All in all, this being a fictionalized scenario to garner attention makes it little better than a bomb threat.
Not getting how this compares to making a (fake) bomb threat. Faking one's own pregancies and miscarriages vs the potential chaos and cruel nature of threatening lives.
I get the legal and ethical differences, but I view both as cheap stunts. Basically, she's manipulated people's emotions with an outrageous lie. I just don't see it as art. Activism, perhaps, but definitely not art. It's like a few other people have said: she can't paint, can't make a short film, can't do anything that requires some inherent talent.
Jeff Koons, after having the 'skill,' to package premade vacuum cleaners, decided to show photos of Frickin' his pornstar wife.
I'm not saying you have to like ANY of this. But, be careful when you start judging whether or not something is art because it bothers you. A lot of art is meant to annoy, titilate, offend, shock, and generally create a reaction.
And, this young lady has put art on the front pages, and started this argument. She has succeeded at arousing emotion...There can be no doubt.
I have a weakness for museums and art books, so I'm up on a lot of art history and the ideas of pushing boundaries. I also get the idea of art being subjective, which can sometimes be a convenient catch-all defense for weak material. Maybe this person is ahead of her time, and I am simply disconnected. I will not rule that out, either.
But I'm not willing to concede that someone's ability to capture a headline is a metric of their artistic merit. She has made people talk, but the discussions seem like they have less to do with "women's social issues" (her intention for this project) and more to do with "what is art?" In that respect, I feel like she missed the mark.
All in all, this being a fictionalized scenario to garner attention makes it little better than a bomb threat.
Not getting how this compares to making a (fake) bomb threat. Faking one's own pregancies and miscarriages vs the potential chaos and cruel nature of threatening lives.
What art is made without the hopes of garnering attention? As far as achieving what art is supposed to do, she was successful imo.
That bitch!
so you're saying she did this just for attention? a lot of great artists (musicians, actors, etc.) do what they do because they love it. they don't care if it's recognized or not.
so yeah, I know you were being sarcastic condemning her, but if she truly is[/b] in it solely for attention, then she's an attention whore (gender-neutral term BTW). yeah, so fuck that.
now she may also be a good artist. I don't know.
but if she's in it solely for attention and is not otherwise making meaningful anything, then she's a Paris Hilton. only in hipster clothes and with an art degree.
But I'm not willing to concede that someone's ability to capture a headline is a metric of their artistic merit.
saying. everyone talmbout "well there's a soulstrut thread on her so she achieved her essential purpose!" fuck that. ann coulter writes books that "get people talking" but that doesn't mean her underlying work product is worthy of anything.
Did anyone mention Chris Burdon, who in different films had himself shot, crucified to a VW, crawl through broken glass for public access tv, and try to drown himself in a bowl of water.
All in all, this being a fictionalized scenario to garner attention makes it little better than a bomb threat.
Not getting how this compares to making a (fake) bomb threat. Faking one's own pregancies and miscarriages vs the potential chaos and cruel nature of threatening lives.
What art is made without the hopes of garnering attention? As far as achieving what art is supposed to do, she was successful imo.
That bitch!
so you're saying she did this just for attention? a lot of great artists (musicians, actors, etc.) do what they do because they love it. they don't care if it's recognized or not.
so yeah, I know you were being sarcastic condemning her, but if she truly is[/b] in it solely for attention, then she's an attention whore (gender-neutral term BTW). yeah, so fuck that.
now she may also be a good artist. I don't know.
but if she's in it solely for attention and is not otherwise making meaningful anything, then she's a Paris Hilton. only in hipster clothes and with an art degree.
Paris Hilton is a movement and you just used her to reference an idea of celebrity, earned or not.
All in all, this being a fictionalized scenario to garner attention makes it little better than a bomb threat.
Not getting how this compares to making a (fake) bomb threat. Faking one's own pregancies and miscarriages vs the potential chaos and cruel nature of threatening lives.
What art is made without the hopes of garnering attention? As far as achieving what art is supposed to do, she was successful imo.
That bitch!
so you're saying she did this just for attention? a lot of great artists (musicians, actors, etc.) do what they do because they love it. they don't care if it's recognized or not.
so yeah, I know you were being sarcastic condemning her, but if she truly is[/b] in it solely for attention, then she's an attention whore (gender-neutral term BTW). yeah, so fuck that.
now she may also be a good artist. I don't know.
but if she's in it solely for attention and is not otherwise making meaningful anything, then she's a Paris Hilton. only in hipster clothes and with an art degree.
Paris Hilton is a movement and you just used her to reference an idea of celebrity, earned or not.
and she sucks. so *IF* this artist was going for the whole celebrity-for-the-sake-of-celebrity thing then she, too, sucks. that's my point. it doesn't make her a good artist or a good anything.
All in all, this being a fictionalized scenario to garner attention makes it little better than a bomb threat.
Not getting how this compares to making a (fake) bomb threat. Faking one's own pregancies and miscarriages vs the potential chaos and cruel nature of threatening lives.
I get the legal and ethical differences, but I view both as cheap stunts. Basically, she's manipulated people's emotions with an outrageous lie. I just don't see it as art. Activism, perhaps, but definitely not art. It's like a few other people have said: she can't paint, can't make a short film, can't do anything that requires some inherent talent.
lol - that's opening the gates of gray area hell - the idea of art as lies or truths. You know what you see on a movie screen is written and rehearsed and that brushstrokes are not skin and hairs and breath, but they to some degree manipulate emotions to be effective. There had to be that time for people to actually think she did those things for it have impact, you know? Who would have bothered to think about reproduction and personal rights, etc. if everyone knew it was all fake from the start? The reaction was definitely part of the piece.
The lines between activism and cheap stunts and performance art can be blurry and not exclusive of each other. But I have to agree, I'm not sure if I would call her an artist. Her talent may be in pushing the right buttons. And this may be the last thing she ever does. One performance piece of reproduction hell does not an artist make!
The lines between activism and cheap stunts and performance art can be blurry and not exclusive of each other. But I have to agree, I'm not sure if I would call her an artist. Her talent may be in pushing the right buttons. And this may be the last thing she ever does. One performance piece of reproduction hell does not an artist make!
I concur 100%. Knowing the story behind this project just makes me think, "Okay, now you've got my attention, for whatever reason. So what's next?" A hoax tends to have a one-time use.
The lines between activism and cheap stunts and performance art can be blurry and not exclusive of each other. But I have to agree, I'm not sure if I would call her an artist. Her talent may be in pushing the right buttons. And this may be the last thing she ever does. One performance piece of reproduction hell does not an artist make!
I concur 100%. Knowing the story behind this project just makes me think, "Okay, now you've got my attention, for whatever reason. So what's next?" A hoax tends to have a one-time use.
The lines between activism and cheap stunts and performance art can be blurry and not exclusive of each other. But I have to agree, I'm not sure if I would call her an artist. Her talent may be in pushing the right buttons. And this may be the last thing she ever does. One performance piece of reproduction hell does not an artist make!
I concur 100%. Knowing the story behind this project just makes me think, "Okay, now you've got my attention, for whatever reason. So what's next?" A hoax tends to have a one-time use.
BTW, THIS is artistic analysis I agree with...this stunt IS juvenile, and smacks of art school 'smarts'. I mean, the Chris Burden actions that were mentioned earlier (which I am up on, and didn't mention as they are the most obvious comparisons) started, not coincidentally, in art school. Now, he DID go on to do other things, and have a long, and successful career. Can't front on that...
Who knows if this young woman will; she seems to possess the ability to shock, which may be a start. It may also be nothing...She has a long way to go for a career, that is fo-sho. But, she did fire a good first salvo; I'll give her credit on that. And, not because I particularly love this; it is shock for shock, and to grab headlines. But, let's see what happens next...
I had wondered what doctor was supplying her with the drugs for this
I believe she stated that she took natural herbal "remedies" for lack of a better word. But Any women who goes to an ob/gyn can tell you that they pass out the Morning After Pill like candy and want to make sure you have a years supply ( 2-3 doses ) on hand and ready. Even if you don't ask for it they include it automatically, at least in my experience. Maybe its demographical, but either way, it is not hard to get a hold of.
How come we can't actually SEE this "art"? Seems like it is all much about nothing until you have a visual and can actually see it and judge for yourself. I definitely think its just some sensationalized BS that some hypster thought was a brilliant idea. obviously, look at those shorts for god sake! But, What is the point? Its not like its on some PETA red paint steez.
All this Shock and not really Any Awe leaves more to be desired if you ask me. I guess I'm just a believe it when I see it kind of person, and until then I don't think the act or even the controversy amounts to much more than another stupid idea someone is blaming on Art. Art is the victim here, not the vehicle.
I guess this was a thought provoking stunt. It made me think about abortion & women's rights stuff for a couple minutes. I like the kind of art where you make stuff with paint, clay, etc... best. This is too esoteric for me. It's more Jackass than Picasso. That's not to say that art shouldn't be experimental. I've always wanted to see a museum meets lazer tag concept.
How come we can't actually SEE this "art"? Seems like it is all much about nothing until you have a visual and can actually see it and judge for yourself. I definitely think its just some sensationalized BS that some hypster thought was a brilliant idea. obviously, look at those shorts for god sake! But, What is the point? Its not like its on some PETA red paint steez.
So Art NEEDS to be seen? Isnt Music art?
I shouldnt matter what we use ( ears,touch,smell,eyes).
There doesnt have to be a "point" either.
There doesnt have to be some punchline or happy ending for the audience.
Comments
I get the legal and ethical differences, but I view both as cheap stunts. Basically, she's manipulated people's emotions with an outrageous lie. I just don't see it as art. Activism, perhaps, but definitely not art. It's like a few other people have said: she can't paint, can't make a short film, can't do anything that requires some inherent talent.
Picasso and Gauguin toed the line on offensive:
Jeff Koons, after having the 'skill,' to package premade vacuum cleaners, decided to show photos of Frickin' his pornstar wife.
I'm not saying you have to like ANY of this. But, be careful when you start judging whether or not something is art because it bothers you. A lot of art is meant to annoy, titilate, offend, shock, and generally create a reaction.
And, this young lady has put art on the front pages, and started this argument. She has succeeded at arousing emotion...There can be no doubt.
I have a weakness for museums and art books, so I'm up on a lot of art history and the ideas of pushing boundaries. I also get the idea of art being subjective, which can sometimes be a convenient catch-all defense for weak material. Maybe this person is ahead of her time, and I am simply disconnected. I will not rule that out, either.
But I'm not willing to concede that someone's ability to capture a headline is a metric of their artistic merit. She has made people talk, but the discussions seem like they have less to do with "women's social issues" (her intention for this project) and more to do with "what is art?" In that respect, I feel like she missed the mark.
so you're saying she did this just for attention? a lot of great artists (musicians, actors, etc.) do what they do because they love it. they don't care if it's recognized or not.
so yeah, I know you were being sarcastic condemning her, but if she truly is[/b] in it solely for attention, then she's an attention whore (gender-neutral term BTW). yeah, so fuck that.
now she may also be a good artist. I don't know.
but if she's in it solely for attention and is not otherwise making meaningful anything, then she's a Paris Hilton. only in hipster clothes and with an art degree.
saying. everyone talmbout "well there's a soulstrut thread on her so she achieved her essential purpose!" fuck that. ann coulter writes books that "get people talking" but that doesn't mean her underlying work product is worthy of anything.
Paris Hilton is a movement and you just used her to reference an idea of celebrity, earned or not.
and she sucks. so *IF* this artist was going for the whole celebrity-for-the-sake-of-celebrity thing then she, too, sucks. that's my point. it doesn't make her a good artist or a good anything.
lol - that's opening the gates of gray area hell - the idea of art as lies or truths. You know what you see on a movie screen is written and rehearsed and that brushstrokes are not skin and hairs and breath, but they to some degree manipulate emotions to be effective. There had to be that time for people to actually think she did those things for it have impact, you know? Who would have bothered to think about reproduction and personal rights, etc. if everyone knew it was all fake from the start? The reaction was definitely part of the piece.
The lines between activism and cheap stunts and performance art can be blurry and not exclusive of each other. But I have to agree, I'm not sure if I would call her an artist. Her talent may be in pushing the right buttons. And this may be the last thing she ever does. One performance piece of reproduction hell does not an artist make!
I concur 100%. Knowing the story behind this project just makes me think, "Okay, now you've got my attention, for whatever reason. So what's next?" A hoax tends to have a one-time use.
like I already said, bitch cant paint.
BTW, THIS is artistic analysis I agree with...this stunt IS juvenile, and smacks of art school 'smarts'. I mean, the Chris Burden actions that were mentioned earlier (which I am up on, and didn't mention as they are the most obvious comparisons) started, not coincidentally, in art school. Now, he DID go on to do other things, and have a long, and successful career. Can't front on that...
Who knows if this young woman will; she seems to possess the ability to shock, which may be a start. It may also be nothing...She has a long way to go for a career, that is fo-sho. But, she did fire a good first salvo; I'll give her credit on that. And, not because I particularly love this; it is shock for shock, and to grab headlines. But, let's see what happens next...
I believe she stated that she took natural herbal "remedies" for lack of a better word. But Any women who goes to an ob/gyn can tell you that they pass out the Morning After Pill like candy and want to make sure you have a years supply ( 2-3 doses ) on hand and ready. Even if you don't ask for it they include it automatically, at least in my experience. Maybe its demographical, but either way, it is not hard to get a hold of.
How come we can't actually SEE this "art"? Seems like it is all much about nothing until you have a visual and can actually see it and judge for yourself. I definitely think its just some sensationalized BS that some hypster thought was a brilliant idea. obviously, look at those shorts for god sake! But, What is the point? Its not like its on some PETA red paint steez.
All this Shock and not really Any Awe leaves more to be desired if you ask me. I guess I'm just a believe it when I see it kind of person, and until then I don't think the act or even the controversy amounts to much more than another stupid idea someone is blaming on Art. Art is the victim here, not the vehicle.
I guess this was a thought provoking stunt. It made me think about abortion & women's rights stuff for a couple minutes. I like the kind of art where you make stuff with paint, clay, etc... best. This is too esoteric for me. It's more Jackass than Picasso. That's not to say that art shouldn't be experimental. I've always wanted to see a museum meets lazer tag concept.
So Art NEEDS to be seen? Isnt Music art?
I shouldnt matter what we use ( ears,touch,smell,eyes).
There doesnt have to be a "point" either.
There doesnt have to be some punchline or happy ending for the audience.
Let go of the rules.........it will set u free.
Uhhhhh.
?
Uhhhhh.
?
Huh?