No I don't want you to think I think everything is artI merely suggested everything CAN be art. Found Objects have been a part of art for a century and they have opened up the way for us to consider the temporial locus of a transformation between rubbish and art. Can a mere discovery be art? If so then anything Can be art. Whhich prompted my last comment. (see Duchamp)
(,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:04,
archived)
OK. I think1) Duchamp's urinal (of which I am very fond) is provoking, but it's not pretty. It's just making a statement via an object. You can call that art if you want, but there are all kinds of other ways to do it, so it would be better if we could give up calling those things art (which is unlikely to happen, oh well).
2) It's a very good point about all kinds of found objects being capable of being made pretty by being framed, or by some other means of the artist suggesting to you a good way in which to look at them. However this ought to be about beauty in order to qualify as art, and being abruptly presented with something jarring is not at all the same.
3) Art goes along with a message, and the art is one thing and the message is another, and they depend on each other somewhat.
Alsomessages expressed vertically one word at a time are very inexpressive.
As artist or viewer?Figure where you stand and it's all down hill from there.
(
Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:12,
archived)
Found objects as an artform is fucking useless.I was in a gallery about a year ago and one of the artists was selling a piece called "dumpster 4" (there was a number 4 in the dumpster where he found the stuff), and it was 20 showerheads painted yellow.
She spent half a fucking hour talking about how he had found abandoned objects and turned them into art by "gathering them together". I had three issues with this:
1. There was no point - what is he trying to provoke/invoke?
2. The dumpster had gathered all those objects before he got there,
3. It was just a bunch of fucking showerheads painted yellow. For $20k.
(She spent half a fucking hour talking about how he had found abandoned objects and turned them into art by "gathering them together". I had three issues with this:
1. There was no point - what is he trying to provoke/invoke?
2. The dumpster had gathered all those objects before he got there,
3. It was just a bunch of fucking showerheads painted yellow. For $20k.
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:16,
archived)
I've heard you talk about this beforeand I think I stole the example and used it as part of a letter to The Times.
(,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:19,
archived)
Not incorrect, just over-priced. Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:20,
archived)
I'd pay cost price, if I had a use for twenty yellow showerheads. gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:25,
archived)
Not the point. And I know you understand that well.We both love Doc's work. Any artist with
a good portfolio of works, can, and should
be able to do the same. You saw the work
first hand, it sounds to me liek the person
may have failed it. So I would accept your
judgment in the showerhead's case.
(a good portfolio of works, can, and should
be able to do the same. You saw the work
first hand, it sounds to me liek the person
may have failed it. So I would accept your
judgment in the showerhead's case.
Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:32,
archived)
The only reason that this example sticks in my mindis because I saw someone run over to it and buy it after the most retarded artspeech I had heard. And it was probably a good investment.
( gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48,
archived)
Could be so.A mid-line, to low work, by a spectacular
artist can often be more valuable.
(artist can often be more valuable.
Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:57,
archived)
Right.So any painting is worth the price of the paint plus the price of the canvas?
(,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:55,
archived)
If it's all one colour, yes. gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:59,
archived)