Art?

[Zombie]

From November to January there was a lively thread in The Lounge about a 19 year old "losing his virginity in public as performance art". Some of you were disappointed when the thread was closed because you wanted to know what happened

For those of you still interested, there's a pop media website with a detailed report on the night - with pictures

I can't post the actual link because of US attitudes to birthday suits, but you know the guy's name - "Clayton Pettet". So if you google that then maybe you'll find the answer to...

what actually happened at Art School Stole My Virginity?

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
 

Edited June 24, 2014 by Zombie

[Cia]

*shakes head* One man's trash is another man's treasure, as they say. We all see things viewed through our personal lens. Personally, I could've cared less if the guy lost his virginity as he boinked half the student body at his school in the quad or on a stage with a boyfriend or in private in a bedroom. The whole concept doesn't speak to me at all. I'm not impressed, but I'm not shocked, and I'm certainly not offended.

 

Please remember to respect everyone else's right to feel how they wish about the matter--and don't be defensive or offensive if it doesn't agree with yours. And yes, thank you Zombie, we must remain within the limits of the censors to ensure the continued presence of GA's source of income... so no links or images with nudity, everyone! LOL

[TetRefine]

After reading what really happened, this kid is now an even bigger toolbag then when he first announced that he going to publicly "lose his virginity". 

[Zombie]

as performance art it's hard to deny it was pretty successful

- the "performance" was the reactions from a big chunk of world media

- and from some of the audience who maybe had their expectations disappointed

- it's got people talking about what is (and in their view isn't) art

 

this was his year two project, but it's also been pretty successful too as personal promotion

- global media attention means he's now a known name

- he did this without harming anyone or doing anything bad, he simply hoaxed a lot of folks who, in hindsight, probably now wish they'd responded better

- he's now got exhibition offers for a European gallery tour of his next "show", a platform he would never have had otherwise

 

Oh yeah, and not forgetting the publicity he's given for the banana industry...

 

 

[Palantir]

I'm quite impressed.

As the guy himself says, audience reaction was part of the performance, and reaction, both at the event and worldwide prior, he certainly elicited.

 

As Zombie points out, Clayton Pettet was extraordinarily successful in stimulating discussion about performance art and virginity - precisely what his stated aims for the piece were.

 

I fell for the media hype myself rather than consider it was performance art and due a little more consideration as to meaning.

With a wry recognition for what he's done I'll say it again - I'm quite impressed.

[TetRefine]

It seems more like attention whoring and a publicity stunt rather then "art" to me. *shrugs* 

[Zombie]

It seems more like attention whoring and a publicity stunt rather then "art" to me. *shrugs* 

 

You need to understand that "art" is a business just like any other, and artists have to promote themselves in more imaginative ways then ever before to attract the attention of jaded media. So to make the media the subject of a "performance artwork" - specifically, in this case, their reaction to a hoax on them - seems to me to have been highly imaginative, if not genius. Of course, it's a high-risk strategy because now he's alienated the tabloid and trash media when most artists strive to get all media onside - only time will tell

 

And if you're not convinced about art being important - if you think they're a bunch of no-good wastrels - UK govt statistics for 2012 show that the creative industries contribute annually £71.8 billion to the UK economy. That's a lot of zeros It's 5.2% of the total UK economy. And 5.6% of all UK jobs too.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/creative-industries-worth-8million-an-hour-to-uk-economy

Edited June 25, 2014 by Zombie

[Mann Ramblings]

 

And if you're not convinced about art being important - if you think they're a bunch of no-good wastrels - UK govt statistics for 2012 show that the creative industries contribute annually £71.8 billion to the UK economy. That's a lot of zeros It's 5.2% of the total UK economy. And 5.6% of all UK jobs too.

 

 

I don't think anyone is questioning the importance of art. It underlines everything we do and every product that is designed in our lives to some extent. Whether people are aware of it or not, concept and design are integral to our economy.

 

The downside of these kind of conceptual performances is that it colors the perception that so many hold over what artists really do. The artists that draw, paint and sculpt get lumped into this elitist group and people on the fence who don't see the value because of the lack of something produced, see less value in the artists that do. It can actually affect an artist's ability to sell their work because of public perception.

 

Art shouldn't be exclusive to the pseudo-intellectual crowd trying to outthink the dull masses. They hurt their own industry as a whole in the process.

[Zombie]

I don't think anyone is questioning the importance of art. It underlines everything we do and every product that is designed in our lives to some extent. Whether people are aware of it or not, concept and design are integral to our economy.

 

The downside of these kind of conceptual performances is that it colors the perception that so many hold over what artists really do. The artists that draw, paint and sculpt get lumped into this elitist group and people on the fence who don't see the value because of the lack of something produced, see less value in the artists that do. It can actually affect an artist's ability to sell their work because of public perception.

 

Art shouldn't be exclusive to the pseudo-intellectual crowd trying to outthink the dull masses. They hurt their own industry as a whole in the process.

 

I can't speak for the US, but in the UK art is so diverse and integral to the lives of so many - whether it's live theatre, museum / gallery attendance, craft fairs, street art, music, festivals [Glastonbury this week, Hay Literature last month, Cheltenham Arts, Malvern... on and on...] this will have zero impact on arts in the UK. The tabloid market - media and readers - has always regarded arts and artists as deeply suspect and, as you say, "the pseudo-intellectual crowd trying to outthink the dull masses". So nothing's changing there and Clayton's little caper has merely bruised the egos of the media hacks and readers who eagerly swallowed his bait whole

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Zombie

[TetRefine]

Anything that a normal, everyday person can do is not art to me. Anybody can lose their virginity, so what this kid was not special enough to be called "art". Its just attention whoring in my book. Its the same idea with paintings, where a famous "artist" can paint a bunch of swirls and dots on a piece of paper and it'll be called a "masterpiece" and sell for millions to some rich guy with an ego.

 

This is not art.

 

This is real art though.

[Zombie]

...Anybody can lose their virginity, so what this kid was not special enough to be called "art". Its just attention whoring in my book.

 

Just to recap what's already been posted... His performance art was not about losing his virginity - nor was it about sexual "whoring" - it was about provoking a response from others. OK, if you want to call this "attention whoring" then that's fair comment as your own view. But it doesn't really take us any further forward because you could say the same about anyone who seeks publicity about themselves and their work.

 

It's my view that for something to be art - in  whatever medium, which includes performance art - it must provoke an emotional response from others and in this case it is that very response which he intended to be his "performance art" and for which he will be graded.

 

 

Anything that a normal, everyday person can do is not art to me... Its the same idea with paintings, where a famous "artist" can paint a bunch of swirls and dots on a piece of paper and it'll be called a "masterpiece" and sell for millions to some rich guy with an ego.

 

This is not art.

 

This is real art though

 

Interesting point. And, no, I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. Maybe others can pick up on this if they want to contribute?

 

 

 

.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Zombie

[TetRefine]

I guess what it comes down to is that art is in the eye of the beholder. To me, abstract or "modern" art will never qualify as art, but to others that first painting I posted in my post above would qualify as a masterpiece. I'm a pretty concrete, get to the point person, so I'm not a fan of standing around a picture and having someone ask, "what does it mean to you?". I prefer art that a.) conveys a political point, or b.) conveys a grandiose image of something, such as the second picture I posted above.

 

But again, to each their own I guess. 

Edited June 25, 2014 by TetRefine

[Graeme]

I had the 'pleasure' last year of accompanying a group of primary school kids going through the Australian National Gallery. Happily, I wasn't in the group that went to see Jackson Pollock's 'Blue Poles':

The comments from the kids who did see it, though, reflected the opinion of TetRefine above -- they wondered what it was and why was it art.

 

I'm old enough to remember the controversy when it was originally bought (for a rather large sum of money), but looking at it, I can say that I'm not capable of doing something like that. It's not just a random splash of colour. Those apparently random splashes are such that you can almost see something in them. That's art. What you can sense is there is something personal and unique to each viewer, and for some people it may be profound.

 

Having said that, I still don't 'get it', but I recognise it as art. It's not something I personally would want on my wall, and maybe it only appeals to a small subset of the population, but it's not something anyone can do.

[Zombie]

I guess what it comes down to is that art is in the eye of the beholder. To me, abstract or "modern" art will never qualify as art, but to others that first painting I posted in my post above would qualify as a masterpiece. I'm a pretty concrete, get to the point person, so I'm not a fan of standing around a picture and having someone ask, "what does it mean to you?". I prefer art that a.) conveys a political point, or b.) conveys a grandiose image of something, such as the second picture I posted above.

 

But again, to each their own I guess. 

 

Hmm, but this just raises more questions, like

 

- what is "modern"?

- and this pic does convey a political point, so it meets one of your criteria and - the point you made earlier - I guess you'd concede it's not "Anything that a normal, everyday person can do"

 

[Ron]

Hmm, but this just raises more questions, like

 

- what is "modern"?

- and this pic does convey a political point, so it meets one of your criteria and - the point you made earlier - I guess you'd concede it's not "Anything that a normal, everyday person can do"

I saw this in Madrid and it's stunning. This is no small work, Guernica, as it is about eleven-and-a-half feet (3.5 m) tall and around twenty-five-and-a-half feet (7.8 m) long. It makes you sad to look at it, and thoughtful. In 1937, when this was completed, Picasso's art would arguably be considered modern art, I'm thinking.

[Ashi]

From November to January there was a lively thread in The Lounge about a 19 year old "losing his virginity in public as performance art". Some of you were disappointed when the thread was closed because you wanted to know what happened

 

For those of you still interested, there's a pop media website with a detailed report on the night - with pictures

 

I can't post the actual link because of US attitudes to birthday suits, but you know the guy's name - "Clayton Pettet". So if you google that then maybe you'll find the answer to...

 

what actually happened at Art School Stole My Virginity?

 

 

 

Okay, actually I was one of those guys quite interested in the response to the outcome of the experiment.  But I think I'll not see the final outcome, but just observe you guys' reaction of the outcome. 

 

I don't think anyone is questioning the importance of art. It underlines everything we do and every product that is designed in our lives to some extent. Whether people are aware of it or not, concept and design are integral to our economy.

 

The downside of these kind of conceptual performances is that it colors the perception that so many hold over what artists really do. The artists that draw, paint and sculpt get lumped into this elitist group and people on the fence who don't see the value because of the lack of something produced, see less value in the artists that do. It can actually affect an artist's ability to sell their work because of public perception.

 

Art shouldn't be exclusive to the pseudo-intellectual crowd trying to outthink the dull masses. They hurt their own industry as a whole in the process.

 

I really love to hear a real artist's POV of art, and I really glad you post this, Mann.  Art does come in many types and shapes and I think it just confuses people further.  For those who don't know, I do photography (though not commercially successful).  I do call myself a craftsman rather than an artist because calling my own work art is a bit strange (it's the job of the critics).  I do hope my work can inspire viewers, but by whatever label I am called, I don't really care.  That said, my work is usually more representational than abstract (I really don't want to use the term modern, as the last period I would call something modern is 1950's, which is quite dated already).  In fact, I call my work existential (and opposite of conceptual.  Though ironically, my current photo project is conceptual), because I am not trying to make any statement with my photos other than they are beautiful scenes and wish they would make people appreciate the nature a bit more (i.e., become environmentally responsible).

 

That said, I do agree with your last statement as some of the arts are products of pseudo-intellectual crowd.  My Flickr friends are diverse, they do all sort of things.  Some do what you usually considered to be museum pieces and some don't, and I don't mind either, nor would call one type of art more art than the other, though my own definition of art is pretty set in stone: art makes people think.  Though I must say the focus of my work isn't exactly inline with the East Coast Photographers (the more conceptual and intellectual school of photography).  My work is pretty standard Ansel Adams (i.e., West Coast Photographers), and what he believed:  I am merely bringing a scene to you, via technical excellence I hope the photo of it would awe-struck the viewers as the scene did to me when I was there at that moment in time.

 

I brought up the differences of the two schools of photography because you see, as a photo taken by a West Coast photographer could easily be judged as "lack of intellectual stimulation," while I could easily say a photo by East Coast photographer is badly taken, with no understanding of lighting and exposure.  But I don't judge them that way.  Otherwise, my flickr friends would consist of one type of people making one style of photos only. 

 

Matt's (TetRefine's) thought on art is pretty typical of people who aren't doing art.  And my background wasn't art either, so perhaps the art czars might consider my works as Neolithic, though I prefer to say my work is counter-revolutionary (going back the root of a photo taken well from the get-go, with minimal post-processing).  After all, art is a constant rebellion of the previously estabilished work.  Once one style art is accepted by the general public, a new wave of style would overthrow the establishment.  That obviously doesn't make defining "what's art" easier....

 

Now back to the original topic, I do think the guy is an attention whore....  Though I tend to think one has to have a little bit of ego to market your work successfully, if you seek to be successful commerically.

[Haley Walter]

I was actually intrigued by it when I first heard about it, but all it was was eating bananas apparently so..all he wanted was attention. There was another guy who was going to do it too, but backed out for fear of his reputation. 

[MikeL]

Nature is the ultimate artist.

 

[rustle]

The origin of the word art is interesting. It derives from artifice, which speaks to virtuosity of execution.

 

Looking at the landscape Matt posted, I admire the realism and depth, and the quality of the technique.

 

Talking about 2 dimensional art, I've come to believe virtuosity isn't just about the accuracy of an image, the realism of the portrayal. If an abstract painting or a badly taken photo can move me to tears (and some have), to my mind, it's art. The artist will have conveyed his message.

[W_L]

Just had a thought,something really simple:

 

Is literary fiction art? (Quite obvious to ask, but no one has posited this as its assumed answer to be yes)

 

Literature relies not on visual or direct objects to be considered art, but the narrative imagination and depth of details or emotional relativity to gain its dimensions. However, if you cannot see it except from your own mind's eye, which is entirely subjective without a physical entity, then is written work art?

 

And if you do presume that subjective non-physical "entities" like a story of fiction is art, then is thought itself art? I can conceive of massive buildings and irregular shapes, complex life forms and distant alien worlds, but that is a concept without form.

 

Beyond questioning literature, I am questioning concept itself, which is the root of what allows a literary story to become art as you the reader must conceive the world we are creating in front of you.

[rustle]

Just had a thought,something really simple:

 

Is literary fiction art? (Quite obvious to ask, but no one has posited this as its assumed answer to be yes)

 

Literature relies not on visual or direct objects to be considered art, but the narrative imagination and depth of details or emotional relativity to gain its dimensions. However, if you cannot see it except from your own mind's eye, which is entirely subjective without a physical entity, then is written work art?

 

And if you do presume that subjective non-physical "entities" like a story of fiction is art, then is thought itself art? I can conceive of massive buildings and irregular shapes, complex life forms and distant alien worlds, but that is a concept without form.

 

Beyond questioning literature, I am questioning concept itself, which is the root of what allows a literary story to become art as you the reader must conceive the world we are creating in front of you.

 

Is art the concept or its communication? I can conceive of many things I can never express, but I'd never consider those thoughts art. Jokingly, I ask, But isn't that the essence of abstract art - that which transcends expression? And I reply, masturbation is sex.

[C J]

OK, I don't mind that people get bored and start picking at words beyond reason.  Personally I like to depend on the actual definition of words.  In this case it's art, and this is googles offering:

 

 

art¹

ärt/

noun

noun: art; plural noun: arts; plural noun: the arts

1. 1.

   the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

   "the art of the Renaissance"

   synonyms: fine art, artwork More

   "he studied art"

   • works produced by human creative skill and imagination.

     "his collection of modern art"

     synonyms: fine art, artwork More

     "he studied art"
   • creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.

     "she's good at art"
2. 2.

   the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

    

    

    

   I think that answers the question sufficiently.  Now the real issue to wonder about is the application of the word to a particular thing.

    

   Anything someone creates could be called art.  It seems to me that only the observer can decide in their own mind whether or not something is art.  I don't think painting a picture of something in exacting detail is art.  A camera can do that.  Like the definition says, art is a creative activity.  If a written work is simply a report of actual events then it's not art, it's journalism.  If it's imaginary, or created in the mind, then it's art.

[rustle]

 

OK, I don't mind that people get bored and start picking at words beyond reason.  Personally I like to depend on the actual definition of words.  In this case it's art, and this is googles offering:

 

 

art¹

ärt/

noun

noun: art; plural noun: arts; plural noun: the arts

1. 1.

   the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

   "the art of the Renaissance"

   synonyms: fine art, artwork More

   "he studied art"

   • works produced by human creative skill and imagination.

     "his collection of modern art"

     synonyms: fine art, artwork More

     "he studied art"
   • creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.

     "she's good at art"
2. 2.

   the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

    

    

    

   I think that answers the question sufficiently.  Now the real issue to wonder about is the application of the word to a particular thing.

    

    

 

Sufficient is not always complete, nor does it necessarily convey absolute denotation or connotation.

 

From Merriam-Webster online:

 

[3 :  an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>]

 

From the Online Etymology Dictionary: 

 

     [art (n.) 13c., "skill as a result of learning or practice," from Old French art (10c.), from Latin artem (nominative ars) "work of art; practical skill; a business, craft," from PIE *ar-ti- (cognates: Sanskrit rtih "manner, mode;" Greek arti "just," artios "complete, suitable," artizein "to prepare;" Latin artus "joint;" Armenian arnam "make;" German art "manner, mode"), from root *ar- "fit together, join" (see arm (n.1)).

 

In Middle English usually with a sense of "skill in scholarship and learning" (c.1300), especially in the seven sciences, or liberal arts.]

 

Language is imprecise, derivative, and changeful. This is one reason why these discussions have merit.

Edited July 5, 2014 by rustle

[Zombie]

However, if you cannot see it except from your own mind's eye, which is entirely subjective without a physical entity, then is written work art?

 

And if you do presume that subjective non-physical "entities" like a story of fiction is art, then is thought itself art?

Is art the concept or its communication? I can conceive of many things I can never express, but I'd never consider those thoughts art.

 

Without communication there can be no emotional response from others so there can be no art. So, no, thought cannot be art... a least not until thought can be communicated

 

 

Anything someone creates could be called art.  It seems to me that only the observer can decide in their own mind whether or not something is art.  I don't think painting a picture of something in exacting detail is art.  A camera can do that.  Like the definition says, art is a creative activity.  If a written work is simply a report of actual events then it's not art, it's journalism.  If it's imaginary, or created in the mind, then it's art.

 

Art is in the eye of the beholder... perhaps many would agree with this. But this is more about personally liking or not liking, or maybe having no response at all. If, say, someone hates a work, or is completely unmoved or bored by it, they can still accept others may love it or have a powerful emotional response - which could make it art.

 

As for "Anything someone creates could be called art" this is more interesting. For example, things can be created where the intention was not to create "art" but then - maybe much later - those things acquire the status of art. Like prehistoric cave paintings that are found all over the world - it's unlikely they were created as art, but we now regard them as art

 

 

 

This machine was created as a vehicle for transport - but has it now also become a work of art?

 

 

And can machines create art - paint, write, compose?

[W_L]

Without communication there can be no emotional response from others so there can be no art. So, no, thought cannot be art... a least not until thought can be communicated

 

 

What if you are expressing a thought of love without actually communicating it  directly, but instead write a lot of poetry about unrequited infatuation

 

The root of all imagination is conception in thought; my idea was that thought itself even unexpressed can be art through how a person lives and exists. A writer can be an artist on both the descriptive level and the abstract level.

Edited July 6, 2014 by W_L