|
Home > Archive > Architecture > December 2005 > Art?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| 3D Peruna 2005-12-15, 6:21 pm |
|
http://www.banksy.co.uk/ - Spend some time and read as much as you can.
Just don't be drinking while reading, or you might need to clean your
monitor.
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-16, 1:21 pm |
| 3D Peruna (s) wrote:
> http://www.banksy.co.uk/ - Spend some time and read as much as you can.
> Just don't be drinking while reading, or you might need to clean your
> monitor.
Guy's a hoot, and he has some big ones. I can't believe he can walk
into museums and get away with stuff like that.
R
| |
| 3D Peruna 2005-12-16, 1:21 pm |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1134750774.596529.208520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 3D Peruna (s) wrote:
>
> Guy's a hoot, and he has some big ones. I can't believe he can walk
> into museums and get away with stuff like that.
>
> R
I love the stuff... Don't know if it's more social commentary than art,
though. His graffiti stuff is pretty good and I might consider it art. I'm
not one of those who will say anything is art...or that all art, by virtue
of its existance, is good. There is good art, bad art, much in between and
even more that isn't, art school's teaching the contrary notwithstanding.
| |
|
| > I love the stuff... Don't know if it's more social commentary than art,
From what I can tell skimming the Art scene, it isn't art if it isn't social
commentary.
(NOTE: I totally disagree w/ the sentiment.)
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-16, 1:21 pm |
| 3D Peruna s wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> I love the stuff... Don't know if it's more social commentary than art,
> though. His graffiti stuff is pretty good and I might consider it art. I'm
> not one of those who will say anything is art...or that all art, by virtue
> of its existance, is good. There is good art, bad art, much in between and
> even more that isn't, art school's teaching the contrary notwithstanding.
I wondered who was paying for him to fly around doing his thing and who
paid for that 3.5 ton bronze Statue of Liberty parody. Personally, I
liked it better than the original. ;)
R
| |
| 3D Peruna 2005-12-16, 3:21 pm |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1134753268.959627.191370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 3D Peruna s wrote:
>
> I wondered who was paying for him to fly around doing his thing and who
> paid for that 3.5 ton bronze Statue of Liberty parody. Personally, I
> liked it better than the original. ;)
>
> R
He apparently makes quite a bit from selling many of his works...which fund
his "terrorism."
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-12-16, 7:21 pm |
| "gruhn" <gruhn@deletehwb.com> wrote in
news:1zCof.14$44.403@news.uswest.net:
>
> From what I can tell skimming the Art scene, it isn't art if it isn't
> social commentary.
>
> (NOTE: I totally disagree w/ the sentiment.)
>
>
>
THe puropose of Art School is to perpetuate its own existence, because
otherwise, most of those people would be clerking at a 7-11 or some similar
place.
Art is Art. Blither is blither.
Oh, and, re: "social commentary", in a way, *all* art is "social
commentary" because it reflects some small part of the culture in which it
was produced and/or fostered. No work of art is any sort of "definitive
statement" of a culture/society; all of it is an expression of the
individual artist's perceptions, which are influenced (re: technique,
symbology, style, etc.) by the culture, or more precisely, by the segment
of the overall culture, in which the artist was born, reared, and/or lives.
I say "segment" because in any culture, things such as income and ethnicity
do create different segments (or strata) within that culture.
So all of the "social commentary" statements that seem in vogue among the
pseudo-intelligentsia are, in essence, specious. All it does is reveal the
bias and/or prejudice and/or ignorance of the person spouting them.
| |
| 3D Peruna 2005-12-18, 10:21 pm |
|
"gruhn" <gruhn@deletehwb.com> wrote in message
news:1zCof.14$44.403@news.uswest.net...
>
>
> From what I can tell skimming the Art scene, it isn't art if it isn't
> social
> commentary.
Doesn't mean the "art scene" is right.
Some art might be intended as "social commentary" but some art (and I might
argue most of it, at least until the "modern" era) was not social
commentary.
>
> (NOTE: I totally disagree w/ the sentiment.)
Which sentiment?
| |
| gruhn 2005-12-18, 11:21 pm |
| > Doesn't mean the "art scene" is right.
Which would boil down to "what is Art," which I don't want to get in to. BUT
I'm inclined to give the Art scene some degree of autonomy in declaring what
art is.
> argue most of it, at least until the "modern" era) was not social
> commentary.
That modern era thing is interesting. It's fun watching them try to make it
in to social commentary. Or use it to make social commentary with little
regard for the art itself. When I say "fun," I mean "pathetic." :-)
> Which sentiment?
That art must be social commentary. I'm particularly not enamoured of the
subtext that seems to run through any such assertion that I've seen: "of
this type of comment".
| |
|
| "gruhn"> wrote
> That art must be social commentary.
As opposed to *individual* commentary.
|
|
|
|
|