Art? You decide. (in Off-topic)
June 24 2009 12:46 AM EDT
Personally, I say no. I still can't figure out how he obtained skin from those who had donated their bodies to _science_.
Can you say silence of the lambs.
June 24 2009 12:53 AM EDT
Well since you asked me, Art, I'm going to say no.
June 24 2009 12:55 AM EDT
That guy gots some serious issues because that is freakin nasty.
June 24 2009 1:00 AM EDT
Um, not sure what to say here. I mean I have heard of things in many different countries that were similar but not quite in this way.
Weird is the title from me for now.
June 24 2009 1:15 AM EDT
I had the pleasure of seeing one years turner prize exhibition at the tate in london. For the most part i have never really enjoyed the broadly defined "modern art". Some of it i feel could be made by any person with the right cocktail of drugs. If my memory serves me correctly the piece that won that year was made from elephant dung, and didn't look very interesting at all. I must admit though i am softening as i was at the Montreal modern art museaum and found some things very interesting.
In this case however, Art - Nope. I kid could have drawn the map, making from skin is well very odd, but if that was modelling clay would anybody care.
Longest no ever:P
June 24 2009 1:41 AM EDT
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again...
June 24 2009 1:43 AM EDT
The strangest modern art I've seen I think was in the MOMA in New York, I noticed a light at a 45 degree angle. I then noticed a placard next to the light saying who did this piece of art. I then noticed that the art was the fluorescent bulb mounted at a 45 degree angle.
LOL Demi i say that quote every time some one says the word lotion.
June 24 2009 1:50 AM EDT
Weird. I say that phrase every time I trap a victim in my well.
"In this case however, Art - Nope. A (sic) kid could have drawn the map, making [it] from skin is well very odd, but if that was modelling clay would anybody care[?]"
^That's basically my opinion right there.
The fact that anybody thinks that it is 'art' is almost as stupid to me as the thought that somebody would make that 'art'.
Yes, it's art.
I believe there are very few things in the world that couldn't be considered art. Anything a person shoves in front of you that causes some sort of emotion or response is art.
It just so happens a very common response many artist like to bring up is "what is art?" and "that makes me feel uncomfortable".
Also worth pointing out that although almost anything can be art, it is much harder for things to be "good" art.
June 24 2009 2:52 AM EDT
Damn it, 3/4 beat me to it. Yes, by definition, it's art. I can even appreciate what the artist is trying to do- most good artists are at least slightly crazy. The problem isn't the medium he chose- human skin- it's that he chose such a simplistic way to express his views. The artist didn't challenge himself at all with this project. He simply took something he knew would shock people and made a few exhibits out of it.
I, for one, am not very impressed by such an art work. Badfish is right, the artist didn't even try to do something good, they just got the most retched thing they could think off and said it was 'art'. It might be art but the guy is more likely to be fined than for someone to buy it.
June 24 2009 4:48 AM EDT
I mean.... I understand what he's trying to get at... But it's ridiculous. Art should be something that requires.... Art. I mean... None of his works were impressive outside of the fact that he used skin. Is humanity now supposed to think that shock factor alone makes art? Can I walk up and kick a dog and call it art and it be okay? No.
I mean, I don't understand all the hate people have towards him. It's skin from a dead animal. Humans are just animal. Though, to be fair, I guess someone who was religious could find it deeply offensive. But for those people, do try to be fair. The people -donated- their skin to science. Maybe this isn't what they had in mind, but they weren't in the "sanctity of body" frame of thinking either.
It's not art. But it's hardly a Nazi inspired atrocity. To call it such is a terrible insult on those who went through the Holocaust, in my mind at least.
And he's not being a horribly human being. He really seems to believe he's delivering a message. And he doesn't force his art on people.
*shrugs* It's dumb, in my opinion. Hardly art. But it's not really as bad as people are trying to make it seem.
June 24 2009 5:45 AM EDT
June 24 2009 5:47 AM EDT
As a guy who failed 'A' level art, didn't get a set of coursework marked becuase my Teacher called it pornographic, and didn't see eye to eye with her love of modern art over my classical preferences, I'm stearing clear of this topic. Not going anywhere near it with a bargepole. ;)
June 24 2009 5:54 AM EDT
It's art. It may not be art that some people like or approve, but it's art. Art is more than technique with a brush or a lump of clay, art is the idea, the theory and the possibility of a blank page.
A whole conversation about art or not art that says nothing about the motives, meaning or message inherent in the work.
But, as it generated even the most banal of conversations, art wins.
June 24 2009 8:24 PM EDT
i feel i need to post in this because of my name
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002oCE">Art? You decide.</a>