<< BEARS SAFE ~ MAIN ~ WHERE'S THE "DROWNING POLAR BEAR"? >>
OUTSIDERS DECIDE
The Guardian’s Mark Lawson—your patient zero of plastic turkey paranoia—defends the Royal Academy’s accidental chunk ’n’ stick exhibition:
The argument that the selection panel has been stupid - and fooled into elevating a mistake into art - rests largely on the fact that they were not seeing what the artist intended. But an artist’s interpretation of his or her own work has only limited validity; it’s outsiders who decide how it goes down. You can write a play and call it a comedy, but if theatregoers don’t laugh there’s no arguing with them.
The reverse is true of Lawson’s serious opinion pieces. Outsiders decide how they go down.
The vast slate slab supporting its fragment of skeleton has a peculiarity and spookiness that makes it unusual; dismissable as art only by those who believe that good art necessarily requires heavy effort.
A vast slab supporting a fragment of skeleton; that would be the media and its arguments against the war. It ain’t art, Mark, and it involves no heavy effort.
But an artist’s interpretation of his or her own work has only limited validity; it’s outsiders who decide how it goes down.
But, but, but . . . it wasn’t the artist’s “work”; it was the display slab. I think art critics must be like those kids who ignore the toy and just play with the box it came in.
“Mistaking a plinth for the artwork just proves that art is what we see, not what the artist makes”
Which is one way of spinning it. Another is it’s one more example of those making a buck from contemporary art shown to be the emperor’s tailors. “But you don’t understand!”
Where have I heard that before? It’s all about them.
heh, this reminds me of the time I went to an exhibition of works produced by young sculptors at the National Gallery with a very arty woman. We’re walking through the exhibits and come across a (very nicely designed) stool. This woman raved about it saying it “referenced [insert sculptor’s name] blah blah” and how it was a fabulous piece.
A few minutes later, one of the Gallery guards walked into the room and sat on it and proceeded to read the paper. My companion looked incredibly embarrassed but, being a gentleman, I refrained from making any comment.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 06 16 at 10:17 AM • permalinkThe vast slate slab supporting its fragment of skeleton has a peculiarity and spookiness that makes it unusual; dismissable as art only by those who believe that good art necessarily requires heavy effort.
Total hogwash. You are either judging a work into which an artist has put his effort, or you are judging an accidental composition that happens to be aesthetically interesting. One does not equate with the other.
I fear for the future of the west, does Mark Lawson think for one brainfried second , what he wrote has the slightest scintilla of validity?, or is he just one more media prick so in love with himself that he thinks he can tell people anything and they will believe him, go ahead mark tell me shit is sugar i’ll believe you.
Whatever will they tell us next,Islam is a religion of peace perhaps.The argument that the selection panel has been stupid - and fooled into elevating a mistake into art - rests largely on the But an artist’s interpretation of his or her own work has only limited validity; it’s outsiders who decide how it goes down. You can write a play and call it a comedy, but if theatregoers don’t laugh there’s no arguing with them.
Now if outsiders decide that the whole arts establishment a just a bunch of pretentious wankers then there is no arguing with them.
Posted by Lefty Wobbling Right on 2006 06 16 at 11:16 AM • permalinkI dunno. The head isn’t that much better than the stand, is it?
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 06 16 at 01:48 PM • permalinkFirst Hensel says,“For the artistic reactionaries the Hensel event tops even the wallet story as proof that modernists would believe that a fart was art if a man in a bow tie told them it was.” Then he puts on a bow tie and intoooons, ” But an artist’s interpretation of his or her own work has only limited validity; it’s outsiders who decide how it goes down.” So his argument is self-defeating. And circular, too! Hm, rather artistic, when you look at it. Hang it, I say.
Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 06 16 at 08:29 PM • permalink#18 Paco: when it comes to art, I’m a “Dogs Playing Poker” kind of guy. Me too.
—Count us in too, by Allah!
(Palestinians for Poker Pup Pix)Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 06 16 at 08:41 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Problem is the toil required to push aside that slab to reveal that fragment. As we learnt with the plastic turkey, once its out there it’s pretty hard to turn around, even if it can be proven false.