Digital BW, The Print

The "shocking" or controversial art that has received the art world's 
attention has actually been good art (in my opinion at least) that has 
value beyond being shocking. The manure piece that I mentioned is from 
an artist that, as far as I can tell, has not received the art world's 
praise (probably for good reason). I believe there are a lot of 
shocking works of art out there that we have never heard about because 
they have little to offer.  So in that sense, the art world is working 
I think.

The people I find that don't like the more shocking yet praised artists 
are the people who either can't get beyond the shock value and think 
the artist's motives are purely for shock or fame (like most of the 
list members here I suppose) or are offended by the material/ don't 
want to deal with such issues in the art that they view (for example 
religion, animal rights, sexuality).

You guys can't have it both ways, you're saying that the high-art world 
should concern itself with what appeals to the public at large but at 
the same time think that anything that appeals to the media is bad. 
Should we all take pictures of pretty flowers and paint watercolors of 
Cape Cod?  What appeals to the public is either folk art (craft) with 
very little substance or something that is interesting via shock, 
controversy, money, or fame. There are some exceptions of course, but 
you get the genereal idea.

Everyone complains when art is too boring (black squares) and when it 
is too interesting (dead cows, vagina scrolls), where is the happy 
medium? I am hoping that the happy medium is upon us and that the too 
minimalist and too shocking periods are now in the past ; that the art 
world is looking to the future. Maybe we will fit in there.

I hope I am not coming off as offensive to anyone here, I just like to 
voice the other side sometimes. A lot of times, the medium of 
photography gets a bad rap in the art world, and the more we can think 
in their terms, the better we will be, maybe….     : )

-mikeH
toomanyartists.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich" <
steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
> Tyler, 
> I am struck by what you wrote.  (that is not bad)  It got me thinking. 
> 
> I am thinking of the times when I saw conceptual artists (some good and s=
ome bad...personal opinion) and the times I saw mainstream artists (both low=
 and high stream)...and the thought that those that are out to "shock" the p=
ublic are often in the search of fame (who isnt?) of the "fifteen minutes" s=
ort.  
> 
> While rotting carcasses of animals (or..at the opposite end.. formaldehyd=
e preserved ones either) may be "screaming" to the "high" art world...it see=
ms juvenile to me many times.  Juvenile in the desperate sense of "look at m=
e and what I did."   Like what a petulant little kid does to get approval an=
d attention.  That scream for attention....that need to make sculpture of "m=
anure" (as witnessed in earlier post) ...seems ridiculous...even if it wins =
the approval of the art critics and is valued at "hundreds of thousands of d=
ollars."  
> 
> Artists all want attention.   Some get it by producing art that is "appre=
ciated" by the masses and some by producing art that is mainstream.  Others =
by producing "art" that is noteworthy only because of its shock value.  
> 
> Time usually tells the final lasting value of the art.  Of course tastes =
change with time (e.g. the acceptance of Van Gogh is just one of many exampl=
es)..but I find it hard to imagine that some time in the future someone is g=
oing to look at a pile of manure (or discarded trash) as a sign of "the art =
of a culture" unless it is a very low, base culture.  Funny to think of it t=
hat way.  The future may judge the "high art" (I am being generous calling p=
iles of manure or rotting flesh..."high art") of today as the very lowest cu=
ltural expression.  
> 
> Thinking of time...if you lived far in the future...do you (anyone readin=
g this now) think rotting carcasses or preserved fetal pigs or piles of "man=
ure" will ever be considered "art?"
> 
> What will it take to "shock" the future?  Mass murders?  Genocide as an a=
rt form?  Sorry...it has already been done.  Back to the argument that there=
 are no more original ideas....
> 
> Musing off now, 
> Steadman
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Tyler Boley 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y... 
>   Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:48 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
> 
> 
>   >   ps 
>   >   The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low =
end/
>   >   popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything =
more 
>   >   than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to=
 
>   >   hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring be=
tter 
>   >   art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same t=
hing 
>   >   because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).
>   > 
>   But if the only alternative to hallmark card nature scenes that 
>   manages to elbow it's way to the public's attention is art who's main 
>   purpose is to outrage, they'll certainly not be that interested in 
>   seeking out something they may find more complelling.
>   Kinda like the difference between Michael Bolton and Madonna. It's 
>   barely music at all, yet there is a universe of music out there, 
>   including compelling leading edge stuff. How would you know?
>   The older I get, I'm of the mind that artists intent on being 
>   "offensive" (which is anything but these days, boring in fact) are 
>   really just trying to manipulate pop culture into giving them their 15 =

>   minutes.
>   Tyler
> 
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>              
>        
>        
> 
>   Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls an=
d other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
>   Please follow these basic guidelines:
>   - Include your full name with your message.
>   - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>   - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to k=
eep them short.
>   - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject heade=
r.
>   - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames=
."
>   - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>   - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the variou=
s resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]