Damn, sounds like you don't want art, you want Jesus.

Personally I think it sounds like an interesting piece.

I think Art is What You Can Get Away With, and if this gal is doing just that, and maybe getting some people to think about their relationship with other mammals, or just enjoying seeing boobs in artsy setting, more power to her.

Psstt... the pig is only sleeping.

Thanks Griff, I love it too. :thumb2:

Okay.

1. I live with/am marrying an artist. She only had to say WTF about this.

2. I can go into the slum area of any city and probably find some nut dancing around with dead rats.

Is this art? No.There isn't ANY part of this that is art.

Is this the sign of a derranged mind? Yes.

If this is what she considers art then the guys with the butterfly nets better find her before she decides to do an encore with larger lifeforms.

But that's just one man's opinion, I may be wrong....

Nahh, I found Jesus, he was under the couch the whole time. But stupid drivel isn't art even if you are wearing Buddy Holly glasses and have your jeans cuffed up about four inches.

If you think art is what you can get away with then you are on your way to millions. Good Luck!

Boobs, on the other hand are always welcome and theya re especially artsy in adult films which claim veracity as art, but are really jsut protected speech.

I don't know much about art, but .......I've got a dictionary.
Well, it's as clear as mud, but it covers the ground. By the dictionary's definitions, I'd say if someone says it's art, it is.

Personally, I think it's bad art.... but to each, his/her own. :2cents:

"To each, his/her own" is exactly right. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, including the beauty of art. There are those people who don't like this, who look at this and think it's a peice of shit, a travesty, an affront to real artists. Other people like this, they are obviously brain damaged.

hee hee hee

The lady obviously likes a bit of pork between her thighs.

I didn't think anybody could stoop lower than Damiean Hurst the Worst and Tracey Emen the Empty in trying to convince people that they're artists but this braindead, talentless, bottom burp has.

Art my arse!

I think one measure of art is its ability to get people thinking about art, and by that measure it succeeds.

I ain't arguing it's great art, or even all that good.

It's like this class I took in "The 18th Century African American Novel" or some such. By most account, these works weren't great literature, full of their own stereotypes, melodrama, derivative of the popular works of the day.... but they were still worthy of study, partially because of the environment they were written in. From that, I came up with my personal "multiple intelligences theory for art". Just like it doesn't make sense to measure people on a single scale and call that "intelligence", I think art can succeed on many different planes. Great art, like Mozart or Shakespeare, will succeed on many levels, but pretty much anything that has gotten any attention at all probably works on at least some level.

Well, it does do that, kirk. But to the great unwashed (holds up hand), people who think of "Art" as beautiful paintings, sculpture and Katkeepers Enamels, much of the contemporary performance art, this one in particular, degrades and diminishes the term. It changes "art is a good thing" to "art is sometimes a good thing".

Sure, it's worth is in the eye of the beholder, but when a performance claiming to be art, causes people to question the value of art in general, it sure doesn't help the cause. That's particularly true when the funding is revealed to be NEA or from some source we support.

I suppose this would be the lunatic fringe of art, but it's always the lunatic fringe that get the press and does the most damage to the cause.:2cents:

The funny thing is that 90% of NEA is this truly uncontroversial stuff, lots of support of folk arts and all the rest. And stuff along these lines and "Piss Christ" make it easy targets. But I don't want that kind of thinking to frame this debate.

Art has had big problems ever since photography entered the scene. Once it became easy to produce "realistic" images of life, art has had to figure out its own purpose.

I guess people are distrustful of art when it seems like it might be divorced from craft, or at least practiced skill. They doubt the sincerity of the artist and think it might all just be a big scam.

FWIW, this is the only place I've seen word of this exhibit, so it doesn't seem to be setting the world on fire anyway. And it's better than the other tact whcih brings us Thomas Kincaid galleries and maybe even these goddamn jittering smilies I get to chose from to make up the gap between informal written speech and the spoken word.
:worried: :greenface :D :o :yelgreedy :( :eyebrow: :3eye: :yeldead:

I mean hell, why do I have the option of this :3_eyes: and :3eye: anyway?

I disagree. A lot of great art has been produced since the advent of the camera. So some folks have been able to figure it out. The problem is that good art takes talent and a depth of feeling. Those who don't have it and wish they did will produce stuff like this.

I thought I should look at how the dictionary defines art.
Hmmm....art is everything and everything is art. As clear as mud, but it covers the ground.

Probably the comment after synonyms, about skill and achievement, covers most people's general definition. :cool:

I picked up these two pins, recently, at a table promoting the art club at work.

To express your artistic side. :D