March 04, 2004

• >>inserts a vial of his blood into his anus, assumes an upside-down lotus position and lets the blood flow into his mouth. still trying to picture that. help me out here, monkeys. how is this possible? it flows down the outside or inside of his body? i mean, technically, i GUESS something put in your butt might be carried via gravity back to your mouth... but wouldn't it take an awfully long time? and, conversely, if it's on the outside of his body, in what position is the vial? sigh. modern life is so complex.
• Have you ever seen tubgirl? Not quite different...
• Surely this time we can all agree that the emperor is stark naked? At risk of sounding like an uncultured and uninformed philistine, I think that modern 'art' in this sort of context is a refuge for people who want to 'create' something but lack actual creative, artistic talent. It's a celebration of 'ideas' as if all ideas have intrinsic worth. They don't. Some ideas suck. And forget the argument that individual iterpretations of a given idea endow it artistic worth. On my desk right now is a mobile phone sitting on a notebook. Does this represent the conflict between old and new methods of communication? Is it a representation of my yearning to share my thoughts with other people? Is it a comment on the fact that phone battery will run out soon but the ink on the page will be legibile for years? Give me some gallery space and let's find out! Of course it's none of these things. Just because I can interpret it any number of ways doesn't make it actually mean anything, just as the kind of 'art' in the article is not legitimised by interpretation. I would add that the 'artist' can shove his 'art' up his arse, but I guess that would be redundant.
• Apologies for typos, had to write that in a hurry...
• I would say for me art is something that produces deep emotion within me. The problem with this kind of art is that the emotion that is drawn from it makes you never want to attend a gallery by that artist ever again. Unfortunately a lot of people praise the work just because they don't want to look uneducated for supposedly "not understanding true art"
• Dawson: You're right that some ideas suck. But some drawings suck. Just because some modern art isn't very good, doesn't mean it all is.
• The earliest mention of him in the article is 1980 (although I have heard of this guy before I don't know much about him, so I am relying on the article). So, he has been doing work that is reviled, ridiculed and literally criminalised for nearly 25 years. Why? He surely isn't getting rich off of it. I don't know the answer specifically, and I can't claim to "understand" the work, but clearly he is doing it in earnest, and, as such, requires me to take him seriously. To further a bad analogy, this emperor is, IMHO, certainly wearing clothes. This is valid "Art" if for no other reason than at least to help remind you (by "you" I mean most of us, not any specific "you") that people are indeed a wildly disparate group...
• A piece of art simply is. Because it exists, it may be contemplated by people other than the artist. At this period the consensus in the art world is that any given piece of art is art because the artist producing says it's a piece of art. Some human agent has to be involved in the production of the thing, in short, so you can have 'found' art or more traditional forms or -- as seems to be the case with some of Kantor's work, a mingling of performance style with the prodiuction of an object. How any witness reacts to any given piece is up to that individual, who may like/dislike it, of course. But whether it's executed in oil paint or blood or marble or elephant dung is wholly irrelevant to its being considered a work of art. Art forms of various sorts often provoke strong reactions -- this is why governments worry about them and may try to clamp down on an artist. The performance arts, in particular (ballet, theatre, music), exist to evoke/provoke emotional reactions in an audience. So, having said all that, you are now free to start producing your own works of art. With your own bloood, your own dung, etc or in marble, oil paint, plaster-of-paris, whatever -- the selection of materials in which to execute it is up to you, the artist. Personally, like anyone else, there are forms of art that leave me cold, irritated, or stir warm feelings. Mark Twain, as I recall, said swearing was an art form. One any artist can always practice in confronting other forms of art.
  
• I think it's disgusting, but I don't have a problem calling it art. Two caveats: 1) I've never found performance art to be very interesting. 2) I'm willing to call most things art when looked at from certain perspectives.
• Too often, people assume that 'art' of this type must be good merely because they don't understand it and because these 'artists' get notoriety and have an audience. They are afraid to say out loud "this is pure trash". Personally, I think the work I saw SUCKED. I have seen performance art that was amazing and I walked away with a whole new perspective on whatever the subject matter was. This guy leaves me thinking he's a narcissistic freak who needs to go to his local BDSM club and let off some steam. Also, the fact that he's getting $15,000 for this when there are artists out there who truly deserve that kind of recognition is outrageous. He should be ashamed of himself (as if that is possible) and turn the money down. Also, how dare he get anywhere near enough to a masterpiece such as a Picasso painting to get his blood on it! Asshole. Maybe at some point I'll tell you how I really feel about this.
• hmmmm...conflictual feelings course thru me, but when its all said and done *what darshon said* as an artist myself, I don't know, this stuff sort of offends me conceptually, when I think about the thought process, work & care that go into my own (not worth $15,000 to anyone but maybe me) art...not to assume that DOESN'T go into this guys art, altho it is difficult to imagine... it seems like so much of this ilk of art is designed to confront, to shock, to upset. are we too jaded/post-modern/clueless/afraid to still value art that inspires other emotions (reverence, happiness, nostalgia, awe of beauty...) as well??
• i mean, technically, i GUESS something put in your butt might be carried via gravity back to your mouth... I think they call that "Fark".
• This guy is the reason that the US government cuts fundings to the arts every year. I have no tolerance for this kind of "art." (And yes, I do realize he is in Canada, but that is besides the point.) (Plus, he splattered blood on a Picasso!)
• Amateur.
• Monkeys interested in any of the arts might like ArtsJournal if they don't already know about it. It's recently begun including some blog-reviews as well.
• ART IS STUPID Everything One Sees Is False
• I'm quite comfortable with calling it art: it's a directed creative impules that the artist intends to be art. I don't really think you need much more than that to be art. That doesn't mean it's good art. It looks like laughably crap art to me, and his manifesto sounds like that of someone stuck at an emotional age of 15, with a vocabulary enriched by art school. But bad art is still art.
• 'Art' is the most unreliable concept there is to this date, I think. I concur with beeswacky except for one thing. Art used to be also about skill, not just vision or guts. And not necesarily had to be associated with personal ideologies. Like if that compensated the lack of skill. And by skill I don't mean having some formal training of any sort, but having the capacity to convey complex emotions and style in the what's being worked on. Maybe just to make others feel what they rarely experience. Also there must be some sense of effort or achievement in what is done. Causing shock in this period in my opinion has low merit. But that's maybe few things shock me other than outright massacre, not after experiencing goatse.cx. On the other hand, this guy hasn't achieved anything in regard to his own ideas. Protesting against the establishment in art has been quite the establishment for a century now. Trying to break the establishment for it's own sake has no value whatsoever, it's just inmaturity.
• Art is intent. All else is either marketing or criticism.
• Art is crap. Crap is art. Thanks beeswacky for the link!
• Artists who are concerned with the quality of their work will always be interested in acquiring and polising technigues. My Kantor's work I cannot evaluate, having never seen any, and having just the above links to go by. Blood as a medium is organic and may present serious difficulties in future for curators. Same goes for elephant dung. Some mediums are inherently ephemeral. It seems that Mr Kantor is protesting against systems of authority, and this would seem to mean at least authorities in the art world if not all authoritites. I find it mildly amusing and a trifle absurd he is being given an award by those he's (presumably)opposed to. The world is sometimes strange, and often ridiculous.
• George Grosz once took a shit on stage as an artistic statement against art. That was nearly a century ago, so my observation is that this is nothing new. Duchamp bought a ceramic urinal from the factory, placed it on a pedastal, signed it 'R. Mutt 1917'. How much of this is art? Duchamp & Grosz were clearly both highly skilled artists, yet they chose in these instances not to 'display' their skill. The art was encapsulated in a concept; a message they wanted to send. Art is subjective. If the guy wants to piss on the wall and call it art, so be it, just so long as he doesn't splash the Vermeer.
• There was an old Warner Brothers cartoon that had Daffy try to out do Bugs on stage in front of an audience. After trying and trying to get the audience's attention and failing, Daffy swallows gasoline, TNT, nitro and finally a lit match, thereby exploding himself on stage. Seems that this guy is motivated by the same thing, to beg for our attention and to shock us. Big deal. But if he swallowed nitro and then a lit match, I'd buy a ticket.
• ...art historian Thomas McEvilley agrees that today "more or less anything can be designated as art."
• Nostrildamus. Those are artistic statements displayed in highly original ways that also came from people who usually didn't do that kind of things. That gives a lot of merit to their respective works. This Kantor fella has nothing going for him other than his "turds".
• Good point.
• Also what squidranch said.
• On the other hand. I think that, finally, it's the test of time that will define what is art and what is not.
• My own thinking with regard to 'shock' art is that it is essentially propagandistic insofar as the motive(s) of the artist can be discerned. In which case authority may choose to regard it as a political/social act, or an expressive of an ethical position, etc. as in the case of Robert Maplethorpe's work a few years ago or in the continued desire many still express about sequestering Adolf Hitler's painting. But these matters, (politics, philosophy, biohazards of using decaying matter, toxic chemicals etc) are entirely peripheral to the consideration of any art as art per se. I agree with Nostrildamus to this extent: subjective reactions on the part of individuals exposed to a piece/work of art occur because (capital A)rt is a necessarily subjective expression, and of necessity -- people being human -- will be viewed subjectively, although that is by no means all it may be. In fact, it is entirely possible for a single work of art to 'mean' any number of things to any number of people.
• I think trying to define art sucks the fun right out of it. On the opposite side of the coin, deconstructing everything as art can suck the fun too. There must be a happy medium in there somewhere.
• Basically everyone who bothered to post here about how shitty and non-art this guy is, just proved that he is in fact a skilled artist. You people make art easy.
• Art is intent I'll go along with that, but don't splatter your intent all over another's intent. Generally, I agree with most of the comments. I don't even disagree that this guy can be called an artist. Given the body of work he has apparently produced. The medium he chooses isn't the big issue. My problem is the "statement". Or lack of, IMHO. Duchamp had proven himself worthy as a skilled artist before he pulled the 'urinal' stunt. I think that his point was far stronger because of that. Shock art for the sake of shock bores me and generally pisses me off because it seems so immature and so many people tend to get sucked in like it's some kind of cool, now, happening, hip or subversive statement. I have grown up and been steeped in the art world all of my life. Pre-family, I made a career of it. I've seen alot of it. This guy bites. And that's okay, but just don't give away what precious little funds are available for such to HIM!!!
• Shifting the ground here a bit, just to see what happens, Darshon -- in your opinion do artists ever have the 'right' to accept awards from groups they disapprove of or oppose? And why or why not?
• No, Trv, I commented merely because it was posted and I have an opinion about what I deem art. Had I seen this guy on a sidewalk doing his thing, I would have kept walking. If he had a sign posted while he was doing his thing, saying he would be paid $15,000 for this, well I would have said something to the idiots who made that decision. Since I am not Canadian, I will wait until the day that I find out that some American instution has made the same horrible mistake. Canada can certainly have him.
• They have the right, I suppose, but if they have any integrity, they shouldn't. If they are opposed to said group, yet accept awards from them, then not only are they a hypocrite, but their work becomes less. Their statements are then false.
• Zemat: Lack of artistic intent and fine skills make you a craftsman, not an artist. A journeyman portrait painter of the 18th or 19th centuries, for example, would indeed likely be a (technically) more ept painter than many artists working in oils today, but he's not artist if he doesn't have an idea in his head. To argue that technical virtuaosity is a requirement for art gets into all sorts of sillyness - like the idea that a painting has more inherent artistic value than a photograph. Art requires the intent to create art. It may be poorly executed, it may be a silly idea. But it's still more art than someone slavishly (and perfectly) copying a Rembrant, or knocking out a studio portrait with no more concern than their next meal.
• it's reasonable to assume that people will see concepts that disgust them while experiencing kantor's work. however, i am of the firm belief that people see concepts, not images. i believe that one expressing opinion that kantor's does not produce "art" is to say that one does not communicate beautiful concepts to one's own mind. i believe that a fair question to ask yourself, if the answer interests you, is: "does a concept exist in kantor's 'art' that would make it compelling to me in a different manner if i could sense it?" i think that most often the answer is "maybe."
• Yes, the declension of Academy/Old Masters art is nothing new. The initial shock of conceptual art in the 60's, which was manifest as
• Also, on the notion that time is the judge of art: nonsense. After the Punic wars, the Romans destroyed Carthage, sowed the ground with salt, exterminated all males over the age of 8, and sold women and children as slaves, scattering them about the Empire and its trading partners to make sure that Carthaginian language and culture would die. Was Roman art worth something and Carthaginian art worthless? When Justinian told newly ascentant Christians they could sieze or destroy pagan temples and property with impunity, there was an orgy of destruction; was the devotional artwork of Roman and Greek temples worthless because religious fanatics chose to destroy it? When the Puritans gained power in England, they went of a rampage of destruction; whereas Notre Dame in Paris is stunningly decorated to this day, centuries of English religious art and iconography was obliterated in a few years. Does this make the French work great art and the English works trash? When Catholic priests encountered the Mayans, they systematically destroyed all of the books and artworks they could get their hands on; only a handful book fragments survive today. Were the Mayans creating trash? Are we expected to venerate Greensleeves over a contemporary rap song about hookers? Same cultural niche. Acts of cultural genocide have been common throughout history. Destruction, deliberate and accidental, has occurred with scant regard to the merit of artworks. Survival is as much accident as anything.
• Since I am not Canadian, I will wait until the day that I find out that some American instution has made the same horrible mistake. Canada can certainly have him. Since I am Canadian and it was probably a portion of my tax dollars that went towards this federal grant of $15,000.00, I could think of a few individuals, who decided to give this money to him in the first place, to put in a gallery, in the upsidedown lotus position and gently but firmly shove that $15,000.00 up their asses. Now would that be considered "Art"
• A long time ago I knew two artists. One of them produced figurative, representative, work. I have two of his pieces and people who come to my home sometimes remark on them and say they like them. His work, as far as I can tell, isn't on the web. The other was a conceptual artist: http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/intelligence/lowe.htm I introduced them and a debate began about the nature of art. Suffice to say they didn't agree and the resulting argument was one of the most vitriolic I've ever witnessed. Unfortunately my consumption of beer during the course of the evening means that I remember little of the arguments (is that, in itself, art?) One of the main arguments as I remember it was that art was something that produced an emotional reaction in the viewer. If that's the case then the reaction: 'This is bollocks' seems to be to be an acceptable reaction to some pieces of art, and, given the nature of the thought processes which go into some of those pieces, a valid and appropriate one too. Often what is passed off as art appears to be so because the person creating it has decided it is so. I don't accept that argument - It's bollocks.
• Well, it's not my cup of tea but if the guy says he's creating art I have no desire to tell him he's not.
• The question of "what is art" is itself subjective. It is certainly not 'that it produces an emotional response' because art can be appreciated without emotion. I know this from watching Star Trek. :)
• Nostrildamus, it's probably impossible to see anything deemed "art" and not have SOME type of emotion, even if that emotion is indifference. I think the biggest misconception in all these arguments is that for something to be "art" it has to be good, which is not true. There is tons of bad art, and this just happens to be another example of bad art. Calling someone an artist is no more a compliment than calling them a singer, you wait til they've sung a song and then you decide for yourself whether it's good or not.
• Absolutely genial,he's totally um, half-assed about his work. For example: He has prepared and served food containing human blood. If he were really serious he would use hunk of human flesh, and if he really really really meant it he would eat himself.
• Genial, I don't think anyone commenting here requires that 'art' only be considered so if it is good. I have seen a lot of art that I very much did not like but I still recognized the artistic value in it. I imagine that is true for most of us. For instance, I'm not a Jackson Pollock fan, but many are. I never liked his work but it most certainly is art. And obviously a title 'artist', 'singer' or whatever does not arbitrarily mean good.
• Random thoughts about art: You say, "it is art if the artist says it is art". I agree absolutely, providing the same principles will apply if I should say, "the artist is a silly cunt". If you have spend more time reading the label, or brochure notes, than appreciating the art itself - it's failed. Moreover, if the label or brochure notes make you think more than the art itself, possibly the artist could have saved themselves a lot of time and hassle if they'd perhaps just produced a small pamphlet.* It is the role of the artist to shock the bourgeoisie. Are you a bourgoisie? Next time, try shocking them back by not buying any of their work. A lot more art than is generally appreciated is actually a joke. I mean this in a good way. In fact I have (at times of rash over-confidence) been tempted to state that all art is either representational, or a joke. Caveat: I have a very oblique definition of 'joke'; this may be why my career as a comedian failed. Twice. The following is true 23% of the time: You venture out desiring to see some art. You spend your time staring at a bright green pahllus made from semtex, which periodically ejaculates beer and cigarette butts. You return home disappointed; what you didn't realise that the art was not the beer-phallus, but the expression on the faces of the people staring at it. Especially the fat tourist couple with varicose veins. The look on their faces! Priceless. *I greatly respect any artistic movement which has the honesty to just release a manifesto, have a few drinks, and then collapse in upon itself. Early 20th century Europe was a particularly good source of these.
• I was saving this for an FPP, but since this thread is still so lively: monkey art
• Nice link, forky. So very endearing, although I am tempted to have a wee rant about 'animal art', which annoys me unduly. But I won't, because they all look so cute. Bailey is the most monkey-like primate we have here at Jungle Friends. But... but... he is a monkey... So! You Think You Want A Monkey?
• I...don't get it. Is Bailey a monkey or a primate? He can't be both! He looks more like a monkey though. I wonder if they disapprove of this as well? The Fact Sheet mentioned a capuchin who had its teeth removed. I also wonder if they know the difference between a monkey and a primate. Perhaps that deserves some space on their fact sheet as well.
• I have an urge. An urge to draw Venn diagrams. For the world.
• I like arts funding, and for every piece of objectionable rubbish there is usually three or four really positive things. This excellent album was partially funded by the Kentucky Arts council, for which I'm grateful. Thank you, American Tax Payer's.