Posts Tagged ‘art wank’

say what?Wellthisiswhatithink is somewhat well-known for our seemingly endless selection of F*** Ups. Advertising F*** Ups. PR F*** Ups. Packaging F*** Ups. Social Media F*** Ups. And so it goes on. And on. Our eagle-eyed correspondents can be relied upon to feed us through this week’s latest edition with staggering regularity.

Just stick F*** Up in the search box top left of this page and you’ll see what we mean.

Anyhow.

This here is a new, modern, abstract Christmas tree being, er, erected in the centre of Paris.

 

christmas tree

And that, Dear Reader, is precisely all we are saying on the subject. Mules, whips and chains (oo-er missus) will not drag further comment from us.

No. No … stop it. No, don’t say it.

We daren’t even call it an Art F*** Up for fear of being mis-interpreted.

 

Advertisements

I very rarely reproduce internet memes (usually found on Facebook) but this one actually made me larf out loud. So I thought I would share it, and see if it matches your experience of Literature. And teaching. And school generally. And, for that matter, art generally.

meaning

Which brings us straightway, of course, to the very obvious point that Literature is art, and therefore open to interpretation, as is all art.

We have always believed in the adage (with something approaching fanaticism) that “art means whatever it means to you”, irregardless of the supposedly “correct” or merely generally-accepted explanation of what it’s supposed to mean.

As one of the commentators on this meme on FB so aptly put it:

Art professor commenting on a painting I did: “Your repeated use of eye and mouth imagery in your artwork symbolises how the eyes interpret reality while the mouth manipulates said reality.” My response: “I just thought eyes, lips and teeth looked cool.”

Sometimes, they're just eyes and mouths. Deal with it ...

Sometimes, they’re just eyes and mouths. Deal with it …

Indeed.

One of the more interesting experiences in our life has been writing poems that we think mean one thing and then discovering that the people listening think they mean something else.

But what is truly bizarre is when someone else reads one of the poems and interprets it quite differently from what was intended – we mean interprets in terms of balance, flow, pausing, emPHAsis and so on.

Initially, we were horrified, Dear Reader, until (with a certain impressive maturity, we thought) we realised that what was actually being created was not a replacement art form, but an additional one.

It’s very much the same when one writes a TV/film script and then passes it over to a Director. What eventually ends up on screen is often wildly different from how it appeared in one’s mind’s eyes. And sometimes that’s a good thing, and sometimes it isn’t.

The point is, once an item of art has left one’s bosom, it inevitably belongs to the world, not to you any more.

And it may or may not have any intrinsic or inherent value. After all, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, surely artistic value is too?

great-wall-of-vagina-exhibitionWe are on record, for example, as being a fan of James McCartney’s “Great Wall of Vagina”, where 400 intimately detailed casts of womens’ vulvas are displayed in ten panels both to encourage women to get more in touch and comfortable with their own body, and to campaign against the concept of plastic surgery to “normalise” womens’ vaginas.

Is it art? Well, we think so. You may not. And we’re comfortable to disagree.

It is most definitely an important piece of agit-prop, which has always gone hand in hand with high art. We actually find it strangely soothing, and not in the least erotic. Which is an interesting outcome.

The music, words or art that becomes favourited or valuable are not necessarily any good, it is just stuff which has acquired cachet, renown, infamy or superficial value. We have seen more brilliant art from people who have never sold a canvass, been paid to sing a song or for an article or a piece of anything else artistique than we have from those whose music, canvasses, books or whatevs sell for millions. Let us remember that Van Gogh never sold a painting to anyone (other than his long-suffering bro Theo) before he died. Unless giving away little paintings for a glass of absinthe and a plate of beed stew counts.

Is it art? You be the judge,

Is it art? You be the judge.

So if you feel inclined to write something, or paint it, or sculpt it, or crochet it, or blow it or slump it or stick it together with glue or create a pop song or a symphony, be true to yourself, but don’t necessarily seek approval, and even less, seek understanding.

The art has its own value.

To you.

If it has a value to anyone else, that’s a bonus. It is so vanishingly unlikely that you will ever earn a living as an artist as to be more improbable than a very improbable thing on Planet Improbabability on Inter-Galactic Improbability Day, so above all do the work you love, and hang the critics.

If it sells, double bonus.

Anyhow, should you feel the need to create your own art wank, to pre-empt the crap thought or written by others, I recommend this little website, called Arty Bollocks. It allows you to instantly generate your own arty bollocks for gallery descriptions, articles, and criticism of any type. Just click on “Generate Bollocks”.

That allows us to easily share with you, Dear Reader, the deep rationale behind our recent works poetical.

Our work explores the relationship between multiculturalism and midlife subcultures.

With influences as diverse as Caravaggio and Joni Mitchell, new insights are created from both constructed and discovered textures.

Ever since I was a student I have been fascinated by the theoretical limits of meaning. What starts out as contemplation soon becomes debased into a manifesto of distress, leaving only a sense of unreality and the prospect of a new order.

As wavering forms become frozen through emergent and academic practice, the listener is left with a testament to the outposts of our future.

keep calm“The outposts of our future.”

That’s what it’s all about.

So there.

Other reading: Is art wank? http://www.fearfuladventurer.com/archives/4677

In a sign of some excitement returning to the art market – a sure sign that the American economy is recovering, courtesy of the vast buckets of taxpayer (and Chinese taxpayer) money that has been chucked at it, this, er, blue thing, just sold for nearly $44 million US dollars.

art wank

The edges of the white stripe aren’t even perfect. “Send it back, Jeeves.”

Bloomberg gushed:

“The speculative element is returning to the market,” said Jonathan Binstock, senior adviser in postwar and contemporary art at Citi Private Bank. “There’s more money to spend on riskier opportunities, ones that would have seemed unappealing just a few years prior.”

Hours earlier, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index stock benchmark climbed to its eighth high in nine sessions.

The auction’s tally surpassed the presale low estimate of $284 million but fell short of the $383 million high estimate.

Records were set for four artists, including Gerhard Richter and Nate Lowman, while 11 of the 64 lots didn’t sell. Bidders from 35 countries registered for the sale, Sotheby’s said.

Consigned by Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), Newman’s 8.5-by-10-foot “Onement VI” was estimated at $30 million to $40 million. Its sale was ensured by an undisclosed third-party guarantee.

What a load of total tosh.

Yet another example that the uber-rich go soft in the head the richer they get. Who cares if they make money, or don’t, on such a transaction? It’s immoral, obscene, and ludicrous.

I have a similar work in my garage. It’s called a ping-pong table. It’s yours for $125. Or $100 and a slab of beer. Can’t say fairer than that.

A digitally altered photo of a river worth more than $4 million

A digitally altered photo of a river worth more than $4 million?

Yahoo and the Daily Mail reports

A photo of an “accurate image of a modern river” has been sold for $4.38 million, earning the highest ever price for a photograph at an auction.

The photo, which depicts a bland scene of a river, was digitally altered by artist Andreas Gursky to remove pesky distractions such as dog walkers, cyclists and factory building to focus on the river itself, the Daily Mail reported.

The picture, called “Rhine It”, fetched the mammoth auction price at Christie’s in New York.

It was described by the auction house as “a dramatic and profound reflection on human existence and our relationship to nature on the cusp of the 21st century”.

The purchaser of the expensive print is not currently known. The previous record for a photo at an auction was Cindy Sherman’s 1981 print ‘Untitled’, which earned $3.7 million.

To which I say: this is a nonsense. The photo is little more than a happy snap, with some simple photoshopping. Millions of people do the same every day on their home PCs.

What’s more, it’s not merely bland, it’s utterly meaningless, tedious and boring. And secondly, and much more importantly, did the investor (he/she could hardly be called an art lover) consider what that $4.38 million might have done feeding children in the Horn of Africa? Or, indeed, how it might have impacted upon any other worthy cause?

Did they pause for one moment, in their rush to acquire something which they hope will increase in value, to consider how many lives they could have changed for the better, perhaps utterly and profoundly, before buying a print to sit, presumably, in a  temperature-controlled vault, somewhere?

Well may the occupy movement cry “Tax the 1%, we are the 99%”. No wonder the purchaser is unknown. His house would be the next place with a tent city springing up on the front lawn.