Sunday, April 30, 2006


What do you think? I don't think I like it....or rather his attitude. But I don't know.

Click here.


Blogger China said...

I feel like this is something I'd be enough of a jerk to do.

As much as I hate the idea that he's making money off work that isn't all his, or isn't heartfelt, I also think he's quite intelligent in his ability to read people and understand what they will eat up. I want to say that it's manipulative, but if art collectors are willing to pay thousands of dollars for his work knowing that there is nothing genuine behind it, then they are proving to the "artist" that they don't buy art to appreciate it as much as they do to simply "be" collectors. And I think anyone who resents him for getting away with this task

1)might be jealous that they hadn't considered it first, or

2)is more upset with the art collectors for going against the standard of what art appreciation "should" be.

I'm also not attached to visual art on most occasions, so it's easier for me to look at this objectively. A comparison I could make is with music, I think - I get upset when major record labels spit out crappy emo bands who go on to make tons of money because teens with poor taste will willingly buy the records, even though more original and genuine music is out there. And I understand that I resent these cheap music imitations because I want to believe that I'm a real music fan who has an emotional response to good music and can distinguish the good from the bad. But I'm sure there are people old enough to be my parents or grandparents who believe that the music I consider "quality" is as much of a lousy imitation as I consider most current, major bands to be. It's just a matter of people being selfish with their art and wanting to claim ownership, and I think this guy has a good understanding of that and knows how to use it to his advantage - people are willing to give in.

12:14 AM  
Blogger Sarah E. Smith said...

I think my biggest problem is not that he is succeeding - money is money - but that he is not invested in the work. It's just something to do, and that devalues the art for me. The art world's acceptance of this doesn't bug me either - in some ways, I kind of like the petty little way in which they are lapping it up. I think that the best art involves some love or mastery...

Part of me just wants to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he reallly does care, behind everything. Honestly, he probably does, but I *want* art to be meant, if that makes sense.

11:21 PM  
Blogger China said...

I didn't think you would care about his making money off the project - it's a shallow argument but is always a possibility available for the taking, and there is always *someone* who'll claim it. But I do think that the art collectors eating up his "art" is worse than his lack of investment. By giving him an audience, they're playing an active role in devaluing his art. And maybe this is a stretch of an idea, but remember the day in class when we brought up the viewer's role in art and considered that disruptive sculpture and how perhaps people disrupted by it were meant to play a role in the art? What if this guy is actually intending his audience to fill in the other half of his art, leaving open the possibility that they will react or not and consider that reaction part of his art?

No, I don't believe it either. He's probably just a smart guy who knows how pretentious art collectors can be. By the way, it's awesome that we've kept this going despite the class being over - go us!

1:57 AM  
Blogger Sarah E. Smith said...

yeah, you've convinced me that the art world's willingness to follow his gimmick is worse than the gimmick itself. Like my dad used to ask - who is worse: the fool, or the fool that follows. haha oh.

we do rule for sticking to the blog.

2:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home