Art Snobbery

[AdminAssistant]

Well, here's another example - an artist and a scientist got together and created a rabbit that could 'glow' under a blue light. Go, Go, Wikipedia!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba_(rabbit)

The understanding is that the rabbit was not harmed in any way by the experiment (although I can't imagine that the stress caused by the media attention was very good for it). Is it justifiable? The artist has decried the negative attention, saying that scientists do these kinds of things all the time, and that he's only being treated negatively because the experiment falls under the category of 'art' and not 'science'.

[lordlundar]

But art is about conveying emotions, feelings and personal opinions, not directly stirring up controversy. The only reason the person used art as an excuse was because if he said it was a sociological experiment, he'd have been busted sooner. He had every ability to express his feeling and convey emotions through another medium but instead chose to torture a living being. This was an experiment that the person doing it was using art as an escape clause, nothing more.

[AFPheonix]

Do I support starving the dog? No, of course not. Do I think the artist made a very strong point with the dog? Yeah, yeah I do. Art is a mode of communication. I think this was a pretty loud shout about how people behave when presented with something very uncomfortable. We tend to do what the people around us do. In this case, it was walk past the dog, even though it was obvious the dog was starving.
If this made anyone, even one person, think about how they react to events like that, then yes, I would classify it as a successful exhibition.

And if I were an art teacher, you can bet your ass I'd be bringing up this in class for kids to talk about and think about. That is the sort of thing good teachers do.

[anriana]

If the point of it was to point out what utter sheep people are, then yes, it did it's job. (I suspect it was not, but I still have a point to make ) See, people talk about what great, caring things they are, but being told not to feed a starving dog when they can very easily get to it and do so, let alone being able to let it go (it's not that hard to cut a rope)...yeah. How many people will say "Yeah, I'd be the one to do the right thing!" and actually follow through? The vast majority who do say that are full of crap, because if they thought they'd get in trouble or even be freaking inconvenienced for helping a starving animal, another person, etc., they'd fall off their morals pretty damn quick. Milgram, Stanford, and Kitty Genovese all prove that.

Yeah, it's probably always going to be written off as (and may have been intended as) cheap shock value, but a lot of people won't get a lesson unless you hit them square in the face with it, and even then, most probably don't.

The Milgram experience didn't cause any harm to the participants, the Kitty Genovese incident wasn't a deliberate experiment, and the Stanford prison experiment prompted massive reform in research ethics. I know you're only using them as examples and not trying to compare this exhibit to them, but they're really not at all on the same level.

And I don't think "I'm going to actively starve a dog to show people that it's wrong to allow a dog to starve through their own inaction" is an ethical or artistic lesson.

[Greenday]

Except none of that makes it art still...

[MystyGlyttyr]

If the point of it was to point out what utter sheep people are, then yes, it did it's job. (I suspect it was not, but I still have a point to make ) See, people talk about what great, caring things they are, but being told not to feed a starving dog when they can very easily get to it and do so, let alone being able to let it go (it's not that hard to cut a rope)...yeah. How many people will say "Yeah, I'd be the one to do the right thing!" and actually follow through? The vast majority who do say that are full of crap, because if they thought they'd get in trouble or even be freaking inconvenienced for helping a starving animal, another person, etc., they'd fall off their morals pretty damn quick. Milgram, Stanford, and Kitty Genovese all prove that.

Yeah, it's probably always going to be written off as (and may have been intended as) cheap shock value, but a lot of people won't get a lesson unless you hit them square in the face with it, and even then, most probably don't.

[anriana]

Now see, that dog one was actually a brilliant art piece, because it showed just how psychologically controllable we all really are. It's not like anyone was physically restrained from sneaking in a can of dog food and giving it to him, there wasn't any barriers between the dog and the people.
People follow directions far better than we give them credit for, especially in uncomfortable situations.

If sociopathic behavior is "brilliant art" then I fully support art being completely removed from public schools and government grant consideration.

[Greenday]

Now see, that dog one was actually a brilliant art piece

Actually, it wasn't a brilliant art piece, because it wasn't art. It was animal abuse.

[AFPheonix]

Now see, that dog one was actually a brilliant art piece, because it showed just how psychologically controllable we all really are. It's not like anyone was physically restrained from sneaking in a can of dog food and giving it to him, there wasn't any barriers between the dog and the people.
People follow directions far better than we give them credit for, especially in uncomfortable situations.

[lordlundar]

I'm not a fan of this so-called contemporary art, and often I find it as nothing more than an attempt to get money for doing something stupid.

"Look! I painted knots in wood white and hung them up!"
"Why?"
"Because it's art. Give me a grant."

One ass decided to do an "art piece" depicting homelessness or some such junk that he called it to justify his existence. Guess what he did?

He tied a dog to a rope and forbade people to feed it. Yes, he was starving a dog in the name of art.

It actually turned into an amusing story, first he was using the claim that "it's art" to justify his actions. When the police came at the behest of the humanitarian society, suddenly the claim became that he was being fed when people weren't around. Didn't work and the guy got busted.

That isn't art, it's torture, and it makes me worry. More and more "artists" are doing shit like this not to express their emotions, but to hit the headlines and get the cash from public grants. At what point does some moron start committing grotesque murders and putting the body parts on display, then gets away with it because "it's art"?

[kiwi]

we once had a world renownd dadaist come to my university to lecture on ... what else.. dada art

he turned up and read an entire local department stores catalogue for his lecture

some people were so angry they threw things at him!!

Guess they didnt read up on what Dada really meant did they

even some numbskulls in our class didnt get it when the lecturer explained it... "why would he read from a catalogue... how is that an example of Dada?"

[AdminAssistant]

I enjoy abstract work. I enjoy realistic work. I love a good number of the impressionist, realist, and even some dada-ist work.

Dada-ist theatre is, well, interesting. I like it because it's all about spontaneous creation and immediate destruction, and that lends itself beautifully to theatre.

[crazylegs]

strange that they shut the fuck up when if we are home and I go into my room and grab some empty canvas, brushes and paint and hand them over.... oh you cant right now fuckwit... but its SOOOOOOO easy right....

Heh, at the first wedding I did someone said, "Oh, it's so easy..."

So I handed over my camera and said, Knock yourself out.

Not one of his images came out, they were either blurry, over exposed or just terribly composed. Strange that.

[kiwi]

I went to university for art history (double major) and guess what people tell me

oh art is such a crock, I could do better than that

strange that they shut the fuck up when if we are home and I go into my room and grab some empty canvas, brushes and paint and hand them over.... oh you cant right now fuckwit... but its SOOOOOOO easy right....

if were out I ask them when the last time they made art was... again strange how they havent actually ever touched a canvas

[DesignFox]

I tend to dislike most of what is labelled "contemporary" art.

I enjoy abstract work. I enjoy realistic work. I love a good number of the impressionist, realist, and even some dada-ist work. I like a bunch of stuff I can't even remember all the terms to describe it with. Yes, I was an art major. No I don't remember squat from half my art history classes.

I like a lot of art.

But some of this shit? I'm sorry. Even as an art major I can't respect. If you wanna see the stuff I'm talking about, take a trip to the PS1 in Queens.

Holy god I never thought I'd hate visiting an art museum. But the vast majority of work on display there can only be described as BS. I mean, really? Is it ART to place a camera in front of a naked guy, focus on his junk, and tell him to jump up and down? Is it really art when you display a loop of film that has no vision hold, makes a horrible blipping noise and keeps replaying (yes, it was on purpose, not on the fritz)?

Or one display a friend of mine had to attend where the artist strung up pieces of ply wood and painted the knots white. Yes, an entire gallery full of plywood with just the knots painted white.

Sorry. Not art.

I don't even get the concept of that stuff.

At least Dada- as stupid as some of it is- I get the concept. Jackson Pollock even had a purpose with his splatters and textures. Even Dali- whose work I find repulsive- his work held meaning.

Though I guess those few contemporaries with work on display at places like the PS1 got my attention...maybe that's the whole point. I don't know.

As for point number 2. I completely agree. I was once a portrait photographer and the lack of respect for my talent forced me out of doing it, anymore. You can't get good pay or appreciation doing it in retail, and I couldn't find a photographer to successfully apprentice myself to. With the digital age, most people are just taking their own portraits- afterall when you can shoot 3,000 frames and get your 1 decent shot, who needs to hire someone like me, who can take 9 frames and get 8 good shots? I don't think I have the energy to continue my rant on what digital has done to photography (not that there aren't also some really awesomely good things, but you get my drift). *grumble*