Monday, February 4, 2008

My Adventures in Traffic

Today's class went very well, I think. I've never been in a class quite like this (Are we still allowed to call it a class, Beth?) so I'm not quite sure how to judge if the class is good or bad.

During the first part of the discussion, everyone seemed to come out of their shell a little bit. I liked our little foray into free speech and what exactly that means. Doug had a good point when he said, "You can say and do whatever you want, just know that there are consequences". I just quoted him and I think I definitely made that up (Correct me later, Doug). Anyway, it was a very good point.

The more I thought about it, the more my entire view of creativity and expression was erased. This class is supposed to be our haven. Our sacred grounds as students. The room is a place where we can completely free our inhibitions (if our minds will let us) and be completely creative; go for the moon. Then, that idea was brought to a screeching halt when the subject of the discussion turned to offensive speech. If what I am saying is offensive to someone else, then I am infringing on their rights to a non-hostile learning environment. If there are no rules, then what the hell was that?

I just remembered another quote...this time from Andy Warhol.

Andy Warhol...what a complete bullshitter. He should be on one of those PBS art specials. Actually, he's probably been on several.

Warhol said, "Art is what you can get away with."

How true.

An artist can create whatever they want, then society comes along with the Stick-O-Good-Taste and determines what it christens art and what is obscenity. Anything that meets the requirements--or "what you can get away with"--is art. If you understand it, then great, if not, you're an uncultured ass-clown who doesn't understand modern art.

The problem with this theory is that not all things that are not obscene are art. Most of it is bullshit. For example, my previous (before the puppet) post about the artist on Art:21 who claimed his looping video of sports figures was art. There is nothing obscene or offensive about this; however, the artist has a complete lack of artistic talent, which makes it bullshit.

I'm pretty sure that most people in the class who have listened to me rant long enough think that I hate all art. I can see that point. For you, I'm going to list a few things that I consider art:

All forms of Photography regardless of Subject (This excludes snapshots of your stupid dog with the barking disorder)

Painting (realistic to abstract; Michaelangelo to Pollock)

Music (this is a toughie...I'd say most things on the radio don't qualify)

See? I don't think everything is bullshit...

1 comment:

modestalchemist said...

i would have to agree... lots of things are bullshit. There are people out there who will throw a lot of garbage together and call themselves artists because they think it is something easy to be ... plus it will get them laid. they fail to realize that art is something that you have to put your heart and soul into.


"Art is the capture of a moment in time, a feeling, or event that moves you."

you can quote me on that. i just made that up... if i stole it from someone else... fuck em... i never heard of them before.

and in this case, the looping athlete isn't art, it is just the expression, or the refinement of a skill... all artists have scratch paper that they consider crap. a poet has rough draft after rough draft. only the final draft is art. the perfected capture of the essence of what moves you. That shit on the radio... everything follows a pattern. the "golden" money making path. verse chorus verse chorus verse bridge chorus. combine that with next to nothing clothing for girls, and the i just fell out of bed and started writing this song look for guys... you got yourself a multi million dollar album. who are these people to call themselves artists.

on another note, i'm pretty sure you quoted doug directly.

and i'm going to quote JFK "the right for me to swing my fist stops where the other man's nose begins"

no offense, but i think jfk is a better source than doug.