6 Best Shenanigans Passed Off As Art
What is art? While its essence and boundaries are hard to encompass, Webster's defines it as "Stuff made with paint and clay and shit. Sometimes it's dancing around too or doing something kinda queer." This vagueness has allowed for all manners of oddities to be stamped as art and sold at exorbitant prices.
Beauty, after all, is in the eye of the gullible schmuck with too much cash. However, this flexibility has allowed far too many "artists" to abandon enriching the zeitgeist in favor of being a smartass at art's expense.
#6.
Marcel DuChamp's "Fountain"
What the Hell is That?
You are in the presence of greatness. In 2004, 500 British art world professionals, all clad in berets, selected Fountain as the most influential artwork of the 20th century. It was emblematic of the entire Dada movement and has since inspired independent thinkers everywhere to buy matching uniforms at Hot Topic and brag online about how O.G. their atheism is. The masterwork that sparked all of this is a urinal rotated 90 degrees from its functional position and signed with the pseudonym "R. Mutt."
Why We're Calling 'Shenanigans'
We get that the Dada folks loved the anti-rational, but everybody knows the fundamental underpinning of any work of art is a firm understanding of plumbing. Even with adequate water flow restored to this appliance, it would merely pool, leech up residual mystery crusts, and drain into the back. It would in no way function as a fountain.
Okay, so maybe that's the point, that they're calling it "Fountain" and it's not one. Of course that overlooks the fact that most everything in the known universe that doesn't have a urinal cake in it is also not a fountain. A brick or a wad of tissue would have actually been more poignant entitled "Fountain" respectively. Hell, you can stick that title on that video of a monkey peeing into its own mouth and you'd have ramped up the irony to award-winning levels.
Regardless, Duchamp, awash in the heady daze of knowing he could sell anything with his dazzling French accent, tipped over the nearest slab of porcelain and called it Le Art. More specifically, shenanigart.
#5.
Serrano Andres' "Piss Christ"
What the Hell is That?
Religion has always been a hotbed topic for art and the forms of expressions around it are accordingly inflammatory. For years, attempts at artistic blasphemy played out like a round of Name That Tune.
"I can denigrate that messiah in a triptych"
" ... I can denigrate that messiah in two erotically posed statues."
"I can ... denigrate that messiah ... in one photograph."
"Smear that deity."
Many have opted for subtle jabs, others for outright defamation, but Serrano Andres' stab at it stands out as being the most fratboyish. What you're witnessing is a small plastic crucifix submerged in the artist's urine, as captured by photograph.
Why We're Calling 'Shenanigans'
Probably more striking than anything is the undeniable shoddiness of the photograph. It looks more like Christ captured in amber, a notion that has Michael Crichton creaming his jeans over the potential for a Jurassic Jesus trilogy. We don't know what creative lighting was employed to give the effect Serrano created, but we can say that the coloration indicates that he should probably be seeing his urologist about his failing kidneys pronto. The Lord acts in mysterious ways.
Submerging a crucifix in urine sounds more like a preamble to a stunt on Jackass than it does art. You can practically hear Serrano goading Johnny Knoxville in the background to "Drink the Jesus Piss, dude! C'mon! Drink it, pussy!"
Still, peeing on the son of God is pretty ballsy--perhaps Serrano had rich artistic intentions? Or not. Consider that Serrano received $15,000 from of the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts for the work as well. This saucy bastard made a quick fortune sponsored by an overwhelmingly Christian tax base to dunk a crucifix in his piss, a process that probably cost him $5 to develop at a Fotomat kiosk. It was such a tremendous payday that he even went on to produce Madonna and Child II, in which the subject is likewise submerged in urine. Mysteriously, the motif had managed to play itself out already.
#4.
Damien Hirst's "For the Love of God"
What the Hell is That?
For the Love of God is a sculpture by British artist Damien Hirst. It is referred to as a sculpture, but is more accurately a blinged-out form of decoupage. It is a cast of an actual human skull, which he purchased at Gothmart* in Islington. The cast is composed entirely of platinum apart from the unadorned teeth, a motif that prominent art critic Lil' Jon described as "Tragically uncrunk."
It was further encrusted with 8,601 flawless diamonds, including a pear-shaped pink diamond located in the forehead, obviously because a solid platinum human skull just wasn't flashy enough. Damien ensured that they were ethically sourced diamonds because he wanted to have a clear conscience when he sold the whole affair for £50 million (nearly $100 million).
To date, this is the highest price ever paid for a single work by a living artist.
Why We're Calling 'Shenanigans'
The name of this piece seems a non-sequitur, not that bedazzled platinum skull needs a rational name. It was supposedly inspired by his mother who once asked, "For the love of God, what are you going to do next?" That should give you some frame of reference for his artistic M.O. Not convinced? We're talking about a guy who got away with basically hanging a piece of spin-art in a gallery show:
He titled it "Beautiful Who'd Have Thought My Guts Would Spill So Gracefully", though "Mommy, Look What My Teacher Helped Me Shit Out In Art Class Today!" would have worked just as well.
Actually, Marcel Duchamp's Fountain isn't actually that bad- his work actually includes some social commentary, unlike the other ones in this list. Like the R. Mutt that he signed on the side- it wasn't just some random name; he chose it for specific reasons. For one, it closely resembles the name of a leading plumbing company at the time: R. Mott. Also, armut in German means poverty, while R in French stands for Richard, or rich. Basically, he's saying that the social conditions at the time (post WWI era) pissed him off.
ReplyWorks of "art" like this really piss off hard-working artists like myself. I know this stuff is considered "fine art" and anything goes in that category, but I just don't get it. To me, art is meant to tell a story or send a message, not just confuse or alienate your audience.
ReplyYou have absolutely nothing to say regarding why the artworks are shenanigans. You're arguments just amount to calling the works weird, which isn't enough. Why not talk about the lack of effort or inspiration that went into most of these works, and how little there is to take away from them? Then you'd have an article.
ReplyUm, actually, that's pretty much what the author did. But you knew that because you read the article...right?
I have mixed feelings for piss Christ... on one hand, is very disrespectful, I'm agnostic and I think it was a rather nasty move.
ReplyAnd on the other hand... it actually looks kind of nice. If you choose to ignore what he's actually swiming in, the photo looks pretty amazing.
I know how that feels .Hell even when I was still catholic,the idea defacing a statue of Buda or any other deity would make really uncomfortable.
A romance free place for meeting over 40 mature singles.
ReplyView more sexy and thoughtful mature people photo galleries
and videos there. I have met many rich and thoughtful single
friends there. ----- seniorloving.c~o&m ------- I also uploaded my hot photos on there. U can add me there(Rose10423 is my username).asdw5r
That's not a monkey, it's a chimpanzee.
ReplyYeah, but sexy is sexy no matter what you call it. AmIright?
I can almost hate modern 'artists' like these, but I have to admit the sheer ballsiness it takes to pass these...things...off to the public. Make something completely random and possibly tasteless, publish it, and watch experts spout off some profound nonsense trying to sound like they 'get' it.
ReplyAnd then laugh all the way to the bank.
Mass Effect 3's ending.
Replythis list should be on the list called "6 best shenanigans passed off as lists"
ReplyHow the hell can it be legal to simply duplicate another artist's work and call it your own? And why the hell would anybody else consider that an artistic endeavor in and of itself? It boggles my mind.
ReplyIt's probably quite illegal, and only accomplished due to a massive number of artists which allows for people to not be familiar with the particular piece and not question its' originality.
Are you kidding me? There was a guy named Jeff Koons, who used to sign his name to photograph prints of sports figures, and then call it his own art. This is the same guy who once displayed two basketballs floating in an aquarium half-filled with tap water. I think the second one had at least a little symbolism.
There's a debate in the art world, which has been pretty long-standing, about the point at which a collection of materials becomes not a collection of things made by other people, but your own original creation. I mean, if you made a collage that included pieces of famous photos, most people would see it as a legitimate use of materials. Some people's answer is that you don't have to tinker much-- even something like a 1% change makes a collection of junk art.
Annnnnnd....back to these guys. Supposed their art, the photos of photos, and the signed posters, is commentary on the absurdity of that argument.
I actually read a review somewhere that said that if Koons is seriously making a statement with his work (and he claims he is), about art as commodity, rather than just seeing what he can get people in a race to be edgier-than-thou to buy, then it's art, because it's the message that makes it art; he doesn't have to change the form at all to transform something into art, if he can imbue it with a message.
Koons own stated goal is to transform things by changing the context. Haha. Basketballs aren't supposed to be in aquariums, so you really look at them. Right. I'd call shenanigans on that, except he made a lot of money off it, and he did get it into a gallery, which is a heck of a change of context for something that stupid. He's certainly displaying some kind of talent. And he certainly has moved the goalposts in the debate over what is art, and what is just a collection of materials.
I hate him.
You would see a nephrologist for kidney failure not a urologist.
ReplyYeah, but sexy is sexy no matter what you call it. AmIright?
And i think dark urine just means you aren't drinking enough, but your kidneys are doing a really good job of filtering out whatever is in them. If your urine is clear, you need to worry.
I always figured there was a little food coloring in the urine (assuming that's what it really is), or that he took one of a number of medications that can turn your pee dark.
6 Best Shenanigans Passed Off as WHAT?! The last word is cut off...I NEED TO KNOW CRACKED! The cliffhanger is killing me
Replyart...
Shit, you're still talking about it, clearly it had some sort of effect. I like Piss Christ because it looks rally beautiful and strange, which contrasts with the reality of the medium it uses. The point of Fountain was to take an everyday object and make people think about and look at it in a different context, and you dedicated a paragraph to talking about whether a urinal would make an effective fountain. He wins.
ReplyLook up William Pope.L - he's a performance artist that was recently appointed faculty at my univerisity. He once, I kid you not, ate a copy of The Wall Street Journal, and then threw it up. He's done a ton of other things and has received grants for his work. My personal favorite is the series of "crawls" that he did, one of which involved him crawling through the gutter in New York, pushing a potted flower in one hand.
ReplyAw, Spermcube is down.
Reply#2 and 3 are just beyond wrong and gross. Seriously? Who would want that?
ReplyYour words killed Michael Crichton.
ReplyDoes anyone want revenge for "Piss Christ?" I presume most fans of that particular piece enjoy the offense it creates in others more than any meaning they find in it.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesMany hipsters lack in basic knowledge about the true nature of the world. In the absence of a urinary tract infection urine is actually very sterile and virtually odorless. In fact urine was historically used to clean wounds among other things.
One could argue that the work represents Christs surrounded by purity, yet dammed by humanity for being perceived as corrupting traditional morality. I seriously doubt the artist intended that message... and that's the beauty of my idea. By forcing a different interpretation of his work than he intended... you mock his ability to express himself.
Plus most people who "like" that work would NOT enjoy an intellectual attempt to change the established meaning of their worldview. You would be stealing their culture, as they stole it from humanity.
Revanche: to take back that which has been lost.
Oh, get right out. You "presume" fans of Piss Christ enjoy offending others more than anything else? You "seriously doubt" the artist intended anything pro-Jesus, and there is totally no technology in the world allowing you to do a little quick research to find out what the intention is before you post your bullshit? LunadeLoona assumes it, so it must be true!
Here, have some art history: Hipsters of today are still going to be highly preoccupied with commercialization, but Piss Christ was made in the 80s, when the preoccupation was perhaps at an all time high--and fresher, so the artworld types who loved it then argued it was speaking to exploitation and cheapening of spiritual values and images in the modern consumer-y world. (And actually that interpretation was still part of how I was taught the work in a class much later than the 80s.) Anyone who doesn't like Piss Christ can argue that that is just about as obvious a statement as "I piss on your religion," but it still means that...ZOMG!...art world fans would actually seem to share your pro-Christ opinion. So good luck in your quest to take back what was lost from those guys. Hope you don't startle them too bad.
About the artist's intention: Serrano has agreed with art critics who saw an anti-commercial statement there, writing that it can certainly be a comment on the "billion dollar Christ-for-profit industry" and people who exploit religion for their own gain. However, he always stresses that it has multiple levels, and when he was getting off the ground in the 80s, he used to talk a lot about ambiguity. More than politics, that's really his top concern, ambiguity. This makes a good deal of sense if you'll actually just look at the photo. It's a golden Jesus. Do golden things typically mean holy, heavenly, or good to us? What the Cracked writer (who did a s**t job on this one) assumed to be a flaw in the photography was actually intentional: you aren't supposed to be able to tell it's in a vat of pee just by looking at it. Thinking it's amber is a really common reaction. This is so the artist can exploit the difference in response between someone seeing a picture of a golden glowy Jesus and most likely going, "oh, how lovely, what a totally appropriate religious sentiment" and that of someone who's been told that it's Christ in pee. (Which, yeah, is very often "he's denigrating that messiah.") Both reactions are pretty knee-jerk, so the piece tells us a lot about our assumptions and boundaries, not only about religion but also about the body. (And our assumptions about hipsters and contemporary artists, I guess, at least in your case.)
I've heard lots of interpretations of Piss Christ. A popular highly Christian one that you overlooked is to see it as the triumph of the spirit over the nasty yucky flesh, but my point is really that although you are way off on what the work means, by questioning the dirtiness of urine you did add more ambiguity to it. Thus totally not defeating Serrano's intention (which you admit you're ignorant of anyway) but actually falling in line with it. So good job there, you intrepid warrior, you!
You really shouldn't have let a Cracked article and your own biases convince you you knew what was going on with the piece. You may wanna reexamine your worldview, cause I actually HAVE enjoyed your "intellectual" (if "intellectual" here means fact free, my assumptions are correct because, f**k you, looking stuff up) attempt to challenge mine.
tl;dr This commenter knows jack about art history and criticism and is upfront proud of ignorance and doing mental gymnastics to make art conform to their ideology (even though it may not have been threatened in the first place, which they never bothered to find out) instead of research and critical analysis. LunadeLoona will make a great little propagandist one day. Why all the upvotes?
The upvotes are probably due to the fact that the common internet-user despises art even more than he hates religion.
I think Piss Christ is a very deep piece of art, and the article does little justice to it.
It is of course questionable whether Serrano didn't at least partly do it to get the shock effect - his later (in my opinion inferior) work concentrates much on playing out the disgust-the-public-for-artistic-prestige card. But that may have been a later developement under the impression of Piss Christ's success.
As I see it, it's only Christian charity to give Serrano the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to invest this work with the layers of meaning many have perceived in it (many Christians, too). And yes, it's beautiful.
I'd like to see some smartass dunk a plastic model of Muhammed in a bucket of piss and display it publicly. He'd be dead in a week.
As an artist, this makes me sick. And laugh. And vomit from laughing while sick.
ReplyI hate Richard Prince. Really, he makes me angry.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Replies...
You know, I think "appropiation" in art could be a good thing (perhaps... although most of the time it only comes off prepotent and douchey). I mean, maaaaybe it could be good, but ONLY if there's recognition to the original artist... Copyrights and all. Specially if the piece that's being appropiated was intended to be some form of art to begin wih (like with the marlboro ad and others), in that case they should at least split the royalties or something, I don't know.
I also am an artist because i once saw a painting, then described that painting to a friend. my description was a work of art.
I don't see how "appropriation art" is any different than making a print of the original. You're still just making a copy, nothing more.
The difference is that nobody pays $300,000 for a print.