-
-
11-23-2024 10:02 AM
-
That's back in the days when you used to
Smoke a banana
You would scrape the stuff off the middle
You would bake it
You would smoke it
You even thought you was getting ripped from it
No problem
—Frank Zappa
Someone got ripped, all right. And it wasn’t the guy who taped the banana to the wall.
-
I'm making banana bread right now, actually. My bananas were $0.36 each though
-
I was going to do that but someone beat me to it.
-
Sounds like fancy money laundering to me
-
-
Payment for human smuggling made legal=modern art.
Originally Posted by chris32895
-
Only thing worth that price is to see someone slip on the peel face first into a cream pie.
-
This "freakonomic" trend started almost 20 years ago but it's become even more obscene thanks to cryptocurrency, the two are made for each other: fake money for fake art -- The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art
-
Wut? Originally Posted by DawgBone
Handing a large amount of money to an eminently respectable auction house would be a stupid way to launder money. It would be much easier to buy cryptocurrency with the money, particularly if you are a cryptocurrency entrepreneur, like the buyer of this work.
A lot of people have a lot of difficulty accepting the high price paid for such an artwork, or that is can be an artwork, so they seek other explanations. Contemporary art is not a scam or a scheme; it is art, whether you like it or not.
-
A banana taped to a wall is indeed art - but only to the con artists hoping to market it as such and the dumb sucker who believes them and buys it. Originally Posted by Litterick
-
"Why would a smart New York investment banker pay twelve million dollars for the decaying, stuffed carcass of a shark? By what alchemy does Jackson Pollock’s drip painting No.5 1948 sell for $140 million?" Originally Posted by Mick-7
Because they are two of the most significant art works of the twentieth century. Works by Damien Hurst and Jackson Pollock are found in the world's top art museums. They are both regarded by critics and art historians as important artists. The authors are cynics, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. If they studied history of art rather than columns of numbers, they might have learned something about the works they despise.
-
One man stands alone against the art world. He can see the dealers are criminals and the buyers are idiots. How could we have been so foolish as to accept what the so-called experts were saying, when we should have been listening to this man, and others like him? Now we must rewrite the art books and sack the museum curators. Now we must burn all the 'art' and start again. But we will come to thank this man and his band of brothers for showing us the truth. Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
No argument from me re: Jackson Pollack, I consider him a great artist, but he created his artworks, didn't just take an ordinary object and proclaim it as art. The stuffed shark is debatable, if it is art so is every skilled taxidermist's handiwork. Originally Posted by Litterick
-
Too much money and not enough sense. NFTs were also another great example of that. Originally Posted by Ukena
-
It is important to tolerate, accept, and embrace being open minded to ideas. I know it is tempting to talk down about things like this, but I am not so narrow minded I can't entertain multiple interpretations of things like this.
One interpretation is that the old art was inspired by the Muses; the inspirational goddesses of literature, science, and the arts, encouraging truth, goodness, and beauty. Looking back, the new artists realized they would never even approach surpassing the old, so gave up on that altogether, their new Muse being some kind of delusional fraudulent demonic group mental illness they have sought to spread as the cult of the phony art fully inspired from over a century ago.
Another interpretation is suggested by the means of purchase using cryptocurrency - the purchase of a phony art with phony currency. Both are worthless objects in bubble expansion, both providing illegally obtained money clean channels by which to appear lawfully obtained or legitimate by transferring them through these clean channels appearing to be legitimate accounts or businesses. I would have been more impressed if this "art" had been bought with real money (about 1580 lbs. of gold).
Another interpretation is that things like this ("boy swaps family cow for magic beans" stories) serve our unseen overlords of this world as a useful gauge or measurement of their maintenance of our world's idiocracy, useful to their own purposes.
-
Does a monkey know something about bananas?
-
Afraid of bananas
-
We at least agree about Pollock. Readymades, however, have been accepted as art for over a century. Pollock's brilliance as a painter produced one form of art, Duchamp's brilliance as a thinker made another. Originally Posted by Mick-7
The difference between Hirst and the taxidermist is one is making art, while the other has no such ambition. Hirst presented his shark to the art world, with the title The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living. The art world accepted it as art. The taxidermist makes representations of living animals from dead animals, no more nor less.Last edited by Litterick; 11-23-2024 at 11:33 PM.
-
The conspiracy theory of art. Originally Posted by pauln
-
'“Cattelan’s Comedian represents the apex of a 100-year-long intellectual yet irreverent interrogation of contemporary art’s limits,” read the unsmiling wall text.'
Nate Freeman in Vanity Fair describes the whole affair rather well.
-
In every genre, there is always the question of what makes art art? It's a serious question that ironically, many people who practice and play, don't ask themselves. For many, it might be the pursuit of something that is so technically challenging that art is something abstract and beyond the realm of the pedestrian pursuit; it's something of the realm of geniuses or something that is simply absurdly incomprehensible. Musicians might attend a concert of Stockhausen of Cage or Zorn or Bill Frisell and have vastly different opinions or degrees of being touched or even changed-depending on their own parameters of what art is.
I worked with a guitarist who played professionally his entire life, and even achieved what some might see as mastery over the instrument. But by his own metric, he never understood the purpose, the reason, the personal connection with his instrument until he began to draw and paint. He didn't achieve an artist mind until he painted and drew. THen he understood the guitar. It was not what he had know through years of harmony and miles of touring.
When students would ask for good reference materials, he used to reference Walter Piston, Vincent Persichetti and his knowledge of Schoenberg's harmony. In the last phase of his life, it was Robert Henri.
I wonder what it is that flips that switch to seeing. Just wondering what happens when a player turns off the eye of judgement and discovers the Art Spirit.
Does anyone here inform their musical playing with practicing other arts? If so, how has it changed the way you play?
-
I don't know much about the work itself or the artist, but it's called "Comedian" which tells us a lot. That's the punchline. ha ha... or not.
There wouldn't even be a new story if it didn't cost six million bucks. Most art doesn't go for anywhere near those kinds of prices, and most artists struggle to make a basic living, which they supplement with other work. The story is realy about the conspicuous consumption, hype and the apparent value of money; some crypto-bro blows $6M for an ephemeral art piece, BIG NEWS STORY!!!
-
Totally. Other art practices inform the music, and the music informs those other art practices. Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note
I'm a big fan of doodling. It's just for myself and I rarely show it to anyone, but I have notebooks full. When I'm concentrating on music, I'll take a break and doodle, and it helps me to think about the music I'm working on. It helps give me perspective.
-
So I'm an Art Teacher, as many of you know.
I teach my students that Art has many functions in regards to an artwork being "successful" (we don't use the word "good") and being aesthetically pleasing is only one of them, and it's not ALWAYS necessary. But if that element is absent, there needs to be a strong concept...but the concept also need not be spelled out.
It seems here threads like this very well may be the concept for the duct taped banana. Do I personally like it? Not really. I like my conceptual Art to rely more on the strength of the concept and less on controversy (so "Piss Christ" (google it) yawn, but "Can't Help Myself" (the 'bleeding' robot piece that went viral) is pretty brilliant and powerful.
Regarding Pollock, it's important to not forget the connection between jazz improvisation and what he was doing...the performance, or rather, the PROCESS was part of it, whether he did it himself in his garage or as he did eventually, with people watching. The end product, to me, IS aesthetically pleasing-- which is not always an objective thing, and i get that to some it just looks like a mess. Abstract Expressionism, in general, really needs to be seen in person to be appreciated, the scale, being able to look closely and then back up, these are things you can't do with an image in a book. Much like people say they don't like jazz and then they see a live performance and it "clicks."
To me, the connection between visual and auditory arts is inseparable. Even so much as to regards of the packaging of our favorite records...did Blue Note's design elevate those records to something even greater? Absolutely!
Reply With Quote
Corey Congilio: "Who's Been Talking?"
Today, 08:52 PM in The Songs