Interesting article for the Artsy-Fartsies

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Well allow me to Rebut....

1) Aliza Shvart's "art" was one of three examples given by the author though it was certainly the main one since at the time of the article's writing it was certainly headline news. As clearly written, "Or so she claimed; whether she actually did any of this remains unclear." the author doubted the authenticity. But whether her art authentic or not wasn't the point of the article.

Which goes to answer #2:
- Why would anyone who actually read this article and comprehended it talk about talk about "inflammatory posts" and "hoaxes". It is about the author's opinion about how art should be taught.

So....

#3 why focus on this hoax when the article is about a more traditional teaching method? Because the people either did NOT read the article or simple did not understand what the author was saying.

For the record, what the author "doubted" was not the authenticity of the piece of art, but whether it was perhaps staged. Since the art work never even existed, except as an op-ed piece that this guy seized upon as a sign of the sad state of affairs in arts pedagogy, that pretty much discredits his point. The other two examples are ones that have been discussed far more ably by brighter minds than his.

But I'll play: what point about pedagogy in the arts are you trying to make? What about this article is so interesting to you that even though its subject and author are discredited, you still think it's worth discussing? I'd be glad to have a conversation about arts pedagogy with you--for the record, I think the author's point that we should go back to the "good old days" where art students toiled for hours a day over a drafting table is a bit silly--particularly since what he seems to "mean" by this comment is that he favours a practice-centered approach rather than a theory-centered one. In truth, theory and practice always go hand in hand in the art world--art works are interesting because they attempt to make entry into the dialogue in novel ways, or because they engage with the historical present in some critical fashion that merits discussion.

In that context, a return to a technique-based pedagogy amounts to teaching art student an emptied practice worthy of no consideration at all. We'll end up with a generation of artists painting monochromatic nature scenes and still life portraits of fruit baskets. They'll be compositionally elegant but utterly dreadful in every other respect. Nobody wants that.

In short, the article isn't really that interesting--though I do agree with his claim that art that merely exploits or punishes the human body for a shock effect is pretty boring nowadays. But the quote you put up indicated you were most interested in talking about self-inflicted abortions as art--in reference to an art work that because it never existed, illustrates nothing at all.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'd be glad to have a conversation about arts pedagogy with you--

Oh boy! Can we? Considering that you have posted to me in such condescending and insulting manner about something I didn't say I agreed with or disagreed with, but thought was interesting. I am sure it would be grand!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Oh boy! Can we? Considering that you have posted to me in such condescending and insulting manner about something I didn't say I agreed with or disagreed with, but thought was interesting. I am sure it would be grand!

Well now I know that was never your agenda--because you apparently didn't bother with the rest of my post, which was an attempt to give you my opinion of this guy's idea of art pedagogy. I apologize if I hurt your feelings--but I think I can be forgiven for assuming that what you really wanted to talk about was art students performing abortions on themselves--since that was the quote you lifted out of the article and put into your original post.

In the end, I'm not really interested in fighting with you. Either you're interested in the topic, in which case you don't care whether people misinterpreted your OP, or you're interested in an argument, in which case you can look to somebody else. If your next post is about the topic of the teaching of the arts in university, I'll be glad to continue. If it's more of the above, then sayonara I guess.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

But I'll play: what point about pedagogy in the arts are you trying to make? What about this article is so interesting to you that even though its subject and author are discredited, you still think it's worth discussing? I'd be glad to have a conversation about arts pedagogy with you--for the record, I think the author's point that we should go back to the "good old days" where art students toiled for hours a day over a drafting table is a bit silly--particularly since what he seems to "mean" by this comment is that he favours a practice-centered approach rather than a theory-centered one. In truth, theory and practice always go hand in hand in the art world--art works are interesting because they attempt to make entry into the dialogue in novel ways, or because they engage with the historical present in some critical fashion that merits discussion.

In that context, a return to a technique-based pedagogy amounts to teaching art student an emptied practice worthy of no consideration at all. We'll end up with a generation of artists painting monochromatic nature scenes and still life portraits of fruit baskets. They'll be compositionally elegant but utterly dreadful in every other respect. Nobody wants that.

For the record, I don't believe that the original post was anything other than a baiting, but I still think it's an interesting area of discussion. I think there's a whole genre of shock art that gets far more attention in the media than it deserves. Here's the funny thing about shock art though: the art is not the aborted pregnancies, or the canned fecal material, or the archival record of ejaculatory material, or the allegedly starving dog. The art is the carefully crafted media reaction, and for that reason, the fact that the whole thing was a hoax has little relevance, since the initial reaction is the same; it's merely poorly executed. Now, it's entirely possible that she's completely unsophisticated as an artist and honestly was doing this hoax artwork to try to ask questions about the body, etc. In which case she's a moron who doesn't get the artwork of the people she probably idolizes. I suspect that on some level, she does get it, as if her piece wasn't about the media reaction, she probably wouldn't have issued a press release about it.

Here's how I'd evaluate her work, based on what little I know about it, and my own personal criteria for artwork:
Is it original? She gets low marks here. Combining ideas by a few different artists and adding her own angle to it. Basically a feminist reinterpretation of the british artist who documented his masturbatory ejaculations.
Does it create a reaction? Yes, to an extent. But the fact that it was so quickly revealed as a hoax makes it relatively weak in it's impact.
Is there rigor involved in the work? Hard to say, but there's none evident. A brainstorming session, a half-hour to write a press release, and then finding some blood to paint with.
Does it create a meaningful dialogue? Well, we're having this conversation, so it's creating some sort of dialogue. But likely the sort of dialogue she was trying to create was reflected better in the first few posts on this thread.
Is it cohesive as a piece of artwork? No, it's an absolute boondoggle. Unless her whole point was coming up with an art piece about abortion that was poorly conceived, carried along briefly, and then messily and poorly aborted itself. If that was her intent, then it was brilliantly done, and if I was her, I'd be desperately trying to make the case to my advisers that this was what I was going for all along.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

^^

I think that's a very astute analysis, in fact. Very nice post.

I'd add that her "hoax" reflects the same misunderstanding about contemporary art that was the basis of the original post too--that "artsy-fartsy" people are bound to line up in defense of this "shock art" by the droves, when in truth most of us find those sorts of shenanigans pretty boring in this post-Duchamp age. In other words, I suspect that part of her agenda was to "poke fun" at contemporary avant-garde art, but in doing so only revealed her own ignorance about it. In the end, since she's an undergrad, and thus still pretty young, I'm inclined to cut her some slack on this--bu the author of the linked article ought to know better, it seems to me.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by octothorp

For the record, I don't believe that the original post was anything other than a baiting,

In what way?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well now I know that was never your agenda--because you apparently didn't bother with the rest of my post, which was an attempt to give you my opinion of this guy's idea of art pedagogy. I apologize if I hurt your feelings--but I think I can be forgiven for assuming that what you really wanted to talk about was art students performing abortions on themselves--since that was the quote you lifted out of the article and put into your original post.

In the end, I'm not really interested in fighting with you. Either you're interested in the topic, in which case you don't care whether people misinterpreted your OP, or you're interested in an argument, in which case you can look to somebody else. If your next post is about the topic of the teaching of the arts in university, I'll be glad to continue. If it's more of the above, then sayonara I guess.

You never EVER attempted to have a conversation...period. Never asked me to clarified what I meant or what I was getting at. Instead, 3 times, you posted in a very condesending and insulting fashion to me. Then you turn around and do it again while saying you want to have a conversation/"not interested in fighting" and talking about he way art is taught? You really have some gall! So excuse me....no.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by HOZ

In what way?

You titled your thread "Interesting article for the Artsy-Fartsies" when what you really meant was "Interesting article for people who want to make fun of* the Artsy-Fartsies". It was troll bait, pure and simple, typical of many of the threads you start.

*or be apalled by

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

^^

I think that's a very astute analysis, in fact. Very nice post.

I'd add that her "hoax" reflects the same misunderstanding about contemporary art that was the basis of the original post too--that "artsy-fartsy" people are bound to line up in defense of this "shock art" by the droves, when in truth most of us find those sorts of shenanigans pretty boring in this post-Duchamp age. In other words, I suspect that part of her agenda was to "poke fun" at contemporary avant-garde art, but in doing so only revealed her own ignorance about it. In the end, since she's an undergrad, and thus still pretty young, I'm inclined to cut her some slack on this--bu the author of the linked article ought to know better, it seems to me.

yeah, I guess you're right that she deserves a bit of slack. I think most of us, regardless of discipline or degree of artsy-fartsiness, have undergrad output that was just a bad idea and which we hope is completely forgotten by the rest of the world. Making those sorts of mistakes is part of the learning process, it's just that hers are displayed (by necessity, given their shock-art leanings) for everyone to scrutinize and criticize, which they will throughout her entire career. Going back to the issue of pedagogy, the question isn't what instruction has led her to this point. It's whether her instructors and advisors will sit down with her and say, regardless of all the criticism in the media and such, here's why this project was unsuccessful as a piece of art. Just as if she had done a pretentious and poorly made painting. Hopefully every other art instructor across north america is looking at this incident and giving their students similar lectures.

[Traditional_Ale]

Personally, I think having in depth discussion about "art" on a hockey board is kind of like going to a symphony shirtless covered in red body paint.

Hell, I bashed on the artistic integrity of freakin' Guitar Hero and got shot down, so how this thread has turned out isn't all that suprising.

On that note,

Worst thread so far today.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You titled your thread "Interesting article for the Artsy-Fartsies" when what you really meant was "Interesting article for people who want to make fun of* the Artsy-Fartsies". It was troll bait, pure and simple, typical of many of the threads you start.

*or be apalled by

I agree. All I did was ask what point he was trying to get at and I was told my reading comprehension sucks. And then he makes a big fight about it, after he started the whole thing.

He should be dinged some rep for this one.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Personally, I think having in depth discussion about "art" on a hockey board is kind of like going to a symphony shirtless covered in red body paint.

Hell, I bashed on the artistic integrity of freakin' Guitar Hero and got shot down, so how this thread has turned out isn't all that suprising.

On that note,

Worst thread so far today.

Thread's older than today, and there can be some good discussions sometimes. Just not when they're started for the purpose this one was.

Artistic intergrity of guitar hero? Uhmmmm... wha? You'll have to explain that to me. Sure a lot of the songs on there are pieces of art, but I'm not sure the game or the act of playing it is. Playing a real guitar is much different than playing guitar hero.

Unless your on a different wavelength I'm not thinking about yet, which is very possible.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I agree. All I did was ask what point he was trying to get at and I was told my reading comprehension sucks. And then he makes a big fight about it, after he started the whole thing.

He should be dinged some rep for this one.

That is bizarre, isn't it. And that the author of this post below is now acting hurt because people are being condescending to him:

Good to see that everyone did not take the time to read the article. Either that or comprehension skills are at a all time low and therefore an explanation of the article will be utterly futile.

There's a saying about pots and kettles that comes to mind, but I can't quite recall it. I guess my reading comprehension isn't good enough.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Personally, I think having in depth discussion about "art" on a hockey board is kind of like going to a symphony shirtless covered in red body paint.

Hell, I bashed on the artistic integrity of freakin' Guitar Hero and got shot down, so how this thread has turned out isn't all that suprising.

On that note,

Worst thread so far today.

I agree... horrible thread.

It's amazing to me when people complain about noobs starting threads without understanding forum etiquette when HOZ can post antagonistic threads like this.

He's been asked by posters repeatedly to clarify both his intentions in posting the article and to detail precisely what he found interesting/provocative about the article. Rather than do that, he insults the other posters reading skills. Then he attacks the only poster providing detailed responses to him, insulting that poster and mischaracterizing the tone and content of his posts.

I will say that I'm disappointed in myself for rising to HOZ's bait and in enabling his bizarre rhetorical strategy of never asserting his position but merely ridiculing the positions of others. It's an absurd stance to take on a community messageboard dedicated to discussion, but it's completely internally logical, I suppose, if one has a persecution complex and is desparate to feel misunderstood.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I agree. All I did was ask what point he was trying to get at and I was told my reading comprehension sucks. And then he makes a big fight about it, after he started the whole thing.

He should be dinged some rep for this one.

Excuse me? I suggest you read again and retract this^^^^

Here is the one post I replied to you with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
No your thread title and bait attempt was inflamatory.

In what way? I just posted an article that I thought was interesting. Read it or don't. Agree or disagree with the authour. It is up to you.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You titled your thread "Interesting article for the Artsy-Fartsies" when what you really meant was "Interesting article for people who want to make fun of* the Artsy-Fartsies". It was troll bait, pure and simple, typical of many of the threads you start.

*or be apalled by

So you are a mind reader?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by HOZ

So you are a mind reader?

You don't need to be a mind reader to know that this thread was an obvious troll attempt. You deliberately chose the title to be inflammatory, and your OP was almost entirely devoid of content save for a link and a selected quotation, with absolutely no original insight or commentary of your own.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Excuse me? I suggest you read again and retract this^^^^

Here is the one post I replied to you with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
No your thread title and bait attempt was inflamatory.

In what way? I just posted an article that I thought was interesting. Read it or don't. Agree or disagree with the authour. It is up to you.

Dude, my first post. Before you got all angry and weird. Stop playing games. That's already deeper in the thread.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Daradon

What the heck is the point or discussion you are trying to provoke with this thread? Your title would hint at the fact you are trying to make a point about something, not just throw it out there for consumption. So what is it? Let's hear it.

THAT was my first post. As I maintain. I simply asked for you to mention/get to/spit out your point and stop with the bait and troll.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Dude, my first post. Stop playing games. That's already deeper in the thread.

I am not playing games. That was the first post I directly replied to YOU.

The one prior it was quite obvious you read the quote, though likely not all of the quote, and did not read the article at all.

If you did read the article then you obvious never comprehended it as you remarked on the hoax. Well that hoax wasn't what the article was about.

Her is the post to IFF which summarizes what I think about the posts prior to my second post on this thread.

1) Aliza Shvart's "art" was one of three examples given by the author though it was certainly the main one since at the time of the article's writing it was certainly headline news. As clearly written, "Or so she claimed; whether she actually did any of this remains unclear." the author doubted the authenticity. But whether her art authentic or not wasn't the point of the article.

Which goes to answer #2:
- Why would anyone who actually read this article and comprehended it talk about "inflammatory posts" and "hoaxes". It is about the author's opinion about how art should be taught.

So....

#3 why focus on this hoax when the article is about a more traditional teaching method? Because the people either did NOT read the article or simple did not understand what the author was saying.


That said. I am not the one picking the fight. I wasn't the one firing of insults. I didn't call anyone a tool or a leftwingnut or any such thing. The only one that actually asked me what I was getting at was....you.

I have been DEFENDING MYSELF from condesending insults and fly-by flames. My second post was right on the money. No one who had commented on this thread had read the article until after I posted that. They all either stoped at the name (mine), the first sentence, or the first paragraph but they sure didn't go and read the article. That includes you.

Honestly....

It was an article I though was interesting. Thought I would share it with the board. Read it or move on to another thread. Agree with it or not.