$17 million crap
Nov. 11th, 2004 02:49 pm
= $17,368,000.Becca? Ice? Toren? Joyce? Anyone? Bueller? They look pretty easy to fake. I bet we could sell them out of the back of a van. "Psssst? Buddy... you wanna Rothko or a Mondrian, cheap? $5 million for one, or get two for $8 million."
ETA: new link to the art in question
Re: art
Date: 2004-11-12 02:40 am (UTC)there is a reason why their paintings cost so damn much.
i think i have a very bad perception of performance art- only because ive been exposed to ...really, really bad performance art.
ie- my video teacher singing about joe dimaggio while video taping him from her car. or...yoko ono on stage telling people to cut her shirt up. i find a lot of this senseless bullshit, and i want to discard the ideas. i dont believe that they are art. but then, who am i to decide what "art" is?
also, performance artists, the ones ive met or read about, have a tendancy to believe that he/she is elite and eccentrically genius- that he or she sees something no one else can see. i dont see them creating, or even provoking any sort of thought beyond the stretchable bullshit most art students learn in any sort of introductory course to art theory. a lot of performance art is very introspective, and frankly, it sounds just like my bullshit livejournal...i definitely dont think my lunacy online is art. performance artists tend to believe that everything is art. but if everything is art then nothing is art.
Re: art
Date: 2004-11-12 03:06 am (UTC)Just because a so-called artist is an egotistical asshole doesn't mean they aren't talented. If that were true, we'd never have rock n' roll.
However, yes, most performance art is all about THE ARTIST, when it should be about human experience. Or at least be entertaining. Have you heard/seen of a group called Survival Research Labs (http://www.srl.org/)? Maybe they aren't performance art, though.
Do you think the group Improv Everywhere (http://www.improveverywhere.com/virgin/) is a performance art group or ingenious but puerile pranksters?
i definitely dont think my lunacy online is art.
Easy for you to say, you got Warren Ellis on your side.
Re: art
Date: 2004-11-12 03:16 am (UTC)i think, from the little i just read, that improv everywhere isn't performance art. i think to call it performance art it has to be evocative, have a point, and get that or some point across to the audience. if you leave your audience confused and muddled, what was the damn point?
survival research labs looks interesting. i see it as more performance than art. i sort of feel the same way about rabbit in the moon. amazing performance, but was it just a stage performance or was it art? or maybe it has pieces of both. mmm ambiguity. the survival research labs people need a better front end designer for their site. :d
im just disgruntled.
Re: art
Date: 2004-11-12 03:55 am (UTC)Maybe that was the point...to question the vast void that can separate two people standing right next to each other with a simple pair of headphones.
the survival research labs people need a better front end designer for their site
I kinda think SRL folded, or is just hanging on. Their website is probably last of their concerns.
im just disgruntled.
What else could you be?
Go to bed.
Re: art
Date: 2004-11-12 07:21 am (UTC)yeah but i often feel that way about performance art that actually has a really long explanation. and it's not that im completely dense [most of the time], it's just that i totally didn't see it