shock as art

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Why is it that shock, anti-art, dada, whatever you want to call it can have quality as art? How can something ugly be beautiful?

As a second part, are you sick of how rediculiously ironic modern art has generally become. I mean it gets pretty boring when artists start to be ironic about irony.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 October 2002 18:36 (twenty-three years ago)

FUCK YOU!

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 21 October 2002 18:50 (twenty-three years ago)

That's Shocking!!!

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 21 October 2002 18:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Momus to thread! and 650 posts to follow!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 21 October 2002 18:54 (twenty-three years ago)

FUCK YOU ALL!

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 21 October 2002 18:54 (twenty-three years ago)

FUCK YOU FUCKING MOTHERFUCKER YOU!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:06 (twenty-three years ago)

UNDERGROUND CULTURE: WHAT IT MEANS. i've got 15 emails on that today courtesy of drone on.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:08 (twenty-three years ago)

I apologise for typing FUCK earlier.

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:10 (twenty-three years ago)

i want to dip my balls in you.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:12 (twenty-three years ago)

I retract my apology.

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:15 (twenty-three years ago)

See, those first couple posts were beautiful, weren't they? but why is that?

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:15 (twenty-three years ago)

Alot of people use art to make statements. Even when they don't, art critics try to suck meaning out of everything. Shock art tends to be a statement about what can be considered art/ a response to other art... So it becomes art as well.
I have problems communicating effectively... Does this make sense? (not my problems communicating, but what I was saying about art... ha ha)

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:19 (twenty-three years ago)

balls. hairy balls.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:20 (twenty-three years ago)

art is a product of this corrupt capitalist west. we must listen to undie rap instead.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:21 (twenty-three years ago)

like there are any other kind of balls. i am fucking virile, man.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:22 (twenty-three years ago)

(alternately: fucking vile.)

― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:22 (twenty-three years ago)

furry balls?

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:24 (twenty-three years ago)

http://www.kuci.org/~brianm/ile/goatsie.jpg

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:28 (twenty-three years ago)

But what does it all mean, donut bitch?

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:31 (twenty-three years ago)

for the second part of original post:
Ok, Sarah, but didn't the art world already establish that anything could be considered art in the 60s? Why do current artists still try to convince people that there's more that could be considered art? The last Whitney museum biennial comes to mind as an example. There was good art there, but the 'statements' were getting out of hand. It seems like each generation has to be ironically different than the previous, and currently the previous couple generations have already did this to the extreme, and it all seems to be collapsing in on itself, or rather exploding.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:31 (twenty-three years ago)

but shocking art is still around so it must have some inherent beauty other than how it "expands" art. And haven't we all become pretty desensitized so that it's not really shocking anymore, or is there something in human nature that makes it so we can still be shocked by stuff.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:35 (twenty-three years ago)

donut bitch is a BITCH.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:37 (twenty-three years ago)

A Nairn,
I think anyone, not just shock artists, who takes their art (or someone else's art) too seriously is kind of silly. Not that art does not deserve appreciation... I guess I just imagine this person who creates something that is so worshiped that he/she becomes a god to themselves or to other people.
Shock art tends to be very physical in nature - guts, sex, bodily functions - things that are supposed to be hush hush... It is the id of the art world. It will always be there in one form or another. When not in the spotlight, it gets reduced to pornography. But, it's still there.
* sarah *

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:46 (twenty-three years ago)

shaved balls.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:51 (twenty-three years ago)

I think I'm going to take selected threads like this one and incorporate them into my NaNoWriMo novel.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 21 October 2002 19:57 (twenty-three years ago)

And now for my next piece.. "Shockey"

http://www.kuci.org/~brianm/ile/shockey.gif

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 21 October 2002 20:11 (twenty-three years ago)

frame from a hand washing guide: found art by jel

http://home.graffiti.net/buglebear/hand.gif

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 21 October 2002 20:19 (twenty-three years ago)

but it take forever to download, ah well!

kandinsky is my favourite artist.

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 21 October 2002 20:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Mine too, Jel! Hooray!

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 21 October 2002 20:24 (twenty-three years ago)

you are favourite artist buddies.

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 21 October 2002 21:06 (twenty-three years ago)

I think I'm going to take selected threads like this one and incorporate them into my NaNoWriMo novel.

You'd better finish yours this time. Punk.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 21 October 2002 21:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Finally for the day, my most controversial works... "Piss Ned"

http://www.kuci.org/~brianm/ile/pissned.jpg

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 00:49 (twenty-three years ago)

That's the most brilliant thing i've ever seen

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 00:54 (twenty-three years ago)

...only if you mean brilliant in the blinding sense.

― Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 01:36 (twenty-three years ago)

testicles will never be art.

― di smith (lucylurex), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 01:39 (twenty-three years ago)

lady, you just haven't found the right pair yet, etc etc

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 03:21 (twenty-three years ago)

(god, I feel terrible)

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 04:51 (twenty-three years ago)

ned-art goes way over my head.

― di smith (lucylurex), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 04:54 (twenty-three years ago)

haha, goes.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 10:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Thank god I was already awake as opposed to just waking up when I saw this.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 14:27 (twenty-three years ago)

Look out for Irreversible. I'm not sure I buy this 'I'm showing rape as it really is so that people can see it's horror' artistic justification anymore. I think a 9 minute brutal rape scene is unlikely to teach us anything.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 16:43 (twenty-three years ago)

one year passes...

But people need to be made to understand that rape and murder are horrible, Nick!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 16 January 2004 01:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Whereas 'Piss Ned' is of the heavens.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 January 2004 01:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Heavens?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 16 January 2004 02:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Heavens!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 January 2004 02:03 (twenty-two years ago)

;)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 16 January 2004 02:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I love you now.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 January 2004 02:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Shall I piss on you?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 16 January 2004 02:11 (twenty-two years ago)

No, that would be vile.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 January 2004 02:12 (twenty-two years ago)

referring to the original - What is beauty? It's not a set of objective characteristics - something 'ugly' can be 'beautiful' because of what it communicates to us, what it represents, or simply because someone can find purely aesthetic beauty in what you deem ugly. (Completely avoiding the "what does 'art' have to do with 'beauty'" angle)

I guess I'm out of touch with 'modern art,' but I don't pay much (OK, any) attention to the international art world - I guess the NYC/London axis? So I don't know exactly what was being referred to here.

My problem is with art where concept overtakes everything else. If you're a visual artist, you shouldn't need or want to explain the minutiae. "Show don't tell," etc.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Friday, 16 January 2004 02:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Strangely, for all that Irreversible showed us, I came away feeling I hadn't been shown a thing. Like I'd only seen 1/10th of a movie.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 17 January 2004 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

"A group of students at Harvard University caused controversy by sculpting a nine-foot penis out of ice on campus. The sculpture had to be taken down after ten Wellesley girls got their tongues stuck to it."

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Saturday, 17 January 2004 17:09 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.