Difference between revisions of "Debate:Ellsworth Kelly"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Handy edit button #1)
(Let me summarize the comments thus far)
Line 81: Line 81:
 
::::::::::In that case we're back to exactly what I said at the beginning, ''"Heaven forbid something that's not easily grasped in a few seconds should be considered valid."''  If you can't judge it at face value, on the spot, then '''it doesn't count as art''', that's what it comes down to. How much an artist is paid ''has nothing to do with the art'', it has to do with what the buyer thinks the art is worth, and that can in many cases screw the artist over big time. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 13:08, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
 
::::::::::In that case we're back to exactly what I said at the beginning, ''"Heaven forbid something that's not easily grasped in a few seconds should be considered valid."''  If you can't judge it at face value, on the spot, then '''it doesn't count as art''', that's what it comes down to. How much an artist is paid ''has nothing to do with the art'', it has to do with what the buyer thinks the art is worth, and that can in many cases screw the artist over big time. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 13:08, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
 
::::::::::: So, answer my damned question. What is there to be grasped about a canvas painted in one colour with a roller? I'd suggest precisely nothing. How can I look any deeper at this work? Where the hell is the nuance? What am I supposed to infer that I don't infer from looking at the wall of my house? If the value of the work is the yarn the artist spins post facto, I'd heartily suggest they go in to writing fiction. I don't for a moment believe that the fault is mine for failing to grasp the significance of this particular work I was bitching about, but if you can tell me why I should appreciate it I'm open to suggestions. --{{User:JeevesMkII/sig/sig1}} 13:16, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
 
::::::::::: So, answer my damned question. What is there to be grasped about a canvas painted in one colour with a roller? I'd suggest precisely nothing. How can I look any deeper at this work? Where the hell is the nuance? What am I supposed to infer that I don't infer from looking at the wall of my house? If the value of the work is the yarn the artist spins post facto, I'd heartily suggest they go in to writing fiction. I don't for a moment believe that the fault is mine for failing to grasp the significance of this particular work I was bitching about, but if you can tell me why I should appreciate it I'm open to suggestions. --{{User:JeevesMkII/sig/sig1}} 13:16, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::Your damned question has been answered already, multiple times.  If you want more, maybe you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsworth_Kelly do] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism your] [http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/kitsch.html damned] [http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/modernism.html research].  It's part of a cultural and intellectual movement that forces the viewer to look at the picture plane in a non-representational way, and if you're going to look at the significance you have to have some knowledge of the movement and context it grows out of.  We judge literature that way.  We judge music that way.  We judge dance that way.  But art?  Pretty pictures or nothing.  Write fiction?  Like James Joyce, who we study ''in the same way you refuse to do with art'', perhaps?  The fault ''is'' yours for refusing to believe there ''is'' significance in the work without bothering to look at it any more deeply than "is it pretty colours" when it's bloody obvious that it's not a piece of commercial art or representative art where judging the subject is appropriate.  A cursory glance, a snap judgement, and it's not art any more.  Well, screw that, some art is ''allowed'' to be challenging, or intellectual, or even difficult.  The same as literature, music, dance, or whatever. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 13:29, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
  
 
===Handy edit button #1===
 
===Handy edit button #1===

Revision as of 17:29, 22 March 2009

This debate was relocated to here from Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?

Ellsworth Kelly

Can someone explain the intended lulz in the WiGO, other than some of us here at RW know fuck-all about art? --Kels 00:44, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

This one has bounced up and down past zero a few times. I think it is a little odd that we make fun of CP for it ignorance, yet we show ourselves ignorant by laughing at modern art (not that some is without ridicule). - User \scriptstyle-i\ln(-1) 00:50, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I actually like it (the painting, not the WIGO). If nothing else, Joaquin has a sense of the avant garde, and that's more than I can say for the rest of the Goon Squad. To each his own, ya know? We can't fault someone for taste. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 00:56, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
And here I was earlier tonight thinking once again, that of all the suck that is CP, at least JM does a decent job of actually featuring really high quality art on the main page. Even if many of the images are copyvios. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:57, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
PS, although I think the jpg artifacts muck that one up a bit. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:58, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC) I put the WIGO in. I found it amusing that the Conservapedia types could chatter on about "cultural decay" and condemn the "avant-garde" while concurrently displaying that on their front page. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 00:59, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Call me a Phillistine if you must, but I don't see the appeal of cubes. It's like those blank canvas displays or my favorite: lights turning on and off. shit you not ENorman 01:08, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Yeaaaaah, that whole "Modern art is so stupid, a child could do it, etc." meme was pretty much played out in the 1950's, and hasn't really been that funny since. But have fun with it, there. --Kels 01:11, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Citing children as the possible source of that piece of, um, art is giving it far too much credit. I have seen better art come out of a random number generator. Raw. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:17, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Ellsworth Kelly did create artwork with a random number generator along with other mathematical techniques. - User \scriptstyle-i\ln(-1) 02:03, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I rest my case. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:15, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
My only real comment on the whole modern art thing comes from a prank a friend and I pulled at an "art competition" in the Springs. We literally went around the streets of Denver the day of the entry deadline, pulling random crap out of public garbage bins and entered it with the title "public refuse in Denver." Long story short, we won. That was the end of any possible appreciation I had for modern art. I don't think there are any rules for art, but if it comes out of the garbage and wins, epic fail. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 02:43, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Let me get this straight. You got upset because a gag you did criticizing modern art was taken seriously. What the hell do you think the point of Modern Art is? It's a movement that grew up in the 50's and 60's that criticized the concept of art in the first place. And you're surprised that a piece making fun of it did well? --Kels 10:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
On reflection, your prank was more Dadaist than Modernist. Dada did the criticism of art thing, but he had more of a sense of humour about it. --Kels 11:44, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

(unindent) Actually, it was the previous week's "masterpiece" that caused my eyebrows to elevate. At least Ellsworth Kelly has been shown in the Guggenheim Museum. Phillipe Dubois appears to be virtually unknown and, furthermore, if I am any judge, is no master painter (Although, I may be wrong so, if you want to get in on the ground floor, I see that you can still buy a Phillipe Dubois for a very reasonable US$2,500 - be quick!). It reminds me of one of JM's previous masterpieces which was by some guy who sold his paintings on the home shopping channel. Call me an art snob if you will, but very few genuine masterpieces seem to get sold via infotainment programing. --Horace 01:20, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

The work is a classic in hidden homoerotic art...if one downsizes the photo and then looks at the resultant image from, oh, say, 8 feet, one can clearly see that it is a pixelation of the glans penis. It's sort of a digital throwback to Seurat, only kinkier. 03:10, 22 March 2009 (EDT) CЯacke®
? ? ? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:15, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Wherein Ellsworth Kelly pisses me off

I thought I recognised the name. I've never, ever come closer to demanding my money back from any museum as I have from San Francisco's MOMA. The saving grace was the exhibition of San Francisco earthquake photos on the top floor, which I rather enjoyed. The art I found almost universally crass and uninspired.

The crowning glory of what pissed me off was this shit by Kelly himself. A white fucking canvas. You really have to be a hardcore art critic to admire this shit, I'm sorry but I just can't. I'm not totally against modern art, in fact I rather liked the Tate Modern's collection last time I went, but somewhere you just have to draw a line. I did, however, admire in the abstract the artist's ability to get paid for crap like this. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:31, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Maybe the idea was to charge every stationary manufacturer with copyright infringement...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 10:23, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
How about this shit? Modern art? Bollocks, more like. Fox 06:13, 22 March 2009 (EDT) Aside: Curator Joaquin, please put this modern art "masterpiece" on the main page - it will serve a dual purpose in that it will also act as a handy visual guide to the wiki's contents. Fox 06:14, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Let me summarize the comments thus far

Modern Arts R dum! A-durr durr durr!

Heaven forbid something that's not easily grasped in a few seconds should be considered valid. Do you approach science the same way? --Kels 10:57, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

How about: "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like"? ToastToastand marmite 10:59, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
No, it's just that anything is art if an artist says it is, and is therefore worth millions. Word time Phantom Hoover! 11:02, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Keeping in mind that it was uncommon for a lot of the original Modernists to actually get paid very much. The stereotype of the artist not making a lot of money in their lifetime is pretty common in fine arts, especially in the middle of last century. A few exceptions, but not all that many. The Modernists were starting an entirely new arts scene in New York (moving it from Paris where it was previously), and there weren't really wealthy patrons or anything in place to fund them. That's how Greenwich Village originally came to be an arts community, it was all cheap, shoddy housing that was all the artists could afford. I gather it's gentrified since, sadly. --Kels 11:18, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Can you address Toast's query as to why art is worth more if from a famous artist than from a relative unknown? Word time Phantom Hoover! 11:24, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
The prices are largely set by the galleries, who can more easily sell something people recognize. Do you not understand simple marketing? --Kels 11:28, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
No, wait, if Kels is going to be that insulting, I shall sum up the arguments in favour of modern art thus:
Pretty colours! Yaaay!
Word time Phantom Hoover! 11:05, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
EC) What's always amused me is the attribution:value relation. How come a work is more valuable if a famous artist created it than if a nonentity did? ToastToastand marmite 11:07, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Because the colours are prettier! Word time Phantom Hoover! 11:07, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, because it's absolutely SHOCKING that you should have a branch of art that actually requires you look into the background, study something, or think of something beyond "ooh, pretty colours". Much better to do the 1950's sitcom straw man approach. Again, do you learn science this way? --Kels 11:13, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

What is there in the background of a white rectangle with a rhombus of a slightly different shade of white? Word time Phantom Hoover! 11:17, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
As above, do your research. The primary concept behind the Modernist movement was using art to criticize the concept of art. Up to that point, pretty much all art had been representational. Impressionist at times, Expressionist at others, but the point of a painting was the subject. With the rise of photography in the early century, there was a bit of an undercurrent of doubt, since obviously cameras could make better likenesses. So between those things and the philosophies of the immediately post-WWII period on the largely Jewish NY arts community, the concept of making art that spoke about art itself came about, making deliberately non-representational things that could not possibly have subjects, and forcing the viewer to look at the picture plane rather than what it's about. Now off this came the post-modernists, and a lot of the same philosophies went different directions with the surrealists, Warhol's Pop Art and so forth, but that's where stuff like what you mention comes from. Read some Clement Greenberg, he was one of the driving intellectual forces behind the movement. --Kels 11:24, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
So you're saying that what gives modern art its value is not the art, but whatever crap the artist makes up about it? Word time Phantom Hoover! 11:29, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Are you saying that all art must be representational, and cannot be rooted in the context of the time it's made, or philosophical underpinnings? Are you saying art is not permitted to be intellectual or challenging? --Kels 11:33, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm fine with art being intellectual or challenging, so long as that challenging intellectualness is justified. What I won't put up with is art claiming to be intellectual and challenging just because the artist says it is. Word time Phantom Hoover! 11:38, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I agree, and I just gave you the justfication and where to look for more. Cripes, if we studied evolution this way we wouldn't even get as far as Goddidit. --Kels 11:42, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
You gave no justification, only an assertion, with nothing about how a white rectangle on a bit of canvas is in any way to do with criticism of art. Word time Phantom Hoover! 12:56, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
That's bullshit. What I'm critisising is the lack of technical skill involved in making the "art." What exactly is there to grasp about a single colour being applied to a canvas with a roller? You can make up all the bullshit explanations you like, but that isn't worth serious consideration as a work of art. I have the same criticism of art where the only involvement the "artist" has in the work is coming up with the concept. When you outsource a sculpture, it ceases to be your work. That's not art, that's civil engineering. I'm sorry your artists soul is offended, but if you're granting that some of these works have value then I have some of my early work in the medium of crayola on paper to sell you. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:24, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
"What I'm critisising is the lack of technical skill involved in making the "art." Do you want an artist or a bricklayer? Is art judged by how many hours spent in front of the canvas? I think Claus Oldenberg, a pop artist, is brilliant for his colossal versions of (relatively) ordinary objects, but he actually has to hire foundries to cast the steel for them, and so forth. Is he not an artist at all because he can't forge his own iron in large quantities? --Kels 11:31, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, actually to be honest for the most part I prefer the bricklayer. Well, not so much the architecture, but I much prefer to see a steam engine than a sculpture shall we say.
But I digress. You say you admire Oldenberg, but what exactly was his contribution to the creative process? If he didn't make the blank, smelt or pour the steel, what exactly DID he do? Aren't the true artisans the people who actually did the work, rather then the person who supplied the cash and said "make it so"? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:45, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't know all of Oldenberg's creative process, so I can only assume he makes his own mockups (with wood, clay, or whatever) and design drawings, plus plans for cases (like his Crusoe Umbrella exhibit) where it has to be displayed in unorthodox methods. Plus dealing with how things are displayed and such, of course. But I guess the foundry worker who's told "make a piece of iron in this shape" is more of an artist. --Kels 11:49, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Ah, the value of doing my research. Oldenberg did indeed do his own maquettes, as well as design drawings, preliminary paintings and studies, as well as collaborations with architects and other craftsmen for the fabrication stage, so he was well involved int he process of creating these pieces. --Kels 11:58, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
The problem with modern art as Kels has described it is that there's only so much value in something that exists only to make some kind of meta-point about the nature of art. There's only so many times someone can make an artwork asking "what is art?" - whereas representational art or art that demonstrates technical craftsmanship can have value on many different levels. Art that is at an extreme level of abstraction seems pretty limited to me, and so not very interesting. seventhrib 11:55, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Surely that comes to personal taste, not a lack of value in the art itself. Although a valid point comes up that there are imitators of the better artists who attempt to ride the coattails, and especially in an intellectual sort of art like this, it becomes hard to tell sometimes. --Kels 11:58, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm talking about the limitations of artwork which makes a statement as its primary purpose - this 'intellectual' art which is all about the context in which it was made etc. Once we get beyond the statement there's not much left to appreciate ("ooh pretty colours!") and really there's only so many such statements one can make. I mean, once you've seen one Pollock paint-splatter you've almost seen them all - but the same could not be said for a Rembrandt or whatever. seventhrib 12:09, 22 March 2009 (EDT) PS I appreciate you're now having many arguments at once - probably I shouldn't have stuck my beak in.
Heh, and I'm not even that much of an expert on the subject, but I've just done some of the research. As I mentioned elsewhere, a lot of the underpinnings of the original movement that created artists like Kelly, Mondrian, Bennett and so forth comes from the critical work of Clement Greenberg. His original essay that got the ball rolling is here, and his essay on Modernism is here, and they're both a good window into what the Modernists as a rule were getting at. And again, the cultural context of WWII being a recent memory in a bunch of expatriate Jews living in New York had a teensy bit of an impact too. It's an intellectual art, so there's a lot of cases where you need to go beyond the painting itself to really "get" the full effect. --Kels 12:37, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm trying to pretend I understand its inherent artistic value, but it still looks like a can of shit to me =/ From the Tate: "The Merda d'artista, the artist's shit, dried naturally and canned 'with no added preservatives', was the perfect metaphor for the bodied and disembodied nature of artistic labour: the work of art as fully incorporated raw material, and its violent expulsion as commodity. Manzoni understood the creative act as part of the cycle of consumption: as a constant reprocessing, packaging, marketing, consuming, reprocessing, packaging, ad infinitum." Hm, Private Eye's Pseud's Corner or the more simplistic "Emperor's New Clothes" springs to mind. I'm sorry, I can't help my philistinism, I just see a tin of shit. Fox 11:55, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I think the thing that really amuses me most about the Pseud's Corner link is that Warhol would have totally agreed with the characterization. --Kels 12:24, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

It's really surprising to me that RWians sound like I would think CPians would sound when discussing modern art. Patrickr 12:00, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm a bit amazed at it all myself, Patrickr. "That's not Art, that's just rubbish!" is the kind of thing I imagine a crusty old gent saying, peering over his pince-nez while opening stock certificates. DogP 12:13, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC) So, let me ask you this. If you discovered his only contribution to the creative process was to take a photo of an object and take it to a production house and say "make me one of these, only eight feet tall" would that still qualify as art and would he still be the artist? If you're excluding any assessment of technical merit from art criticism, what the hell is there left? It just becomes a popularity contest. Big name, big price. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:01, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
If he did that, then of course I'd question his participation. But stuff like that is actually pretty rare, most artists working on smaller scale stuff can't afford a staff like that, or to outsource. The only case I can think of right off the top of my head is an artist who was parodied in the (very good) film "Life Classes". But technical matters do matter in context. If an artist is using skilled tradesmen as a method of creation (i.e., they're only intermediaries, the artist is making all the decisions), then you don't judge the piece based on technical skill the way you would for say, a Van Gogh where he was doing it directly. --Kels 12:11, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
So, I refer you back to my original question. In the case where Ellsworth paints one colour on a canvas with a roller, what possible defence can there be of that work as art? I have a clear metric I use when appreciating an artwork. I need to be able to distinguish the sublime from the commonplace. Personally, if the artistic process involves laser scanning an object, and then having a computer produce an ice positive then using that to produce a clay negative and pouring metal in to it, that's pretty damn commonplace in my book. The work of a person's hands to shape a negative or a statue from clay or marble, if well executed, can be sublime. I can think of no other metric by which to judge art, and you haven't supplied one. If an artist hires hands to produce the work, by what means are we to objectively value their skill? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:29, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I still don't get it. You seem to be pulling the whole creative process down to a sheer physical act. Is there any conceptual element in your example? Is the value of sculpture 100% in physical skill and 0% in anything mental? Does planning what you're intending to do count in any way? --Kels 12:32, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Well, I certainly see no value in conceptualising if the concept requires the artist to be around to explain it rather than being inherent in the work. I especially see no value in it if there is nothing to the work but concept, as in the one colour canvas example. How can I possibly have any respect for concept in this use case, when nobody is going to pay me hundreds of thousands of quid for a beautifully designed and executed software algorithm? Face it, the medium matters and the artist's skill in working their chosen medium is the prime factor in judging a work. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:00, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
In that case we're back to exactly what I said at the beginning, "Heaven forbid something that's not easily grasped in a few seconds should be considered valid." If you can't judge it at face value, on the spot, then it doesn't count as art, that's what it comes down to. How much an artist is paid has nothing to do with the art, it has to do with what the buyer thinks the art is worth, and that can in many cases screw the artist over big time. --Kels 13:08, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
So, answer my damned question. What is there to be grasped about a canvas painted in one colour with a roller? I'd suggest precisely nothing. How can I look any deeper at this work? Where the hell is the nuance? What am I supposed to infer that I don't infer from looking at the wall of my house? If the value of the work is the yarn the artist spins post facto, I'd heartily suggest they go in to writing fiction. I don't for a moment believe that the fault is mine for failing to grasp the significance of this particular work I was bitching about, but if you can tell me why I should appreciate it I'm open to suggestions. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:16, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Your damned question has been answered already, multiple times. If you want more, maybe you can do your damned research. It's part of a cultural and intellectual movement that forces the viewer to look at the picture plane in a non-representational way, and if you're going to look at the significance you have to have some knowledge of the movement and context it grows out of. We judge literature that way. We judge music that way. We judge dance that way. But art? Pretty pictures or nothing. Write fiction? Like James Joyce, who we study in the same way you refuse to do with art, perhaps? The fault is yours for refusing to believe there is significance in the work without bothering to look at it any more deeply than "is it pretty colours" when it's bloody obvious that it's not a piece of commercial art or representative art where judging the subject is appropriate. A cursory glance, a snap judgement, and it's not art any more. Well, screw that, some art is allowed to be challenging, or intellectual, or even difficult. The same as literature, music, dance, or whatever. --Kels 13:29, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Handy edit button #1

In my opinion, all art is that which falls on the dark side of Occam's razor: if the product isn't something that actually necessary for survival it can fall into the realm of art. (Even if the product is necessary for survival one can still appreciate the beauty of the thing; old plows, a plate of food etc.)

What I am seeing is this: "Well I can't see the value of this object, therefore it hasn't GOT ANY VALUE to ANYONE. "

As well as the old: "It looks as if a child had done it and it sold for HOW MUCH!?" as if money had anything to do with art. The "artist" toils for the sheer love of working on what she wishes. If you're a "graphic artist" and you hate your job, then you know you're no true Scotsman artist...the artist is the graphic artist who hates their job and then quits to work another medium that fulfills them...they may have to wait tables to work their art. The successful artist is the person who produces what they wish to produce...the money be damned. If they happen to make a good buck doing it? So much the better! 12:45, 22 March 2009 (EDT) CЯacke®

Damian Hirst... His most famous work is a shark preserved in formaldehyde and titled The Physical Impossibility of Death In The Mind Of Someone Living. It sold to an American buyer for $13 million. Then there was his exhibition of 29 "photorealist oil paintings" based on photographs of hospital scenes, drug addicts and suicide bombers. The paintings, which sold for $200,000 to $2 million each, were actually painted by assistants with Hirst "stepping in only to add a touch of blood or do the eyes." When asked about this he responded: "I don't like the idea that it has to be done by the artist, I think it's quite an old fashioned thing. Architects don't build their own houses." Modern art, or conman..? In 2003, the Stuckists exhibited a shark, entitled A Dead Shark Isn't Art, "which had first been put on public display two years before Hirst's by Eddie Saunders in his Shoreditch shop, JD Electrical Supplies. "If Hirst’s shark is recognised as great art, then how come Eddie’s, which was on exhibition for two years beforehand, isn’t? Do we perhaps have here an undiscovered artist of genius, who got there first, or is it that a dead shark isn’t art at all?"" I think they might be onto something. Fox 12:56, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Eddie didn't make up a load of crap about its meaning, so it's not art. Word time Phantom Hoover! 13:02, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
The answer to your question, Fox, is Timing and Marketing. That's all. Nothing at all to do with the actual value of art, and everything to do with what the buyer was willing to spend. --Kels 13:11, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Actually, I'm kinda tongue-in-cheek trolling a bit here, I should confess, so I will withdraw from the discussion. A lot of modern/conceptual art I can accept as some sort of artistic statement, even if it is only comprehensible by the creator. But I'm still not convinced about the tin of shit. Fox 13:16, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC)Well, the tin of shit is more Dadaist/Absurdist than Modernist, so there is a degree of cynicism and humour to be assumed there in the first place. So you're probably taking it the right way. --Kels 13:21, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I assume that my query in one of the above threads has gone unnoticed, so I shall repeat it here: what the hell has some white paint rolled onto a piece of canvas got to do with criticising art? Word time Phantom Hoover! 13:28, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Xactly Kels! The "value" of the art has nothing to do with its monetary "worth"> Just as gold isn't worth as much as bread to a starving man, art only flourishes when there is abundance. CЯacke® PS while we wouldn't get an entire record of it you can also chat realtime on IRC freenode.net #rationalwiki