Wall of Fame -- aka the condom wall

[Lakov_Sanite]

What's interesting to me is, not knowing a goddamn thing about the artist or anything, I don't see her as turning away from her collection in the picture. I see her as gazing at it, and we are intruding on her little moment of ... whatever.

<shrug>

Yeah she looks to be staring at the end of the wall, towards the newest acquisition.

[Segoris]

I find it disgusting to just have used condoms on the wall, but good for her for getting her's as long as she's not hurting people in the process (such as intentionally spreading diseases like an asshole).

That said, I don't view it as art, just a collection type of hobby from a person who's OCD about each piece of the collection being lined up just right. So it's kind of like a stamp collection, only with cocks, semen, and orgasms

Fixed it.

Nicely done

[angry.bob]

Art is incredibly simple to define. It's anything that someone creates with the intent of creating art. That's it.

That's not the definition of art at all. Sure, it's the definition hacks with no training or talent use since it validates their work. You can argue the minutea about the exact definition of art or what qualifies as art before or after the early twentieth century, or high vs low art, or fine vs craft art, but that definition is just... lazy and sloppy. There needs to be some sort of cultural context, connection between artist and audience, minimum level of skill, blah, blah, blah. I'll give you that what qualifies as "legitimate" art got a lot broader in the early 20th century, but it's still not univerally encompassing. Otherwise, idiotic attenion whore like the Yellowists would be correct in their retarded beliefs.

Also, from what I can find out she just asked guys if they would jerk of in a rubber for her and let her take their picture.

[schild]

Actually, it's a perfectly fine definition of art. It's a shit definition of fine art - which is where you don't really want to encounter "hacks with no training or talent."

[schild]

Photo in the OP is still not art nor is the girl/photographer an artist.

[Raging Turtle]

I think the most interesting thing about it is how different everyone's reactions might be if it was a guy on the bed with his own used condoms and pictures of girls on the wall.  This thread was pretty quick to go to 'daddy issues', I doubt the guy's mind would be discussed at all after he was declared "creepy as hell."

Pollack is considered by many to be one of the great artists of his time, but he didn't have training and his technique didn't exactly require talent, just vision.  I don't see this as being terribly different.  It's designed to provoke a reaction, that's enough for many.

[Teleku]

I liked it, and it's most certainly art.  It's a hell of a lot more creative and thought provoking than the vast majority of you (or the rest of humanity) could ever come up with and create.  It's not earth shattering or anything, but it absolutely is art.

[Pennilenko]

I liked it, and it's most certainly art.  It's a hell of a lot more creative and thought provoking than the vast majority of you (or the rest of humanity) could ever come up with and create.  It's not earth shattering or anything, but it absolutely is art.

I disagree, and my argument is exactly the opposite of yours.

[Cyrrex]

What a weird discussion.  Exactly why does it matter whether or not it is art?  Dumb semantics.  It can provoke an interesting conversation without being art.  Or it can be art, who cares?

[lamaros]

I'd say it's on a level with Tracy Emin. Probably more interesting, actually. And yeah, Emin is considered by a large number of people to be a legitimate artist, and makes a living as such.

Unfortunately.

The photo is more interestingly composed than the work, in my view.

[calapine]

What's interesting to me is, not knowing a goddamn thing about the artist or anything, I don't see her as turning away from her collection in the picture. I see her as gazing at it, and we are intruding on her little moment of ... whatever.

<shrug>

I don't think she is turning away from the pictures either. But her showing her back to the camera, together with the legs pulled up and close the body evoces a very vulnerable pose. I think that's what is causing the instinctive reactions by viewers.

Edit: And her being barley dressed/unprotected from prying eyes. Imagine her in a big fur winter-coat, would change the image right away..

[calapine]

Re: What is art.

I'd say there are a couple aspects defining it. Plus it's probably very subjective as well.

SKILL: That what Paelos talked about when he referred to execution. Something finely made, that few people would be able to reproduce.

IDEA: Originality. Something maybe easy to do once you know how to, but one has to think about it first. To give a non-arty example: the Archimedean principle, there is nothing inertly complicated about the relationship buoyancy and weight displaced if you get it explained. But someone had to think of it first.

INTERACTION WITH THE CONSUMER: The 'message'. Does it cause a reaction in the viewer? I think art is mainly a way to express thoughts (or feelings) in a non-verbal way. Which why it can be so effected in causing a response and uproar (see this thread as proof). It is very easy to simple ignore or dismiss a flat out statement ('Cookies are good' - 'I disagree'), but presented as picture or object it sort of sneaks up on, whether you realize it or not. Plus as the message is somewhat more cryptic than a statement read it differently and are forced to interpret it. Which reveals a lot about their own ideas/conceptions. (see this thread as proof).

[apocrypha]

I'd say it's on a level with Tracy Emin. Probably more interesting, actually. And yeah, Emin is considered by a large number of people to be a legitimate artist, and makes a living as such.

Unfortunately.

The photo is more interestingly composed than the work, in my view.

Yeah I thought of Tracy Emin ("Bed" specifically) when I saw it too. Which I think is one of the reasons I don't like it - it doesn't strike me as original, nor done interestingly enough to not need to be original. However, I saw it as being about alienation - reducing human intimacy to a scoreboard, a collection of waste products and a series of effectively anonymous photographs. Anyone have a link to anything about the piece or the artist? I'm wondering if the piece is the photograph or the installation, and if it's an installation what's the role of the woman in it? Is she the artist? Does she stay there the entire time?

Also, very unpleasant, and potentially hazardous, for whoever ends up having to dispose of the whole installation. I wonder if she filled in a risk assessment form? 

[calapine]

I'd say it's on a level with Tracy Emin. Probably more interesting, actually. And yeah, Emin is considered by a large number of people to be a legitimate artist, and makes a living as such.

Unfortunately.

The photo is more interestingly composed than the work, in my view.

Yeah I thought of Tracy Emin ("Bed" specifically) when I saw it too. Which I think is one of the reasons I don't like it - it doesn't strike me as original, nor done interestingly enough to not need to be original. However, I saw it as being about alienation - reducing human intimacy to a scoreboard, a collection of waste products and a series of effectively anonymous photographs. Anyone have a link to anything about the piece or the artist? I'm wondering if the piece is the photograph or the installation, and if it's an installation what's the role of the woman in it? Is she the artist? Does she stay there the entire time?

Also, very unpleasant, and potentially hazardous, for whoever ends up having to dispose of the whole installation. I wonder if she filled in a risk assessment form? 

Make a photograph of a guy in a yellow bio-harzard suit disposing the used condoms. Ta-Da new art piece!

[jakonovski]

Why do people so often define art as "it's art if I like it"?

[calapine]

Because people define their own opinions and likes as benchmark against which the world is measured?

[Ratman_tf]

Which dries up and is no more or less gross than hide glue when it's done so. It's meant to be shocking and make you think a little. Boxers wouldn't have the same impact.  Just another part of the current movement in Art.

It makes me think that stapling used condoms to the wall is gross.

[Ratman_tf]

To me, it's a powerful portrait of compulsive behavior, and inner conflict, and being really fucked up in the head.  If I'd seen a similar composition before, it wouldn't be nearly as powerful, but I hadn't.  I respectfully suggest that if anyone thinks it's not art because he could come up with something just as good or better, he put up or shut up.

[Evildrider]

Wow, you just totally changed my perceptions on toast with that work of art.

[Cyrrex]

I mean, I know I am supposed to be a seeing a happy piece of toast celebrating his own toastiness and possibly also his release from this toaster prison, but I can't help but thing there is a bit of fear in his eye, that maybe that is a look of utter terror.  That maybe he is running desperately away from the toaster and is afraid of catching fire.  Fucking super thought provoking.

[Paelos]

What a weird discussion.  Exactly why does it matter whether or not it is art?  Dumb semantics.  It can provoke an interesting conversation without being art.  Or it can be art, who cares?

Because people sometimes use art to rationalize terrible decisions or lack of talent.

[Merusk]

Which dries up and is no more or less gross than hide glue when it's done so. It's meant to be shocking and make you think a little. Boxers wouldn't have the same impact.  Just another part of the current movement in Art.

It makes me think that stapling used condoms to the wall is gross.

I think the mere fact that we all assumed they were used and intercourse happened at all - with no context and I'll wager research - by anyone except angry.bob makes it transcend that.   It says a lot about the viewers and the cultural context.

[Lantyssa]

It's just creepy.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Which dries up and is no more or less gross than hide glue when it's done so. It's meant to be shocking and make you think a little. Boxers wouldn't have the same impact.  Just another part of the current movement in Art.

It makes me think that stapling used condoms to the wall is gross.

I think the mere fact that we all assumed they were used and intercourse happened at all - with no context and I'll wager research - by anyone except angry.bob makes it transcend that.   It says a lot about the viewers and the cultural context.

Don't be an idiot.

Also, if the toast is happy, does that mean it is a preferable state than bread? Is bread the unformed child both dreading and needing to be burnt and molded by society to become the toast?  Are we then, the toaster?

[apocrypha]

Did some searching and she has a NSFW Flickr page NSFW that is mildly interesting, but nothing amazing.

[Yegolev]

I see a piece of bread that gives the outward appearance of being happy to be sent to the toaster, but the teardrop-shaped eyes belie a barely-contained horror.  I'd rate it more powerful than a room full of condoms.

[Paelos]

Did some searching and she has a NSFW Flickr page NSFW that is mildly interesting, but nothing amazing.

She's trying entirely too hard.

[schild]

That would be because Daddy.

[Pennilenko]

That would be because Daddy.

I don't think they are listening to you at this point, but I think you are right. Even if you are joking.

[Samwise]

What's interesting to me is, not knowing a goddamn thing about the artist or anything, I don't see her as turning away from her collection in the picture. I see her as gazing at it, and we are intruding on her little moment of ... whatever.

<shrug>

I don't think she is turning away from the pictures either. But her showing her back to the camera, together with the legs pulled up and close the body evoces a very vulnerable pose. I think that's what is causing the instinctive reactions by viewers.

Edit: And her being barley dressed/unprotected from prying eyes. Imagine her in a big fur winter-coat, would change the image right away..

I think the lighting plays a role too.

[Ratman_tf]

Which dries up and is no more or less gross than hide glue when it's done so. It's meant to be shocking and make you think a little. Boxers wouldn't have the same impact.  Just another part of the current movement in Art.

It makes me think that stapling used condoms to the wall is gross.

I think the mere fact that we all assumed they were used and intercourse happened at all - with no context and I'll wager research - by anyone except angry.bob makes it transcend that.   It says a lot about the viewers and the cultural context.

[Evildrider]

Now this is art!   

[Segoris]

Not only because of the lighting in that piece, but because of the originality 

[Draegan]

Not art.  Just a rich girl who's trying to over think things.

[Sheepherder]

I think the most interesting thing about it is how different everyone's reactions might be if it was a guy on the bed with his own used condoms and pictures of girls on the wall.  This thread was pretty quick to go to 'daddy issues', I doubt the guy's mind would be discussed at all after he was declared "creepy as hell."

Tiger blood.