art with the sole purpose of offending people

[holy king]

Nonsense. When I look at "Fountain" I'm not offended at all, and I doubt that you are either. And I think that even people who are offended by it have other reactions as well. To suggest that its sole purpose is merely to offend, and nothing else whatsoever, is to diminish it.

well, no, i'm not part of the 1917 art establishment it was directed at. neither are you.
this projected audience was intended to be offended by the artist and that was that.

amazingly, they refused to show it at the show it was submitted to.

 

[Spoonwood]

Fountain can simply get seen as a way of importing the message that "what goes in, must come out." Or that there exists a cycle of water in some sense.

The second piece with all the fake blood spattered about can get seen to portray the suffering of a crucified man. This suffering can get seen in this way much more quickly than just a drop or two would. Would Christians feel this offensive when considered in the light of their gospels? I would hardly think so, because the suffering of Jesus AND his disciples comes AND of those Romans who crucified him, also happens in those texts. After all, if we have a real savior, and that savior gets killed, then by definition we would all suffer... and the second work actually shows this much more readily than traditional art here.

 

[Plotinus]

well, no, i'm not part of the 1917 art establishment it was directed at. neither are you.

Oh, so you're not saying that the sole effect of these works is to offend, then. You're now saying that the sole effect on their original audience was to offend. If that's what you meant, that's what you should have said.

I still think it's a ridiculous claim, and one that you can't possibly show to be true.

this projected audience was intended to be offended by the artist and that was that.

So you say. In fact, as far as I can tell, Duchamp's aim was not (solely, if at all) to offend his fellow members of the Society of Independent Artists, but to make a point about the nature of art and the legitimacy of using "found" objects as art, not merely objects that the artist has constructed. I'm sure you're familiar with the defence of the piece that Duchamp wrote anonymously shortly after its appearance:

Whether Mr Mutt made the fountain with his own hands or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view - created a new thought for that object.

That's got nothing to do with the offensiveness or otherwise of the object. So to say that his sole intention was just to offend people is a caricature. Perhaps he did intend, in part, to offend people - although I think "offend" is rather a strong word for something that was more of a joke - but it is quite clear that there was more to it than that. If you think otherwise it's down to you to demonstrate it.

amazingly, they refused to show it at the show it was submitted to.

All that demonstrates, if anything, is that they were offended. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that the sole effect on its entire intended audience was offence and nothing else. In fact it demonstrably was not, because the board of the Society of Independent Artists - to whom it was submitted - debated for some time about whether it counted as art or not. They concluded that it did not, but the fact that there was a debate indicates that not all the board members reacted to it solely by being offended. Quite a lot of them thought it had artistic merit and wanted to include it in their exhibition. Which seems to me strong evidence that your claim that the sole reaction it aroused at the time was offence is false. Again, if you think otherwise it's down to you to demonstrate it.

 

[Traitorfish]

The real question is how much longer we must tolerate art that fails to offend at all.

Anyway, as Plotinus says, a distinction needs to be drawn between art which is intended only to offend and art which intends to offend for a greater purpose. The former is glib, disposable trash, but the latter includes some very worthy work, often because it is offensive- George Carlin notably observed that "it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately", and the same can be suggested of other media.
There is G.G.Allin, and there is Dada; the two are not the same, and it is disingenuous to paint them as such.

 

[Sterf]

The real question is how much longer we must tolerate art that fails to offend at all.

Haha, god I love The Onion.

Anyway, as Plotinus says, a distinction needs to be drawn between art which is intended only to offend and art which intends to offend for a greater purpose. The former is glib, disposable trash, but the latter includes some very worthy work, often because it is offensive- George Carlin notably observed that "it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately", and the same can be suggested of other media.
There is G.G.Allin, and there is Dada; the two are not the same, and it is disingenuous to paint them as such.

'Greater purpose' being of course a very subjective thing. I'm sure Fountain was glib, disposable trash to conventional artists at the time too.

 

[Traitorfish]

'Greater purpose' being of course a very subjective thing. I'm sure Fountain was glib, disposable trash to conventional artists at the time too.

I disagree; it may well have been dismissed as such, but not because it was "solely intended to offend". As Plotinus has noted, how something is received and what something is intended to achieve are hardly the same. Contemporary "conventional artists", a rather ambiguous term, may even have interpreted it as a such- it certainly wasn't beyond the OP, among others, to do so- but that doesn't for a moment imply that they were correct. Intent belongs to the artist and the artist alone, and Duchamp evidently meant far more than "let's screw with some heads". He determined a "greater purpose" for the work, however misguided you may consider him to have been, and that is not something which we are able to detract from.

 

[Sterf]

I disagree; it may well have been dismissed as such, but not because it was "solely intended to offend". As Plotinus has noted, how something is received and what something is intended to achieve are hardly the same. Contemporary "conventional artists", a rather ambiguous term, may even have interpreted it as a such- it certainly wasn't beyond the OP, among others, to do so- but that doesn't for a moment imply that they were correct. Intent belongs to the artist and the artist alone, and Duchamp evidently meant far more than "let's screw with some heads". He determined a "greater purpose" for the work, however misguided you may consider him to have been, and that is not something which we are able to detract from.

As far as I know, and that may be very little for I care not a great deal about this kind of art, his greater purpose involved pretty much defying the settled and, if you want, bourgeoisie artists of the time. I'm sure those noted bourgeoisie artists of that time found his art glib and disposable trash, which I'm sure was his goal all along and the whole point of the artwork. All I wanted to say on this subject was that a 'greater purpose' is pretty damn subjective no matter how you put it. The settled artists then didn't see very much of a greater purpose.
In dadaism's case it's use is to be pretty much always offensive to the people it's trying to stir in my opinion (and for their actual audience to wallow in the controversy it projected unto those offended).

edit: I must admit that I don't know a great deal about this kind of art. I'm sure at the time it was necessary to stir the pot a bit and as such it was art, but in these times I can't see any art in it anymore. These times you see all kind of nonsensical art thrown about everywhere, and I feel that with every attempt at dadaism or anti-art it diminishes the impact the original Fountain had (which was a lot). It actually rotted away in time the way I see it. It was a great statement then, but now it is a horse that's been so beaten it won't even qualify at performance art when it begs for a merciful death. Which is a shame, since I'm sure it had a message at one point. It just got diluted.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Most artists want to be noticed and try to produce works that will get them noticed. Some try to provoke others not. When art is produced for the purpose of promoting a political idea, it is usually just propaganda that can, over time, become art.

Is there a line between advertising and art? A blurry line or none at all?

 

[Plotinus]

Is there a line between advertising and art? A blurry line or none at all?

You imply that advertising and art are different ends of a spectrum, but I would say they're completely different categories. To say that something is art is to say that it has some kind of purpose (although it seems no-one can agree about what that purpose is). To say that something is advertising is also to say that it has a certain kind of purpose. I don't see any reason why something could not have both of those purposes, unless they are defined in such a way that they are incompatible. But why would they be?

It's the same with, say, graffiti. People ask whether graffiti are vandalism or art. But there's no reason why they can't be both, because vandalism and are are not exclusive categories, as far as I can see.

 

[Jos Ballenbak]

I think that the best example you made in this whole thread was with the first picture. Deschamps showed that anything can be art even a urinal, he asks the question what is art? Is art some stupid word you paste on something so you can express your feelings or is art just something stupid so you can ridicule something. The last century is noted for various transformations of art. the Dadaïst movement was all about asking questions about these transformations. I personally have a strong resentment to happenings like in the 2nd picture, it's just something I don't like.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You imply that advertising and art are different ends of a spectrum, but I would say they're completely different categories. To say that something is art is to say that it has some kind of purpose (although it seems no-one can agree about what that purpose is). To say that something is advertising is also to say that it has a certain kind of purpose. I don't see any reason why something could not have both of those purposes, unless they are defined in such a way that they are incompatible. But why would they be?

It's the same with, say, graffiti. People ask whether graffiti are vandalism or art. But there's no reason why they can't be both, because vandalism and are are not exclusive categories, as far as I can see.

Not quite. I see art as a venn diagram. A big circle (all art) with maybe 20% marked as 'good' art, a wide band of blurred space and then the remainder 'bad" art. A smaller shape is embedded within the larger art one and it is called advertising. It is so positioned that some of its area falls into the good art region, some in the blurred area and a big chunk in the bad art section. Any given piece of art moves from place to place within the circle over time as tastes and styles change.

 

[illram]

It can depend on how you use it. I have several beer posters, nicely framed, in my apartment which were painted by a local artist for a local brewing company. They're really cool looking. (That's the technical term for what they look like). In a commercial setting they're advertising. In my apartment though my wife and I consider them art.

 

[Jos Ballenbak]

It can depend on how you use it. I have several beer posters, nicely framed, in my apartment which were painted by a local artist for a local brewing company. They're really cool looking. (That's the technical term for what they look like). In a commercial setting they're advertising. In my apartment though my wife and I consider them art.

Your wife considers beer posters art??? You must have the best wife ever!

 

[GoodGame]

I think there's a value to Dada-ism in that pushing limits stimulates thought, but there is a fine line between that and being polemical.

A photo of a urinal done by some artistic methodology could actually be pretty useful as art.

I think one could discuss the issue of cartooning religious figures as well.

Really it boils down to freedom of expression, but as legally tempered by other concerns.

 

[illram]

Your wife considers beer posters art??? You must have the best wife ever!

Thank you, I agree!

The posters are pretty nice though and they mean something to us because we met in Humboldt, at a party, that in all likelihood had a keg of some of this beer. Hell I might have been drinking it at the time I first talked to her.

http://www.lostcoast.com/

We have the Alleycat, Great White, Tangerine, and Downtown Brown Posters. They're by a well known local Humboldt artist who does a ton of other stuff. We like 'em and were having a tough time trying to find something to put on our wall in the living room.

 

[Traitorfish]

well, if a piece is there just to troll, I bet that eventually some critic will interpret in a way that it's not longer just there to troll, but to speak about human qualities and social inequities and some crap

And if it's about "human qualities and social inequalities and some crap", some critic will, sooner or later, interpret it as "just to troll". What's your point?

 

[Traitorfish]

my main point was that highbrow critics are full of crap

Oh, god, not this man-of-the-people, less-pretentious-than-thou crap. I know it's so very in these days, but it's really rather tiresome. That kind of posturing is really no better than the reverse; inverted snobbery is still, it may come as a surprise to learn, snobbery. If you have a critique to make, try and make it intelligently, don't just fall back on whatever broad slander and petty hostility you think will get an automatic stamp of approval from your peers simply because the target is assumed to be inherently acceptable. Have you actually read anything by these "highbrow critics"? Are you familiar with the work that they are discussing? Do you have the perspective or context to understand either the work or the criticism? Or are you just take swipes at imaginary foes?
Condemning strawmen and stereotypes make you look like an ass, not whatever windmill you have taken it upon yourself to slay.

[/rant]

but a second point is that a piece can't have a sole purpose?

Of course it can. What's your point?

Edit: What on earth is that little green face doing up there?

 

[Traitorfish]

of course i've never actually read anything i criticize, at least thoroughly, and gained any perspective or try to address them intelligently and not using mere broad slander, because it would defeat the point of being a man-of-the-people, less-pretentious-than-thou, reverse-and-ironic-snobbery type!!!

Sneering retreats, my friend, are still retreats.

no it cant

How so, and why is this relevant?

 

[Traitorfish]

no, you just don't get it; god knows the point of being an anti-snob is enhanced by a deep and wide understanding of the subject matter, but that is not necessary. because of my intentional ignorance, i am standing my ground and not the other way around

But you're not an anti-snob, you're just a snob. That you occupy a contrary position to certain other snobs is neither here nor there.

 

[Traitorfish]

i'm sorry that our topic has turned jewish, coz i don't argue semitics

There are technical inaccuracies, and there are blatant mistruths. You claiming to be an "anti-snob" while engaging in snobbish behaviour cannot be anything but the latter.

Edit: Shutting up now...