June 21, 2003

Posted by michele at June 21, 2003 09:41 AM | TrackBack

Thank you for saying that.
Whenever I diss this kind of performance art I am accused of being "bourgeois".
My answer is "bite me". Not too adult, but it enrages me that I am accused of being "bourgeois" because I don't intend to waste my money of going to see dead cows suspended in formaldehyde or idiots eating babies.

Posted by: Emma at January 3, 2003 03:39 PM

Generally, commercial art is about column inches. Which is sad...

Although the comment about the programme that encouraged us to laugh at the sexual abuse of children, which i assume is talking about the Brass Eye special on paedophillia, sounds a little off the mark.

The important thing to note was that the programme wasn't just taking cheap shots there. It was an intelligent (yes, and funny) satire of the frankly scary paedophile witch hunt in the British press at the time, which included mob assault of citizens on the basis of having the same names as known abusers, and pretty nasty threats to those falsely accused of the crime.

To me, it was a relief from all the tension surrounding the issue, which had become a source of hysteria...

The autopsy? Didn't get that tho...

Posted by: Crimson Cow at January 3, 2003 03:43 PM

You're right it's not art. And worse, it's not even true. Zhu Yu's "performance" is just a hoax.

Posted by: Alex Knapp at January 3, 2003 03:51 PM

very simple solution. don't like it, don't watch it. end of story.

Posted by: Greg at January 3, 2003 04:24 PM

i agree. it is disgusting and tasteless. but as long as he's not really hurting anything then what can you do? If he wants to call it art, let him. That's his deal. Like Greg says - don't like it, dont' watch it. I know I won't be.. gross.

ps - 8 posts in one day?! GOOD GOD!

Posted by: c2 at January 3, 2003 06:17 PM

Well said, Michele. However, if Ted Rall sticks anything up his ass, can it be a pencil the size of a fire hydrant? That's not art, nor journalism.....that's just funny.

Posted by: Da Goddess at January 3, 2003 09:16 PM

Rita and I go to museums whenever we travel and spend at least one full day wandering around, looking at stuff formed by hands that have been gone a long time. Time will separate the trash from the art.

Good art is not subjective. When you see an average Renoir (as if!) or an egyptian sarcophocagus and compare it to some of the tripe that passes for art it becomes clear.

Classless, talentless, self-important twits clamoring for attention, these so-called "artists" should be horse whipped and left to starve.

Posted by: Mike S at January 4, 2003 09:28 AM

We have to pay for it. Most of this crud is paid for by taxpayer money. If it wasn't for that I would not care about these incompetents masquerading as artists.

Robert Conquest, in "Reflections on a Ravaged Century", noted that one of the problems with what goes by the name art now is that the raw materials remain raw. The "artists" are not competent to convert it into anything worth looking at. Say what you will about Picasso, he was competent and had a mastery of his materials.

I think the ugliness of contemporary art reflects the state of those artists' souls. They lack love and a sense of beauty. The ugliness of their creations reflects the ugliness within.

What the hell is wrong with being bourgeois? I'm sick of pretentious, left-wing snobs looking down on the salt of the earth. Tell them to put their heads where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted by: Michael Lonie at January 5, 2003 02:55 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?