That's Just Shocking
July 7th 2008 03:33
'Art' is meant to be a gray area, or so says artists who are not actually good at creating art. There's art and there's scams, the art industry is overrun with scams and true art is actually hard to find.
What do I classify as true art? I'm sure the art crowd is dying to start with their 'oh but it's all art, you just don't 'get it''. Art for me is something that takes effort, that takes genius, something that gets attention not because it has some sort of shock value because it is a true insight into human creativity and ingenuity.
Unfortunately such works of art are few and far between, most 'artists' happily throw feces at a canvas and put it on an art galleries wall. It's art because I don't get it but someone else does, the fact I'm 'shocked' does not sway the artists work because he is, after all, an artist, and he must, after all, shock people. Well not shock people, art at its heart is supposed to get peoples attentions, shocking people is a way to get attention, it is the easiest way to get attention and also the most pathetic.
This is the issue I take with art and how I’d differentiate true art from the literal and proverbial poo that passes itself off as art these days. Anyone can shock, an artist being all 'shock and awe' is not a good thing, it's a tell tale sign of just how pathetic an artist he or she is. There is not an industry in existence that profits from nothing but 'shock', music, movies, journalism, engineering, not one gives people thumbs up for being exclusively shocking.
If a journalist exaggerates lies and distorts he's ignored, if an engineer builds a bridge that doesn't cross the river he loses his job, if a musician makes a song that is nothing but the sound of pigs dying no one buys his work, if a movie is nothing but poo and sex it's a porno and won't win any academy award.
But if I photograph 13 year olds, or feces, or some dude humping a cow it's a masterpiece, nevermind the fact had I been photographing anything else it wouldn't be nearly as attention grabbing, it's perfectly fine to distort and push boundaries for the sake of 'art'.
What do I classify as true art? I'm sure the art crowd is dying to start with their 'oh but it's all art, you just don't 'get it''. Art for me is something that takes effort, that takes genius, something that gets attention not because it has some sort of shock value because it is a true insight into human creativity and ingenuity.
Unfortunately such works of art are few and far between, most 'artists' happily throw feces at a canvas and put it on an art galleries wall. It's art because I don't get it but someone else does, the fact I'm 'shocked' does not sway the artists work because he is, after all, an artist, and he must, after all, shock people. Well not shock people, art at its heart is supposed to get peoples attentions, shocking people is a way to get attention, it is the easiest way to get attention and also the most pathetic.
This is the issue I take with art and how I’d differentiate true art from the literal and proverbial poo that passes itself off as art these days. Anyone can shock, an artist being all 'shock and awe' is not a good thing, it's a tell tale sign of just how pathetic an artist he or she is. There is not an industry in existence that profits from nothing but 'shock', music, movies, journalism, engineering, not one gives people thumbs up for being exclusively shocking.
If a journalist exaggerates lies and distorts he's ignored, if an engineer builds a bridge that doesn't cross the river he loses his job, if a musician makes a song that is nothing but the sound of pigs dying no one buys his work, if a movie is nothing but poo and sex it's a porno and won't win any academy award.
But if I photograph 13 year olds, or feces, or some dude humping a cow it's a masterpiece, nevermind the fact had I been photographing anything else it wouldn't be nearly as attention grabbing, it's perfectly fine to distort and push boundaries for the sake of 'art'.
| 56 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
