title, it looked like a crucified Jesus, floating in an ethereal and bubbling golden liquid, As a work of art it was gorgeous, but minor. A snapshot, very beautiful, evocative of, perhaps, spiritual and significant questions. 
> 
> One question: does relabeling the photo as "Piss Christ" add to, or detract from, the virtues it had as "Immersion"? I'd suggest that it may add to them, not by being blasphemous (although it is), but by adding an aesthetic question of whether "piss" (by virtue of our associations) can be beautiful, or even holy. I'm curious what other Litnetters think.
> 
> p.s. One more thing: isn't Christ immersed in urine somewhat analogous to God, immersed in a human body? That, I think, adds to the interest of the re-naming.


Christians could view this art in a positive way perhaps similar to the way you describe it. They have been able to interpret the crucifixion itself in a positive way for two thousand years and they have done this through the use of language. That's an amazing accomplishment marred only by blaming the Jews rather that Pilate who actually killed Jesus. The various shared death experiences reported in their sacred texts after Jesus' crucifixion justify their interpretation.

Words are more powerful than art. I have recently read Florence Scovel Shinn's "Your Word is Your Wand" (which is available online from various sources). This is an early 20th century "metaphysical" self-help book using references to Judeo-Christian texts. With words we cast spells. Shinn advised us to cast good spells because we will pay the price ourselves for any bad spells we cast on others. The old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me," is false. 

So, I agree with you, this art could be interpreted by Christians in a positive way if they "turned the other cheek". My modification of it by replacing the crucifix with a copy of a book by Richard Dawkins is not as easy to be seen positively. I don't want to pick on Dawkins. There are a bunch of authors I could have used. I was thinking of titling the art, "I wonder how long my urine takes to disintegrate this piss." I'll probably get my karmic butt kicked for casting bad spells.

----------


## Pompey Bum

> Good one. Everyone knows Americans revere Martin Luther King (and probably George Washington and Abraham Lincoln) more than Jesus, although few know why.


Well, I sure don't know that. And my point was that an artist who tried to pass off a "Piss Martin Luthur King" would be destroyed (metaphorically speaking--but certainly professionally) by the very social forces that defended the Piss Christ.

Or shall we dip an image of Mohammad in urine and see how metaphorical the destruction is? Or how quick all but a few nut jobs would be to condemn it? 

I don't condemn the Piss Christ on the basis of free speech, by the way (although I do condemn it). Like most bigots, the artist simply deserves to be laughed at. As for the Piss Christ, maybe it belongs in a museum of anti-semitism. Jesus was a Jew, after all.

----------


## Danik 2016

I think this free dealing with religious and political symbols shows how much our attitude towards them has changed. 
Interference, iconoclasty and scatology are the new normal.
Although I think, that particularly on the matter of religious reception, there are still very varied levels of reception, depending on ones level of religiosity and the meaning a certain symbol has in ones faith.

----------


## Pompey Bum

> I think this free dealing with religious and political symbols shows how much our attitude towards them has changed. 
> Interference, iconoclasty and escatology are the new normal.
> Although I think, that particularly on the matter of religious reception, there are still very varied levels of reception, depending on ones level of religiosity and the meaning a certain symbol has in ones faith.


I don't think you are using the word eschatology correctly, but I suppose that's a small point. Do me a favor though and don't say "our attitude" when you mean yours. Part of this iconoclasm you mention is holding one's own view whatever "we" think about it. 

In my opinion the Piss Christ is neither new or normal. It's not new because--Christ, what's it been, 30 years? I remember those days--the Maplethorpe era you might call it. People (at least the one's I hung with) used to say that art's function was to provoke a visceral response. There's nothing new about that. Look Mommy, I threw my poo on the wall! Look Mommy, I put Jesus in pee pee! Nothing new here folks. Move along.

And it's not normal because the whole point was not to be normal. Freedom from orthodoxy is usually something I admire, but not when it comes to new frontiers in bigotry (and immaturity). But if it's not normal it is at least--boring? You know, in the way that Internet atheists who leave posts and pictures to try to upset Christians are boring and immature. (And Christians can be just as bad--I know, I know). 

None of which is to say that the Piss Christ is not art. (See Cacian, I finally got on topic!  :Smile:  ) I have a simple philosophy of art that is effective for me. The only excuse for art is its ability to touch something that could not have been touched without it. So when Catullus says "Give me then a hundred kisses and yet a hundred kisses more," he is touching something that any 16 year old understands during a goodnight kiss: something about not being able to get enough of your beloved--but playfully. My words can't express it. It takes art.

In that analysis, the Piss Christ is art. Unfortunately it touches something obscene. It not only evokes the degradation and humiliation of Jesus at Golgotha, it participates in it. That is the "untouchable touched" it brings to its viewer. But art it is--perhaps even fine art. Triumph of Will was art, non?

----------


## Danik 2016

"I don't think you are using the word eschatology correctly, but I suppose that's a small point."
Thanks for correcting me, I didn´t look it up!
"Do me a favor though and don't say "our attitude" when you mean yours. Part of this iconoclasm you mention is holding one's own view whatever "we" think about it."
With our attitude I wasn´t thinking neither of you nor of me nor of anyone in particular. I mean it is a general attitude towards art I observe in more recent times, particularly in the last two decades. Of course it must have existed before, but never in so an open and general way.
"In that analysis, the Piss Christ is art. Unfortunately it touches something something obscene. It not only evokes the degradation and humiliation of Jesus at Golgotha, it participates in it. That is the "untouchable touched" it brings to its viewer. But art it is--perhaps even fine art. Triumph of Will was art, non?"
I think you have got the point there and that´s what I mean with scatology all along. One still effective manner of touching today is by utter degradation, by destroying any kind of untouchability and making the destruction public.
I don´t think this summes up contemporary art, but it certainly is an important feature of it.

----------


## Danik 2016

.....

----------


## Pompey Bum

> With our attitude I wasn´t thinking neither of you nor of me nor of anyone in particular. I mean it is a general attitude towards art I observe in more recent times, particularly in the last two decades. Of course it must have existed before, but never in so an open and general way.


Oh, I understood. But it's your view. Own it. Or don't. Just don't tell me it's ours. It isn't.





> I think you have got the point there and that´s what I mean with eschatology all along.


Thank you.  :Smile:  Eschatology is an area of theology involving the end of time, so I'm still not sure what you mean. But like I said its a small point.

----------


## Clopin

> People (at least the one's I hung with) *used to say that art's function was to provoke a visceral response*. There's nothing new about that. Look Mommy, I threw my poo on the wall! Look Mommy, I put Jesus in pee pee! Nothing new here folks. Move along.


And they still say that! I wonder if you can be viscerally bored, though, because that's what all this 'shocking' crap is: boring.

----------


## Ecurb

To Clopin: Wealth is defined as the accumulation of property. Property is defined by laws enacted and enforced by the government. Therefore, the government has an essential role in "creating" (whatever that means) wealth. I mean, without some form of government and law, property would not exist, and therefore wealth (at least as it is defined by us today) would not exist. This all seems obvious. We might still build houses and skyscrapers, but nobody would own them, and therefore nobody would be wealthy (as we define it today). 

To Pompey: To me the interesting thing about "Immersion" is the extent to which a change in the photo's title made it both more popular and more reviled. The picture is equally photogenic as "Immersion". In general (probably because of my literary bent) I like visual art with interesting titles. 

Of course "Piss Martin Luther King" would evoke howls of derision. In a way, it's fair (or at least courageous) to tweak the establishment with a bit of anti-establishment bigotry, but unfair (or cowardly) to tweak the oppressed. The fact that Christians are (were) no longer the establishment in the art community, however, suggests that "Piss Christ" is hardly a courageous satire. (I still think it would be a pretty, evocative picture, though, if it weren't called "Piss Christ".)

----------


## Clopin

> To Clopin: Wealth is defined as the accumulation of property.


No, not exactly. 




> Full Definition of wealth
> 1
> obsolete : weal, welfare
> 2
> : abundance of valuable material possessions or resources
> 3
> : abundant supply : profusion
> 4
> a : all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value
> b : all material objects that have economic utility; especially : the stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one time <national wealth>

----------


## Ecurb

There's no point in arguing about definitions, but Merriam-Webster's first two definitions are:



> 1) a large amount of money and possessions
> 
> 2: the value of all the property, possessions, and money that someone or something has


Given these definitions, my point stands.

----------


## Clopin

Whatever dude, the government can't create wealth. If you think printing money is creating wealth you can take an online course on economics or something. 

The definition that actually covers 'national wealth' might have been a little more pertinent huh? 




> b : all material objects that have economic utility; especially : the stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one time <national wealth>

----------


## stlukesguild

I agree, get the government out all together, they don't belong together.

How is that to be achieved? Government subsidies, aid, and guaranteed student loans directly or indirectly support art education at the elementary through the college/university level. Museums, symphony orchestras, opera and ballet companies, modern dance companies, theaters, etc... all benefit from direct and indirect government aid. Art collectors also benefit from tax write-offs when they donate to arts institutions or donate works of art. Obviously there are more than a few individuals who believe that a great enough number in society benefit from government aid to arts education and arts institutions so that they continue to make such an investment. But you fail to see the benefit so we should scrap it all. But where do we draw the line? What of the fortunes spent on building and maintaining interstate highways so that the upper-middle class can rapidly drive to and from work, but don't have to live in the city with all those dark-skinned people and crappy school districts and other city services? What of the trillions wasted on the military:

Personally I find such military boneyards as this:





... to be a far far more obscene waste of money than any work of art you have posted.

I am outraged by the billions in taxpayer dollars spent in the support of sports. I am outraged that the highest-paid public employees in most US states are college Football and Basketball coaches. I am outraged at tax breaks for the oil industries while all attempts at alternative fuel sources are stymied. I am outraged at the continual aid money to Israel... and Saudi Arabia. And on and on....

----------


## Clopin

Why do people persist in this weirdness? So just because I think subsidies for art and art education are a waste I'm automatically pro massive military spending? Reducing the funding for art and reducing the 'foreign aid' budget or military budget are not mutually exclusive... not at all. I want all of it reduced frankly. You're preaching to the choir with statements like: 




> I am outraged by the billions in taxpayer dollars spent in the support of sports. I am outraged that the highest-paid public employees in most US states are college Football and Basketball coaches. I am outraged at tax breaks for the oil industries while all attempts at alternative fuel sources are stymied. I am outraged at the continual aid money to Israel... and Saudi Arabia. And on and on....


It's just that this thread is about art and I'm commenting on how silly it is that jacking off into seven bottles can be given a government subsidy. If you want to talk about how foreign aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia is a grotesque absurdity then start a thread about that; I'll be the first in line to agree with you.

----------


## YesNo

I suppose we should stick to government waste when it comes to the arts since the thread is about art. 

Maybe what the government could do is give each individual taxpayer an equal proportion of the money it now spends on art and allow each taxpayer to spend that money as he or she sees fit except the money must be spent within a year and it must be spent on "art" defined broadly enough so that it includes ebooks and songs and museum memberships and urine immersed objects.

----------


## Ecurb

Government funding of art includes:

Public art museums.
Art, music, and drama programs at public elementary and secondary schools.
Fine arts (and literature and art history) programs at state funded universities. (Clopin doesn't want "grants" to students who study in these programs, but the programs would vanish completely without some funding.)

School music and art programs have suffered major cuts in funding in recent years. Those opposed to government funding of art (I assume) approve. Perhaps not, though. Does the public benefit from art curricula in schools? I'm guessing that even today, after the cuts, such programs cost the government far more than the relatively minor expenditure on direct subsidies. Also, although literature classes in secondary school can be justified as serving the purpose of enhancing literacy, at the University level the result of cutting funding for art might include eliminating literature programs, art history programs, and possibly other programs in the humanities. Is it reasonable to fund the study of art while eliminating all funding for the study of how to create it?

----------


## Danik 2016

If your suggestion is accepted by the government, Yes/No, I'm packing my bags instantly to go to US.

----------


## YesNo

I'm not holding my breath about any such proposals being accepted. 

I was thinking about this thread during a yoga class and I thought to myself: Why fight it? Surrender. I thought about what it would take to start a business that provided for the emotional needs of this discriminating art public. The company wouldn't need much training and none at government expense. We could learn how to paint a white canvas or put a big rock on a museum's lawn or urinate into a vat containing someone else's sacred or profane symbols on our own. I checked my values and I realized that, yes, for the right price, I would be willing to find someone to urinate on just about anything. I might only have to charge some people a little more.

----------


## Pompey Bum

> I'm not holding my breath about any such proposals being accepted. 
> 
> I was thinking about this thread during a yoga class and I thought to myself: Why fight it? Surrender. I thought about what it would take to start a business that provided for the emotional needs of this discriminating art public. The company wouldn't need much training and none at government expense. We could learn how to paint a white canvas or put a big rock on a museum's lawn or urinate into a vat containing someone else's sacred or profane symbols on our own. I checked my values and I realized that, yes, for the right price, I would be willing to find someone to urinate on just about anything. I might only have to charge some people a little more.


Meanwhile I was saying, "Come on YesNo, are you going to slow down or drive?" 

Maybe avoiding yoga class is the answer.

----------


## YesNo

> Meanwhile I was saying, "Come on YesNo, are you going to slow down or drive?" 
> 
> Maybe avoiding yoga class is the answer.


If the business takes off, clearly I won't have time for yoga. I sometimes also wonder during yoga class whether it is time to cut my toe nails especially when I'm trying to do one of those forward bend positions. Or at least wash the feet.

----------


## Pompey Bum

There once was a chap called YesNo
Who didn't know if he should go.
His tap on the brake
Was a tease--the big fake!--
That caused Pompey Bum's cork to blow.

----------


## YesNo

My critics are certainly right.
I do my best work through the night
And my prices reflect
The immense intellect
That they lack though they pay with delight.

----------


## Ecurb

When we fund our art with our taxes,
No pressure! The artist relaxes!
He flings pee and poo
Over me, over you
And sells us his solo climaxes.

----------


## YesNo

We, the people, smart sheep, all agree
When it tinkles or pours: It is pee!
We will learn like a rat
To survive in a vat,
Pay our taxes so art can flow free.

----------


## Pompey Bum

The Christian religion's been dissed
And my money to taxes dismissed.
When we reach eschatology
You may need an apology:
Then we'll see how you like Jesus pissed.

----------


## YesNo

Cast a spell. Drive the devils from art.
Say a prayer and theyll leave like a fart.
Though it smells as it blows,
The air fills, rubble goes
From the head to the toes. Grab your heart.

----------


## Pompey Bum

An eruption of art has out broken!
And let this for all men be a token:
The iambs of Byron
And marble of Myron
Have made way for palletes piss-soaken.

----------


## YesNo

It is true that a limerick’s not
Made of iambs from Byron. It’s got
As much class as a vat
Filled with urine and that
Is one reason I like them a lot.

----------


## Pompey Bum

A limerick's great Homer's successor:
It speaks of a brain cell possessor.
That fair burning Sappho
(A Lesbian daffo)
Spun posey hexameters lesser.

----------


## Ecurb

In heaven, on the Judgement Day,
Said Sorrento to Jesus, "Lord, pray
Don't take amiss
Your immersion in piss."
Said Jesus, "I love you. Please stay."

----------


## Pompey Bum

> In heaven, on the Judgement Day,
> Said Sorrento to Jesus, "Lord, pray
> Don't take amiss
> Your immersion in piss."
> Said Jesus, "I love you. Please stay."



"Fie no, let me go!" cried Sorrento.
"I have made my own choice-- a bientot!" 
Said sadly our Savior
At the mad man's behavior:
"It is into the piss you must then go!"

----------


## North Star

Hey, what's all this here?
A poetry thread, I fear
it has become now
And I'm not sure how
A development very dear.

----------


## Pompey Bum

Hail poetry forever says me.
And Ms. Cacian, I'm sure, would agree:
It is better to shout
From Euterpe's redoubt
Than to speak more of Christ dipped in pee.

----------


## North Star

I couldn't agree with you more
Dear sir Pompey Bum, for
arguments and piss
rarely bring us bliss
They're better ignored

----------


## Pompey Bum

> I couldn't agree with you more
> Dear sir Pompey Bum, for
> arguments and piss
> rarely bring us bliss
> They're better ignored


Let us turn then to literature's succor;
To Calliope's lips shall we pucker. 
Let us put spats aside
And in friendship abide 
Or be thought an insufferable f*cker!

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

Well Cacian, what say you?
Are you any closer to understanding the definition of art, where the line is drawn?

----------


## stlukesguild

Well Cacian, what say you?
Are you any closer to understanding the definition of art, where the line is drawn?

I don't know about Cacian, but after more than a few tequilas I'm not close to understanding much of anything beyond Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, and Bob Wills.  :Crazy:

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

> Well Cacian, what say you?
> Are you any closer to understanding the definition of art, where the line is drawn?
> 
> I don't know about Cacian, but after more than a few tequilas I'm not close to understanding much of anything beyond Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, and Bob Wills.


Its Saturday morning, Im sure the mood has passed and now youre looking for a way to hold your head that doesnt hurt, to borrow from a Cash song. Regardless, sounds like a great Friday night, it doesnt get much better than spending a Friday night listening to Bob Wills under the influence. 
Tequila on the other hand is one that always gives me trouble.

As far as defining art, or anything for that matter, Ive found that adult beverages actually improve my ability to understand things a little better. Incidentally, Ill be heading to Fort Worth here shortly to see the _The Brothers Le Nain_ exhibit at the Kimbell - Renzo Piano Pavilion and Norman Lewis exhibit; _Procession_ at the Amon Carter, a fathers day treat. The wife has learned over the years that she cant control herself in museums, so she allows me to go solo. (It all stems from the Bernini half a horses ass incident at the Kimbell.) 

http://lenain.kimbellart.org/exhibit

http://www.cartermuseum.org/exhibiti...f-norman-lewis

I know youre a Stones fan, so how about the Stones covering a Waylon song about Bob Wills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwEOZtJm8pU

----------


## stlukesguild

I'm doing fine this Saturday morning... nothing like Johnny's Sunday Morning Coming Down. I do fine on tequila... as long as I don't mix it with beer or something else. Vodka... that's another story. 

Love the Stone's cover. They recorded country music quite frequently... including many of their own creation (Dear Doctor, Country Honk, Dead Flowers). Keith was a fanatic when it came to old recordings of Blues, Country, and Bluegrass. 

I'm toying with a visit to the museum myself... but I don't know about Father's Day. I promised the wife we'd do something together after a week in studio and as she just got out of the hospital (doing fine) I don't think a long stroll in the Art Museum would be her idea of "fun".

----------


## Danik 2016

.....

----------


## Danik 2016

> It’s Saturday morning, I’m sure the mood has passed and now you’re looking for a way to hold your head that doesn’t hurt, to borrow from a Cash song. Regardless, sounds like a great Friday night, it doesn’t get much better than spending a Friday night listening to Bob Wills under the influence. 
> Tequila on the other hand is one that always gives me trouble.
> 
> As far as defining art, or anything for that matter, I’ve found that adult beverages actually improve my ability to understand things a little better. Incidentally, I’ll be heading to Fort Worth here shortly to see the _The Brothers Le Nain_ exhibit at the Kimbell - Renzo Piano Pavilion and Norman Lewis exhibit; _Procession_ at the Amon Carter, a father’s day treat. The wife has learned over the years that she can’t control herself in museums, so she allows me to go solo. (It all stems from the Bernini “half a horses ***” incident at the Kimbell.) 
> 
> http://lenain.kimbellart.org/exhibit
> 
> http://www.cartermuseum.org/exhibiti...f-norman-lewis
> 
> ...


Sorry, I got curious. What happened at the museum that turned your wife so averse to it?

----------


## YesNo

The Bernini "half a horses ***" incident at Kimbell does seem to need more explanation.

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

> Sorry, I got curious. What happened at the museum that turned your wife so averse to it?





> The Bernini "half a horses ***"[bum, rump, arse] incident at Kimbell does seem to need more explanation.



It was the spring of 2013, the Kimbell was hosting the exhibit _Bernini Sculpting in Clay_ a collection of the renowned Baroque sculptors terracotta study models. The models served as sketches from which the final product in marble, or bronze would be executed.
All was hunky dory as we made our way through the exhibit until we came upon a group clustered around a particular piece. I recall my excitement welling up, this must be the model for the _Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi_, what else could garner this much attention from the patched elbow types? 
A gap opened up and there it was, Berninis [i]Study of a Horse[/]

(click o thumbnail)


To paraphrase my old lady; not only do we have a horse *** [bum, rump, arse] on display, there were five or six pseudo intellectual types, spending an inordinate amount of time transfixed with fingers to the chin analyzing the piece. Something about the whole scene set her off into a fit of laughter she could hardly contain, including her bladder. Seeing the agitation on the faces of the protection staff, it was necessary to move her out into the lobby to settle down.
Since the Bernini horse ***[bum,rump, arse] incident, she has come to grips with her weakness and respectfully bows out of most art museum excursions.

Btw _Study of a Horse_ was most likely used for _The Vision of Constantine_ sculpture at the Vatican, or possibly a study for his equestrian statue of Louis the XIV.

----------


## Danik 2016

:Biggrin5: . I must say I deeply symphatize with your wifes spontaneous reception of the Bernini (bum, rump, arse). Protection staff sometimes gets over zealous.
One unforgetable museum experience in US for me, was visiting The Metropolitan Museum of Art in the 80s together with my father. I enjoyed specially, the "1001 Nights" section.
They created an ambience of magical dusk, dominated only by the glitter of the precious oriental jewels and trinkets.
I have no idea if this collection is still displayed and if you haven´t seen it already. But it might be a refreshment for your wife from the naughtiness of contemporary art.

----------


## stlukesguild

GG's anecdote surely fits in with this discussion of half-a**ed works of art.  :Beatdeadhorse5:

----------


## JCamilo

Just as you can imagine a fisherman finding inside his net one of the missing arms of the Venus and just throwing it back in the sea annoyed with the effort to drag it out. Not all fragments are born the same.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> It was the spring of 2013, the Kimbell was hosting the exhibit _Bernini Sculpting in Clay_ a collection of the renowned Baroque sculptors terracotta study models. The models served as sketches from which the final product in marble, or bronze would be executed.
> All was hunky dory as we made our way through the exhibit until we came upon a group clustered around a particular piece. I recall my excitement welling up, this must be the model for the _Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi_, what else could garner this much attention from the patched elbow types? 
> A gap opened up and there it was, Berninis [i]Study of a Horse[/]
> 
> (click o thumbnail)
> 
> 
> To paraphrase my old lady; not only do we have a horse *** [bum, rump, arse] on display, there were five or six pseudo intellectual types, spending an inordinate amount of time transfixed with fingers to the chin analyzing the piece. Something about the whole scene set her off into a fit of laughter she could hardly contain, including her bladder. Seeing the agitation on the faces of the protection staff, it was necessary to move her out into the lobby to settle down.
> Since the Bernini horse ***[bum,rump, arse] incident, she has come to grips with her weakness and respectfully bows out of most art museum excursions.
> ...


Well, here you are then... a horse's behind, and a behind of a more attractive sort.

----------


## YesNo

Nice horse and rider, Iain Sparrow. Is this one of yours?

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

> . .One unforgetable museum experience in US for me, was visiting The Metropolitan Museum of Art in the 80s together with my father. I enjoyed specially, the "1001 Nights" section.
> They created an ambience of magical dusk, dominated only by the glitter of the precious oriental jewels and trinkets.
> I have no idea if this collection is still displayed and if you haven´t seen it already. But it might be a refreshment for your wife from the naughtiness of contemporary art.


Only once have I been to the Met, it was about 8 years ago, I don't recall that particular exhibit, sounds like a nice time with your father.

Iain's image in clay would have me spending an inordinate amount of time contemplating.

Speaking of rumps, and yes, I'm aware I've exhausted this image on the forums, butt if there were ever a definition of art it may very well be found with Canova. St Lukes has touched on this one as well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Th...es_(sculpture)

----------


## JCamilo

Art, defined by the karsashians

----------


## YesNo

I wonder what kind of art the Kardashians own? Here's art done by Sylvester Stallone: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ciousness.html

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

> I wonder what kind of art the Kardashians own? Here's art done by Sylvester Stallone: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ciousness.html


Based on what I’m forced to learn of their ilk by way of hotel lobby and waiting room TV’s, overhearing the mind numbing tweeter prattle on the streets, I understand they favor the following periods:

Asscan* School, Abstract Siliconism, Neo Plastic Rococo and Barbie zon School.

*If the censors replace the first three letters with asterisks, then replace the asterisks with either bum, rump or arse.

EDIT: Okay, I just posted and the three letters are still there.

Hey if Rocky has the gumption to pick up a brush and throw something down, more power to him.
I’m still searching for arts’ definition, far be it from me evaluate where his attempts fall into the grand scheme of things.
Is it Titian no, but give it a couple hundred years and who knows?

----------


## stlukesguild

Steve Martin... who is a serious art collector with a good eye... wrote a humorous essay on the topic of Canova's _Three Graces_ in which he pointed out that the work in question has long been admired for the artist having produced/sculpted three of the finest female derrieres in the history of Western art. He admits, however, that he would want to read such an acknowledgement in one of those heavy tomes on the history of art. This discussion... slipping ever lower... reminds me of the scene in Joyce's Ulysses in which he ponders whether any sculptor had ever sculpted a certain part of the anatomy which would require the viewer to strike some embarrassing positions to check out. By this late date in the history of art such a question would no longer be raised as there are probably artists specializing in rendering such... or like Manzoni... the production of such.  :Blush:

----------

