997 Gets "Cubed" - Not for the weak hearted!

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by island911

However, there seems to be those who will pretend some crap has some sort of deep message. . . .

Indeed. Every duper, by definition, must be attended to by at least one dupee. Beware comparing dollar to rupee, for the differences, they are indeed great!

This is cast as propitious, but is forged in delusion - wink, wink .

History will trumpet that which cracks and fails and that which deforms and redeems those who truly know and are the saved and delivered from insane careening, if not outright upturning, and the world, will ultimately triumph.

Voids and bubbles be damned - SEEK YE THE TRUTH, FOR IN ART THE TRUTH DOTH EXIST!!

G'night now,

David

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by competentone

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.

Hmmm - well (competentonely?) put.

And I basically agree with you (with a couple of minor exceptions) up until the "some idiot" part.

I thought you grasped and were considering what I am trying to convey in my posts, but alas. I have failed at that point. However I believe that we may be close to a consensus of two given a bit more clarification on my part.

That is unless the irascible island911 rears his ugl....uh, his head and throws a spanner into the gearbox.

David

[nostatic]

some "crap" actually does have a deep message. If you are tuned to receive it. If you aren't, then it will appear to be meaningless crap...

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by competentone

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.

The "talent or ability" was the vision to create the piece.

Again, I'm not saying this is "good" art, but I think your definition is a bit narrow.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by nostatic

The "talent or ability" was the vision to create the piece.

Yes; whatever anyone's opinion of the piece. And those opinions, informed and uninformed, will likely, and unsurprisingly, vary widely.

[speeder]

I thought it was great. And not even close to expensive in the realm of what modern art is selling for these days. A diamond-encrusted skull by Damian Hirst sold for $100 million the other day, and his stuff is a thousand times more perverse than a crushed new car.

Someone said that he "would have liked to have had that car(?)"

Well then go buy it, for chrisakes Sherlock! It's a mass-produced item, they'll make 50 exactly alike for you if you want. It's an endlessly replaceable consumer good, utterly meaningless in and of itself. That was my interpretation of this piece, YMMV as they say around here. A pre-production model w/ dubbed voices added later? Brilliant analysis. Especially the way they photo-shopped it into a museum afterwards.

The reactions from the boogie-was here proves that it's art beyond a doubt. And BTW, whether someone likes something is probably as close to the opposite of the definition of art as you can get.

As the old saying goes, "I don't know what I like, but I know art..."

[speeder]

I probably should not tell the story of Paul Newman crushing a longhood RSR into a cube and sending it to R. Redford as a practical joke back in the '70s. That would be a 3-hankie (or 3 tampax) story for the collector crowd.

[azasadny]

I hate this kind of stuff. How wasteful....

[dad911]

Originally Posted by speeder

I probably should not tell the story of Paul Newman crushing a longhood RSR into a cube and sending it to R. Redford as a practical joke back in the '70s. That would be a 3-hankie (or 3 tampax) story for the collector crowd.

LOL. This is the only reference I could find:

For Paul's 50th birthday, Robert Redford gave him a Porsche...one that had hit a telephone pole at 90 mph. It was delivered and placed in Newman's driveway with a big red bow on it. Newman countered and had the car compacted and moved over to Redford's vestibule.

I wonder if the crushed 'Newman Porsche' is still around? For it's history and the connection to two famous actors, it's probably worth at least a few hundred grand!

You guys would be laughing if it was a VW or a Buick that was crushed. Did you shed a tear when a new 928 rolled into a lake in 'Risky Business' (Alot more valuable in '80s dollars)

You have to admit, this 'art' has drawn more emotion from this OT group than a visit to any museum would.

Now if he had first rolled it into a lake... then crushed it while on fire.... that would have been a masterpiece!

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by competentone

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.

I think this is a very nice starting point for a definition of what constitutes art. There will always be exceptions and counterexamples - because this is not hard science - but as a starting point this does just fine.

That said, I think the point here is not to try to define what art is - a notoriously difficult subject - but rather to rule out the cubed porsche as even qualifying for consideration.

Now the banality of the soundtrack that accompanied the film certainly helped me to make that decision in my mind. The guy was a cheap charlatan - and there was nothing remotely interesting or profound about the vision he was describing. Nothing.

And I don't think that his 'vision' in doing this meets the requirement for "talent and ability" in competentones analyses. Not even remotely. There is no complexity, or depth, or humour (irony?) - nor any artistic or intellectual insight that allows us to see things differently or more clearly as a result of gaving seen the cubed porsche. And I see nothing particularly aesthetically pleasing about the thing as a cube of scrap metal.

I used to have a barber who claimed he was an artist, and he called his haircuts "subtractive sculpture". That usually got a laugh - and that was as far as it went.

Similarly, the only positive thing I can see about the cubed porsche is that it seriously takes the pi$$ out of people who are taken in by the claim that this is art. In other words, I think it works to some extent as a satire on art and those who take art too seriously.

But that still doesn't make it art.

[}{arlequin]

i think whatever ze austrian wanted to accomplish w/ this, the collective longhood-ish type of lament proved his point. art solicits a response and he sure got that in spades. as it was mentioned, good art vs. bad art isn't the point. you don't even need to 'get it'. still works the same.

as for the transient nature of the car, he only speeded up the process. that very same process is ongoing currently w/ your car. don't belive me? leave it alone for 50 yrs. just let it be. see what happens. my guess is, the car wants to go back to its natural state. come apart into pieces, and each piece doesn't want to be in the shape of a door, or a duck. it will continue to rust and come apart until the car is completely satisfied w/ it's equilibrium state.

this guy just accelerated it. call it "he showed you the future"

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Dottore

That said, I think the point here is not to try to define what art is - a notoriously difficult subject - but rather to rule out the cubed porsche as even qualifying for consideration.

The Art Court is now in session, Judge Dottore presiding.

Now the banality of the soundtrack that accompanied the film certainly helped me to make that decision in my mind. The guy was a cheap charlatan - and there was nothing remotely interesting or profound about the vision he was describing. Nothing.

The judge has apparently dismisssed the jury without convening it and has issued his decree.

And I don't think that his 'vision' in doing this meets the requirement for "talent and ability"

The judge does not think.

in competentones analyses. Not even remotely. There is no complexity, or depth, or humour (irony?) - nor any artistic or intellectual insight that allows us to see things differently or more clearly as a result of gaving seen the cubed porsche.

His Honor rules that the "Artist" on trial does not allow us to see. A hushed murmer is heard in the packed courtroom as those watching are shocked by His Honor's proclamation that their vision has been impaired by the "charlatan" on trial.

And I see nothing particularly aesthetically pleasing about the thing as a cube of scrap metal.

Nor is His Honor himself aesthetically pleased.

I used to have a barber who claimed he was an artist, and he called his haircuts "subtractive sculpture". That usually got a laugh - and that was as far as it went.

In a moment of light hearted humor, the judge cites his barber, an educated man who knows the difference between subtractive and additive sculpture.

Similarly, the only positive thing I can see about the cubed porsche is that it seriously takes the pi$$ out of people who are taken in by the claim that this is art. In other words, I think it works to some extent as a satire on art and those who take art too seriously.

Judge shocks court by seeing one positive thing!

But that still doesn't make it art.

But stands by his ruling. The "Artist" cannot be ushered out of the court room as he was tried in absentia.

Stay tuned as this landmark trial will most certainly have repercussions reverberating among the cognoscenti.

[the]

He should have used a pristine '72 S.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by island911

One day, some "artist" will take the Mona Lisa, crumple it up into a ball, dump donkey crap on it, and proclaim to have produced real art.

This one's close, but no cigar .
(don't blame this one on me!)

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Stay tuned as this landmark trial will most certainly have repercussions reverberating among the cognoscenti.

Great post DARISC. It helps to make to make my point rather neatly.

Your post is to clever - what the cubed porsche is to art.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Dottore

Great post DARISC. It helps to make to make my point rather neatly.

Your post is to clever - what the cubed porsche is to art.

All in good fun . (although I gotta say, I'm totally confused as to how my dig at your post helps make your point )

Cheers,

David

[teenerted1]

at work i sit next to a guy named "ART" and this doesn't look anything like him.

[Victor]

It's a reaction he was after.

Like that American guy who put a crucifix (complete with Jesus hanging off it) in a vile of urine and called it "Piss Christ" or something like that. I think he later went on to gluing a teddy bear to a canvass and splattering it with blood.

"Austrian Crush a Status Symbol For The Sake of Art Boy" has a long way to go before reaching those dizzying heights.....sure, it might have been expensive but just like Piss-Boy, it was probably funded by a government grant anyhow. Porsche will be happy - they shifted another sled off the yard so who cares.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by teenerted1

at work i sit next to a guy named "ART" and this doesn't look anything like him.

There are some who would say that it's not "ART".

[snowman]

Crushing a car, any car, for a movie is part of making art. Crushing a car just to crush a car is senseless. there is no creativity involved. Now if this person put his dick on an anvil and hit it with a hammer, now that would be art. Very intense art with a sense of purpose. The purpose being that the tasteless nincompoop could never reproduce.