It’s not a matter of whether I value it; it’s that somebody values it.
I’m incontrovertibly right to ‘callously’ dismiss such drivel as the following,
In the name of truth. Go fucking look up the definition of Art. It’s most patently not restricted to the prejudices of any random ignorant shmoe, and I’ll say that as rudely as I damn like in defense of artists in general, who are integral to political discourse. This artist, just by the way, is actually attempting to make a point here, but that’s just going whoosh while everybody’s tossing turds in the sandpit.
I think that is definitely part of the point, part of what she is trying to express. I think if she had used say, blue thread, or something other than flesh tones, it wouldn’t be as interesting. My first instinctive reaction to the piece is “eww, wtf?” and then I look closer… "oh, that is interesting… " and finally “wow, that’s kinda pretty.”
Gotcha. Since somebody, somewhere, likes some thing, nobody, anywhere, is allowed to consider that thing insignificant for any reason whatsoever.
Art is art. It’s meaning and value are completely subjective, and relative to the individual experiencing it. You got pissed off because some random poster decided that this particular piece was of no value to HIM, and that he dared voice this opinion. Then you got double-pissed because I dared support his right to do that. You condemn him as a “hater” for his opinion, yet feel righteous in your own intolerance. Because you’re hip to art, so it’s okay.
“Hater” is very much a term of intolerance. How does that help political discourse, when anybody who disagrees is automatically deemed ignorant or inconsequential? But perhaps I’m reading too much into you? Would Carlos’s opinion (“This is NOT art…it’s self abuse”) been okay if he had said that he hated it, but still accepted it as art?
You know, Michael Bay might, deep in his heart, think that he’s creating great art, and there might be people out there who think that Transformers is a cinematic triumph.
Always struck me as being more classist than misogynistic (fancy people who own pearls can’t handle the rough and tumbled realities of life)…
But you know what, it probably IS misogynistic and I would hate to be one of those misogynistic women, so apologies all around, though the original point stands. In the name of equal opportunity, the above expression is replaced by ludicrous hyperbole.
Nope. You’re using the same moon logic as “if you’re in favor of tolerance, then you have to tolerate my intolerance!” There is no hypocrisy or contradiction in hating hate–or, if “hate” is a bit too broadly dramatic, being intolerant of intolerance.
Its origins are aimed at women, but nowadays tends to be aimed at conservative attitudes toward radical ideas. Quick, how many conservative men out there wear pearls?
That’s the spirit! Glad to see that you acknowledge that it’s possible for women to be misogynists. To pretend they don’t exist would be to erase my mother’s experience of her own mother telling people while shaking her head, right in front of her, “I’d rather have 10 boys than one girl.”
(I’m consciously ignoring your sarcastic italics, you see.)
So, really, I suppose it depends on the effectiveness of the art. If more people view it and are moved to think, “Hmm, you know, she makes a bold statement,” and they think about the issue, I’d say that’d be a great use of the subversiveness of art. If, on the other hand, the majority just looks at it and says, “Eww, gross, she’s embroidering her skin…”
But then, as a fan of Star Trek, I have to remember that the majority of people still think it’s the show about Dr. Spock and Chewbacca flyin’ in space 'n shit.
Just to clarify, the italics were to underline that I am indeed a woman, not sarcasm. I was not registering the expression as blatantly misogynistic when I used it and genuinely agreed that it could be read as such (even though I still found the hoopla over her mild skin poking irritating, which is probably where the snide vibe came from). So, peace?
Not what I said.
Not what I meant.
It’s not about the hate.
The statement I was responding to was: "If you think anyone gives a shit for your opinion when you disparage this. The implication is that if you disagree, then you do not matter. The hypocrisy lies in thinking that your opinion matters after you declare that the other person’s does not. Any hate involved is largely irrelevant.
Except that the definition of art is independent of the tyranny of the majority. Consider for a moment how many artists have been ignored or worse during their time, only to become highly valued later. This is largely a consequence of arguably the most important function of art; introducing unfamiliar concepts, and/or re-framing old ones.
You don’t get to say ‘this is not art’ when somebody asserts it is, except perhaps for a single possibility, as I alluded above: that the work is so commoditised and derivative that is has nothing to say at all, and is obviously nothing more than a work of marketing science, churned out by a corporation rather than crafted by people. Of course, such an assertion would still be highly contentious…
You could also say, ‘this art is so transgressive it’s unacceptable,’ but again, you’d probably have your work cut out convincing everyone.
I was perhaps a bit too pissed off and disappointed with all the lowbrow sentiment thus far expressed to make my point as concisely as I’d have liked… obviously, folks who consider this ‘not art’ will be pleased to see other folks say it isn’t… but yeah, that’s irrelevant. Those opinions don’t count in the context of appreciation/criticism, because they miss the damn point.
I suppose they do count if and when the mob with the torches and pitchforks come for the artists…
