3 ms·

There are still things that can shock people. Anything can be called art. Therefore, yes, "art" can still shock people. QED Here I'll give an example: create a

There are still things that can shock people. Anything can be called art. Therefore, yes, "art" can still shock people. QED Here I'll give an example: create a vending machine which only accepts $100 bills. Then instead of vending anything, simply spray the face of the buyer with cold water. Watch, as they kick the crap out of that vending machine. To be fair, I am not a fan of modern art. I prefer more quant things that require more skill. Painting a human face is difficult. Painting it such that it expresses an emotion that the viewer can recognize and sympathize with is orders of magnitude more difficult. Throwing feces at a wall or screwing a few boards together, for the most part, is not difficult or unique. IMO of course.

dagw 12y ago
create a vending machine which only accepts $100 bills. Then instead of vending anything, simply spray the face of the buyer with cold water. Watch, as they kick the crap out of that vending machine. Would that really shock people? It might shock the first person who used it (although it would probably just anger them), but would it shock the people watching or someone who just read about it? I very much doubt it. If you read about the piece you described in a newspaper article about the latest exhibition at a local museum, would you be shocked? Most people would probably just roll their eyes at the banality of it. Shocking or even genuinely and emotionally engaging with an audience at any real level is really really hard and doing so in a novel way that we haven't seen dozens of times before is an order of magnitude harder again and that is where the true challenges of contemporary art lies. And I'll be the first to admit that most artists fall very very short.
- beobab 12y ago
  Now if the vending machine were to deliver an electric charge sufficient to be classed as a shock, or injure the buyer sufficiently so that they didn't die outright, but instead went into shock, then I think it could be classed as art which shocks. However, it would obviously also be classed as either dangerous or illegal (depending on which one you got).
coldpie 12y ago
I went to a local modern art museum about two years ago (the Walker in Minneapolis). I've been aware of the perception of modern art as "throwing paint on a canvas randomly" or "leaning two sticks together" and thought it was just a patronizing criticism from those more familiar with the form. So I decided to go check out a museum and see for myself what the actual art form was like. Holy crap what a waste of time. "Screwing a few boards together" described one of the exhibits. The paragraph describing the exhibit outside the door said something about the artist's reflection of his house growing up or something. But it was just a few boards, rotten oranges, and a TV playing something or other. What the hell? Another exhibit was a long hallway with two rolled up pieces of construction paper stood on either end. Okay. Nothing else in the museum even merits derision, it was so dull. So yeah, modern art deserves its mocking and crap reputation. I guess someone must enjoy it.
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  I think the problem is that if we start defining art, we quickly get into the territory of having lots of false negatives. There are lots of things that are now considered art, and are quite enjoyable, that would not have been art in the past. The dogmatic approach doesn't work. However, leaving it completely open lets people do the "lean two sticks together" thing. It can also be much much worse than that. I remember reading about an exhibit someone was doing where they were letting a dog starve over several weeks while on display. The dog died. Shocking? Yes. Art? No. Here's a good working definition of art I like: "Art isn't art until it's sold. Until then it's an obsession and a storage problem." Not saying it has to be actually sold, but if it's something someone would buy, then yes it's art, at least to a first approximation.

dagw 12y ago

create a vending machine which only accepts $100 bills. Then instead of vending anything, simply spray the face of the buyer with cold water. Watch, as they kick the crap out of that vending machine. Would that really shock people? It might shock the first person who used it (although it would probably just anger them), but would it shock the people watching or someone who just read about it? I very much doubt it. If you read about the piece you described in a newspaper article about the latest exhibition at a local museum, would you be shocked? Most people would probably just roll their eyes at the banality of it. Shocking or even genuinely and emotionally engaging with an audience at any real level is really really hard and doing so in a novel way that we haven't seen dozens of times before is an order of magnitude harder again and that is where the true challenges of contemporary art lies. And I'll be the first to admit that most artists fall very very short.

beobab 12y ago
Now if the vending machine were to deliver an electric charge sufficient to be classed as a shock, or injure the buyer sufficiently so that they didn't die outright, but instead went into shock, then I think it could be classed as art which shocks. However, it would obviously also be classed as either dangerous or illegal (depending on which one you got).

coldpie 12y ago

I went to a local modern art museum about two years ago (the Walker in Minneapolis). I've been aware of the perception of modern art as "throwing paint on a canvas randomly" or "leaning two sticks together" and thought it was just a patronizing criticism from those more familiar with the form. So I decided to go check out a museum and see for myself what the actual art form was like. Holy crap what a waste of time. "Screwing a few boards together" described one of the exhibits. The paragraph describing the exhibit outside the door said something about the artist's reflection of his house growing up or something. But it was just a few boards, rotten oranges, and a TV playing something or other. What the hell? Another exhibit was a long hallway with two rolled up pieces of construction paper stood on either end. Okay. Nothing else in the museum even merits derision, it was so dull. So yeah, modern art deserves its mocking and crap reputation. I guess someone must enjoy it.

IgorPartola 12y ago
I think the problem is that if we start defining art, we quickly get into the territory of having lots of false negatives. There are lots of things that are now considered art, and are quite enjoyable, that would not have been art in the past. The dogmatic approach doesn't work. However, leaving it completely open lets people do the "lean two sticks together" thing. It can also be much much worse than that. I remember reading about an exhibit someone was doing where they were letting a dog starve over several weeks while on display. The dog died. Shocking? Yes. Art? No. Here's a good working definition of art I like: "Art isn't art until it's sold. Until then it's an obsession and a storage problem." Not saying it has to be actually sold, but if it's something someone would buy, then yes it's art, at least to a first approximation.