Right. But that still doesn't make this art, or the guy that did this an artist.

There is a guy - in Belgium I believe - who $hits in the corner of galleries and calls this art. He also involves the viewer and he also elicits a response in the viewer. And he also doesn't care whether people think he is an artist - because he himself believes that he is.

He thinks crapping in the corner of a gallery is ironic - and a meaningful artistic statement.

But that still doesn't make his crap art, or him an artist, any more than a cubed 997 is art and the crusher an artist.

These are charlatans - pure and simple - and those of you who defend this stuff as "art" because of your dearly held beliefs that 'art is essentially subjective' and 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' - or similar tripe - need a good stiff drink and some red meat, a couple of good courses in aesthetics and a trip to The Louvre.

"More money than brains."

That was my only reaction.

(Anybody have a translation on what is being said during the video? Not that I'm expecting it would be much of anything intelligible to a rational human being....)

That's what I was thinking. Certainly didn't look shiny. The soundtrack could have been taped later (I don't understand it). Just cause it's on the interwebs, doesn't make it true.


Why didn't they strip out the tires and other recyclable bits? :confused:

As I said, it's some poncy Austrian going on about the artistic statement being made; the fact that everything in life is transient - and how the artist wants us to focus on that; the fact that a 911 consists not only of metals and plastics - but also of fluids (imagine that!) - just like a living thing; the great irony of crushing a perfectly new car as opposed to an old one - and how very clever this is etc etc etc.

Bleh.

I never said it was *good* art...

[QUOTE=Dottore;3459820]..... and those of you who defend this stuff as "art".....QUOTE]

I haven't read any post on this thread that I interpret as defending this stuff as art. Did my post lead you to believe that I am?

I said "the artist" because it's self evident from the video that the art world is the context, not intending to defend or attack anyone or pass judgement on what I saw. I have an unexpressed opinion but left it out of my post - I was simply making an observation about the video and speculating on its intent.

It's interesting how angry the topic of what's art and what's not art can make some people - sometimes to the extent that they may even conclude that there should be an "Art Court" to pass judgement as to whether something is "art" or "not art". Reading art history will reveal numerous attempts over the years to do that - all failed.

Besides, why bother? The guy who ****s in gallery corners may have a sensational horizontal audience, but it'll be ephemeral, not the enduring vertical audience of those whose "art" will ultimately rise to the top and be seen in museums and textbooks as significant contributions to art history.

IMHO, this thread is but one data point which proves the cubing of the 997 is "art". I agree with DARISC.

The act of crushing the Porsche has elicited an emotional response. I'm not saying it's good or bad art, just that I think it is art.

The "cubing" machine is cool - I wonder what it's specs are?

Best,

Kurt

as long as people pay admission to see it, i guess that's the requirement for art., IMHO :)

Some people are creative. They add to the world. Some people are destructive, they subtract from the world. This guy is like a virus, destructive, no value added here, no purpose. Best description,,,just DUMB

Cool. IMHO it is the same as wrecking a Porsche in the production of a movie. Happens all the time.

At least it wasn't a classic or a longhood.

geez...
 

At least they had the decency to remove the front and steering wheel badges before they crushed it...:rolleyes:

So those are the criteria for art? If people pay, or if it elicits an emotional response? Really !?!

So then, a bum with a cardboard sign is art. (people pay as he disgusts)

Put the bum in a stark white room? Or dress the bum up as a well known politician? Maybe suspend him from a sky hook over a bistro?

What is "art" is always a contentious question.

Best,

Kurt

If the artist was just trying to make people feel emotion, well then he suceeded...I'm got really angry watching that video.

I would have loved to have that car.

Completely sad.
-Matt

It's not even bad art.

At the very least "art" - as I understand that concept - has something to do with an aesthetic sensibility, and that presupposes some imagination and complexity and depth and taste (although we could of course argue about what we mean by 'taste').

And DARISC, I'm not angry about this guy and his 911. People can do with their possessions what they like. But these kind of talentless hucksters contribute nothing to the art world in my view, and only thrive because too many people are too polite or ignorant to expose them for the charlatans that they are. They are the modern snake oil salesmen, and should be treated like the swindlers, imposters and confidence tricksters that they are.

I should respect them for provoking a reaction? Give me a break.

+1

fwiw, I don't think so. Art is communication.

Funny, tho, if a painter looses paints to a drop cloth, some would let that pass as "art." (esp if it was framed) Thing is, there was never any intent to communicate anything with the painted cloth.

How many posters on this thread know anything about art beyond knowing what they like?

Are you convinced that there is no more to "art" than what you find pleasing to look at?

How many commentiing here have read any art history and realize that it describes an ever changing/evolving body of work involving ongoing criticism, evaluation, rejection and acceptance and is a legitimate field of study for anyone caring to go beyond the "I don't know if it's art, but I know what I like!" level of interest and its concomitant stunning repartee.

Who here is of the opinion that if it's not recognizable and/or pleasing to the eye it isn't art?

How many think that what they deem ugly, ludicrous, stupid, the work of a charlatan or obviously just a POS is definitely NOT ART?

Who is willing to put in the mental effort to go beyond banal condemnation and attempt to articulate what they understand "art" to be.

Yeah! That's the question! What the hell is art?

Cheers and rrrottsa ruck :D,

David

Certainly some art needs prior understanding. Parodies are a good example of this.

However, there seems to be those who will pretend some crap has some sort of deep message. . . those people often stare at the piece with their hand on their chin, and "hmmm." ...then some dumb-ass comment rolls out with notes of "appreciation for the art" (even tho they don't care for it) :rolleyes:

...better off staring at clouds.

Wasn't it Ayn Rand who used the phrase "a selective representation of reality" as a defining characteristic of "art"?

I like that definition; I like to combine it with a look at the "creator" of the artwork.

A person is defined as an "artist" -- and what he creates is "art" -- when he possesses some special talent or ability (whether "learned" or "inherited genetically" really doesn't matter to me) that gives him some unique ability to identify, create and display in a physical form, and pleasing to the senses of the observer, a "selective representation of reality."

That crushed Porsche may be a "selective representation of reality" it could be described as "pleasing to the senses" to look at in that it is "very different" from most items one sees in everyday life, but it is definitely not something that required any special "talent or ability" to create.

Strictly speaking -- using my definitions for "art" and "artist" -- the man who designed the press is more of an artist than some idiot who uses that press to crush a car.

Any idiot can destroy something, the "talent and ability" in art is all about creating something.