3 ms·

What was the date on them? The thing to keep in mind with stuff like that is usually it is not a straightforward case of they have trolled you and the museum a

What was the date on them? The thing to keep in mind with stuff like that is usually it is not a straightforward case of they have trolled you and the museum as you may naively think. If something is a blank red sheet of paper in a frame, perhaps dated from the early to mid 1960's they are likely referencing Kazemir Malevich, and making a joke about it perhaps along the lines of "I wonder how far I can take this minimalism thing and have people still call it art". Once you can notice this, the cultural reference and context itself become the art- not necessarily the physical object, which, devoid of such historical or cultural context, is indeed just a blank fucking sheet of paper. You may as well criticize Doge because you don't get why it's funny. It's not funny, but you can still understand its context in internet cultural history. In 30 years you will remember doge as some significant cultural event, and contemporary artefacts will acquire value for being related to the event. None of it is funny or good. but you remember it for its cultural significance. A blank sheet of paper from the 1960's in a museum needs a little bit more help.

vacri 12y ago
I can't recall the date. I fully understand that it's "How much can I get away with and still call it art" and I think that's crap art. Nevertheless, the point is that a curator at MoMA took in two of these and called it art, which is a counterpoint to the comment I was replying to. Context is a weird thing with art. I remember an unsigned landscape painting that had experts split on whether it was done by $famous_artist or his student (I can't recall the artist). If it was $famous_artist, the painting was worth $200k, if the student, it was worth $2k. Independent of the merits of the specific painting itself, the name of the painter was worth 99% of the value. I get why that is, I just think it's a bit funny.

vacri 12y ago

I can't recall the date. I fully understand that it's "How much can I get away with and still call it art" and I think that's crap art. Nevertheless, the point is that a curator at MoMA took in two of these and called it art, which is a counterpoint to the comment I was replying to. Context is a weird thing with art. I remember an unsigned landscape painting that had experts split on whether it was done by $famous_artist or his student (I can't recall the artist). If it was $famous_artist, the painting was worth $200k, if the student, it was worth $2k. Independent of the merits of the specific painting itself, the name of the painter was worth 99% of the value. I get why that is, I just think it's a bit funny.