I would think that after elephant dung virgin marys and whatnot we'd be beyond the whole "reaction" bullshit. "Oh well it caused such a reaction it must be art" yawn.
You don't know your Art History I guess....and I'm tired of this whole subject and typing so expect this to be misspelled and rambling.
Sigh...for example in 1875 Thomas Eakins painted "The Gross Clinic" and it was to be exhibited to the public. But the curators thought it was too explicit in it's depiction of surgery (a relatively new form of preventive medical procedure of that time). So they hid the portrait in the back of the exhibit with a cloth draped over it. Here's the painting:
Scary, huh? It doesn't matter what art is made of, how it is presented or whom it may offend. If it garners ANY response it should be considered an expression of the person who did it or an artist's reflection of society and culture itself. Again, if you don't like it then DON'T LOOK AT IT.
The virgin mary in dung, graffitti, Marcel Duchamp's Toilet ( Fountain, submitted by Marcel Duchamp to an art show held by the Society for Independent Artists in 1917. Although one of its directors, Duchamp wasn't fond of those responsible for the exhibition and submitted this as a prank under the name "R. Mutt." Even though he paid the six dollar entry fee, Duchamp's "readymade" Fountain did not make it into the show) and even ****ing Thomas Kinkaide are Art whether you or anyone likes it or not.
I think art has to express an idea. No idea, no art. Just craft.
I liked Wynton Marsalis's definition of music: music is organized sound. I like to apply that logic to all art forms: art requires organization. Art cannot communicate, cannot express without some kind of organization -- logic. It might be obtuse or entirely personal, but it must be consistent with its concept.
Comments
Sigh...for example in 1875 Thomas Eakins painted "The Gross Clinic" and it was to be exhibited to the public. But the curators thought it was too explicit in it's depiction of surgery (a relatively new form of preventive medical procedure of that time). So they hid the portrait in the back of the exhibit with a cloth draped over it. Here's the painting:
Scary, huh? It doesn't matter what art is made of, how it is presented or whom it may offend. If it garners ANY response it should be considered an expression of the person who did it or an artist's reflection of society and culture itself. Again, if you don't like it then DON'T LOOK AT IT.
The virgin mary in dung, graffitti, Marcel Duchamp's Toilet ( Fountain, submitted by Marcel Duchamp to an art show held by the Society for Independent Artists in 1917. Although one of its directors, Duchamp wasn't fond of those responsible for the exhibition and submitted this as a prank under the name "R. Mutt." Even though he paid the six dollar entry fee, Duchamp's "readymade" Fountain did not make it into the show) and even ****ing Thomas Kinkaide are Art whether you or anyone likes it or not.
I liked Wynton Marsalis's definition of music: music is organized sound. I like to apply that logic to all art forms: art requires organization. Art cannot communicate, cannot express without some kind of organization -- logic. It might be obtuse or entirely personal, but it must be consistent with its concept.