/ but is it art..?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37370109

i guess it must be, since its in a gallery and they say it is

i wonder if they had a chuckle when they wrote this bit though:

"Its participatory nature, in which viewers are invited to make use of the fixture individually and privately, allows for an experience of unprecedented intimacy with a work of art," said the Guggenheim.
1
fromsinkingships on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I hear he puts the art in fart
Greasy Prusiks on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I reckon it probably is art just really really bad art.

Essentialy it's a copy of a 100 year old idea tarted up a bit to get some publicity.
1
Crewey-Rob on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Ah, yes, Duchamp's Fountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
Andy Hardy on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

but is it art..?

It will be, but I'd give it 10 minutes first ;)
Lemony - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
> Essentialy it's a copy of a 100 year old idea tarted up a bit to get some publicity.

It may reference Fountain but it's clearly not a copy - more like an inversion of it. Fountain was art because it was a prosaic object removed from its typical context and presented as art, here that context is, largely, restored and the object itself is extraordinary.
Post edited at 13:03
Lusk - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Passé.
Every Cheshire housewives' en-suite has one.
captain paranoia - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Shouldn't the loo roll be replaced by a dispenser for crisp $100 bills...?

Will the turds dropped there be art, too?

How long before someone nicks it? Or at least takes the loo seat; the entire loo might be pretty heavy...
SenzuBean - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It's definitely art.

Not directed at you - but one of the reasons these type of things can cause so much anger and confusion is because of a misunderstanding of the purpose of art. Many people think art is only about creating happiness and related emotions through beauty. However it's instructive to look at the development of music, which art has followed.

Music was originally only allowed (by the Church) to use perfect fifth, perfect fourth and major intervals. This basically restricted the music of the time to being happy sounding, or neutral sounding.
Then minor intervals were allowed - this allowed the representation of sadness in music.
Then chromatic notes, and more audacious key changes - this let other emotions, such as confusion, urgency, melancholy be represented.
Then keys were done away with altogether, and dissonance began to be sought - this allowed torment, anger, hatred to be represented. Perfect example - Threnody for Hiroshima.

In art, the same thing has happened. First art was about happiness. Then sadness was important. Then other emotions - and very lastly, anger and confusion. The purpose of art is to feel something - whatever it may be.

In this case, whether the artist has done a good job of that - is up for debate. I personally think it's a pretty poor way to show his claimed message (to highlight inequality). I liked this video, and thought something getting this point across would work best: http://infosthetics.com/archives/2013/03/comparing_the_perception_of_wealth_inequality_in_the_us_to_...
4
Bootrock on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It's a load of pretentious shite.

Just like the people that pay ridiculous Amounts of money to see this shite.

Art my arse.


Puns not intended.
1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:
i get all that; its just how this particular object fits into that narrative that i'd question.

far from causing anger and confusion, the main response to this seems to be humour- people are laughing at it.

since it was intended to be a commentary on inequality, i'm not sure that's the response the artist intended.

and, yes, it has got people feeling something, amusement; but then so do youtube clips cats falling off furniture. so there has to be something more than that to make it qualify as art.

i suspect that the artist and the guggenheim are fully aware of this, and are both playing the game, which is to get publicity, and make money... and there is an art to that...

edit: ok, bootrock got angry, but that doesn't really prove anything...
Post edited at 13:28
Lemony - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> far from causing anger and confusion, the main response to this seems to be humour- people are laughing at it.

Comedy and absurdity are perhaps the defining characteristic of what this guy does - his sculptures like We are the Revolution, Not Afraid of Love and, most famously, La Nona Ora are all comic pieces with serious points.
Post edited at 13:46
RockAngel on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Next some will do a lego 'artinstallation' and encourage people to make things with it but call it their own art
Lemony - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to RockAngel:

> Next some will do a lego 'artinstallation' and encourage people to make things with it but call it their own art

How about a sandpit?

http://www.balticmill.com/whats-on/the-playground-project
DerwentDiluted - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Is it art?

No its a functional toilet. It's material is immaterial. It's a toilet, and an individual can project whatever they want onto it as they can with any other toilet, ergo 'art' is a construct of perception not something intrinsic to that which is perceived.

I bet it is great to keep clean though.
Post edited at 13:57
krikoman - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Taking the piss surely.
Rob Parsons on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


> i guess it must be, since its in a gallery and they say it is

Of course it's art: Duchamp has already taught us that.

Whether it's good art is an entirely separate question.
Post edited at 14:36
johnjohn - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to DerwentDiluted:
> an individual can project whatever they want onto it

...into it would be less messy.

Anyway, it's fine by me as a conceptual piece. Unlike a lot of this type of art, where intentions are unclear and deliberately abstruse, in this case the artist definitely does give the viewer something to go on.
Post edited at 14:41
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to johnjohn:

It's good of my work to provide two art galleries on every floor, no expense spared
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

are they traditional installations in the mould of duchamp, or bling-ey golden ones, after the style of this flash harry..?

or perhaps even avocado ones...?
1poundSOCKS - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The only way to make a golden crapper, and it's creator, seem important is to put it in a gallery and call it art.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

They are more Armitage Shanksy with a repetitive theme, quite contempary
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

warhol-esque, even..?
mountainbagger - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> are they traditional installations in the mould of duchamp, or bling-ey golden ones, after the style of this flash harry..?

flush harry...?
cb294 - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

No. It is a pretentious act of playing at being an artist, as it lacks one ingredient that is IMO inherent to any art, and that is technical skill.

CB
2
Crewey-Rob on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to cb294:

> No. It is a pretentious act of playing at being an artist, as it lacks one ingredient that is IMO inherent to any art, and that is technical skill.

> CB

So, you know how to cast a toilet in pure gold?
cb294 - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

Done it with other metals, so yes, I am confident that I could make a toilet shaped clay mold and use gold instead of bronze for casting. Doesn´t make me an artist, though!

CB
mountainbagger - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

> So, you know how to cast a toilet in pure gold?

Yep, you just need to take a cistern-atic approach.

Note, a gold ballcock is f*cking useless.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

did the artist? or did he commission a specialist goldsmith's to do it?

i'm guessing the latter- with the explanation being that the art is in the concept, not the execution.

in the same way that i'm pretty sure Anish Kapoor didn't actually build the helter skelter at the olympic park...
Lemony - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to cb294:

> No. It is a pretentious act of playing at being an artist, as it lacks one ingredient that is IMO inherent to any art, and that is technical skill.


The guy has demonstrated his sculptural skills many times over in the past - how much technical skill do Dali's objects show? Duschamps'? Do Picasso's sketches show enough to be art? How about Hockney's collages? What about Lowry, he must barely be an artist at all?
cb294 - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Lemony:
Picasso is great, his sketches in particular reveal his extreme talent and skill at capturing the essence of an object with a few pencil strokes. Naive art is difficult, I understand why people see something in it, personally I don£t. Hockney is just having people on....

CB

edit: Forgot the other half of my comment: Not everything a great artist produces is art, never mind great art.
Post edited at 17:25
Moley on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I'm a simple fellow, for me art is something nice to look at.
A golden bog doesn't do it for me, at best it is crap art.
Wsdconst - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Talk about sitting on a fortune.
Or sh#tting or a fortune even.
Post edited at 18:00
Greasy Prusiks on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Lemony:

Maybe. Tbh I only got as far as bogs in art galleries.
Yanis Nayu - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

My rule is that if it needs a narrative, it's shit.

I quite like the gold bog tbh.
FactorXXX - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Does that mean that a Golden Shower could be perceived as performance art?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Does that mean that a Golden Shower could be perceived as performance art?

<nearly chokes on coffee>

That could be a Turner prize winner. ..
Big Ger - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

De gustibus and all that.

Some call it art, some call it sh!te. I'm with the latter crowd.
Lusk - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

If it is solid 18 carat gold, I might fly over, eat the hottest curry in the dodgiest place in town, buy a really coarse file and lock myself in there for an hour or so, suggesting "I'd give it 10 minutes" on exit, then down the local precious metal dealer and have an all expenses paid holiday.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:
I went back and read the story again, realised I'd missed a bit- it really is the story that keeps on giving. ..

Cattelan, 55, is known for his provocative sculptures, including La Nona Ora (The Ninth Hour), which depicted Pope John Paul II floored by a meteorite.

Edit: and here it is....
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=la+nona+hora&client=ms-android-hms-tef-gb&hl=en-GB&prmd=ivn&source...


Its like something straight out of Viz...
Post edited at 22:35
nniff - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

If much of modern art is about reaction, then if someone leaves a three-coiler just to one side, how is the art changed by the reaction of the next person to use the cubicle? Is the artist now someone else? What about the cleaner who tidies up and plonks an air freshener in there? Are they artist or censor?

Anyone wearing the emperor's new clothes knows the answer to those questions.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Ha, that's great. How slow was that meteorite traveling when it knocked the Pope over? 6mph?

I'm guessing a meteorite that size when it hits the ground would probably be similar to a nuclear explosion.
DerwentDiluted - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

> So, you know how to cast a toilet in pure gold?

You smelt it.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.