June 04, 2004

• Sounds like he ought to join forces with the Rotting Crap website.
• The Artist's previous project:
• Sorry Dizzy: This is not art, it's a waste of good food when people are going hungry. The man's an idiot. Anyone who would pay money to see this is an idiot. Of course, had he bothered to feed hungry people with that amount of food and attempt to call it art, it would have been ignored. Not 'edgy' enough--didn't "push the boundaries" --whatever. No wonder the world detests Amerikuns. /end GramMa rant
• A friend has fantasized with having a bread matress; warm, spongy and, well, delicious for those late-night minchies. Guess this would make her doubly happy.
• Despite his training in an Italian art school, Cavallaro said he had rejected Prosciutto. "It would have been pompous," he said. He also shelved an idea to do ham and eggs as "too pretentious, too thought out." No way. No fucking way. This has to be parody. Right? Right??
• BlueHorse: There's a flaw in that argument, because if he didn't use the ham to make the art, then it wouldn't go to feed the world's poor. I know, I know, it's the principle of the thing, but still, with the Western world greatly over-producing food as it is, it doesn't really matter. Food is not a precious, rare resource, there's plenty for everyone. But some people just have too much. The food mountains get me unhealthily angry. Over here we have enormous mountains of food that's going to rot and get thrown away if we don't do anything with it... Over here there's billions of starving people. What shall we do with it? I know! Let's not do anything with it. Stroke of fucking genius.
• Seems like this is an offshoot of those world's largest banana, badger, cheese, etc exhibits/contests/objects which are so popular.
• all issues about the waste of food aside (and I gotta say it offends me) this is most certainly NOT art. its not beautiful (to me) it doesnt provoke any thought (for me) beyond "what a stupid waste of ham" nor does it in any way move (me) emotionally. I suppose it could engender political discussion but ugh! is that really what we want our art for???
• this is most certainly NOT art Well, I guess that's settled, then.
• Andy Warhol famously said that "Art is...liking things." Discuss?
• And I like ham - CASE CLOSED.
• Does the artist say it's art? Then by my standards it is. Art is what you say is art. Much like beauty.
• This isn't Art, it's a big pile of ham. Art is that guy on 63rd Street who polishes your shoes. He's a pretty funny guy. I think art is a pretty meaningless word at this point. If anyone can call something art and it is, then literally everything is art. And what's the fucking point in calling anything art if everything is art? Why not just call it "thing"?
• this is defintely art. i think it's up to the viewer to take whatever experience they can from it. if you get nothing, that's fine too. an artist just seeks to generate a reaction from their audience. good, bad, or indifferent. and i've got blaise's back on the waste issue. what is wrong is that we don't have the economic/political means to get this food where it is needed. if he didn't buy it, it would have rotted and gone to waste in a warehouse. A least the hog farmer or corporate slaughterhouse got paid for the goods they produced and can continue to employ workers, etc. This guy chose to waste food he paid for. Of course it would have been better if he gave it to the local food bank, but at least the producer received payment for its goods, when it could have ended up with nothing at all.
• Gotta go with shawnj; I've mulled over the image and everyone's comments for a while, and I find it disturbing AND satisfying. Beyond its bracing weirdness, I think the artist, among other themes, is reducing a nation trapped by obesity to the very essence--mounds of pink flesh, swaddled and passive. We are what we eat. (This is just MY take--this is only what it means to ME, so your mileage will certainly very. And isn't that the true coolness of the thing?) But to flatly declare that "This Is Not Art", i.e. to evoke such visceral displeasure in some of the commenters here, that is DENYING yourselves your response, your disgust. Of course I respect your thoughts-- I want to know MORE from you--I want to know WHY it troubles you so. When that happens, isn't that de facto "art discussion"?
• Sorry Diz. Ain't no discussion on this one--de facto or otherwise. It's a pile of ham. It's a waste of good food. If this guy shits on the floor, I'm not calling it art. If he fingerpaints in the shit on the floor, I'm not calling it art. Shit is not art. Shit is shit. Ham is not art. Ham is food. Just because he had the time and money to waste on doing this, and just because we have the time and money to waste discussing it, doesn't make that damn rotting pile of ham art. As I mentioned, it's too bad he couldn't have carted this particular pile of ham down to the food bank or fed the homeless. But it still wouldn't have been art. I'm a philistine. So sue me. BBFin: he didn't use the ham to make the art, then it wouldn't go to feed the world's poor Never mind the world, there are kids going hungry and malnourished in New York. But that's ok, because we don't believe in welfare and we believe a pile of ham is art. And we feel that providing free contraceptives is wrong, because we're good Christians and if we don't give hand-outs for ham, we're sure not going to do it with condoms. Rationalization? Now THAT'S an artform.
• For the record, I think the ham thing is art, for largely the reasons Dizzy gave. I have to wonder, though, if someone we call an artist calls something art, and then it's art, then what isn't art? What is an artist? Is just someone who makes art? If so, then what's to stop me from calling the bacteria in my gut artists and the poops they create art? To me, art is a nearly meaningless word that is used to con people into spending money on what is otherwise of no practical value. Mind you, I'm saying this in an apartment with lots of this so-called "art" on the walls and CD racks, and no, you can't have any of it.
• Paint is not art. Paint is pigment. The sound of a gong is not art. Nor is a woman in a leotard, moving her limbs to a predetermined pattern. Nor is a man reading aloud words from a piece of paper while standing before a lectern. The high dudgeon into which this has put BlueHoss, however, IS ART!
• Shawnj: Does the artist say it's art? Then by my standards it is. Art is what you say is art. Much like beauty. There were a couple particularly horrific murders a decade or so back--the man mutilated older women--prostitutes?--and arranged the body parts with flowers and artifacts. He kept refering to the murdered women as his "art." It wasn't art. He wasn't an artist. He was a psycho. Andy Wharhol was a "recognized" artist. If in addition to painting soup cans, he also murdered these women, would it have made it art? Would he have been any less of a psycho because he brought "a true artistic sensibility" to the arrangements?
• Shit is not art. Shit is shit. Ham is not art. Ham is food. Paint is not art, paint is paint*. But that's ok, because we don't believe in welfare and we believe a pile of ham is art. And we feel that providing free contraceptives is wrong, because we're good Christians and if we don't give hand-outs for ham, we're sure not going to do it with condoms. Dude, what the hell? I don't recall any of the pro-art people calling for an end to welfare or free condoms. *I agree, though, that it's a stupid (though artistic) waste of good ham; he could have at least donated it when he was done with it.
• According to the artist, no concern about cockroaches has been raised. "They are welcome," he said. "Imagine what this looks like from the point of view of an insect." This is where he lost me.
• If he had taken food from some Care package that was earmarked to the people of Africa, that would have been an outrage. That food would have ended in a thosuand delis, or a hundred parties, or whatever. That's not a valid pont. In the same vein, any painting is a waste of good cloth, wood, and paint, that would have been better used for making homeless shelters, isn't it? On the other hand, no, I don't specially like that... 'art'.
• I'll agree with shawnj. If the artist calls it art, it is art. Quite bad art, and wasteful. But still art. If there's justice in this world he'll never get supported financially by tax-payer money.
• I respect your assertion, blue. We differ. Next question: Please define what IS art?
• Zemat-- Fat chance!
• Oh, Blue-- Van Gogh was a psycho's psycho (stalker/lifelong drifter/religious fanatic/self-mutilator...) He must not be an artist either?
• Errr. Well, that's not what I expected, Dizzy. heh. "careful for what you wish for..."
• it seems we're talking more about the issue of utility. in other words, what is a piece of art good for, and how does that compare to the other uses of its component parts? i'd argue that art is necessarily personal and non-practical. ham is food. paint is paint. shit is shit. but arrange them in such a way as to form relationships between them that may not have been apparent from a utilitarian point of view, and you have art. the imagination of the artist or the viewer is what provides the meaning of a piece and gives it emotional and intellectual power beyond the sum of its pedestrian parts. if it makes you think about something in a different way, or let's you appreciate a different viewpoint, then that's art. i agree that you can call almost anything art. but why is that a con? if you like looking at a painting, or a drawing, or a pile of ham and you feel a positive internal response, then what more can you ask? it just takes a little imagination to see connections or juxtapositions beyond the ones that are obvious. in my experience, life tends to be much more enjoyable this way.
• It's art if you say it's art. It's not art if you say it's not art. It is both art and not art. That is art. But he is certainly complicit in the murder of pigs.
• In a way, BlueHorse, by saying that it isn't art, you've confirmed its status as art. It's made you think. It's made you debate. It's aroused your emotions. Everything a good piece of art should. Not that this is a good piece of art; but I wouldn't begrudge him the right to perform his art in any way he sees fit. Obviously, up to the rather extreme point that you point out where, to make his art, he harms others.
• I agree that it's art, but it's still really fucking contemptible to lay all that food on a bed for the cockroaches, to honestly think it would be neat for cockroaches to come play in it, when there's gotta be a soup kitchen within pissing distance of that room. Decadence has its place in art, but please. I'd like to take a lot of starving homeless people to that hotel room so they can ask him questions about his project. However, this is my own personal quote of the week: "I was cloaking myself in cheese. I had started getting comfortable," he explained.
• I have one real problem with this, and that's that I hear about a Brooklyn-based artist building something out of rotting foodstuffs practically every day. Really, it's getting out of hand. I'm not sure whether this guy's piece is the best application of the medium; I heard about some baroque costumes made from deli meat, but I didn't get to see them before they rotted away. They sounded impressive. I DO like how the cheese room looks like an underwater ruin. And there's a little hope in the world, GramMa (I can call you that, right? Last time I checked, I was the fourth-youngest monkey), when it comes to art helping people and still getting recognition. Emily Jacir's Where We Come From is rooted in generosity as much as in nasty reality, and it was featured in this year's Whitney Biennial.
• Babywannasofa: Thank you. You have restored my faith in "Art." ;P And yes, certainly you may call me GramMa. All Monkeys younger than I am can call me GramMa. However, now you can tell them you're my FAVORITE Baby, ... wannasofa. I really wasn't ditching outta this thread, I just needed a break before I went all Meta on you guys. Now that I've taken my meds, we can continue the discussion. Having carefully thought over every cogent statement, especially those of Dizzy and Blaise, and after having had a long discussion this morning with my Other Half, who is an artist, and who has gone to college for both painting and photography, I've decided to rethink my position somewhat. >That is NOT art. That is a big pile of ham.< >The guy that did this is an utter pretentious idiot, but he's not an artist.< >This is an act of stupidity, not art.< Unless you want to get into some real heavy philosphy, ART doesn't exist in a vaccum. As the observer or participant, I can choose what is or is not art. You might ACT as an artist and paint a picture or slice some ham and call it art, but it's my choice whether I call it that way--I could declare it fish wrap and make a ham sandwitch, Thenkewverymuch. The fella next to me might hang the ham sandwitch on the wall and wear the painting. Whatever. When that happens, isn't that de facto "art discussion"? Dizzy, is it a discussion of art or economics?
• In a way, BlueHorse, by saying that it isn't art, you've confirmed its status as art. It's made you think. It's made you debate. It's aroused your emotions. Everything a good piece of art should. By saying it's art, the viewer confirms its status as art. I say it's not art. I do agree that art could/should do all the things you say. But a car wreck could make me think about mortality, engender debate about seat belts and speed limits, and arouse a multitude of emotions. Doesn't make it art. What aroused my emotions here is not the ham, and it's not the physical act of slicing and piling the ham. It's the waste involved. There's a lot of disrespect here. Disrespect for the hungry, for the producers of the meat, for the animal itself. That angers me. SOOOOOO, back to Dizzy: Please define what IS art? Sorry, can't do it for you Dizzy. I can do it for me, but my definition will always be different from yours, and all the rest of the Monkeys will have a different definition, also. We can talk about defining art and what commonalities we have, but I don't think we can nail it down. Fortunately, I think there's some overlap in our definitions of what we call art. Art has to have INTENT. The person defines him/herself as artist, and performs a deliberate act--whether it be picking up a brush or turning on the meat slicer. The intent carries over into the product. Whatever is produced as art is above and beyond any usual action or production in normal life. Art stands apart from everyday life. That's why we're able to recognize art. Van Gogh was a psycho's psycho (stalker/lifelong drifter/religious fanatic/self-mutilator...) Yea, Diz, Van Gogh was all the above and then some, but the guy had some heavy-duty INTENT. I'm sure that's not noose to you -- ////0 Art is more than the medium. A painting is paint and canvas, and art is more than that. Tinder said it better than I can: the imagination of the artist or the viewer is what provides the meaning of a piece and gives it emotional and intellectual power beyond the sum of its pedestrian parts So there is a message in art, but the message is inherent in the artist or viewer not the work itself. Our shared culture/humanity is what produces a close facsimile of the same message. What the artist intends as a message may not be what the viewer receives. The artist can't control "the message." Something becomes art by consensus of individuals. A good many people agree that Van Gogh created art. For centuries, quilts were made and hex signs were painted on barns. Because it was utilitarian, none of it was considered art. Now individuals have come together and agreed that quilting and hex paintings are art. Nobody knows the why-for of cave paintings, but we call it art. Art's what we say it is. Dude, what the hell? I don't recall any of the pro-art people calling for an end to welfare or free condoms Whew, that was close. Thanks Dirigibleman. for catching me before I really got lost in space. I was trying to post here while doing the MSM thing with a friend and arguing for gummint providing free condoms, and well, I guess I just had a random disconnect. If this sounds really pedantic, sorry, I'm really just trying to sound it out to myself slowly. Com'on Diz, you said you wanted comments ....
• Goetter: The high dudgeon into which this has put BlueHoss, however, IS ART! As a dudgeoness, I only seek to entertain, amuse, astonish, and delight. Hmm, is this thing on? Hello out there, can you hear me? Anybody there? I'll be here all next week, folks. Don't forget to tip your waiter.
• Preview Nostril: It's art if you say it's art. It's not art if you say it's not art. It is both art and not art. That is art. But he is certainly complicit in the murder of pigs. I think I agree with Nostril. I think Nostril makes sense. OH NO! DIRIGIBLEMAN, HELP!!
• Is four consecutive posts to the same thread a record? I can remember the odd three, but four I think never.
• Yeah, and the first three within six minutes!
• *hangs head Sorry, I'm so yack-yacky that the post is so large it won't go unless I break it up. Bet only the big-mouth variety* of Monkeys have noticed that. *Oh, wait. That's only me. But, but, but, but, did anybody READ it? Comments? Lyrical? Sucked? Tupid? Brilliant?
• Blue; It is one of the true glories of MoFi that "sounding it out to myself, slowly" is when I find monkeys the most intiguing and wonderfully human. I think your "Art =intent" litmus test is something we can both find useful-- it certainly helps me explain why little Chrissy's fingerpaint, although righteous and close in format to Pollock's, is NOT "just as good" as ol' Jackson's work. I'm not certain about this guy's "direspecting the ham" (I would say he is championing the ham--he chose That Ham Above All Other Things) but I'm proud you are open to many viewpoints and am proud to engage in ANY thoughtful dialogue with you. Please don't apologize for your passion or fear prolixity. I would never paint your beauty so.
• Great post, Blue. Although I think that where we disagree is in our basic definition of art. You'd say that art is what the audience would call art; I'd say that art is what the creator would call art. I guess that there is some overlap, like those that you mentioned above. However, I would argue that, for example, in the case of the quilt, that always was art: a person could make the most dull, utilitarian quilt in the world, disregarding all aesthetic value, and no-one would call that art. It's only when the creator takes a bit more time and effort to embroider a pattern into the top that it could be considered art in generations to come: the creator decided that they would make the quilt more than merely something to keep them warm. So, the quilt stands as something outside of the real, practical world: it's art. I could get a degree in bullshit.
• Why everybody is so reluctant in using the term "bad art" instead of arguing if it is art or not? I think the term satisfies everybody expectations about this piece.
• Zemat, good art = ART bad art = ART ham = sandwiches, not art
• Volkswagen=car pudding=dessert tunafish=lunch got it!
• Well... (ham as beedsheet|audience = artist) = good art. (ham as beedsheet|audience = Zemat) = bad art. (ham as beedsheet|audience = BlueHorse) = not art. ... so, have it as you want it.
• ah, THAT'S it!
• *Please Circle Only One Response. *Please Put Your Head Down Until We Collect Your Test. Ham and Bedsheet Project= Most Definitely IS /IS NOT Art. Throw Pillow Made Of Bacon=MAYBE/ IS NOT Art. Nightstand Made of Carved Spam= IS NOT/IS NOT art. Alarm Clock Dipped In Suet= MAYBE NOT/CERTAINLY NOT. Extra Credit Essay: Things Outside Of My Worldview SUCK. Discuss. Thank You.
• IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT CERTAINLY NOT WELL, DUH *squeezes eyes shut, puts fingers in ears la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la
• (blue--not even the bacon-pillow? I would LOVE a bacon-pillow.) (it could be SOY bacon, if that is your concern.) (plleeeze?)
• Mebbe Only as a midnight snack Art, no; Fly Central, yes Eeeewwww. As I am in the process of expanding my worldview, I cannot discuss. However, there are things inside my worldview that suck. So I don't have to go looking for stuff outside that do. Except an ultra-quiet vaccuum cleaner. That would be nice.
• Just remember, it's MY worldview, not yours. Mine MINE. Mine. NO, MINE. Mine. Mine. Mine. LET GO. Mine. MOM! ...there are things inside my worldview that suck Alnedra: Wow, I've noticed that same thing, too. Do you think there might be (gasp!) some overlap?