even that's just a re-make...
Tasteless art
- Thread starter john titor
- Start date
even that's just a re-make...
That reminds me of something I saw in the Tate Modern gallery, in London: An Oak Tree (1973), by Michael Craig-Martin.
It was a glass of water sitting on a shelf, with a bit of text on a poster below.
The text took the form of an imaginary dialogue between Craig-Martin and William Furlong, in which the artist explains the meaning of his work.
Once I understood what Craig-Martin was doing, I thought he was the greatest artistic satirist since Duchamp. A glass of water is no more an oak tree than a communion wafer is the body of Christ--and yet, with art as with religion, people buy into the bullshit, and artists are happy to keep on selling it, can by can. In fact, the more nonsensical and obscure the bullshit, the higher the price it will command.
But recently, I was bitterly disappointed to discover that he was actually serious.
It was a glass of water sitting on a shelf, with a bit of text on a poster below.
The text took the form of an imaginary dialogue between Craig-Martin and William Furlong, in which the artist explains the meaning of his work.
Once I understood what Craig-Martin was doing, I thought he was the greatest artistic satirist since Duchamp. A glass of water is no more an oak tree than a communion wafer is the body of Christ--and yet, with art as with religion, people buy into the bullshit, and artists are happy to keep on selling it, can by can. In fact, the more nonsensical and obscure the bullshit, the higher the price it will command.
But recently, I was bitterly disappointed to discover that he was actually serious.
I disagree with that.Ow. My curiosity has blinded me.
It's not that bad.
However, I agree with Wiki's fair use rationale for Suri Cruise's First Poop:
That reminds me of something I saw in the Tate Modern gallery, in London: An Oak Tree (1973), by Michael Craig-Martin.
It was a glass of water sitting on a shelf, with a bit of text on a poster below.
The text took the form of an imaginary dialogue between Craig-Martin and William Furlong, in which the artist explains the meaning of his work.
Once I understood what Craig-Martin was doing, I thought he was the greatest artistic satirist since Duchamp. A glass of water is no more an oak tree than a communion wafer is the body of Christ--and yet, with art as with religion, people buy into the bullshit, and artists are happy to keep on selling it, can by can. In fact, the more nonsensical and obscure the bullshit, the higher the price it will command.
But recently, I was bitterly disappointed to discover that he was actually serious.
Mind you, I can sort of see what's he's driving at, but yeah, it would have worked better as satire. But doesn't everything work better as cheap satire?
Similar threads
