The only things I find truly offensive about it are its attempts at being thought provoking. Two years ago he might have had a better chance at that, but it still would have been lame.
The only things I find truly offensive about it are its attempts at being thought provoking
so ham-fisted....this type of gimmicky, avant garde, agit-prop art is about 30 years out of date. this is precisely why people think art is a scam and are reluctant to fund the arts.
The only things I find truly offensive about it are its attempts at being thought provoking. Two years ago he might have had a better chance at that, but it still would have been lame.
Yeah, a big cock is pretty much the opposite of thought-provoking, unless the thought the artist is attempting to provoke is "wow, what a big cock" (in which case the cock in question is really the artist).
The only things I find truly offensive about it are its attempts at being thought provoking. Two years ago he might have had a better chance at that, but it still would have been lame.
Considering that it was shown from Feb to March, 2008, I'm guessing he did create it 2 years ago. Either way, it is more than a bit desperate and lame.
there is a widespread perception that modern art is some sort of put-on, yet the arts need government and private funding to survive. high profile crap like this just reinforces that stereotype.
Just trying to get his/her (Gallery included) 15 minutes by being as offensive as they could possibly muster. It seems to work for somebody new everyday! They say that good art invokes a strong reaction, positive or negative.
What could possibly be next in the distasteful art arena? I'm guessing wood chipper suicide in a room full of gessoed canvases.
The only things I find truly offensive about it are its attempts at being thought provoking
so ham-fisted....this type of gimmicky, avant garde, agit-prop art is about 30 years out of date. this is precisely why people think art is a scam and are reluctant to fund the arts.
If you were to write "ART IS A SCAM AND SHOULD NOT BE PUBLICLY FUNDED" on a canvas and hang it in a gallery, would that be more or less arty than this exhibition?
art and beauty is only in the eye of the beholder. that is why every museum i have ever been in always starts with some painting or sculpture that is of debatable artistic merit or quality.
of course, i cannot answer the question "what is art" but a critique is not the same thing as "policing". every day on this very site we have arguments about what is good and bad or better and worse about art and music.
Please don't skewer all (modern) art because of this fool. He even writes like a Sprocket!!!
from HuffingtonPost: _____________________________
In the past several weeks I have been called a racist, a sexist, and a media whore. I have been criticized, critiqued and questioned (not the least of which involved the NYPD and the United States Secret Service). I have been labeled one of the three assholes of the apocalypse and a commentator on this blog referred to my work as a hoax and cheap stunt and to me personally as a crackpot.
My name is Yazmany Arboleda and I am an artist. Most recently, my two installations, "The Assassination of Barack Obama" and "The Assassination of Hillary Clinton" made headlines when law officials detained me over the use of the word "assassination" in my exhibit. The reactions that followed have sparked numerous dialogues about politics, art and the law. My goal was to create a mirror through which we might perceive the way traditional and online media continues to preach racism, sexism, ageism, and homophobia. I created The Assassinations to better understand how American society communicates and how visual codes appeal to cultural stereotypes, prejudices, desires, and fears. The result has been a maelstrom of dialogue more passionate and pervasive than I ever anticipated.
The artwork consists of the utterly familiar and the eerily vulgar. Though the pieces in the exhibits are framed like traditional fine art, the veneer of convention stops there. By vulgar, I refer to several examples of art from the shows: a 32' black penis ("Once you go Barack...") and a Hillary Clinton campaign poster that reads, "The Antidote to Niggeritis." Truth is acquired and (re)presented from fragments of information that have been printed by the press in the past year. The false is embodied by what is intentionally exaggerated from what has been re-appropriated. The tension lies in the way we perceive the balance.
We see three campaigns running parallel this past spring. All three fashioned after the philosophies of those who came before us. Hillary reassembled the team behind the "bridge to the twenty-first century." Barack replicated Dr. King's rhetoric. And I reconstructed art based on the brilliant thinking of my dear friend Richard Prince.
The Assassinations sting. The art offends. It may even hurt. But the messages I present in the work are not my own. They...
Censored, I was, on Wednesday, June 4th. The NYPD had a private discussion with the landlord of the building where I held my exhibit, and he in turn had a discussion with me.
The only way forward was for me to remove that nasty 'a' word from the title of my exhibits in the window, otherwise the exhibition would be canceled entirely. I decided to remove it and hang the rest of the show. This is perhaps the clearest example of how allegiances, both private and public, work together to preserve only the packaging of this country's First Amendment. At this juncture, I am still not certain if moving forward with an incomplete installation was the right choice.
At the end of that Wednesday, one impression left a bigger mark than the rest. I became keenly aware that, regardless of their title, no one who had inquired about my 'art' had cared enough to see it for themselves. One by one, they had swallowed the story told to them second and third hand, and one by one, they had taken the details they needed for their particular line of business.
Credibility is a hollow myth. All of us involved, including me, had been trapped within a perfectly engineered veneer. My critics, my censors, left me, surely looking for the next fa??ade, unknowingly going from veneer to veneer.
If it was attention I wanted I would have climbed the side of the New York Times building. Instead I chose to take on some of those veneers by inspiring a dialogue, which when it stems from art, is the most effective means of questioning the truths we have come to take for granted.
there is a widespread perception that modern art is some sort of put-on, yet the arts need government and private funding to survive. high profile crap like this just reinforces that stereotype.
"Widespread Perception"??? What pole did u take?
Yes, ive heard plenty of comments like "my kid can make that" "What are they trying to say" blah blah blah......
Those folks dont really factor into the game.
For every shot-caller that can w/hold funding from some Communtiny College Art program, there's another wealthy cat who doesnt feel bamboozled by modern art.
Also, I find it so richly ironic to hear the Strut, of all places, argue over the merits of "good" vs. "bad" art and whether it should be funded. Replace "modern art" with "music" and I think people would suddenly be rethinking their position.
Also, I find it so richly ironic to hear the Strut, of all places, argue over the merits of "good" vs. "bad" art and whether it should be funded. Replace "modern art" with "music" and I think people would suddenly be rethinking their position.
Also, I find it so richly ironic to hear the Strut, of all places, argue over the merits of "good" vs. "bad" art and whether it should be funded. Replace "modern art" with "music" and I think people would suddenly be rethinking their position.
I don't think anyone here is arguing over whether or not they personally think art should be funded. I also don't think it's remotely ironic that a bunch of people who regularly bash corny or pretentious music should switch their focus to modern art.
ZEN2
1,540 Posts
Comments
http://www.cracked.com/article_17341_p2.html
It's in the top 10 on Digg right now
so ham-fisted....this type of gimmicky, avant garde, agit-prop art is about 30 years out of date. this is precisely why people think art is a scam and are reluctant to fund the arts.
Yeah, a big cock is pretty much the opposite of thought-provoking, unless the thought the artist is attempting to provoke is "wow, what a big cock" (in which case the cock in question is really the artist).
Considering that it was shown from Feb to March, 2008, I'm guessing he did create it 2 years ago. Either way, it is more than a bit desperate and lame.
the whole shit is a bad joke but the dude wasn't even trying to be funny, f*cking ass clown.
lets email him
[email]contact@yazmany.com[/email]
Please include link to this thread.
What could possibly be next in the distasteful art arena? I'm guessing wood chipper suicide in a room full of gessoed canvases.
If you were to write "ART IS A SCAM AND SHOULD NOT BE PUBLICLY FUNDED" on a canvas and hang it in a gallery, would that be more or less arty than this exhibition?
B/W
Who are we to police this shit?
now see, this is a much better attempt at pushing people's buttons: http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513
of course, i cannot answer the question "what is art" but a critique is not the same thing as "policing". every day on this very site we have arguments about what is good and bad or better and worse about art and music.
from HuffingtonPost:
_____________________________
In the past several weeks I have been called a racist, a sexist, and a media whore. I have been criticized, critiqued and questioned (not the least of which involved the NYPD and the United States Secret Service). I have been labeled one of the three assholes of the apocalypse and a commentator on this blog referred to my work as a hoax and cheap stunt and to me personally as a crackpot.
My name is Yazmany Arboleda and I am an artist. Most recently, my two installations, "The Assassination of Barack Obama" and "The Assassination of Hillary Clinton" made headlines when law officials detained me over the use of the word "assassination" in my exhibit. The reactions that followed have sparked numerous dialogues about politics, art and the law. My goal was to create a mirror through which we might perceive the way traditional and online media continues to preach racism, sexism, ageism, and homophobia. I created The Assassinations to better understand how American society communicates and how visual codes appeal to cultural stereotypes, prejudices, desires, and fears. The result has been a maelstrom of dialogue more passionate and pervasive than I ever anticipated.
The artwork consists of the utterly familiar and the eerily vulgar. Though the pieces in the exhibits are framed like traditional fine art, the veneer of convention stops there. By vulgar, I refer to several examples of art from the shows: a 32' black penis ("Once you go Barack...") and a Hillary Clinton campaign poster that reads, "The Antidote to Niggeritis." Truth is acquired and (re)presented from fragments of information that have been printed by the press in the past year. The false is embodied by what is intentionally exaggerated from what has been re-appropriated. The tension lies in the way we perceive the balance.
We see three campaigns running parallel this past spring. All three fashioned after the philosophies of those who came before us. Hillary reassembled the team behind the "bridge to the twenty-first century." Barack replicated Dr. King's rhetoric. And I reconstructed art based on the brilliant thinking of my dear friend Richard Prince.
The Assassinations sting. The art offends. It may even hurt. But the messages I present in the work are not my own. They...
Censored, I was, on Wednesday, June 4th. The NYPD had a private discussion with the landlord of the building where I held my exhibit, and he in turn had a discussion with me.
The only way forward was for me to remove that nasty 'a' word from the title of my exhibits in the window, otherwise the exhibition would be canceled entirely. I decided to remove it and hang the rest of the show. This is perhaps the clearest example of how allegiances, both private and public, work together to preserve only the packaging of this country's First Amendment. At this juncture, I am still not certain if moving forward with an incomplete installation was the right choice.
At the end of that Wednesday, one impression left a bigger mark than the rest. I became keenly aware that, regardless of their title, no one who had inquired about my 'art' had cared enough to see it for themselves. One by one, they had swallowed the story told to them second and third hand, and one by one, they had taken the details they needed for their particular line of business.
Credibility is a hollow myth. All of us involved, including me, had been trapped within a perfectly engineered veneer. My critics, my censors, left me, surely looking for the next fa??ade, unknowingly going from veneer to veneer.
If it was attention I wanted I would have climbed the side of the New York Times building. Instead I chose to take on some of those veneers by inspiring a dialogue, which when it stems from art, is the most effective means of questioning the truths we have come to take for granted.
"Widespread Perception"??? What pole did u take?
Yes, ive heard plenty of comments like "my kid can make that" "What are they trying to say" blah blah blah......
Those folks dont really factor into the game.
For every shot-caller that can w/hold funding from some Communtiny College Art program, there's another wealthy cat who doesnt feel bamboozled by modern art.
It not for everybody and never has been.
We didn't land on modern art???modern art landed on us.
http://www.theassassinationofbarackobama.com/TheAssassinationofBarackPR.pdf
Also, I find it so richly ironic to hear the Strut, of all places, argue over the merits of "good" vs. "bad" art and whether it should be funded. Replace "modern art" with "music" and I think people would suddenly be rethinking their position.
Bad Art hurts Public and Private Funding......
I don't think anyone here is arguing over whether or not they personally think art should be funded. I also don't think it's remotely ironic that a bunch of people who regularly bash corny or pretentious music should switch their focus to modern art.