[FalconP]

Shock in art is not necessary a bad thing; when the shock of confronting a certain work compels you to question your assumptions, especially assumption regarding taboos, then the "shock value" of the work becomes part of its "artistic value". In today's seemingly everything-goes world, the word "taboo" appears to have been safely consigned to anthropology texts, but taboos live on, even amongst the most forward-thinking urbanites. If a piece of work -- through its use of shock -- forces us to come to terms with our taboos, and in addition make us realise that our fears are irrational, or that it is futile for us to turn away from our fears. Then I would call the work successful art.

An example of successful "shock art" is when Jenny Holzer printed a series of invitation cards in red ink mixed with womens' blood. The blood was collected from volunteers well aware of Holzer's intention, and was sterilized so there was no chance of transmitting disease. Yet a huge outrage still ensued among people who has handled the cards, even as they knew the cards were entirely safe. Through this incidence, Holzer explored people's taboo about the notion of blood, and I think she was successful in exposing the irrationality in our "blood taboo"

Back to Hirst. His theme is death, but do his "death pieces" challenge our taboo about death or give us any new perspective? My answer is "sometimes, but only sometimes". His embalming pieces, even with their funky titles, rarely provide any insights about death. Surely "problem pieces" for me.

A related question: does Hirst cynically use "shock value" to make big bucks? While I cannot say for sure, I suspect, to some extent, he does -- or, at the very least, he used "shock value" to boost awareness in the art market, so that he can sell at elevated prices objects that bear his name (this accounts for the dot paintings not done by him). Does doing so necessary devalues his works? I don't think so. Salvador Dali had used any number of shocking tactics to stay in the public eye, yet few thinks he is a chalatan.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FalconP /img/forum/go_quote.gif Shock in art is not necessary a bad thing; when the shock of confronting a certain work compels you to question your assumptions, especially assumption regarding taboos, then the "shock value" of the work becomes part of its "artistic value". In today's seemingly everything-goes world, the word "taboo" appears to have been safely consigned to anthropology texts, but taboos live on, even amongst the most forward-thinking urbanites. If a piece of work -- through its use of shock -- forces us to come to terms with our taboos, and in addition make us realise that our fears are irrational, or that it is futile for us to turn away from our fears. Then I would call the work successful art. An example of successful "shock art" is when Jenny Holzer printed a series of invitation cards in red ink mixed with womens' blood. The blood was collected from volunteers well aware of Holzer's intention, and was sterilized so there was no chance of transmitting disease. Yet a huge outrage still ensued among people who has handled the cards, even as they knew the cards were entirely safe. Through this incidence, Holzer explored people's taboo about the notion of blood, and I think she was successful in exposing the irrationality in our "blood taboo" Back to Hirst. His theme is death, but do his "death pieces" challenge our taboo about death or give us any new perspective? My answer is "sometimes, but only sometimes". His embalming pieces, even with their funky titles, rarely provide any insights about death. Surely "problem pieces" for me. A related question: does Hirst cynically use "shock value" to make big bucks? While I cannot say for sure, I suspect, to some extent, he does -- or, at the very least, he used "shock value" to boost awareness in the art market, so that he can sell at elevated prices objects that bear his name (this accounts for the dot paintings not done by him). Does doing so necessary devalues his works? I don't think so. Salvador Dali had used any number of shocking tactics to stay in the public eye, yet few thinks he is a chalatan.

I didn't mean to imply that shock value is in itself a bad thing. I agree with you, in fact, that it can be a very useful tactic for artists to use. But when the only thing offered is shock value, with no underlying intellectual or artistic depth, what you are left with is essentially a cheap thrill.

The Holzer piece sounds interesting, because the full effect of the use of blood only surfaces when the work is handled by those who come into physical contact with the card. To me, that's a very novel and interesting use of interactivity; it blurs the line between the artist and the audience, since part of the artistic value is embedded in an interactive relationship between the two.

Another example of the use of blood for shock value is the Kiss comic book that had the band members's blood mixed into the ink used to print the book. Not exactly the same thing; pretty much a marketing ploy consistent with the Kiss brand.

 

[cerbie]

Looks to me like he worked to make a name for himself. I think this quote from the article says quite a lot:

Quote:

“We’re still appealing to a small percentage of the world’s population,” said Oliver Barker, Sotheby’s head of contemporary art in London. “These people are sophisticated and they still have budgets for art.”

While it doesn't outright say it, it amounts to saying that only these people with large funds to put towards art have the capability to appreciate it, and that the selling price is related to the artistic value.

In the case of artists who's work has stood the test of time, this could be true. Some of Picasso's works can bring me to tears--I mean that quite literally. We still talk about him, because he not only took to odd techniques, but had a special touch with the color and geometry that can take a breath straight from your lungs. I'd never have millions to spend on any of them, but if you do, I can't blame you, since, indeed, many such works have no way of being valued, beyond what someone can pay when it goes up on the block.

I can't see anything here that even as interesting as the stuff on the walls (usually for sale, around $50-$200, since we're talking millions, here) of local coffee shops and book stores.

Going with that, are there not likely to be people who take to visual art in the same way people take to specific music (usually manufactured pop, but I've met a few folks who take to Bach as the same sort of distraction), because they feel a social need, or distraction, rather than a need from emotion/consciousness?

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cerbie /img/forum/go_quote.gif While it doesn't outright say it, it amounts to saying that only these people with large funds to put towards art have the capability to appreciate it, and that the selling price is related to the artistic value.

I have a peculiar perspective, since I am a person of modest means living in Manhattan. Many people with considerable wealth (which is a large and increasing proportion of the people who live here) seem to be suspicious of anything that is not grossly over-priced. Cost is the only thing by which they can judge value, because they believe that money is the only thing that conferrs value. What good can something possibly be if it isn't expensive? Buying something inexpensive deprives them of the opportunity to ostentatiously flash their wealth, which is the essential purpose of everything they do.

Of course a lot of people who buy crap like Hirst's work see it as an investment. If they are reasonably sure it will appreciate, they buy it. Any genuine interest in the work qua art is incidental.

 

[shigzeo]

but hasn't art in a way always been about that? i understand that many artists are broke or poor and hungry but if you can manage to manipulate people's heart or money strings as well as your work, then why not work that angle?

after all, we live in a world of global domination by very capitalist oriented nations. art has no other way but to follow the economy

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif but hasn't art in a way always been about that? i understand that many artists are broke or poor and hungry but if you can manage to manipulate people's heart or money strings as well as your work, then why not work that angle? after all, we live in a world of global domination by very capitalist oriented nations. art has no other way but to follow the economy

All true. But when the artist's work is of questionable artistic value, it becomes exclusively a money-making proposition. Work that sells at astronomical prices doesn't necessarily have a scrap of merit. Conversely, art ignored by the marketplace doesn't necessarily lack merit.

Vincent Van Gogh's life story is proof of that. As is Hirst's

 

[-=Germania=-]

Kinkade.

 

[shigzeo]

well, i think though i don't care for his art that he has made an art out of it. macabre though marketable and perhaps enough closeness to what other people do for a trade to really gnaw on some people's nerves.

i think that art probably has to be redefined as it has it seems lost ground for the normal everyday person. for that reason and probably that largely, art is made for the rich.

i know very few people in my class in my city for instance who hang art or post it or go to view it or collect or read about it at all. the aspiring upper middle class person however might have more interest in it or more money to really invest in education etc.

for many, the inspiration is largely to live first and enjoy second. at headfi obviously we do not meet the same criteria as we are buying stuff (whether it be watches, phones, beer, pens, amps etc) that most normal would either not think of collecting or would not be able to afford.

we are eclectic, slightly better off and more willing to be geeks. had i not bought and sold as much as i have, i probably would be more interested in art as my fiancee loves it: for viewing but not buying.

i know none of us could afford his works (im almost certain) but as art for a display that has company and market backing, it only needs to redefine what it is in the world of art to remain art. that is up to the artist, not to us.

one man's castle is another man's dunghill as the old old cliche saying goes.

 

[cerbie]

Madonna comes to mind, from that post. Say that there has been a dramatic change loudly enough, and many people will think there's been some.

 

[dazzer1975]

the bottom line is that art is like beauty, it is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazzer1975 /img/forum/go_quote.gif the bottom line is that art is like beauty, it is in the eyes of the beholder.

Beauty is not necessarily art. Art is not necessarily beautiful.

Are you saying that there are no objective standards by which art can be judged?

 

[ingwe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... Are you saying that there are no objective standards by which art can be judged?

I hope not.

 

[dazzer1975]

I never said art is always beautiful, or indeed that art is not always beautiful, what I said was that those viewing the art will take it to their hearts and minds (or not) and is a purely subjective experience for the consumer/viewer. How you could objectify that process of subjective evaluation is beyond me.

However, you could state certain boundaries, techniques etc which could be objectively judged in the remit of technical ability to conform to the stated guidelines, such as a particular style of art following certain criteria which dictate it to be a member of that particular style, but when pieces dont fall into particular genre or school then where does that objective standardisation come from? It comes from the art itself which is tearing down old boundaries and constructing new expectations and experiences.

All the objectification in the world doesn't stand for crap when someone turns up to the auction rooms with ten million in their back pocket and absolutely must have that piece because it communicates something to them.

And that's the point, it is in the eyes, hearts and minds of the beholder.

 

[davidhunternyc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only thing that Hirst's work seems to offer beyond a one-sentence concept is shock value. You can generate a similar degree of shock value by disrobing at rush hour on a commuter train.

Recently I was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art here in New York City. I was in the 20th century wing and in this one room there was Damien Hirst's, "Dead Shark", and a painting by Francis Bacon titled, "Head 1", done in 1949. The juxtaposition of the two works of art was appropriate considering that Hirst comes out of Bacon (which Hirst himself has acknowledged). The Hirst sculpture looked rather sedate and common, something you might see at a natural history museum. In comparison, the painting by Bacon, completed some 50 years before the Hirst work, looked shocking and immanent. Being a painter, I am biased towards this idea from Jasper Johns; "It is not what you say, but how you say it." Francis Bacon knew how to say what he pictured. I don't believe Hirst is in the same league.

 

[chadbang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif Being a painter, I am biased towards this idea from Jasper Johns; "It is not what you say, but how you say it." Francis Bacon knew how to say what he pictured. I don't believe Hirst is in the same league.

Dead on. No pun intended.