It's not art, it's a stunt, and not really a very good one. It doesn't say anything, it doesn't even ask anything except "hey, we did this, would you call it art?" I wouldn't, because it's a stunt for the sake of the stunt. Not for art.
I didn't think much of John Waters getting Devine to eat a piece of dogshit either, except for exactly what it was. Yeah, he got a human being to eat some fresh dogshit and filmed it. So what? It's not art, it's not groundbreaking film, it's just gross. (To be fair, I don't think Mr. Waters gave a, well, crap. He just wanted to do it to gross out his audience, and fair play to him.)
But art? I just don't think so. Some of Christo's works have been stunts and also maybe still art (though I really don't know which). But this? Nah. I'd call it "shit" except I assume that that description has already been pretty well-played.
I mean even Mondrian, with his nothing but lines and rectangles, at least placed them to be, presumably, pleasing to the eye. But this is nothing more than Jackson Pollock via rectum, and as my 5-year-old pointed out about Jackson Pollock's paint splashes: "That's not what I call art."
Anyway what ever happened to deliberately creating something beautiful? I don't care if whatever-his-dick said it was dastardly, because he was wrong.
*sigh* I can already imagine counter-arguments here, about what is beautiful, and whether art should provoke thoughts, and etc. But really I don't care. Art should only metaphorically come out of your ass. The (oh for Pete's sake) End.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-07-22 10:17 am (UTC)I didn't think much of John Waters getting Devine to eat a piece of dogshit either, except for exactly what it was. Yeah, he got a human being to eat some fresh dogshit and filmed it. So what? It's not art, it's not groundbreaking film, it's just gross. (To be fair, I don't think Mr. Waters gave a, well, crap. He just wanted to do it to gross out his audience, and fair play to him.)
But art? I just don't think so. Some of Christo's works have been stunts and also maybe still art (though I really don't know which). But this? Nah. I'd call it "shit" except I assume that that description has already been pretty well-played.
I mean even Mondrian, with his nothing but lines and rectangles, at least placed them to be, presumably, pleasing to the eye. But this is nothing more than Jackson Pollock via rectum, and as my 5-year-old pointed out about Jackson Pollock's paint splashes: "That's not what I call art."
Anyway what ever happened to deliberately creating something beautiful? I don't care if whatever-his-dick said it was dastardly, because he was wrong.
*sigh* I can already imagine counter-arguments here, about what is beautiful, and whether art should provoke thoughts, and etc. But really I don't care. Art should only metaphorically come out of your ass. The (oh for Pete's sake) End.