Urinal Named as Most Influential Artwork

[SeraphSword]

:rolleyes:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20041201/ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art

[Blackhawk]

http://www.snitzerart.com/haha/shit.gif

LOL, this isn't a first for them Seraphsword. We have numerous columns on our studio wall about it. Dave Barry, I think is the columnists name, he did a few articles on it, funny as hell.

EDIT - It is Dave Barry, these are the actual articles, we have the clippings from the paper on our studio wall.

http://www.zechiel.com/eimages/eye4.html

http://www.zechiel.com/eimages/eye5.html

http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/nbarry17_20020217.htm

[James Kei]

Those articles are hilarious!

And don't get me started on this subject....it's just going to piss me off. >:{

[helix7]

I can see how the "art can be anything and anything can be art" characteristic of what many people think is modern art is illustrated in that urinal. I just hope that what is considered "modern" about this quickly gets a new name and something else becomes the next modern art.

[Dizon]

OMG! what is the world coming to ?!?!?!!? >:{

[Tully]

Ah, Duchamp... the funny thing was that the guy could actually paint. He was the one who did Nude Descending Staircase.

Art(and I use the term loosely) of the early 20th Century was marked more by the idea behind a work, rather than the actual crafting of it. Lots of artists didn't have a thing to do with the creation of their work, only the idea and it's exhibition. Fountain attracted so much attention because Duchamp (who submitted the work anonymously) tried to get it exhibited in a so-called "open" art show, where anybody was allowed to submit anything. It was refused, and it caused something of an uproar. Then the piece mysteriously disappeared. Its influence I think was in opening the doors of art to stranger and stranger things.

That's a bit of an explanation, but doesn't change the fact that it's still incredibly stupid.

[cotron]

I've read that Duchamp turned that urinal in as a joke, just to thumb his nose at the blind and snooty art snobs... which might explain why he signed it with a different name. I think that's actually what makes it influential to the fine art world- all the people following his example by seeing how much stupid shit they can get away with... and still get the recognition of being an arteest

[cotron]

So Martin Creed's blinking lights probably looked pretty darned artistic to the Turner Prize jurors. The prize was formally presented by Madonna, who said: "Art is always at its best when there is no money, because it is nothing to do with money and everything to do with love." That Madonna! Always joking!

Hahaha

[JoshuaTheJames]

Hahah I'm actually listening to a Chappelle stand up right now! hahah.

That episode was Hilarious...

DeChump who ??? :rolleyes:

-JtJ

[jawfish]

...It's these crackpot critics man!... they haven't got a CLUE!!!....

[jawfish]

Art expert Simon Wilson said the choice of Duchamp's urinal "comes as a bit of a shock."

let's rephrase that, shall we? instead of "art" we'll say "crap", instead of "comes" we'll say "is", and instead of "shock" we'll say "boring waste of time that doesn't really mean anything"

Crap expert Simon Wilson said the choice of Duchamp's urinal "is as a bit of a boring waste of time that doesn't really mean anything."

[darth massacre]

Duchamp just wierds out. I'm not a big fan of abstract art.

[Art_Addict]

Originally posted by cotron : I've read that Duchamp turned that urinal in as a joke, just to thumb his nose at the blind and snooty art snobs... which might explain why he signed it with a different name.

Indeed. Duchamp was merely trying to provoke and shock the art world at that time , lol. Actually it was an exhibition of progressive modern art at that time, with lots of people of ' dadaisme ' entering their works. Still Duchamp was able to provoke the people who were known then as the most 'open-minded' ones.
It wasn't the urinoir itself that actually disturbed the most but really the name he signed it with. I don't recall the name but it was a german one. And at that time was upsetting because the World War just ended :)

I think Duchamp is one of the greatest ' thinkers' in art through out history, not one of the greatest artists.

[Nimrod]

The name he signed the urinal with was 'R. Mutt', a clever play of words: like 'Our Mutt', our beloved dog, who drinks out of the toilet. Its a lot more than a lot of you think it is, as a statement and a challenge of art. I personally believe that the society we live in has corrupted the meaning of art, such that we choose to define it by a measure of money or time, rather than intent.

When the average person goes into an art gallery, what do they ask when they experience great works of art? 'How much is it worth?' 'How much is the Mona Lisa worth?' Just something to think about I guess...

[jawfish]

...I understand Duchamp's "joke"... after having read about the reasoning behind it. However it was what I read and, not the piece of work itself, which explained this, rendering the work in question (in the eyes of millions) a total waste of time... if this particular exhibit comes from a great thinker, then god help us all...

[Tully]

The name he signed the urinal with was 'R. Mutt', a clever play of words: like 'Our Mutt', our beloved dog, who drinks out of the toilet. Its a lot more than a lot of you think it is, as a statement and a challenge of art. I personally believe that the society we live in has corrupted the meaning of art, such that we choose to define it by a measure of money or time, rather than intent.


You're right about that. Other people think it might have been a play on a popular comic strip called Mutt and Jeff. The full name was Richard Mutt, and at the time Richard was a French slang term for a wealthy, snobby person. The guy loved puns.

Intent is important when it comes to art but it can't be the whole thing. It changes the artist into the simple presenter of an idea rather than the crafter of an artwork. I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with this position, but I don't like it. It cheapens the worth of actual skill and rewards any man with a moderately original idea that has enough money or connections to find people to do the dirty work for him.

[dfacto]

We should get Manley or someone to create something horribly mundane, like a paper airplane, then praise it to high heaven and sell it off to some art chumps. Earn an easy 100 grand for CA.org.

:yayca:

[jawfish]

We should get Manley or someone to create something horribly mundane, like a paper airplane, then praise it to high heaven and sell it off to some art chumps. Earn an easy 100 grand for CA.org.

Indeed.... a fool and his money are soon parted...

[Andrej]

'Yes, yes, I can see that, but what does it mean?'

[Jebus]

People who are thinking very lowly of this piece of art, please study some art history more, as it was a VERY important change in the way of viewing art. You gotta place it in it's time. Now we are getting sick of folks who are putting crap in museums, then it was something unheard of. For modern art, it has been indeed a very influentual piece of art, whether you like it or not.

[jawfish]

'Yes, yes, I can see that, but what does it mean?'

...simple...it's easy to con an idiot....

...which is what the modern artworld does....

...why turn out amazing, time consuming artwork, when you can sell crap, which takes very little time or effort to produce for the same price?....

[Blackhawk]

ARTICLE:
"But it reflects the dynamic nature of art today and the idea that the creative process that goes into a work of art is the most important thing the work itself can be made of anything and can take any form," he said.

DAVE BARRY:
I bet that Michelangelo (a loyal reader of this column) is turning over in his grave right now. He's thinking: "You mean I could have just announced that I was going to make a huge statue of David? I didn't have to chip away all that marble?"

LOL, I love Dave Barry. I personally think modern art is a joke, I'm not looking any deeper into it than that and I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion over it. Basically I think of it this way. If I go to a 5 star restaurant (A Museum) do I want a master chef cooking my food (Master Painters) or do I want the 16 year old pimply french fry dipper from Mcdonald's making my meal (Modern Art)? It's as simple as that.

[jetpack42]

like the other choices the article mentioned (as runner ups for the most influential art) were any better....

rigged jury.

[jawfish]

LOL, I love Dave Barry. I personally think modern art is a joke, I'm not looking any deeper into it than that and I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion over it. Basically I think of it this way. If I go to a 5 star restaurant (A Museum) do I want a master chef cooking my food (Master Painters) or do I want the 16 year old pimply french fry dipper from Mcdonald's making my meal (Modern Art)? It's as simple as that.

...exactly...

[Daunting]

Was just looking through a book talking about modern crap. Now hmm.... when you have a yellow peice of paper... with two lines on each side.... And that is worth millions of dollars.... We have a problem...

I dunno... I feel when the average joe can make what these "great" artists are making... then it isn't worth to be looked at. When it is something that's above the average then we should analyze it further... Getting sick of freakin dots in the middle of huge canvases WE GET IT IT WAS SHOCKING 60 YEARS AGO!!! STOP!!!