3 ms·

I want to say "see also: Banksy", but I don't know if that idea is completely thought out. Ha ha. Here's a quick roadmap =D Junk on a pedastal >Duchamp white

by 001sky 13y ago

I want to say "see also: Banksy", but I don't know if that idea is completely thought out. Ha ha. Here's a quick roadmap =D Junk on a pedastal >Duchamp white cube > makes junk look good mass produced junk (for the white cube) > Warhol [0,1] who needs a gallery? just pile junk outside > richard long [2,3] who needs order?... junk-just-piled...in-a-gallery > Various [4,4.5] Someone elses junk/pile, already outside?> Banksy [5,6,7] _______________________________ [0] http://coca-cola-art.com/2008/11/15/andy-warhol-moment-fame-and-celebrity/ http://coca-cola-art.com/2008/11/15/andy-warhol-moment-fame-... [1] http://glgvisualculture.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/warhol-brillo-boxes-multipl2.jpg http://glgvisualculture.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/warhol-b... [2] http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/at/at120524land_art_at_moca http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/at/at120524land_art_at_moca [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Long_%28artist%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Long_%28artist%29 [4] http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/how-to-build-controversy-from-a-pile-of-bricks-2277359.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/how... [4.5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29 [5] http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/10/banksy_beaver.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2013/1... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_art Its worth noting that when poor people (eg, homeless) pile junk outside...its called vandalism.[#,##] When rich, white people do it...its put in a museum. The confusion of vandalism/and art making...is the origin of s0-called "street art". [7] http://fineprintnyc.com/images/blog/banksy/better-out-than-in/banksy-better-out-than-in-10-20-2013.jpg http://fineprintnyc.com/images/blog/banksy/better-out-than-i... [#] http://news.yahoo.com/homeless-man-who-had-been-living-in-water-tanker-says-banksy-saved-him-163710596.html http://news.yahoo.com/homeless-man-who-had-been-living-in-wa... [##] The origins of the vandalism / art dichotomy more correctly stem from the work of (poor, black) people...ie, graffiti artists...not to suggest they were homeless...my apologies for the "confusion in the allusion", above.

radarsat1 13y ago
Excellent post, thanks for all those references. Regarding your last sentence, you're right in terms of the actual product, but in art (or at least modern art) it's often the intention behind the product that is important part. In that sense there is a huge difference between what a homeless person does and what a "white person" does, (as you describe it.) The homeless person is making a mess, the white person is making a statement. ^^^ I'll just put an aside here: I know you were being hyperbolic, but these are obviously quite bad choices; realistically, the homeless person just needs a place to put things. You really want "vandals" and "artists" rather than "homeless people" and "white people." That said, it simply begins the whole discussion on whether art should be objectively pleasant/obvious/etc... "what is art", we could go on and on. But I think it's quite well understood these days that there is a lot more to a piece of art than what is in front of your eyes. The message, background, and intention are everything. As I said though, calling them vandals and artists is the interesting part, since as you point out, the whole street art movement deliberately blurs the line.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Ah, fair points. I added an extra comment above.
sanoli 13y ago
Modern Art = "I could have done that" + "Yeah, but you didn't."

by 001sky 13y ago

radarsat1 13y ago

Excellent post, thanks for all those references. Regarding your last sentence, you're right in terms of the actual product, but in art (or at least modern art) it's often the intention behind the product that is important part. In that sense there is a huge difference between what a homeless person does and what a "white person" does, (as you describe it.) The homeless person is making a mess, the white person is making a statement. ^^^ I'll just put an aside here: I know you were being hyperbolic, but these are obviously quite bad choices; realistically, the homeless person just needs a place to put things. You really want "vandals" and "artists" rather than "homeless people" and "white people." That said, it simply begins the whole discussion on whether art should be objectively pleasant/obvious/etc... "what is art", we could go on and on. But I think it's quite well understood these days that there is a lot more to a piece of art than what is in front of your eyes. The message, background, and intention are everything. As I said though, calling them vandals and artists is the interesting part, since as you point out, the whole street art movement deliberately blurs the line.

001sky 13y ago
Ah, fair points. I added an extra comment above.

sanoli 13y ago

Modern Art = "I could have done that" + "Yeah, but you didn't."