12/11: Modern art prize

From Yahoo most popular, and the caption: "Martin Creed who won this year's Turner Prize of 20,000 pounds ($28,600) stands in front of his winning exhibit which consists of flashing lightbulbs in an empty room, at the Tate Britain art gallery in London, December 9, 2001. U.S. pop star Madonna presented one of the world's most famous art prizes to conceptual artist Martin Creed for his controversial creation 'Bare Room with a Light that Switches on and off'."

It's not fair, but all I can think is: "The emperor is naked."

And I'll grant almost anything as art. I ws the kid who took "Aesthetic Rebels of the 60s and 70s" in college because it was a hard-liner approach to recent art history. And this has as much claim to being art as any Hollywood film. Or early Madonna albums. But come on, there has to be a limit somewhere.

Well, the ceiling looks a little odd. Maybe that's the "art". I dunno.

- Pie

I have created a piece of living art. It is called

"Man Who Works On His Computer And Poops Every Day Or Two".

Where do I claim my prize?

All you have to do is look at his jacket. He is legit. hmmm... those don't look like artist shoes though!

OK, Its not a visual work- its conceptual and experiential. So you cant really make an informed judgement from a still image.

That's possible... could be the lights flash in such a way as to give you a different impression. Or maybe what parts of the wall are illuminated at different times.

OK now I feel dumb.

Well, I dont think Creed's tongue is completely removed from his cheek...

well heck

In that room for $28,000 he should at least provide some *colored* flashing lights, maybe a laser or two and a good DJ.

It's the Turner, you know

Ok, What you guys have to remember is that this is the Turner prize. The Turner prize is not about the art that wins the prize, it is about getting contemporary art the publicity that it needs to be noticed.

You see, nothing that wins the prize is ever a tangible art object (in the traditional sense). Because it's purpose is to draw attention to the differance between art and objects. It's the idea that wins the prize.



Mind you, this one is a little bit much, I suppose. Maybe you're right about the coloured lights....

aaaahhh... so it is the jacket.

Exactly

Quote:

Originally posted by Griff All you have to do is look at his jacket. He is legit. hmmm... those don't look like artist shoes though!

and I bought her those blue lights, so I should get a prize too

This kinda reminds me of all those stupid patents that are being awarded lately, like hooking a hard drive up to a tv to record stuff.

I mean, some thing are obvious. Fire. Fire is obvious. If Ogg the Caveman hadn't stumbled across it, Okk would have probably figured it out 3 years later. Some things are just obvious and don't deserve excessive praise.

:]

Ah. The good days of slashdot.

He was OOG, my friend. And He Was Special.

For whatever reason, OOG THE CAVEMAN cracked me up more than any other troll I've ever read. He was a reason to read Slashdot. Oh, how I miss him.

We're in odd art times. Static "Good old fashioned fine art" doesnt reflect contemporary cultures anymore than a horse drawn plow. That's not to say that the history of western art can't or shouldn't inform contemporary work- its pretty important to be conscious of the history of your field. But I think its exciting that artists are thinking beyond oil painting and taking on imagery, ideas and daring to expand the materials and technology they work with. I think good art challenges and explores the way we understand the world, our selves, and in Creed's case, the perceived authorities of the individual artist and the institution of the gallery. I don't think its his coat. I think it may be his politics. Is a gallery a temple or a forum?

I think you're right-on about what art is, warch. The question, I guess, is this:

how much can a room with lights that go on and off challenge your perception? Sure, you can call it "challenging the notion of what is art" - but where do we draw the line?

Tony posted an IotD a while ago of Wolfgang Flatz. I'll let you click the link and find out what all happened.

Is this still art? Would it be art if he hung himself from the crane and defecated onto the street below? Where is the line drawn? Sure, that challenges the institution of traditional art - but it's still just a guy shitting on the ground. Or a guy dropping a dead cow onto the ground. Or a room with some flashing lights.

Where is the line drawn?

So in this case, the actual art is the room COMBINED with the furor and publicity surrounding it, which is all by the design of the Turner folks AND the gallery?

In which case the Cellar has now become an unwitting participant in the whole thing.

I dunno. After saying that movies aren't much art, I gotta say that "South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut" is the final say on that sort of meta-art. It accurately predicted the furor over itself, built that directly into its plot, and answered it. That should have closed the door on the "meta" 90s in which even shows like <i>Roseanne</i> blatantly knocked down the 4th wall and referred to itself and interacted with the audience.

Cool jackets are so 80s and meta-art is so 90s...

I believe Cartman would say, "This sucks ass!"

My Queen did art school (Syracuse). She mentioned her frustration with a video project, which she didn't have a clue about. The most praised effort in the class was a guy sitting in a chair, in a darkened room, watching the rain hit the window for a couple hours. She also mentioned an assigned project where the students randomly stalked someone following them from a mall, around town and home where they knocked on the door and attempted an interview. Now that might reveal something!

P.S. - hey Tony, is my tag gonna say "Moderator" until I change it? I can't get like the default back or anything? Maybe jaggypoo knows about this?

And thus the thread is hijacked! Yes, you'll have to enter a custom user title. Sorry.

That's it, art is what you declare it to be. There has been this belief in society that if something is popular it must be bad. And for the most part, for the educated elite, that's true; if it's popular, it's directed at the masses.

And at the same time, there's this thinking that if something is incomprehensible, it must be good. That's the part I find silly. If I didn't get it, it wasn't meaningful to me, period. If I don't get it, it's damn close to worthless to me. Sorry.

But if someone explains it to me, and enlightens me, that's a whole 'nother story; that can be the best possible experience.

:p

How about the hangnail I just clipped off? That thing was buggering the hell out of me, but in a very beautiful, challenging way.

If you swear its yours!

(Your Dham toenail that is)

Quote:

Originally posted by warch If you swear its yours!

Exquisite! we'll give it the mystique of big A Art.

Uhm. I haven't clipped my toenails in like 4 years. That little hangnail though, it sucked.

I was originally thinking toenail (WOW! warch is PA SIGH CHICK!), that then I realized that I had just clipped off a hangnail on my left thumb, so I went with that. I figure that if I surrounded it with some lights that went on and off, I could sell it for some big money...

(p.s. - that's "psychic" for those that didn't get it)

OK my serious opinion on ART.

Art is the way each of us approaches life. Trying to shock the public consciousness counts but its less important IMHO than say Sycamores personal photography, my post and beam house, fieldstone fireplace or mandolin plinking. Artistic living improves us and that is what we need to share with one another, rather than an expression of cynicism housed in a white room somewhere. That also dips partially into why I oppose publicly financed art, we don't require an artistic elite whose message is filtered through whatever politics are in charge. If you like an artist or gallery support it, you'll get a more diverse less filtered product.

art

being an art student in high school, i do belive it is art. defining if a certain piece, object, etc is art is a hard topic. take abstract. to most people there is little difference to what an artist does verus what a kindergartner can do. there are "partial rules" to art, i.e. color, value, shape, form, etc. most modern art follows these rules. another example is minimalism art which is art that is rather minimal in design. it could be a canvas with only one soild color on it, or it could be a scupture of a cube. but the amount of effort and time put into the piece is what can separate art from "kids work". this type of art movement that Creed is part of is common. i forgot the actual name of it though, since that is not my style. anyway, it usually is built and either photographed and/or put on as part of an art show. some think it is art, some don't. that could be a matter of opinion, but most artists will call what Creed did art. no one ever said art is just about paintings!

check out my sites (all are under major construction):
http:http://cordovajcl.port5.com - the cordova high school junior classical league website
http:http://chsart.port5.com - student art center
http:http://philmont.port5.com - my Philmont and scouting adventures

I should've won a prize for my computer room....after the new paint..and new wooden floors ...before I moved the junk back into it... it resembled this photo...

hehe SA

I think that to me, the highest art is music. Maybe it's because I'm more musically oriented; I'm not sure. But I find that the work I appreciate the most is the complex music that I can put meaning to. Nine Inch Nails is the best example of this (for me). Every time I hear it, I hear something new. It just amazes me in so many ways. Trent has definitely changed my perception. To each his own, though.

BTW, where is Parabolate?