Comments on: Takagi Masakatsu

By: BOY:1:DER

BOY:1:DER — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 02:36:30 +0000

I think I am going to have to agree with Tread on this one. I think it’s the pretentiousness that really bothers me. I visited the Walker here in Minneapolis where a guy had ripped off Duchamp by taking the Urinal and either gold or bronze plating it. He made some huge BS statement as to why he did it. Does that mean that I should take his bronze plated urinal and add a urinal cake, right a huge BS statement as to why the urinal cake completes the object and stomps out the “stench” of bad art and I will be suddenly hailed as a great artist. It reminds me of the Dada days and feels to me like lazy uninspired art. I understand that this is an arguement that can never be resolved, but only resolved on a personal level for each and every artist, but everytime I view a piece like that, I feel like the person has taken a HUGE shortcut. But that’s just my 2 pennies

By: jaan

jaan — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:53:53 +0000

this whole debate is similar to the kind of mess that occurs when you take a commercial illustrator to a modern art museum. they look at the stuff and say “that’s crap. i can paint way better than that– the anatomy is horrible. and it doesn’t make sense, i can’t even understand what is supposed to be going on in this painting.” that’s because they judge the art against the objectives of their own craft– which holds clearly discernable craftsmanship and direct communication as essential above all else. but those things have no inherent relevance to art, so judging it by illustration criteria is silly.

and deep down, those illustrators are often upset that some people have decided that the work on the walls is more important than theirs, no matter how superior their technical skills may be. the form is not what makes something art.

and related to this is the retardedly superlative connotation of the word “art” that our culture has fostered. that word is not a blue ribbon nor is it a gold medal. it is merely a noun, like “chair”… there are awesome chairs and there are crummy chairs. if someone refers to a cheap barstool as “a chair”, do you get offended and exclaim “how dare you call that a chair! that’s no chair! now, my padded leather recliner with built-in drink holder– that is fitting to be considered a chair!”

By: Gar

Gar — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:29:41 +0000

Well said kinojay. I completely agree.
And money + Art is usually a bad combination when we talk about the contemporary art of today. Still, there are artist that surely would love to paint a picture to fit your new red couch or make a nice blue sculpture for your newly bought HD tv, thank god there is, otherwise we would live in a very ugly reality

By: kinojay33

kinojay33 — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:22:40 +0000

Interesting debate…but as Tread mentioned, this is one of those arguments that can go back & forth forever. Which is kind of the point of conceptual video art, I guess. It’s a bit too intellectual for me & that’s why I got out of the game. But if that’s your thing, there can be a tremendous amount of depth in it.

I don’t think it’s impossible to like & appreciate both sides. I think it becomes difficult when tags such as “high art/low art/commercial art”, “conceptual art/classical art” are applied. It somehow creates a dichotomy & implies that there is a separation where there really isn’t. Sure, one puts more emphasis on the eye & the virtuosity of the artist and the other puts more emphasis on the brain & the philosophical side of both the artist & viewer, but it isn’t always that cut and dry. I get entertainment, pleasure and intellectual stimulation viewing great artists in any field, whether it’s Stan Brakhage’s “Dog Star Man”, the latest Psyop offering, Leighton Pierce’s “Red Shovel”, etc.

Sometimes it’s great to look at a piece that others love & you hate & ask yourself “why don’t I like this?”. It’s not that you’re wrong, but you might discover that you’re bringing some prejudices to the table. Maybe you’re hung up on the fact that it’s selling a product, and the commerce element clashes with your idea of what art is. Maybe it’s shaky, handheld video footage with stock Adobe Premiere effects & this hangs you up because it’s not technically perfect. But once you can look beyond those things, you may find some element in the piece that really moves you.

By: Gar

Gar — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:52:52 +0000

tengustone and Tread, This is most amusing.
there should be a msg-board just for this, hehehe.
Well i completely agree with you both now specially after your second post Tread. In my opinion, its Duchamps fault that we today have something called “Conceptual” Art. He was the man who started all this and broke of the path of classical art so today when we have problems of explaining what art is, well he was the troublemaker.

1 more thing, I agree on that art can be almost everything, this is decided by yourself for sure and todays art is VERY personal and there is the main problem.
Most artist do very personal pieces and they are usually so personal that you as the viewer have problems understanding it or even get inspired with it. This is probebly where the artist goes wrong.
You see, an artist have to make very personal works this is what it is about BUT, when it comes to the presentation, the artist also have to think of that he is not the only one who has to understand/be inspired.

If you make a very introvert piece of art then it has to become in some way understandable and inspiring for the viewer otherwise the artist looses his point i think. I dont mean then that the viewer has to understand it but he has atleast to get some kind of understanding or inspiration from it.

By: Tread

Tread — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 01:49:07 +0000

no, I do understand the Duchamp piece and it’s intentions, which is why I referenced it and said that’s ‘what he was getting at’. You can take anything, like a toilet, and say it’s art… just like you can take a video of a bum sleeping. I get it, I really do. The boundries of defining art are very feathered, so you asking me to define what art is is just a path way into some huge argument that has no end, so I won’t answer. I don’t even have a definition for art, who does? Art is something someone created that I like to look at, think about, and admire. I guess I just defined it for me.

Takagi? Yes.

Gorewitz? No.

Just my opinion dude. Here we are again, arguing over stupid crap that makes no difference to anything.

Maybe I don’t understand it. Do you?

By: tengustone

tengustone — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:39:01 +0000

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh man I didn’t see your Duchamp reference when I read through your post the first time. I wish I’d read that before I posted.

See, this is my point. You don’t like it because you don’t understand it. You don’t understand why that piece is one of the more important pieces that’s been produced in the past 100 years. You don’t know your history, you don’t bother to learn it, and as a result you talk a lot of shit that’s rendered absolutely worthless.

Learn. Your. Shit.

By: tengustone

tengustone — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:35:39 +0000

So, Tread, let me ask you.

Do you consider Warhol’s “Sleep” art? Or do you think it’s pretentious bullshit? What about Jeremy Blake’s “Winchester”? Hell, what about the “Drawing Restraint” series?

This was the reasoning behind my initial post. What do you consider “video art”? What do you consider “art” in general? Is Rothko’s work “art” as much as Rembrant’s? Do you consider Duchamp an artist?

Because, to be honest, you sound like the kids that used to scoff at “modern art” in high school (or university, for that matter) because it was “crap that anyone could do.”

You know, the kids that drew pictures of dragons riding skateboards.

By: Tread

Tread — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:51:41 +0000

That gorewitz stuff is exactly the crap I’m talking about. What’s the deal with that? I didn’t enjoy looking at it at all. I realize art is very personal, and much of it is up to the viewer to decipher, but anyone can go shoot video of a bum sleeping. That’s art? I see bums sleeping on the ground all over NYC, and I don’t find anything inspiring about a video of it. And his other stuff is all video overlayed ontop of each other, stretched around a bit. I just don’t see the ‘art’ in stuff like this. It’s lazy, uninspired, and void of talent. Art should be either, beautiful, impressive, thought provoking, or other worldly bizarre. This is none of those things. It’s just what that artist who did the toilet with ‘art’ scribbled on it was getting at. It’s easy to take anything, anything it all, and present it as art, but I don’t buy it.

Blindweezy… please divulge what you find so appealing in this stuff. Maybe I don’t get it, but I would be inclined to call this anything but art.

By: rafdesign

rafdesign — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:41:19 +0000

…I secretly dream of Bruce Nauman art directing an Ipod campaign at Logan with some ketchup…