There’s many things that have (theoretically) the same function of art in our society, so why aren’t they called art? They should be.
So in honour of this broadening of the definition of art, get ready to play...
What’s that art?
(Not to be confused with “What’s that, art?” a phrase often heard when viewing vomit in a Melbourne alley. Nor “What’s that, Art?” a phrase often posed when trying to understand Art Gurfunkel.”)
This artwork was created by Felix Hoffman in 1897. The public immediately found that experiencing the artwork caused them such a deep sense of love and euphoria, that once a person had experienced it a few times it started to become the only thing in the world that they cared about.
Owing to the addictive quality of the artwork it was banned in 1914, however to this day many people still find ways to experience it.
When the composition of the artwork is altered even slightly, these alterations can cause a large number of serious problems for the audience, and many people today believe that these complications are inherent in the original artwork. However this is not the case. The original artwork remains banned solely on the basis of it causing such an incredible experience, that society could not function if it was given full access.
Even whilst banned there have been many works of visual, audio and cinematic art that pay tribute to Hoffman’s wonderful creation.
Surely this must be considered one of the most incredible works of art in history, so what is it?
Heroin.
That one might have been a bit easy, so hopefully this next one will bring out your snooty, inner art-historian.
This artwork was created in February of 2007, and sold for $1million USD, however the artist claimed to have not consented to the sale and after a lengthy lawsuit, the artist accepted a settlement of $5million USD.
Displaying the artwork is currently banned, yet it remains one of the most popular and widely loved works of art of the decade.
There was a second artist involved in the creation of the work, however they have since fallen into obscurity.
Unlike Hoffman (the one-hit wonder) this artist has gone on to become one of the most popular practitioners of the arts of the 21st century, earning over $6million USD in 2010.
The artist usually works in an audio-visual medium, but also creates many sculpture pieces in which they always utilise found objects, rather than their own constructions.
Some of the artist’s works are purely based on an aromatic sensory experience.
The artist’s body of work can be described as one of the most blatant satires of the greed and ultra-consumption of Western Society.
There have been a large number of references to the artist and their work, in recent times.
An impersonation of the artist was featured in an episode of Southpark, where they were accidentally killed by Butters, after he was erroneously given credit for writing the book “The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs”.
This last fact doesn’t have much reference to anything, but remains a very funny episode of Southpark.
So who is this artist and what is their first and most famous work?
Kim Kardashian and her sex-tape. I probably would've had more info about the actual sex-tape if I wasn't afraid of googling it whilst at work; the only place where I'm bored enough to think about this crap.
Thanks for playing.
If you guessed either of them then it’s probably because you’re a bad person.
>There’s many things that have (theoretically) the same function of art in our society, so why aren’t they called art? They should be.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because they have the same function as art? Can you give a concrete definition of that function?
If heroin had never been discovered it wouldn't still be art, right? Do you make a distinction between the concept of heroin (i.e. the information representing its molecular structure), the heroin that exists physically in our universe and "art works" created by humans that consist solely of heroin?
I think that many people, if asked if they thought the Kardashian sex tape qualifies as art, would say something along the lines of "yes, technically, but not important art". Would argue that it is important art?
Disclaimer: my questions are not statements in disguise. I'm trying to learn here. And of course feel free not to answer any or all of them.
Hey buddy, I generally refrain from getting too technical in this blog because I fear it would bore the pants off everyone, but I am interested in this kind of stuff so thanks for the questions.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I’d define art (which is usually referred to as art/culture in this context) as entertainment.
I’m not seriously suggesting that the definition of all forms of entertainment become ‘art’, I just want to get people to feel that they can assess art in the same way that they assess other forms of entertainment.
There seems to be a feeling (and your question would appear to attest to it) that art is somehow more than simply another form of entertainment, but I just haven’t found any evidence of this, and I think it’s important to try and challenge our perceptions.
> If heroin had never been discovered it wouldn't still be art, right? Do you make a distinction between the concept of heroin (i.e. the information representing its molecular structure), the heroin that exists physically in our universe and "art works" created by humans that consist solely of heroin?
Nothing naturally forms or exists as entertainment (or art). It becomes entertainment when someone experiences it in that way.
I would describe the chemical structure of heroin becoming art as soon as someone decided that they wanted to experience it, rather than needing it in terms of some function of existence, such as the continuation of the species; that kind of thing.
I think that the idea of heroin became art when its main function shifted from a medical base (like straight morphine) to an entertainment base.
>I think that many people, if asked if they thought the Kardashian sex tape qualifies as art, would say something along the lines of "yes, technically, but not important art". Would argue that it is important art?
I agree that people would say that, but I would argue that it represents an artform that is more important than ‘fine art’.
Firstly, my intention was not just to list a bunch of things and say “I bet you didn’t think that was art!” It’s more about creating a juxtaposition by discussing regular entertainment in the way that is generally reserved for the discussion of higher forms of art.
The idea is to take what is apparently the values of a piece of fine art, such as getting people interested in the artwork, having it affect them emotionally and even physically, and other such things. And to point out that these criteria are filled much more effectively by something like porn. But you don’t see Kim Kardashian’s sex tape in a gallery, so the actual values of ‘high art’ must be completely different.
This is pretty obvious, but it’s always fun to cut through the bullshit. This way if a gallery or art-buff tells you about their amazing visual experience of an artwork, you can tell them about some great porn you saw, and maybe discuss what the difference really is.
So, to answer your question, I don’t think that anyone could say that ‘fine art’ was more important than porn. The porn industry is massive and directly applies to a basic human instinct. Fine art is basically just about status, and only applies to a much smaller portion of society (most people don’t care about it).
It’s even interesting that before conventional porn was available, artwork was much more erotic. It’s only when porn was able to break free and become accessible to the masses that art had to look elsewhere for its appeal.
I also recall reading a hierarchy of human needs that had
1. Living functions
2. Reproductive functions
3. Social status
But I’m not sure exactly what its precise definitions were, but in any case, porn outranks fine art.
So yes, I think that Kim Kardashian’s sex tape is a fairly important piece of art simply because it’s so popular and so many people want to experience it.
Is it important to me personally? Not really; I saw a bit of it and it was creepy.
What say you?