"ART" - a One Word Oxymoron

[JonathanQuick]

Classical art has been corrupted by the contemporary Left.
"Art" is a one-word oxymoron.

Proof:

http://whencrapisart.blogspot.com

 

[jiggeryqua]

Apparantly, a lot of money is also spent on football players, would you believe!?

Crazy old world...

The idea that new art is inferior to old art is not new, of course, but I believe this is the first time I've seen 'the Left' credited with the corruption.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Much of the classic art people place on such a pedestal, like the renaissance masters, were often copying from mirror reflections. Basically tracing imagery they projected on the wall. There are many double standards and too many emotions that get caught up in this topic. As a professional artist, while i am intrigued by technique and talent, I call anything that takes technique and subtlety an art. There is an art to many things.

 

[JonathanQuick]

Apparantly, (SIC) a lot of money is also spent on football players, would you believe!?

Crazy old world...

The idea that new art is inferior to old art is not new, of course, but I believe this is the first time I've seen 'the Left' credited with the corruption.

Let's deal with one subject at a time, shall we? The subject is "ART."

Try to stay focused on the SUBJECT.

Now "apparently" you think that the gentle fellow who was paid GOVERNMENT GRANT MONEY to put a crucifix in urine, and call that "art" might have been a conservative. Is that correct?

"Apparently" you think that the folks who got very angry over the New York City museum's display of the Madonna, spattered with elephant feces, were liberals, objecting to the work of a right winger. With me so far?

Did that lovely homosexual who shoved a bullwhip into his rectum and photographed it, was he a "Neocon" or a "religious rightie" do you think?

Come on now. Be honest. I know, it's not easy for you.

Some "feminists" (SIC) hung colored plastic replicas of male genitalia on a clothesline in Colorado, I believe it was. Mothers of children were outraged at this. Do you think those "feminists" were raging Republicans? I mean "Nazis"? Leftists DO like to use "Republican" and "Nazi" interchangeably.

And since the connoisseurs of "art" have such refined taste and judgment, how is it that they can possibly justify billions of dollars spent on dreck, when "people of color" will go to sleep tonight hungry and ill-clothed, many without a residence, much less a bed.

 

[Garrette]

My son frequently complains to me that my generation and the generation prior had the best music and that his own generation's music sucks.

I point out that what he hears from the previous generations is primarily that music which has survived a long winnowing process; what remains are the few hundred best out of tens and tens of thousands of crap songs. On the other hand, what he hears of current music is all of it because the winnowing has only just begun. In twenty years, what is commonly played of this generation's music will only be that which has survived the winnowing, most of it quite good, if in differing ways. Then his children will voice the same complaint to him.

I remember studying art (just one formal college level class, but it actually was a study of art not an art-making class) and it reinforced what I had felt growing up when I was exposed to a wide variety of art, not just the popular or well-known pieces: Most art is crap. Even from the age of the masters, much of it may have been executed technically well but the subjects were religious schlock or Hallmarky schlock. The same exists today.

I find it telling that your link does not show art that I consider far inferior to the examples given: that of the contemporary artist who paints those sicky sweet Christian -undertoned and Norman Rockwell flavored scenes of idyllic snow-covered countrysides. I can't recall his name and can't bring myself to spend time googling him. His work is technically mediocre, his content is heavy-handed, and I find little to redeem him yet he is wildly successful, including among some of my friends and family.

To keep myself babbling in random directions too long I will cut it short by ending with this:

The OP and its link fail to define any standard by which to judge (a) what is art or (b) what is good art and it falsely compares the full world of available art today to the already selected-for-timelessness art of yesterday.


ETA: I find many of the examples in the link to be excellent art, including the final example which the author himself says is worthy of the label.

 

[JonathanQuick]

// There is an art to many things.

Please explain the "art" to me of:

placing a crucifix in a jar of your own urine, simply to mock and ridicule Catholics

vulgar displays of homosexuality

throwing paint at a canvas, now valued at tens of millions of dollars

cigarette butts on display

a dead cow in formaldehyde

Finally this. If we were to compare the classical art of Rubens and Mozart
to today's works, what is the musical parallel to Jean Michel Basquiat's amateurish scribblings? As awful as rap is, there are at least musicians playing instruments in the background who have a semblance of knowing what they are doing.

 

[Garrette]

Let's deal with one subject at a time, shall we? The subject is "ART."

Try to stay focused on the SUBJECT.

Now "apparently" you think that the gentle fellow who was paid GOVERNMENT GRANT MONEY to put a crucifix in urine, and call that "art" might have been a conservative. Is that correct?

"Apparently" you think that the folks who got very angry over the New York City museum's display of the Madonna, spattered with elephant feces, were liberals, objecting to the work of a right winger. With me so far?

Did that lovely homosexual who shoved a bullwhip into his rectum and photographed it, was he a "Neocon" or a "religious rightie" do you think?

None of these examples were in your OP or your link. By what criterion are you including them in the list of Bad Art or Not Art?

Come on now. Be honest. I know, it's not easy for you.

Tsk tsk.

Some "feminists" (SIC) hung colored plastic replicas of male genitalia on a clothesline in Colorado, I believe it was. Mothers of children were outraged at this. Do you think those "feminists" were raging Republicans?

So if we find one example of Bad Art by a Republican we can blame the downfall of art on all Republicans?

I mean "Nazis"? Leftists DO like to use "Republican" and "Nazi" interchangeably.

Really? All of them?

And since the connoisseurs of "art" have such refined taste and judgment, how is it that they can possibly justify billions of dollars spent on dreck, when "people of color" will go to sleep tonight hungry and ill-clothed, many without a residence, much less a bed.

We are barely five posts in. Do you already find it impossible to stay with your own OP?

 

[Twiler]

Thanks for showing me that art, I like it. I'm glad that the internet makes it so much easier to discover new things.

 

[Garrette]

Please explain the "art" to me of:

placing a crucifix in a jar of your own urine, simply to mock and ridicule Catholics

vulgar displays of homosexuality

throwing paint at a canvas, now valued at tens of millions of dollars

cigarette butts on display

a dead cow in formaldehyde

Finally this. If we were to compare the classical art of Rubens and Mozart
to today's works, what is the musical parallel to Jean Michel Basquiat's amateurish scribblings? As awful as rap is, there are at least musicians playing instruments in the background who have a semblance of knowing what they are doing.

Still with the examples that were not in your link? Don't ask for an explanation of art when neither you nor your link provided one. You are the one implying a set of criteria yet you fail to provide it.

 

[JonathanQuick]

//

So if we find one example of Bad Art by a Republican we can blame the downfall of art on all Republicans?

Why don't you do JUST THAT.
Why don't you find SOME examples of Bad Art by Republicans.

Don't just talk the talk. Let's SEE something.

Republicans are ALWAYS being maligned as "greedy" and "polluters."

Somehow "artists" has never crept in to any of those attacks by the Left.

Please, be the first. I welcome it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Republicans are ALWAYS being maligned as "greedy" and "polluters."

By whom?

 

[kedo1981]

My goodness you’re correct
The right wing neocons never scam people with bad art they spend all they’re time destroying art, good and bad.
I’ve read that Christians destroyed all but a fraction of a percent of the art of the ancient world.
And by the way I despise the whole “cross in urine” mind set in some branches of the art world but I also believe in freedom of expression.
I challenge you to find out how much publicly funded art is in the range of what you would find acceptable, it stands to reason that if you really are concerned about art if you really care, there had to be some that slipped under the leftist anti Jesus radar.
Unless these are just talking points from the Savage radio show.

 

[cwalner]

Now "apparently" you think that the gentle fellow who was paid GOVERNMENT GRANT MONEY to put a crucifix in urine, and call that "art" might have been a conservative. Is that correct?

If you take a look at the finished piece, it would definitely qualify as art. It's quite beautiful and nothing in the finished work clearly shows that urine was used to make it.
Yes, it it is controversial, but it is also aesthetically pleasing, so it definitely qualifies as art. I have no idea if the artist is liberal or conservative, and it really does not matter to me. what matters to me is if I like the finished product.

Also, I happen to like the peices by Gorky on your link. The others, not as much to my taste, but that does not mean they are not art, because I am sure there are folks out there who do appreciate them, based on the amounts they fetch at auction.

 

[Garrette]

Why don't you do JUST THAT.
Why don't you find SOME examples of Bad Art by Republicans.

Don't just talk the talk. Let's SEE something.

Here's one. You can find more yourself with a quick search, but if you want a head start go where I found the example. The url is short for Conservative Artists. Note that there is some very good art on that site, too; but we both know that liberals and leftists produce good art as well.

Republicans are ALWAYS being maligned as "greedy" and "polluters."

Really? Since I am a registered Republican, and have been for over 30 years, you would think I would have noticed. Funny that what I have actually noticed is that frothing attention-seekers from both ends of the spectrum spout inanities that they can only superficially support. Much like this thread.

Somehow "artists" has never crept in to any of those attacks by the Left.

So the word "artist" is itself an insult? My my.

Please, be the first. I welcome it.

See my link above. Find others. There is an organization on Facebook for Republican Artists. I'm sure you are capable of discovering more on your own.

 

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Garrette
Still with the examples that were not in your link? Don't ask for an explanation of art when neither you nor your link provided one. You are the one implying a set of criteria yet you fail to provide it.

--snip--

Now as to Garrette, I collected this set of rubbish which is nothing if not self-explanatory.

Then it is nothing.

I certainly do NOT need an "explanation of art" from you.

I didn't offer one. I asked for your criteria. Do you have any?

The last picture on my website expresses an "implied set of criteria."

No, it does not. Or if it does, please humor me and elucidate.

I have likewise seen such "implied set of criteria" at the Louvre, the Prado, the British Museum, the Uffizi, the Vatican Museum, and many others.

And you liked every piece there? Or only some? Is it possible for something to be art if you personally do not think it is? Or to be good art if you do not think it is?

It seems your criteria is that you like it.

Beethoven's Romance #2 is art.
Boccherini's Minuet is art.
Paganini's La Campanella, played by this blind artist is art in the finest, most noble sense of the word.

I don't disagree. You are proving my first post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9MlN-ZudKo

To pretend that dreck I displayed on the first website is remotely in the same category called "art" is a horrible lie.

So either art is art in the finest, most noble sense of the word or it is not art at all. Got it. And yet you still do not define your term.

Q'uelle surprise.

Excellent! We have an obverse to your criterion for what is good art!

First rule: If JonathanQuick likes it it is good art.
Second rule: If Garrette likes it it is not good art.

That's easy.

Oh, but wait. I also liked the pieces you listed above. There seems to be a problem.

 

[cwalner]

Why don't you do JUST THAT.
Why don't you find SOME examples of Bad Art by Republicans.

I don't know about the political affiliation of the artists, but the numerous versions of Velvet Elvises (Elvii?) and Dogs Playing Poker seem to be much more popular amongst demographics that lean Republican.

 

[brodski]

(Elvii?)

Elvopodes

 

[jiggeryqua]

Let's deal with one subject at a time, shall we? The subject is "ART."

Try to stay focused on the SUBJECT.

Now "apparently" you think that the gentle fellow who was paid GOVERNMENT GRANT MONEY to put a crucifix in urine, and call that "art" might have been a conservative. Is that correct?

"Apparently" you think that the folks who got very angry over the New York City museum's display of the Madonna, spattered with elephant feces, were liberals, objecting to the work of a right winger. With me so far?

Did that lovely homosexual who shoved a bullwhip into his rectum and photographed it, was he a "Neocon" or a "religious rightie" do you think?

Come on now. Be honest. I know, it's not easy for you.

Some "feminists" (SIC) hung colored plastic replicas of male genitalia on a clothesline in Colorado, I believe it was. Mothers of children were outraged at this. Do you think those "feminists" were raging Republicans? I mean "Nazis"? Leftists DO like to use "Republican" and "Nazi" interchangeably.

And since the connoisseurs of "art" have such refined taste and judgment, how is it that they can possibly justify billions of dollars spent on dreck, when "people of color" will go to sleep tonight hungry and ill-clothed, many without a residence, much less a bed.

Oh goody, a proper ding-dong...and damned be him who first cries "Hold! Enough!".

Thanks for picking me up on that spelling (you know, I can only be sure of spelling 'challenge' right on this forum, because I can scroll up and check it). You won't mind, I'm sure, if I pick you up on your appalling capitalisation. If you must have EMPHASIS, may I recommend bold or italic or even underlining?

So where were we? Oh yes, the subject is art.

"when "people of color" will go to sleep tonight hungry and ill-clothed, many without a residence, much less a bed."

Oh dear. Try to stay focused on the subject.

The subject, if I recall, was art, or more specifically its corruption by 'the Left'. Apparently, you think strawmen will stand for my views on the matter, so long as you append 'apparently' to them. Apparently, you also believe saying "be honest. I know it's hard for you" will effectively dismiss anything I go on to say as a lie.

Of the three (count 'em) examples of what I must assume you classify as 'corruptive art, you make no claim and present no evidence that the artists concerned had any particular political views. Nor do I - I generally have little interest in the political opinions of artists, nor recall any particular pronouncements from Serrano, Ofili or Mapplethorpe. But let's be generous and assume for the moment that you have correctly identified three left-wing artists. Three. Count them again...

I can't easily find a reference to the Colarado feminists' penis art - are you sure it wasn't something 'the Right' just invented? I wouldn't know if they are Nazis, or even 'nazis', though there's plenty of the latter in the feminist movement - it's a broad camp, all those individual women with their own minds and that, voting as they please...do you also contend that 'the Left' has corrupted classic womanhood?

Leftists DO like to use "Republican" and "Nazi" interchangeably.

Well I guess I'm a lefty, but I rarely use 'Republican' at all - we tend to say Labour & Conservative over here. Has nobody explained what the Ws stand for? Worldwide web.

On your other subject:

And since the connoisseurs of "art" have such refined taste and judgment, how is it that they can possibly justify billions of dollars spent on dreck, when "people of color" will go to sleep tonight hungry and ill-clothed, many without a residence, much less a bed.

I'm confused, are you a lefty? What gets me, by the way, is how 'the Right' (or Nazi Republicans, as I believe you chaps over the pond say) can spend quite literally squahillions of dollars on bombs and guns when people of every 'color' will go to sleep tonight hungry and ill-clothed, many without a bed, much less a residence. Or running water and sewage treatment. Or education. Or peace and security. Or art.

 

[FattyCatty]

Classical art has been corrupted by the contemporary Left.
"Art" is a one-word oxymoron.

Proof:

http://whencrapisart.blogspot.com

Art is not a one-word oxymoron. One syllable can't be an oxymoron, which is a combination of contradictory elements. Also, your "proof" has some problems with accuracy. The tenth item shown, a painting by "Jason Pollack" is actually by Jackson Pollack; the title, given as "12," is actually 12, 1949; and the price, given as $11,900,000, was actually $11,655,500. christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=4288617

The fourteenth item shown, a painting by "Jason Pollack," is again by Jackson Pollack.

I haven't checked the rest of the items, but your source doesn't seem very reliable.

 

[theprestige]

Much of the classic art people place on such a pedestal, like the renaissance masters, were often copying from mirror reflections. Basically tracing imagery they projected on the wall.

If you're referring to the Hockney-Falco thesis, there has beensome criticism of their conclusions. Notably, it's an appeal to incredulity regarding the result, coupled with a distinct lack of evidence about the claimed process.