Home of Rhett & Link fans - the Mythical Beasts!
Outraged by "Is This Art?" Video
Hello all, the purpose for this post is to hopefully get a message to R&L about something that I hold very dear to my heart.
--------------
DISCLAIMER: I love art for all it is, I do have my own opinions of what are is, and I would normally leave people to their own opinions because
--------------
In the video "Is This Art" uploaded Sept. 25. 13, They went through a list of pieces and judged them if they were art or not. Some of the pieces they discussed the background, some they did not. The part of this that annoys me so much is that they had not discussed the background of "Fountain" by Marcel Duchamp.
The reason this piece is known as "a major landmark in 20th century art" (Link, 2:56) is because of it's story behind it. When Duchamp made this piece, he was directly relating this piece to the exact question of "Is this Art?" in a VERY sarcastic sense because it was submitted to an art gallery that advertised that they would display ANY art piece, no matter how big, small, bad or good. After submitting Fountain under the alias of R. Mutt, he was declined from the showing being told that what he submitted was not art, thus coming full circle.
This piece also was a big piece in terms of the art movement titled, "Dada" though this piece did not start it.
This piece was more than art, it was an experimentation, an incognito question to the masses and I do believe for this, it is art.
Here is the Wiki article on this piece:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
Thanks for reading,
-Patrick
P.S. The (Link, 2:56) was not a quote from the Bible, but rather a time stamp from mentioned video found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jngus...
Replies to This Discussion
-
K-ModPermalink Reply by Kevin (UniSeal) on -
That is some interesting background information, and could have been useful in the video!
However, it is important to know that Rhett and Link were certainly not trying to "outrage" anyone over their choices. Like any episode of GMM they do, it is all just for the entertainment, and they certainly aren't claiming to be any sort of official judge of the actual art pieces. So I hope you were not too offended by how they presented it, since I'm sure they'd be the first to admit it was all in good fun and they meant no harm!
-
Permalink Reply by Patrick Payne on
-
It was more of it left me in discomfort - I'm sorry for exaggerating my title, I tend to do that without realising it.
And I love GMM and it is one of the only videos I really look forward to watching on my downtime vs the rest of my subscriptions on YouTube, so I understand that it really is in all just fun however (as you said) the background information could have been very useful in this case.
-
K-ModPermalink Reply by Gumbo123 on -
Victoria (Centauromadoose), our resident kommunity art historian, has given a broader discussion of this exact topic on the daily GMM episode discussion at:
http://rhettandlinkommunity.com/group/good-mythical-morning/forum/t...
-
K-ModPermalink Reply by Victoria (Centauromadoose) on -
Bah. As Gumbo posted, I've already left a considerable tirade elsewhere on the Komm -- but surprise! I still have more to say. :P
It always bothers me when people look at an artwork and say something like, "My 5-year-old could have made this." Maybe your child could have created something with a similar visual look, but was your child working with the intention to question and explore the nature of human experience and expression in doing so? Definitely not. As I've said elsewhere, modernist, post-modernist, and contemporary art frequently use a visual medium as a means to a larger conceptual end. You have to go beyond simply what the artwork looks like.
I could spend all kinds of time working through reasons why Conecetto Spaziale, Attese (the one with slash marks) is a viable piece of artwork. You could say all kinds of things about how the artist engages the canvas differently than traditional painting -- rather than just using the canvas as something to put other stuff on, he makes the canvas itself the focus of your attention by cutting through it. He literally cuts through the artifice of painting, reminding us that these visual works are just things that someone put on another thing, a lot of fantasy covering up the framework of reality. The red color in itself evokes violence, a sense of anger or destruction, that pairs with the slash marks to establish a certain tone.
I personally don't like modernist paintings, but I understand why a whole bunch of artists went through this visual movement, and I respect it for what it is. Those modernist squares of color (like the gift to Rhett's dad) are generally playing with the visual distinctions (or lack thereof) among colors and shades along the spectrum. I've seen an artwork where it's a white square on a white background, which seems like a stupid exercise on the surface -- however, if you really look at it for a while, you can see that even something that is all "white" is really a variety of shades within our understanding of "white," and despite the monochrome, textural elements make the square stand out. Modernist painters came after a long-standing era wherein art was largely used to express recognizable forms, whether realistic or distorted, and it became a frustration for artists who thought they needed to get back to the basics.
Ugh, good grief...all right, someone shut me up now that I've written a whole classroom lecture here. >./p>
-
Permalink Reply by Marsha L (MythiCaNerdian) on
-
Wowza! You are one smart art cookie. I just generally chalk 'modern' art like those piece as..."I don't get it." I'm not picking on the artist, I just don't understand it. I have the same in stories too, not so good at symbolism. I'd love to know what some of your favorite artists are and why Victoria. It helps to know why something is awesome for those of us who otherwise wouldn't have a clue. Would be a lovely art lesson for your lecture. ;)
M
-
K-ModPermalink Reply by Victoria (Centauromadoose) on -
Ah thank you, Marsha! I was hoping I didn't come off too teacher-y. =P I knew literally nothing about art/artists before my freshman year of college, when I happened to take an art history class and got hooked.
I actually can't say I have a favorite artist -- my area of interest lies primarily in ancient Greek art, and most of the artists' names from that time period haven't really survived. Well, we have names, but we can't always match them up to the artworks that are still around. Plus there's a complication with Greek artwork having been copied in later periods by the Romans and other Hellenistic cultures, while the original Greek works were destroyed, so...ah well. I actually studied ancient Greek vase paintings in particular for my undergraduate thesis, and those are even harder to attribute to specific artists, because very few of the painters ever signed their names.
As for non-ancient artists, I do tend to like the works of Jackson Pollock, although it's harder for me to articulate specifically what might have gone behind his individual paintings. I just like how they're very complex while seeming deceptively simple (another of those "my five-year-old could have done this" artists...); trying to see through the layers and layers of paint or to follow one of the particular paint trails is at least an interesting exercise, in my opinion.
I also like Paul Manship -- his sculptures are largely about classical themes (Greek gods/goddesses, mythological characters), which is probably at least partially why I like him. I like his interpretation of classical form in the way his figures are molded very smoothly, in almost an artificial way, while portraying a very loose, flowing sense of movement that you'd never see in actual ancient works. My favorite of his is probably Diana.
-
K-ModPermalink Reply by Gumbo123 on -
Gumbo says:
"If your 5-year old could do that . . . then why are you sticking those coloring sheets up on the fridge and not making untold $millions from selling his artwork?"
-
Permalink Reply by Bridge (The Bohemian Vampire) on
-
as an artist I agree that the video kind of irked me because my perception and definition of art is changing with each coming day. I liked Rhett's definition of art, but Link's reasoning for 'if it is or not' bothered me. I tried not to be too mad about it because everyone has their own opinions and I know more people are much less informed than I am. People who aren't artists or art enthusiasts often don't understand or discredit something just because the purpose isn't apparent. I didn't even know the history of Fountain but I knew there had to have been something going on, so I didn't question its importance or definition.
I feel like for someone who was mad/discomforted with something a youtuber said, you took it in the right way. most people would've unsubscribed and cursed them out i think, haha.
-
-
I posted this (at least a small version) in the comments o the video but u doubt they would have seen it cause there are so many other comments haha.
© 2024 Created by Link.
Powered by
