Piss Christ Thread Here

[financeguy]

And, like all postmodern art, you'll either love it for its irony or you'll hate it completely.

No, I wouldn't fit into either of these categories. I like the artwork but not for its irony. In fact I don't see any irony in it.

 

[melon]

I have been to the MOMA and the Metropolitan, and to tell you the truth, I leave the Met feeling inspired while I leave the MOMA with nothing but a huge question mark. Why? Much of the stuff they have on display there is literally crap (one display has different kinds of bodily fluid stains on cloth). What about the piece that was simply a white board? How much work went into that?

Look at the dates of much of the modern art. I would say that 95% of it is dated from the 1960s and 1970s. An art museum, for me, is more of a historical record of what people considered to be "art" in a period of time, rather than a collection of what the masses consider to be "art."

Solid color canvasses made in 2005 would probably get laughed at, because they'd point to it being done 30 years ago.

Melon

 

[foray]

Piss Christ is sooo 90s



Seriously though, I've met artists who are seen in the public eye as controversial, troublemakers, attention-getters... but every time they have surprised me with their intelligent presentation and defence of their work. Plus they act really sane and centred It's a nutty world.

foray

 

[nathan1977]

But how much gets seen or heard? Without funding very little.

I don't think there's any guarantee that what you create will get seen or heard, and I think it's dangerous to start living on those terms. It creates a sense of entitlement that isn't helpful either to the artist or society. Can you imagine if all the starving actors, writers, directors, dancers, etc (many of whom are in L.A., and many of whom are crap), would start to take it as their entitlement that the government must give them a platform from which to speak? Distribution is not a right.

 

[melon]

I don't think there's any guarantee that what you create will get seen or heard, and I think it's dangerous to start living on those terms. It creates a sense of entitlement that isn't helpful either to the artist or society. Can you imagine if all the starving actors, writers, directors, dancers, etc (many of whom are in L.A., and many of whom are crap), would start to take it as their entitlement that the government must give them a platform from which to speak? Distribution is not a right.

Outside of the U.S., all film/TV industries are at least partially state funded or owned. That's because it's too expensive of an industry, and Hollywood is too successful. Killing tax funded media around the world would give the U.S. a global monopoly.

But as I've said, this issue is overblown. The amount we spend on art in this country pales in comparison to the amount we spend to pay the interest on our national debt, not to mention the hundreds upon hundreds of billions we're spending on military excursions. Art spending is a literal drop in the bucket, and cutting it out completely will do absolutely nothing to lower your taxes.

Melon

 

[BVS]

I don't think there's any guarantee that what you create will get seen or heard, and I think it's dangerous to start living on those terms. It creates a sense of entitlement that isn't helpful either to the artist or society. Can you imagine if all the starving actors, writers, directors, dancers, etc (many of whom are in L.A., and many of whom are crap), would start to take it as their entitlement that the government must give them a platform from which to speak? Distribution is not a right.

No one's claiming its a right. I think you are missing the point completely. Its not about entitlment to artists but society.

 

[melon]

In general, I think it is conservatives who are sitting on a sense of entitlement. They want people to fund any scheme that they want ("faith-based initiatives"), even if others protest, but when it comes to things that they disagree with, then let's cut all the funding! Let's stop the world, folks! The *conservatives* don't want to pay for something!

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. We all pay for things that we disagree with, ultimately.

Melon

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

I never did see human waste as art. Interesting...

 

[BVS]

I never did see human waste as art. Interesting...

Some of the very first "paints" were human and animal dung along with blood, berries and many other things most wouldn't consider "art" these days.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Another reason why absolutely everyone should bow to the sheer genius of Jan Van Eyck.

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

Some of the very first "paints" were human and animal dung along with blood, berries and many other things most wouldn't consider "art" these days.

Those substances were considered media, IIRC, and were not considered "art" by themselves. Otherwise, Neanderthal Man would consider the tribal outhouse an art gallery. Early humans did not have access to oils and other types of paint so they would use whatever they had on hand.

 

[Irvine511]

the Renaissance was funded by the Medicis.

Shakespeare was funded by Elizabeth.

in my opinion, one of the great tragedies of the USA is that we don't do more for art -- think of all the talent that goes wasted in this country because it's hard to make a big profit off of challenging art.

 

[BVS]

Those substances were considered media, IIRC, and were not considered "art" by themselves. Otherwise, Neanderthal Man would consider the tribal outhouse an art gallery. Early humans did not have access to oils and other types of paint so they would use whatever they had on hand.

Well no shit. That's why I called them "paints". The problem with BEB's post was that he assumed people were considering the waste itself art and not what they did with it.

 

[verte76]

People have always pretty much used what they could get to do art. Oils didn't come in in Europe until around 1400. Before that people used "tempera" paint made from egg shells. Clay, of course, is straight from the earth, and it's still used, of course. Fabric dyes came from various and sundry plants or animals. Before they could make anything synthetic, they had to invent the technology, and most modern paints didn't make their debuts until the nineteenth or twentieth centuries.