Is THAT art?!?!?! I mean a child could have done that?

I have much to say and engage with in regards to these two questions and I do not plan on writing it all down now, or even get close to addressing all the problems with these two questions but I wanted the conversation to start. So I have been doing some Saussure reading lately, for a class mind you, I don’t think I could do it for myself yet in life, and well more specifically I have been reading his Lecture Notes from the University of Geneva, 1906-11, compiled and published by his students after his death. Okay that all being said the part of these notes I want to draw attention to is the three ways in which a word, a linguistic sign, is arbitrary. The three ways come from first breaking up the sign into its two parts, signifier (the sound) and signified (the idea or concept). For example when we say “chair”  the sound associated with the concept of a device for sitting on are not inherently combined, that’s easy enough to understand when one travels to a place where one’s native language is not practiced. Try saying chair somewhere where they don’t speak English and see if they understand you. So with these two aspects defined what is then arbitrary? Well as is suggested above the relationship between the signified and the signifier is completely conventional, why call a chair a chair and not a table? It is just what we have chosen. Second the sound itself is arbitrarily defined, why not chairy or chaaaair? Lastly the concept is also arbitrarily defined. A stool and chair are separate in our language, not all languages and a desk chair and table chair both use the word chair, in other languages they don’t have the same signifier.

We can spend all day talking about Saussure but the only thing important for the art question is the arbitrariness of language.  given that I want to know bring up C. S. Pierce who studied sign. Pierce, 1839-1914, defined three different signs: Icons, resembles what it points to, Index, related to its object through forceful interaction, and Symbols, anything that requires information to form the connection. Language as it is arbitrary and conventional falls under that third category. Renaissance paintings fall under the first category and photograph falls under the first two, as it is both representational of what it points to and it is a consequence of it (that’s why photos can be evidence and paintings can’t, for the most part).

Okay NOW back to the question at hand, what is meant when someone says “a child could have done that?” that’s what I am now going to address:

So last weekend I was at our university’s annual sculpture show and had a wonderful and exploratory time observing and being part of the exhibitions. But of course, with the art being student created (ie experimental) there came a slew of questions or rather comments regarding the validity of the art. For example when looking at one of the more hidden pieces that was made up of plaster, grocery bags, hot glue, wax, and a globe it was stated that the piece was not for sale. The response of one individual to that knowledge was “why would someone even be interested in that? they could get it at a supermarket for far less, hell it comes with your order at a supermarket” he was obviously referring to the enormous number of plastic bags used int he sculpture’s creation. So therefore the question becomes creatability? I guess you could say, or rather that he and many others were measuring the “artistic merit” of the works based on how “easy” or “accessible” they were to create. Here is where I bring up Saussure, to remind us that our “conventions” for what is easy and hard, and what is beautiful and ugly, and especially what is and isn’t art is NOT based on any fundamental truth, for there isn’t one, but rather it is based on our own arbitrary definitions. One may be able to easily translate beauty linguistically between English and French but you’d be surprised at how the term may be applied very differently in the two cultures. I bring this up to suggest that when we talk about certain elements that “should” be striven for in art, those elements have no universality in them and furthermore are completely relative based on what we define them as not.

Okay then so let’s briefly talk about what is implied with that child statement. First let me say that I am not going to take the time here to debate it but rather just understand it, later we’ll debate it. So typically the “a child could do that” statement applies to the works of art that appear to have no talent applied during the creative process. One that I always think of in this argument is Kasimir Malevich’s Black Square or Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain. In either case the artistic object is not something that requires a mastery of representational ability. By that I mean to suggest that when this statement is applied to either work the implied meaning of it is that neither work achieved the same level of representational, iconic, achievement that say the Mona Lisa did. So in the end I bring this up now to ask, do you think that what is implied by this statement is a comparison with Renaissance art? After all nothing can be defined independently, everything is always negatively defined. Therefore for this to be slated with being less than art, what other artistic objects are being conjured up to mark this objects failure? Furthermore I want to bring up the question of “talent” and to suggest that we are applying to this word an age old convention of something physical. That the talent required to be a superior artist is some sort of mastery over representational, some kind of ability to recreate life through a medium. I would argue that it requires the SAME amount if not MORE talent to produce something so iconistic as to go against convention. Why seek only to use convention when defining art?

 

But I must also add that by bringing up Saussure we are going down a path of arbitrariness that may conclude with that unnerving realization that art itself is arbitrary.

 

Let the discussion begin,

Huysmans

Politically art that drives me

Song & video by Will.i.am of The Black Eyed Peas.
Inspired by Barack Obama’s ‘Yes We Can’ speech.

This inspires. I don’t mean to bring politics into my blog, well no, I do, but I bring this also as a work of art. Yes, you can call it propaganda and to many it probably is. But I believe it, I remember the speech, I’ll remember where I was when it was given (New York City) and I will look to it and this video when needing courage and hope in that better tomorrow for this country. I support Barack Obama!

Thank you Dipdive for giving this to the people.

YES WE CAN!

(I had to find it on youtube to be able to host it here. Does anyone know how to embed on wordpress from the original site, dipdive.com, so I don’t have to find it on youtube?)

Ps. what is of relative value to this blog is the artistic merit of such a video. Is this art? Is this just propaganda? Or better yet is it just an advertisement, and therefore should not even qualify to be art as its “purpose” is not artistic. But is that so true and furthermore who defines an “artistic” purpose. In looking at this (and I know it is very hard for me to separate my own political bias from it, so I do understand that that is in this next statement) I believe it is art. It is raw emotion, harnessed by the creators and yes it does support a politician but it also supports so much more. I see real heart in this and would argue that the emotional energy used to create and give this project to the world places it squarely in the realm of art, perhaps a subgenre of political art, but art none the less.

Happy Super Tuesday everyone!

Huysmans

An afternoon cup

While this is a little off topic I do believe the attention given to this device as well as the culture around the perfection of the product can and does constitute an artistic endeavor. What am I talking about? Coffee!

My friend Mark, who has commented here a few times, has introduced me to a NY times article on the newest machines designed for coffee brewing. The article outlines two new approaches to coffee brewing, the first and more expensive one ($20,000) hails from Japan and is called Siphon brewing while the second and less expansive option ($11,000) was designed here in the states and is called Clover.

This video taken from youtube demonstrates how Clover works:

Described in the video is the brewing process and we are informed about the specificity this machine can get to when dealing with a cup to cup process. The article adds in addition to this that the machine has the ability to go online and catalog specific orders and styles for different beans and roasts.The second machine uses a much more involved process and appears to be much more complicated to master.

First for anyone who fins this post I must ask if you have tried either of these machines and what is this experience like?

But more importantly and what allows me to place it in the category of artistic discussion is that I am one to believe and argue that there is an art to this. An art that is extremely temporary and fleeting yet requires an intense amount of patience to master. A film that best describes this sensational euphoria achieved with good culinary work would be Ratatouille. The scenes and visuals used when Remy, the main rat chief character, describes eating are so perfect. Anyway as you all know I love looking at the art in things that aren’t necessarily artistic and so have arrived here.

What I see here is a process for preparing a beverage that is widely enjoyed here and abroad taken to the level of expression. These devices allow the berristas to really find their special brew, their expression of coffee.

Hail to the cup as I go get another and dive back into the thesis.

Huysmans

What will come of the book

In working through aspects of this thesis I have come across a fair amount of literature on the future of the printed book. I knew going into this project that I would find such discussions but what is curious to me is our desire to weigh in on such a what if conversation. Yes the book in its printed form has been a fundamental tool to our society since its inception and yes today for the first time in history that which the book offered can now be offered by something else. But this new technology, right now culminating with the Kindle I guess but I have yet to see this new device in action, can it really replace the book? Or rather is this really a conversation worth having. Now I know that I have defended the value of this artistic conversation and in so doing have met many individuals who believe the entire conversation of defining art has no value and ultimately hurts art in our culture, I obviously disagree with that sentiment. But with the discussion over the plight of the book I really see no value. This new medium will create a new art, not a new platform for the same art. So the better question is will the old art die? I don’t think so either, writing has not died out after typing became available, and with that I don’t think print will go out even if this Kindle and its super screen that doesn’t strain eyes really does work. 

I guess the point of this post is to get that out, I’d rather these authors focus on what makes internet writing unique and new rather than waste time describing it as an improvement to the book. TV is not an improvement to film and VHS did not replace the cinematic experience. But on the flip side I don’t think those comparative arguments work either, because radio I do believe is on the out thanks to the internet and soon TV will follow. 

 But both of these mediums never established themselves like the book did and that may be its saving grace. It is part of our history and its tangibility along with its content is what makes it unique. 

 

So here I am complaining that this argument is occurring in these texts and by doing that I too am contributing to the discussion. Oh well back to the thesis…

 

Huysmans  

Thesis Update

So I finally cracked into the writing part of this and have secured an introduction, well part of an introduction. I still want to discuss intermediality in today’s world and look more closely at art productions such as The Pillow Book and the multimedia characteristics of the digital medium. But that will come once I finally watch The Pillow Book. Next I am going to move onto the first of three sections of my thesis, the blog and its dynamics. Here as I mentioned in my outline I will focus on describing the blog as both a new medium of artistic expression and a genre of literature. So before I begin crunching the words I wanted to give you all, the blogosphere, one last chance to submit to me blogs that may fall under the following category:

A blog that the author is using to publish creative content that would normally or rather historically be published in lit magazines or journals or books. The content does not have to be all that they publish but I am looking for in general blogs that use the blog medium to publish literature.

Or a blog that performs in what I guess is the traditional sense of a blog, a blog that acts as a public diary or journal for the author, well written and established blogs of this sort will help to describe how the blog may have developed an entirely new genre of literature.

Thanks in advance and expect an artistic discussion post soon, I recently got a Wii and well needless to say it has distracted me,

Huysmans

We’ve got blog

I am finally back from vacation and have finished the collection of essays titled We’ve got blog: how weblogs are changing our culture. It was a very interesting collection, very diverse, and will be very helpful in understanding more of the specifics in regards to the history of the blog. However the funny thing about anything in print in regards to this topic is that it becomes immediately dated. All the essays in here are from the late 90s through 2002, which makes sense since the book was published in 03 and for a book that’s recent. But still in regards to the “A-List” blogs they talk about in the book, well many don’t update anymore.

 

But the important part is that it gave me some good perspective on the blog’s development. It’s interesting to me, but yet not surprising, that it started as a filter, as a collection of interesting links within the internet, one could say that that purpose is still around today, in fact most probably would, if not through the posts and tags then through the blogroll, but the blogroll isn’t updated regularly like the original weblogs were. I know from the book that the debate on which is a real blog still exists, or at least it did then.

 

Something I find rather interesting about this collection of essays is that there is no discussion of art in the blogs, these writers don’t identify as authors, many as journalists and probably a few as strictly writers or bloggers, but what is interesting is that they don’t see their work as art.

 

Something that I have been toying with is the idea that the public journal aspect of a blog, the type of blog that has become the most popular form of blogging today is in fact a genre of literature, a theme for writing if you will. I believe that it is a hybrid of an autobiography with the essences of a collaborative work such as the Surrealists would do. I know or rather can imagine that there are bloggers out there that honestly write what really does happen to them in that given post but they are still adding opinion, interpretation, hopefully artistic exaggeration, and lets not forget style and format, all of which are artistic and literary themes so therefore I would almost venture to say that these blogs if they were to be found in say a Barnes & Nobel they would be found under the section of Blog Journal, which would be next to Magical Realism and Autobiographies.

 

Just my thoughts and I know it’s a week late but.

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR and good luck in ‘08

 

Huysmans

The Holiday Post

So I am on vacation and will probably not be posting much for the next week but I do plan on working on my thesis (I have never brought so many books with on vacation before).

Anyway I have two important statements to make before leaving.

First: I am in Disney World. So the following statement has to do with that fact. Disney World is a work of art, but it is not an interactive collaborative work of art like a blog is, it is the extreme of a performance work. But IT IS ART. (period)

Second: Happy Holidays!

And if the National Treasure team make a third film, I want the treasure to be the search for Walt Disney’s frozen body (and the Disney Vault Treasure). I think that’d be a good mystery I mean all the clues will be in the Disney parks.

Anyway happy holidays all and I promise to return full throttle by the end of next week.

And lets all remember

It all started with a mouse.

Huysmans

Post #50, a scene without answer

Well here has come my fiftieth post. And that is all there is to that now is there.

 

So what more to the score must now be added, well that is where we are at hand.

 

This blog promotes the discussion, appreciation, critical analysis, and in general culture and communication of art and the world it lives in, namely this world.

 

So for this fiftieth post I say happy holidays and a wonderful new year.

 

For myself I want to thank those that have engaged in my discussions and present this:

 

A scene without answers:

ACT ONE A simple conference room with three tables set up in a box like formation, the missing side of the box is the side closest to the audience. Each table has two chairs on the outer side all with filled. Behind the table to the back, parallel with the audience, on the wall lies a reproduction of Frank Stella’s The Marriage of Reason and Squalor, II. On either side of the painting are two large windows both open with the curtains tied back. The view from the windows is that of a clear blue sky, the room is a few floors up and its view is not blocked by any other buildings.. The rest of the room has a simple design, reflecting its sole purpose as a place for conference and discussion. There is a table off to one side fitted with coffee and refinements while each table has a pitcher of water and glasses. The room is lit from over head resembling simple yet formal lighting.             Behind the back table sits F. STELLA and N. M. C., they are talking and shuffling through papers. F. STELLA is an older man, but clearly not an old man who has found a casual formal dress which, he thinks, makes him look like a chic urbanite. N. M. C. is clearly an older man with an air of importance. He has decided for this preliminary meeting to wear the traditional judge outfit, even though it is not necessary. It is in his opinion that those in attendance must show him that respect, for him the clothes help achieve that. Sitting behind the table to stage-right is MATHIAS and UNDERSTUDY AS MATHIAS REPRESENTATION, MATHIAS REPRESENTATION is very much engaged in his conversation with MATHIAS who seems to be much less interested and keeps staring off stage. MATHIAS appears to be a middle-aged not in his prime anymore though. He is wearing a somewhat beat up suit, it’s the only formal outfit he has. MATHIAS REPRESENTATION is of younger appearance and is dressed in a newly purchased formal outfit, very proud of it.  Behind the table across from them sits MEMORY and UNDERSTUDY AS MEMORY REPRESENTATION. Both of them are not in any kind of discussion but are staring rather angrily at MATHIAS. MEMORY, like MATHIAS is just coming out of the prime of her life, the most formal outfit she has is her “Sunday best” for church, which is what she has on now. Her representation, like MATHIAS’S is wearing a newly bought formal suit; it appears as if the two representations have a little bit of a competition going on. Lastly, behind the window to stage-right is NAIRD-NOM standing on scaffolding cleaning the window. NAIRD-NOM is in full uniform for the job and appears to be an older man who has found the one job that doesn’t have a retirement age.             Directorial note: If the dialog of this act is to be changed by the direct it must still follow the production constraint designed by the playwright, every line must be a question. 

            MEMORY (to MATHIAS). What is it you’re looking at…my dear?

            MATHIAS (without turning to face her). What does it matter to you?

            F. STELLA (to everyone). Do you guys want to finish this or not?

            N. M. C. (after checking his watch). Are you all aware of the time? Can we move onto custody of the children?

            MATHIAS REPRESENTATION. Do you really think we can resolve that question today?

            MEMORY REPRESENTATION. And why do you think we can’t?

            MATHIAS REP (now annoyed with the question). Can we leave the children for tomorrow’s meeting? Don’t you think we’ve argued enough today?

            MEMORY. Why are you so keen on postponing this discussion? Judge, isn’t it obvious that I should have custody of the children? Did he, (points to MATHIAS) not demonstrate through his actions a lack of responsibility?

            MATHIAS (focusing back onto the argument). Are you suggesting that this one incident is enough to ignore the years of service I have given our children?

            MEMORY. What service?

            MATHIAS. How can you say that?

            F. STELLA (to MEMORY). Is there a way we can work around absolute custody of the children? Judge (turns to face N. M. C.) don’t you think that custody is too serious of an issue for this preliminary conference?

            N. M. C. (with a pondering expression). Is it possible for us to discuss the incident in its entirety today?

            MATHIAS (a little puzzled). You want me to tell you the story of my transgressions?

            N. M. C. Don’t you think it will help your case in my eyes if we all can get the incident in question out into the open?

            MATHIAS. And what relevance does my story have with the division of assists?

            MEMORY (very annoyed with MATHIAS’s attitude). You think it has no relevance?

            MATHIAS. What relevance does it have?

            MEMORY REP. You tell us?

            N. M. C. (to MEMORY REP). But on the other hand, don’t you think his account of it will be bias?

            MEMORY REP. Is there another account of the incident? (To MEMORY). Wasn’t your late uncle with Mathias when it happened? What’s his name again? Edouard?

            MEMORY. Are you sure it’s not R. G.?

            MATHIAS. What does he have to do with this?

            F. STELLA. Was he here with you during the time of your affair?

            MATHIAS. And if he was?

            F. STELLA. Shouldn’t his account of what happened be inspected?

            N. M. C. Do we have a home or mailing address for the fellow?

            MEMORY. Judge, you didn’t hear that he died last year?

            N. M. C. Did he really? How will we ever move forward without him? Do you have access to any of his records?

            MEMORY REP (proudly). Aren’t his personal journals on file at the Museum?

            MEMORY (a little surprised). Are they?

            N. M. C. (impatiently). Mr. Stella can you get us a copy of his journal?

            F. STELLA (Standing up). Can you handle them without me?

            N. M. C. (chuckling). Can you hurry?

 (F. STELLA stands, takes one last look at the group of people all with frustrated expressions, he exists stage-right and on his way out waves to the window washer who waves back, excitedly.) 

N. M. C. (annoyed as he turns back to face the group). Okay everyone, can we try at least to get through some more of these proceedings while we wait for the journal?

MATHIAS REP (with an air of procedure). Shall we move to the marital assists then?

N. M. C. (looking to the rest of the group). Are there any objections?

MATHIAS REP (very pretentiously). Now MEMORY, did you work during the marriage?

MEMORY (annoyed at the question). Don’t you know the answer?

MATHIAS REP. Can you give it for the record?

MEMORY REP (very annoyed). Why do we have to get into this? Wasn’t her job to take care of the children? Do you not think that that is a full time job in itself? How can you accuse my client of not doing her part?

MATHIAS REP (Proudly). Should we take that as a no?

MEMORY (frustrated but calm). What do you think?

MATHIAS REP. Does that not entitled my client to 100% of the assists acquired during the marriage?

MEMORY. Do you think that without me he would have the same amount of assists?

N. M. C. Shall we leave the question of assists for when we have a marriage counselor again?

MATHIAS REP. And what, then, does the judge want to work out now?

N. M. C. (thinking to himself). Where are we in regards to the frequent flyer miles?

MATHIAS REP. Aren’t we nowhere?

MEMORY REP. Didn’t we decide that my client should have the miles?

MATHIAS REP. When did we decide that?

MEMORY REP. Are you accusing me of lying?

MATHIAS REP. Are you?

MEMORY REP. Judge, aren’t you going to stop these ridiculous outbursts?

N. M. C. (impatient, frustrated, and a little angry). Mathias representation, can we leave the arguing for after the discussion?

MATHIAS REP. You think I am willing to sit back and let this hack of a layer fuck over my client?

N. M. C. Are you seriously going to question my authority here? Now, can we get back on track?

MEMORY REP. Is the judge aware that the question of ownership over the miles was dealt with on a preliminary basis resulting in my client’s ownership of all the miles due to the fact that their origin came from the use of my client when visiting her dying uncle?

MATHIAS REP. Are you aware that it was my client who financed her trips, thus resulting in his ownership of the miles?

MEMORY REP. And are you aware that your client prevented my client from securing employment due to her responsibilities on the home front?

 

(Around this point MATHIAS will get extremely bored with the proceedings and get up and walk off stage, this will surprise the entire cast on stage as well as the window washer. This will end the current argument.)

 

N. M. C. (Stunned). Can you believe he just did that?

MATHIAS REP (also stunned). Does he not know that the scene is not over?

MEMORY REP. Is this not a great example of his irresponsibility?

N. M. C. (confused). Are you talking about the actor or the character?

MEMORY REP. Does it matter?

MEMORY (frustrated but confident). Judge, don’t you think we’ve had enough of this? Isn’t it best at this point to push this back just one more day?

N. M. C. (thinking it through). Does the legal representation support this motion? (He eyes both REPRESENTATIVES while asking the question).

MATHIAS REP. Do you think we should resolve the issue of this “Uncle’s journal” first? (MATHIAS REP. makes quotation movement with his hands).

MEMORY REP. How long do you think he will be? Is he really going all the way to the museum?

MATHIAS REP. Isn’t the museum way uptown?

MEMORY. Can we just store the journal here when Mr. Stella returns and examine it tomorrow?

N. M. C. (looking offstage). Are you serious? (Eyes the audience, and then turns back to who ever he is talking to offstage, he is receiving instructions through an earpiece). What should I say though?… But isn’t he supposed to come back tomorrow?… Why aren’t we gona do scene two?

MEMORY (looking offstage as well). We’re not doing scene two?

MATHIAS REP. Do they really want to make these changes?

 

(As the level of confusion amongst the characters rises, F. STELLA will return from stage-left, opposite side to which he left from. In his hands, he is holding an incredibly old and fragile journal, a very large document that looks to be at least one hundred years old. F. STELLA quickly finds his seat and eyes the other characters to get their attention.)

 

            F. STELLA (to everyone). Did you all miss me?

            N. M. C. (still confused). Did you find the journal?

            F. STELLA (holding up the old document). What does it look like?

            MEMORY REP. How did you get to the museum and back so fast?

            F. STELLA. What makes you think I went to the museum?

            MATHIAS REP. Isn’t that where you were going to go to get it?

            F. STELLA. Is that where I was supposed to go?

            N. M. C. (more confused than ever). You didn’t find that here did you?

            F. STELLA. Do you think I went all the way to the museum?

            N. M. C. We have a copy of his journal here? Why? How? Since when?

            F. STELLA. Wouldn’t it be best to read it for the purpose of this conference first, before going into how I got it here?

            N. M. C. (again looking at his watch). Shall we read it after a short recess?

            MEMORY REP (to MEMORY). Is that okay with you?

            MEMORY (to MEMORY REP). But we will go over it today, right?

            MATHIAS REP. Can we take a break first though? I mean, don’t you think it is best if we have Mathias here for the reading?

            N. M. C. (to everyone). So meeting back here in about twenty minuets? Does that work for everyone?

 (In silence they all nod and get up. MATHIAS REP, N. M. C., and F. STELLA exit stage-right while MEMORY and MEMORY REP exit stage-left. Upon their exit NAIRD-NOM , who has been quietly washing the one left window this entire time signals off stage-right with his hand and then the lights fade out and the curtain falls. This intermission will be no more than five minuets, just to change the set.)

The Overwhelming and political art

Starting right now I am going to beginning documenting reviews of events, shows, movies, books, and so for that I come across in my artistic travels.

For this first review post (of which the reader must be absolutely aware that I am in no way a reviewer and see this more for me to place ideas and thoughts about this piece as the connect to the greater discussion of the culture of art, but anyway in some fashion this will represent a review) I will comment on a new work off Broadway titled The Overwhelming (no link because today was the last showing, they have already taken down the site) by J. T. Rogers and directed by Max Stafford-Clark. The play is currently running at Roundabout Theatre’s Laura Pels Theatre in midtown New York. But enough about its logistics on to why I liked it.

The only real reason I am choosing to bring it up is, well two reasons. First it played with the form of drama in a rather interesting way. First the characters were not afraid to interrupt each other and all talk at once, there were many dialogue sequences with multiple speakers, thus leaving the audience confused as to who to focus on. I am an audience member who likes to be confused. Second the final sequence of dialogue was interrupted by the speaker’s decision to focus his speech on the audience, not a new trick, but an extremely effective one. He was telling us that we’d forget about it, that we’d go back to our lives. The play itself is about Rwanda and the genocide that occurred; the events in the play coincide with the months leading up to the beginning of the genocide in 1994. There were some very powerful quotes to be taken from this play, among them were the ideas of peace, war, strangers, American involvement in foreign affairs, and so on. Questions that are prevalent today and that last act by the character to turn to the audience made that fact abundantly clear.

The second reason I bring this up is that it is a new work, using a political theme to present a message, a very traditional play in some sense but one that is of our time, and I am curious about that power it currently holds. It received a standing ovation, but did it receive it because of the true genius it portrayed or rather because of its significance for our current situation? What I am really getting it is were we not in a war, and were we not dealing with American involvement in the Middle East, involvement to the extant that it is greatly dividing our country, would this play still get a standing ovation?

Does that answer really matter?

(To be honest the first thought that comes to mind is the fact that this has strayed from being a review, but I like where this is going so forget my review idea for now, this has become an artistic discussion and will be filed under such, now back to the discussion.)

I am curious what people think in regards to the current importance or rather the current message a piece has. Does this work backwards? If an old piece that was considered bad art from yesteryear, today become extremely powerful and poignant, would we reconsider its artistic value?

Just some food for thought while we all prepare to feast on the holidays.

Huysmans

What is art, a deuxieme manifesto on the dissisitudes of modern day epistemology?

Books are art, the glass over there is art.

I defined it as such.

 

This is art, when bought for $3.36 in british money that’s just a little more than a dollar fifty.

 

Second grade is art. There is art in you and on this ticket.

 Algerian is art ART Duchamp was an artist and guilty of it. Hey Pomp stop selling those pins, he isn’t innocent. Dali was a sell out and an artist, but Disney was the Pope! Guns aren’t art, we don’t won’t them not the futurists, they can take their automobiles and leave.  BYE Sans art Le gouvernement français est art.  Il n’y a rien d’art ici, sauf tout ce qui est art.  Germany lost world war two.  The Large Glass has another name. The Seven Dwarfs was a German story. Mickey Mouse represents an alliteration, art.  Art is in the paper, art is in the pen, art is on the tv, art is in the den, art lives in you, art comes from me, art sings to all, art’s done by a bee, art is something dumb, art is something fun, art is sometimes alive, and art is relentlessly a pun,  art can breath change, art can be thrown away, art can cause tears, art is here to stay.  That was a really dumb poem. This is war! You still owe me that $4.56                                                             I STAND FOR ART Tristan hurry up and come back to us before countless more go to art school. Hanz we have failed, and Earnst if you hadn’t painted Ubu, he would have gone unnoticed in today’s world.  We want NO violence, we are not the futurists or the idiot Dadaists who cried for such stupidity.  But should you see Mr. Ubu (he is no longer a king) KILL HIM! That is all! Free those confined by the trap.  R. Mutt I Salute You! Huysmans.