We have at last reached the "war on degenerate art" phase...

[JackRiddler]

Sorry, I think both sides of this discussion are full of shit.

It's just art. Big fucking deal. No, it isn't child porn. But it doesn't need the mystical aura of the collective psyche spread around it. That makes me want to throw up, too.

You're forgetting how this discussion started, who thinks it's an issue. No one would engage in art criticism here, if not for the initial determination by the Alt-Right conspirasphere that Podesta is in to degenerate art!

[KUAN]

I haven't been following and I'm not alt right (I think)
But pictures of kids in underwear sans the ropes binding their wrists, arms and legs are sick
Agree?

[MacCruiskeen]

Sorry to go off-topic, but I keep wondering how much money Podesta paid for an original sculpture by Louise Bourgeois, which he demonstrably owns, and for the house he keeps it in. And exactly what he did to "earn" that money.

Hey, how about a "war on degenerate wealth"?

Nah, only joking! (Blasphemously, I admit.) That would be much less fun than speculating on whether he really means "Get me a concubine, bound and gagged" every time he orders his butler to peel him a grape.

PS For the record, I think Marina Abramovic is one very crafty gobshite. (She knows her audience, I'll grant her that.)

[JackRiddler]

I haven't been following and I'm not alt right (I think)
But pictures of kids in underwear sans the ropes binding their wrists, arms and legs are sick
Agree?

Leading question. I'm not going to touch a question about "pictures." These are not photographs. Those are not kids. They are representations of children, drawn on a canvas.

The paintings of Biljana Đurđević may or may not be sick. An artist may wish to express a sickness that she sees, which does not mean she advocates it. Would "pictures" of a pile of people killed in a war be understood in this way? In this case, it's rather obviously meant as a description of what the artist sees as what IS, rather than what SHOULD be. It's not meant to pleasure you, or John Podesta. It's meant to discomfort the observer. It may be about school, and it is about how children are treated. Why would you think otherwise? Perhaps the sickness is in the beholder?

Agree or disagree?

.

[JackRiddler]

Sorry to go off-topic, but I keep wondering how much money Podesta paid for an original sculpture by Louise Bourgeois, which he demonstrably owns, and for the house he keeps it in. And exactly what he did to "earn" that money.

Hey, how about a "war on degenerate wealth"?

Hey, now you are cooking. Bravo. Something that matters, and hardly needs to be speculated.

Nah, only joking! (Blasphemously, I admit.) That would be much less fun than speculating on whether he really means "Get me a concubine, bound and gagged" every time he orders his butler to peel him a grape.

Exactly. But then you blow it.

PS For the record, I think Marina Abramovic is one very crafty gobshite. (She knows her audience, I'll grant her that.)

Biljana Đurđević.

[MacCruiskeen]

Googled it:

Could Louise Bourgeois's 'Spider' Topple the Auction Record for Work by a Female Artist?

By Nate Freeman Posted 10/20/15 6:03 pm

http://www.artnews.com/2015/10/20/could ... le-artist/

See also: Google search results for "louise bourgeois auction prices"

[MacCruiskeen]

Exactly. But then you blow it.

PS For the record, I think Marina Abramovic is one very crafty gobshite. (She knows her audience, I'll grant her that.)

Biljana Đurđević

No, Jack, I'm not confusing the two.

(I AM WINNAR. )

[dada]

You're forgetting how this discussion started, who thinks it's an issue. No one would engage in art criticism here, if not for the initial determination by the Alt-Right conspirasphere that Podesta is in to degenerate art!

Yeah, but I don't care about those dopey trolls! I don't get why anyone pays any attention to them.

I tell you, Jack, people spend too much time in their astral internet bodies and get lost in electronic fantasy land. grumble grumble...

So I skip right over that nonsense, and get right down to it. The posters here deserve only my best. I know they can handle it, and I think they're worth it. See, I critique out of love:)

I want to clarify, when I said "The artist supplies the fetish-object, and the consumer supplies the fetish."

I didn't mean fetish as in sexual fetish. Given the context, I'm realizing that is probably how it came across. In hindsight, that was definitely a failure on my part.

What I meant was the definition of 'fetish' as 'an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.' or 'a course of action to which one has an excessive and irrational commitment.'

The overemphasis of art in the direction of mystification. It's a bubble I feel needs popping. Maybe it's just because I'm around it so much, I've become fed up with it.

[KUAN]

It's meant to discomfort the observer. It may be about school, and it is about how children are treated. Why would you think otherwise? Perhaps the sickness is in the beholder?

Agree or disagree?

It does discomfort me and I didn't say it wasn't about school, but I can only see the un-natural body positions as sans ropes.
Who could not for fucks sake

[JackRiddler]

You're forgetting how this discussion started, who thinks it's an issue. No one would engage in art criticism here, if not for the initial determination by the Alt-Right conspirasphere that Podesta is in to degenerate art!

Yeah, but I don't care about those dopey trolls! I don't get why anyone pays any attention to them.

I tell you, Jack, people spend too much time in their astral internet bodies and get lost in electronic fantasy land. grumble grumble...

So I skip right over that nonsense, and get right down to it. The posters here deserve only my best. I know they can handle it, and I think they're worth it. See, I critique out of love:)

I want to clarify, when I said "The artist supplies the fetish-object, and the consumer supplies the fetish."

I didn't mean fetish as in sexual fetish. Given the context, I'm realizing that is probably how it came across. In hindsight, that was definitely a failure on my part.

What I meant was the definition of 'fetish' as 'an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.' or 'a course of action to which one has an excessive and irrational commitment.'

The overemphasis of art in the direction of mystification. It's a bubble I feel needs popping. Maybe it's just because I'm around it so much, I've become fed up with it.

I think all this is true. Except for the part about not caring about the dopey trolls. They are everywhere and they need to be confronted, or they monopolize opinion. I remember in the 1980s when so many people were seriously afraid to say something outside the right-wing consensus, and it was all them censoring themselves. That much has fucking improved.

I also think the works in question are pretty damn impressive. Not that I approve their commodification in particular. (Artists and everyone else should be paid according to their need, right?)

I wish Willow would comment here.

.

[MacCruiskeen]

Re: Louise Bourgeois and her "Arc de Hysterie" sculpture (which Podesta now owns): The Internet exists. Louise Bourgeois is not obscure. And I wish people who have never heard of her would take the minimal trouble to find out the basics about that woman and her life and her work before catapulting the outrage all over the Internet.

Try googling "louise bourgeois + arc de cercle + charcot + freud".

(and may god forgive whoever dug up that repulsive photo of one of Jeffrey Dahmer's poor dead victims)

[MacCruiskeen]

See, people get outraged about something like this (Eric Fischl’s “Tumbling Woman”):



...while never opening their mouths or bothering their tiny minds about the giant holes in The Official Yarn. It's all just displacement activity.


The Official Account of 9/11 (Artist: Philip Zelikow)

[Perelandra]

Perhaps worth revisiting.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=31439&hilit=How+does+art+live

[Jerky]

I see what you did there!

Aha! Clever man!



J.

...while never opening their mouths or bothering their tiny minds about the giant holes in The Official Yarn. It's all just displacement activity.


The Official Account of 9/11 (Artist: Philip Zelikow)

[dada]

I think all this is true. Except for the part about not caring about the dopey trolls. They are everywhere and they need to be confronted, or they monopolize opinion. I remember in the 1980s when so many people were seriously afraid to say something outside the right-wing consensus, and it was all them censoring themselves. That much has fucking improved.

I also think the works in question are pretty damn impressive. Not that I approve their commodification in particular. (Artists and everyone else should be paid according to their need, right?)

I wish Willow would comment here.

.

So here. I close my eyes, reset. Open. The flux of human events has thrown Biljana's paintings in front of my eyes. And I'm trained to make aesthetic value judgement. I contemplate it. Yes, artist has her own unique talent. Style I see, okay. I think of Darger for some reason. Thoughts wander. Darger, protector of children. He lives his life as janitor at a hospital, creates thousands of pages of colorful collage art sci fi stories, all hidden away in his room. Everyone probably knows this story. When he dies, landlord discovers the art. Now sells for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and his style is trendy cool. On his tombstone in the poor person part of the cemetery it says, "Henry Darger, protector of children."

It hurts, life sucks, right. I feel kind of guilty for thinking about Henry when I'm supposed to be contemplating Biljana. I notice the patterns on the walls in her paintings. They catch my eye.

That's my review. Sorry it doesn't feed the art world game. Just sick of playing it.

Yes, everyone should be paid according to their need. Even artists? well... sure, okay. Why not.

We could discuss troll-fighting strategies.

The trolls, you see, are beyond hope. I think engaging with those whose 'opinions are monopolized ' is more important. Free more of those people's opinions.

The problem, as always, always always always, is the fucking press. And what do we do about that. I don't know.