Suckers and Music?

[Catison]

I think this is an argument that is open to abuse and indeed has been abused by a number of artists. Art has become a trading commodity and that means market forces, so if someone can con someone else into parting with money for a blank canvas, it is simply supply and demand. The 'art' element seems incidental.

Mike

I see it this way.  With all art, we are not buying the materials.  We are not affected by the color blue by itself.  We are affected by art because it is created by human expression.  When we enjoy art, it is not the acrylic or oil that is important, it is the artist's use of those tools.  A blank canvas may very well be blank, but what makes it art is the artist's choice to not use any other tool.

Of course anyone could have made this piece of "blank" art, but no one starts their career making blank art (at least no artist who wants to be taken seriously).  These empty art pieces are part of a line of art that, when taken together in context, is culmination of an artistic expression.  And in my opinion, I do not see this particular form of expression having been created any other way.

It is also interesting to me that many people limit the expressions available to art.  In the classical sense, art is mostly about the dramatic emotions: love, joy, sadness, despair.  But what about bewilderment, curiosity, revulsion, disgust?  While a lot of classical artists were able to conjure up these emotions, only the avant-garde artists have made it such a focal point.  There surely is room for this wider expression, right?

[max]

Although some critics were outraged, art lovers paid through the nose for what had passed through Manzoni's behind.

...but how would anyone know if it was the artist's actual poop and not someone elses without a DNA certificate of authenticity?

I'd be really pissed off if I spent a fortune on bogus poop! It would lose it's resale value.

[Scriptavolant]

It is also interesting to me that many people limit the expressions available to art.  In the classical sense, art is mostly about the dramatic emotions: love, joy, sadness, despair.  But what about bewilderment, curiosity, revulsion, disgust? 

Yes, that's precisely the point.

[knight66]

I see it this way.  ..............It is also interesting to me that many people limit the expressions available to art.  In the classical sense, art is mostly about the dramatic emotions: love, joy, sadness, despair.  But what about bewilderment, curiosity, revulsion, disgust?  While a lot of classical artists were able to conjure up these emotions, only the avant-garde artists have made it such a focal point.  There surely is room for this wider expression, right?

I have no problems really with anything you said. Perhaps we need to look at the body of work of the artists to decide whether they are taking the piss. But really each work of art should be able to stand on its own merit. I see little to engage with beyond the philosophical in a blank canvas and I can do that without seeing it. The blank canvas of possibilities etc. For me art has to be unique, it implies skill, experimentation by all means, but unless we are going to get into notional argument about the exact shade and texture of a blank canvas, then apart from the concept, nothing much seems worth calling it art.

Damien Hirst produced the shark in formaldehyde, it has become iconic, I thought the concept had something to say, but then we got pig's heads, sheep, cows, cows cut in half etc. Once the initial idea had been produced, what followed felt like cynical marketing. No one's art has been more assiduously marketed than his. He is now more a business man than an artist.

He moved onto dropping paint onto a spinning canvas, these were attractive, but it became known that people in his studio were making them under his somewhat casual direction, so they were not even by him, yet sold under his name. No one can kid me this was akin to work produced by say, The Studio of Rubens. It was business, plain and simple, but many seem to have lost the power to stand back and ask what they are getting beyond an investment with a dubious label of provenance.

I recall going to a Picasso exhibition of his drawings. They were amazing, almost no lines, but so much suggested. Not long after, various art courses scaled down the study of anatomy and the Picasso imitators were onto the bandwagon of minimalist line-drawings.

The trouble was, that Picasso had distilled and distilled his art, from enormous technical capability, throwing out more and more until he was left with the essence he was looking for; whereas the newbies felt they could dispense with the grounding in technique and move straight to the distillation, but the work I saw lacked virtuosity, power, projection. They wanted shortcuts. I believe a lot of modern art is about shortcuts. That in itself may well be a legitimate comment on our society, but I don't feel like congratulating the artists.

So, yes, I can see how some modern art pushes boundaries, I can go along with it often being an uncomfortable process for the viewer, I will happily admit that just because I may not, 'get it' that it may still be significant art. But somewhere we should have the facility to decide, well, it might be Art, but it is poor; and a room full of empty or single colour canvases spread across the globe does not constitute anything to me but a business opportunity.

Mike

[Catison]

So, yes, I can see how some modern art pushes boundaries, I can go along with it often being an uncomfortable process for the viewer, I will happily admit that just because I may not, 'get it' that it may still be significant art. But somewhere we should have the facility to decide, well, it might be Art, but it is poor; and a room full of empty or single colour canvases spread across the globe does not constitute anything to me but a business opportunity.

Great post Mike.  My argument is that this avant garde art is going to be incomprehensible (and silly) to those who aren't familiar with its context.  They can't get past the absurdity of the art to see the artist's expression.  And I don't blame anyone for finding a blank canvas completely stupid if they don't know the context.  That, however, is a learning problem, not a problem with the artist's talents.  Again I want to emphasize that no artistic method should be necessarily off limits.

The examples you mentioned have to do with something else, though.  In your examples the problem isn't the method, but the staleness of the method.  No wants to see the same art work again and again (unless, of course, this repetition is part of the art ).  But it is even less fulfilling to find art that isn't personal because it invokes too much of another artist.  A blank canvas is unique in its achievement in that its entire impact is created by the conception of the piece.  We cannot be amazed by the skill in its execution.  (Additionally I would argue that all skill and no expression is equally not art.)  To create the blank canvas again requires replicating the conception, and in that way, it is uninteresting.  Your example of the spinning canvas and formaldehyde follow as well.  It isn't the idea that is bad, it's the replication of the idea.

[knight66]

Catison, Yes...I agree, you say it so well. Anything can be striking and original first time round; but especially where it is mostly concept, or our blank canvas type of idea, then the repetition especially by others has no edge to it and is almost theft of an idea that only works on the initial encounter. The law of diminishing returns.

I also agree, we, (I), ought not to knee-jerk against what seemingly is shallow, everything comes with a context. Sometimes we don't need the context to appreciate the art, but then again, the context can be vital.

How many of us today can unlock the myriad of codes within a lot of pre 19th century Western art? Everything from the colour of the clothes to the specific flowers in the painting through to the placing of the characters held significance. We are the poorer in our enjoyment when we stick with the enjoyment of the eyes only and forget the symbolic narrative that is stitched into so much art.

Thanks,

Mike

[JoshLilly]

And I don't blame anyone for finding a blank canvas completely stupid if they don't know the context.  That, however, is a learning problem, not a problem with the artist's talents.  Again I want to emphasize that no artistic method should be necessarily off limits.

Does anyone ever stop and think that this person is not actually employing an artistic method, but is instead sitting at home laughing like crazy at the basically free money he got? He bought a $75 canvas and sold it for $7500. How is this not a scam? And how do you know for certain that the person doing it was actually trying to do anything artistic at all? I've actually given serious, serious thought to trying something like this myself, with the advent of online auctions granting an easier access to a larger number of potential victims - I mean, connoisseurs - and I have zero artistic aspirations of any kind. I'd love to get some money for doing practically nothing, though. And maybe someday on some Internet message board, someone will defend me as a legit artist, even though I wouldn't be and wouldn't even imagine that I was. 

[pjme]

Here is some information on the origin of " black" and "white" canvases.

From http://www.russianpaintings.net/doc.vphp?id=126


The Black Square of Kazimir Malevich is one of the most famous creations of Russian art in the last century. The first Black Square was painted in 1915 to become the turning point in the development of Russian avant-garde.

Black Square against white background became the symbol, the basic element in the system of the art of suprematism, the step into the new art. The artist himself created several variants of the Black Square. All four Squares painted by Malevich from 1915 to the early 1930s developed the same idea. Different are not only the sequence and year of creation, but also the color, design and texture. Malevich turned back to the Black Square every time he needed to present his work in an assertive and significant way, often in connection with the most important exhibitions. However he always created a new version rather than copy the previous one.

Malevich for the first time showed his Black Square (now at the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow) at the Last Futurist Exhibition 0,10 in Petrograd in 1915. A Black Square put against the sun appeared for the first time in the 1913 scenery designs for the Futurist opera Victory over the Sun.

The second Black Square was painted about 1923 with Kazimir Malevich's participation by his closest disciples, Anna Leporskaya, Konstantin Rozhdestvensky and Nikolay Suyetin, for a triptych which also included Cross and Circle (now at the State Russian Museum in St. Petersburg). Being one of the elementary forms, the square as a part of the triptych was no longer unique. Since the triptych embodied the idea of collective work which was of great importance to Malevich, it is not as important by who exactly the idea was realized.

Some believe that the third Black Square (Tretyakov Gallery) was painted in 1929 for Malevich's one-man show, following request of Aleksey Fedorov-Davydov, Assistant Director of the Gallery, because of the poor condition of the 1915 Square. This is the "blindest", most "hopeless" square, thickly painted over black. It is as different from the first one, as Malevich's life and work were different compared to 1915.

One more Black Square, smallest and, probably, latest, touches upon the motif of red and black which was important to Malevich. It may have been intended to make a diptych with the Red Square, though of smaller size, probably for the exhibition Artists of the RSFSR: 15 Years, held in Leningrad in 1932 which was to become the last important venue in the history of Russian avant-garde. The two Squares, Black and Red, were the centerpiece of Malevich's exhibition in the show. This Black Square may have been a recapitulation when the artist worn by struggle and infirmity reproduced his Victory over the Sun at a new stage. The last Square, despite the author's note "1913" on the reverse, is believed to have been created in the late twenties or early thirties, for there are no earlier mentions of it. It was one of the few of Malevich's paintings which were not handed over by the artist's heirs to the Russian Museum but were kept by his family. As legend goes, it was carried behind Malevich's coffin on the day when he was buried. When the artist's widow Natalya Andreyevna Manchenko died, the last variant of the Black Square along with Malevich's Self-portrait and Wife's Portrait passed to her relatives who later sold them to Incombank.

After the 1998 crisis this collection except the Black Square was offered for sale. The Culture Ministry of the Russian Federation used its privilege to buy this precious work of art with the financial assistance of Vladimir Potanin, President of Interros Holding, and hand it over to the State Hermitage Museum.

And from MOMA :

Malevich described his aesthetic theory, known as Suprematism, as "the supremacy of pure feeling or perception in the pictorial arts." He viewed the Russian Revolution as having paved the way for a new society in which materialism would eventually lead to spiritual freedom. This austere painting counts among the most radical paintings of its day, yet it is not impersonal; the trace of the artist's hand is visible in the texture of the paint and the subtle variations of white. The imprecise outlines of the asymmetrical square generate a feeling of infinite space rather than definite borders.

From tiscali

Russian abstract art movement launched in St Petersburg in 1915 by Kasimir Malevich, who was virtually its only member. It was the most radical abstract art movement up to this date; suprematist paintings used only a few colours and a few basic geometric shapes, such as the square, the circle, the cross, and the triangle.

Malevich, who was a deeply spiritual man, thought that by using such strict, simple shapes and colours, he could go beyond superficial appearances to attain a deeper level of meaning. In about 1918 he took his ideas to their most extreme form when he created a series of paintings featuring a white square on a white background (the square is visible only through variations in the brushwork); after this he abandoned suprematism. Although the ideas that lay behind it were rather obscure, suprematism proved highly influential on abstract painting and on design. Malevich had intended it to be a mystical form of expression, but in fact designers applied suprematist patterns to functional objects such as pottery and textiles.


josh, do you remember when you saw this "Art show"? in which city did it take place (US, Europe?)

Peter

[sonic1]

There are some incredible painting that are as you describe, painting of basically one color, that I really love. One of my favorite artists, Rothko, pretty much painted big squares of color over and over again through a majority of his painting career. He is well regarded in the art world. Of course when you look closely at his solid colors, they are anything but. There is a lot going on there, particularly in the brush strokes at the edges. But looking at brush strokes doesn't do it for a lot of people. I understand that.

Value in art is value in art. What people like, they like. You can call them suckers. Maybe they are. But some people might think the same of what you cherish. Value is determined in one place, human perception. Democritus said this a long time ago and we are barely just getting it.

At any rate, the musical equivalent for what you describe would definitely be John Cage. But some of you all are a little behind the times. Even more so like this are some of the works by Otomo Yoshihide, Sachiko M (who plays solid sine waves for long periods of time), Toshimaru Nakamura, and a few Europeans too. There are lots of recordings like this.

The shit in the can? The first musical equivalent I thought of was GG allen, but he was a punk rock guy, and he defecated on stage, maybe not quite what you are looking for.

Anyway, there are lots of music like the art you describe. I am not sure about some of that solid color painting you are talking about. There are lots of people who attempt this sort of thing, and the painting is shit. Very few people pull it off; there is more to it than just painting solid colors, but I don't really feel like going into it.

[EmpNapoleon]

Stupid question:

Whose more of a sucker, the person who looks at "bad art," or the Latmul tribe of Papua New Guinea, who require teenage boys to have their skin repeatedly cut as a coming-of-age ritual?

[Catison]

Does anyone ever stop and think that this person is not actually employing an artistic method, but is instead sitting at home laughing like crazy at the basically free money he got? He bought a $75 canvas and sold it for $7500. How is this not a scam? And how do you know for certain that the person doing it was actually trying to do anything artistic at all? I've actually given serious, serious thought to trying something like this myself, with the advent of online auctions granting an easier access to a larger number of potential victims - I mean, connoisseurs - and I have zero artistic aspirations of any kind. I'd love to get some money for doing practically nothing, though. And maybe someday on some Internet message board, someone will defend me as a legit artist, even though I wouldn't be and wouldn't even imagine that I was. 

It is only a scam of an amateur attempts this sort of thing.  A true artist has a context they work within.  There are a lot of artists whose work is in the realm of blank canvases.  They are artists in that their work is produced for some sort of expression AND they have a catalog of their work.

Imagine a painter who is very skilled.  They have the resources to paint whatever they want, yet they choose to paint only a single line, or a square, or to leave it blank.  When a skilled person chooses not to do something, that is important to.  What is said is just as important as what is not said.  I can see this being a legitimate artistic expression.  But only after it is easy to see that they have the skill in the first place.

[JoshLilly]

WHAT work? If I go to an art store and buy a blank canvas then sell it without doing anything to it, what work have I done other than reselling? What art have I created? Even if you consider it art, it was created not by the reseller, but by whoever MADE the canvas. Why is the price jacked up so much other than to rip people off? I guess this would make every single canvas ever made is in itself a work of art.

[Catison]

WHAT work? If I go to an art store and buy a blank canvas then sell it without doing anything to it, what work have I done other than reselling? What art have I created? Even if you consider it art, it was created not by the reseller, but by whoever MADE the canvas. Why is the price jacked up so much other than to rip people off?

The artists who make this kind of stuff just don't wake up one day and decide to buy a canvas and then sell it.  They are already part of the history of art.  They have a reputation for their own work.  They have a context.  Before the 'blank canvas' art there were other works they made, and there'll be works after it as well.

If a guy off the street make some blank work, then I really don't care.  But when a respected artists chooses to 'paint with nothing', then I think there is a potential for art there.

I could reverse the question to you: Exactly how much paint must be put on a canvas before it may be considered art?

[JoshLilly]

Wait a minute, it is irrelevant who does it. Something exists in and of itself, it absolutely doesn't matter WHO did it. A canvas is a canvas, its molecular structure is unaltered based on who claims it as "artwork". I find the whole notion that if one person does something it's great, while if another did the exact same thing it's meaningless, to be nonsensical. An act is an act, an object is an object. If an act is great, then it's great no matter who does it. Otherwise, the act itself isn't great. If an object is great, then it's great no matter who creates it; if it isn't, then the object is not great.

To "paint with nothing" is the same no matter who does it. The end result is 100% identical, there is no difference. I would say it doesn't matter who did it, but nobody actually DID anything. So if I try to sell you a blank canvas by the famous painter John Doe, it's worth something; now, after you buy it, I laugh and say "just kidding, that was by John Blow, some nobody bum", suddenly the exact same canvas WITH ZERO CHANGES TO IT WHATSOEVER, magically changes value?!?!

Someone who sells a blank canvas is an art supplies merchant. If you consider each of them an artist, so be it. But if a blank canvas is art, then credit must go to its creator.

[sonic1]

WHAT work? If I go to an art store and buy a blank canvas then sell it without doing anything to it, what work have I done other than reselling? What art have I created? Even if you consider it art, it was created not by the reseller, but by whoever MADE the canvas. Why is the price jacked up so much other than to rip people off? I guess this would make every single canvas ever made is in itself a work of art.

Yeah, go out and try to do that. You won't succeed. If there was something about an artist that makes people want to buy a work he or she hardly put any work into, maybe there is a context you are not getting.

Otherwise, go out and make some money, Spill some paint on a canvas or paint a solid color...go see how easy it is. I bet you will become pretty frustrated and realize it is NOT that easy. Remember that you may not understand what has really been painted.

[JoshLilly]

I'm thinking that I understand pretty well...

I can accept calling someone painting a plain square artwork. I don't like that loose employment of the word "art", but I can grudgingly accept it. I do not accept someone simply reselling an object they didn't even make or modify as "art". Every person who ever sells art supplies is an artist themselves, by that definition. All the "artist" is doing is literally stealing credit from the maker of the canvas, who actually created it.

[sonic1]

I'm thinking that I understand pretty well...

I can accept calling someone painting a plain square artwork. I don't like that loose employment of the word "art", but I can grudgingly accept it. I do not accept someone simply reselling an object they didn't even make or modify as "art". Every person who ever sells art supplies is an artist themselves, by that definition. All the "artist" is doing is literally stealing credit from the maker of the canvas, who actually created it.

Oh I see. Well, you fall into the trap by reacting. I mean, art is about statement for a lot of people. When they do something like that they make a statement. I agree it is silly, but I would not waste a lot of time worrying about it. When you go on about it, is makes you seem jealous that someone could get a bunch of money for shit in a can. So what? Believe me, you will not all of a sudden see rows of shit in a can at your nearest art outlet. Or maybe you will. It is about value; if there is an audience, there will be an artist. That is not your art, why lose sleep over it?

Besides, at least these guys are being intellectually creative. I would be much more worried about some of the reality shows on television than a can of shit. The appeal of a can of shit will always remain in a slim margin (maybe). But reality shows are a majority. THAT is something to get upset about.


Back to the canvas. The point being made by selling blank canvas is probably an attempt to put attention on the artist, in other words, not anyone could sell the canvas, just someone who is trying to make a statement. He is trying to show that art is more about the statement/artist than the skill involved. I don't agree. I think it is silly. My reaction is, "yeah, I get it, can we move on now". But I am not going to get all worked up about it. If someone wants to pay 10k for that blank canvas, it must be worth it to that guy. People pay all kinds of money for things I don't understand. That is because I value different things.

(jeez values have come up a lot lately)

Anyway, don't lose sleep over it. Society is not going to crumble because a guy sells a blank canvas.

[JoshLilly]

Well, the point of this thread was to discuss if there were musical equivalents to this. I've often wondered with some composers whether in their own head they actually were thinking "haha, people will buy into anything, I can dribble random notes on a page and they'll eat it up". Even further, has any composer ever actually left notes or statements to that effect? Seriously, every field has its con artists: real estate, insurance, &c. Why not art, or music?

Specifically, I don't mean something like the Joyce Hatto affair, taking credit for someone else's creation or performance. I mean actually making something with the express purpose of "conning" people out of money, and/or to laugh at people when they take it seriously.

[sonic1]

Well, if we are to take any ideas from Cage seriously, the artist does not always have control over the product anyway. If someone were to attempt to dupe the audience, and they audience ended up falling for it, how different is that from following the rules of a particular aesthetic and creating a finished product.

I don't think there is any good example of what you mentioned because people forget that though what sounds like total randomness often there is an intent there that the audience is familiar with. There is a set of expectations. The old, "oh anyone can do that" sentiment usually comes from outsider critics who are not familiar with the art and have not spent time getting to know what is going on. Take the Rothko painting: anyone can paint a bunch of messy squares right? Is that all that is going on there? No, his skilled brushstrokes are important, the choice of colors were VERY important, the size of the painting, there is a lot going on there. Rothko's painting are very emotional for me too, and that is something I cannot explain to you. When I first saw a Rothko I had an emotional response I never had with a painting before. I have heard people put into words their Rotko reactions before very eloquently. I myself an unable to do that for now. I could not be duped by some outsider who thought it was all shit. The very thought would come up in their work. You have to respect the artist long enough to understand what they are doing. Once you did that you would most likely not want to dupe an audience.

I do know quite a few people who once thought Cage's music crap, and who came around. Or Stockhausen. They met the art with incredible resistance and emotion. The very fact that art can make people feel so upset is pretty great-that people take art that serious. That they spend the time with art. For me, the more separated art is from survival, justification, quantifiable value, the better.

[EmpNapoleon]

For me, the more separated art is from survival, justification, quantifiable value, the better.

...and for Schopenhauer-
"The invention of the melody, the disclosure in it of all the deepest secrets of human willing and feeling, is the work of genius... is far removed from all reflection and conscious intention, and might be called an inspiration.  Here, as everywhere in art, the concept is unproductive.  The compser reveals the innermost nature of the world, and expresses the profoundest wisdom in a language that his reasoning faculty does not understand, just as a magnetic somnambulist gives information about things of which she has no conception when she is awake.  Therefore in the composer, more than any other artist, the man is entirely separate and distinct from the artist."