We should all be in Chapter 2 by now. SHOCK AND HORROR. Can't wait to see what the bookstore is like. SKETCHBOOKS SKETCHBOOKS SKETCHBOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I must say that Gilbert and George are, by far, my new two favorite people. For hundreds of years (if not longer) artists alike have been leary of touching the ideals and ideaology of the Bible; quite unfortunate. They (Gilbert and George) take the Bible for what it is, a book. It is a compilation of stories written by many that has made its way from a mere book to a way of living out your life.
"Everybody for two thousand years, they tell us: You should do this! You should do that! And when you start reading it, it's nonsense!"
I think their nakedness a little extreme, but I value their take on the book itself. They are doing exactly what artists before them have done, shocking their viewers because they want them to remember their pictures.
Collings: "I like being served champagne by the anti-Christs at their antique table in their oak-lined sitting rrom, feeling a bit like a living sculpture myself."
It is a thrill for the viewer for some reason, to see the disturbing; the atrocities of the world and how dark the human mind can go. That’s good, if there is a message or meaning to it. Agreed, not all art has a point but disturbing art purely for the sake of being disturbing and seeing how over the top it can be just seems watery and flat. Goya already traveled that path for us; he was the innovator, the master. The Chapman brothers’ sculptures are disturbing. The viewer wants to avert their eyes but they have to see it, like cars slowly rolling by a traffic accident not out of concern for the victims but because they want to see some gore. It seems to make the viewer feel more grounded in their own lives. The pain and suffering of others makes them feel safe in an abstract way. Artists like the Chapmans and Damien Hirst serve a role in the art world but not many would have vaginal penis-children sculptures or sliced up cows soaking in formaldehyde in their homes.
I have to disagree--I actually didn't like Gilbert and George at all. I didn't find their work particularly shocking, and the elements of their work I WAS shocked by, I felt was forced.
Take "Human Shits," for example (and I apologize for cursing on the blog but I figure if it's a title of the work, that's a good excuse). I feel like G&G sat down and said, "Let's make a list of really shocking things. Ok? Let's see what we've got:" -nipples -full frontal nudity -literal "human shits"
And lo and behold, "Human Shits" was created.
However, I really like Goya's work, particularly "The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters." Is that weird? Goya's work is far more violent (and sometimes sexual) than a lot of the other works addressed in this chapter, yet he doesn't come across like he is TRYING to be the big bad scary violent artist guy. He just IS, and that's why it works.
decided that this book has a lot of interesting insights into modern art, but I don't particularly like the writing style. It just seems a little disjointed to me and I guess that's why I find it hard to read. but anyways...
I think that people are shocked by "shocking art" because they don't really understand what modern art is. There is still a large number of people that think art has to be visually beautiful and a form of decoration. I don't think that people are particularly shocked when they hear of all the horrible things that go on in the world, but when artists use grotesque, ugly, horrific imagery in their artwork people are shocked. the book also talks about how people aren't actually shocked but just pretend to be. I think this is probably true to some extent.
I also like Goya's work most out of the work mentioned in this chapter. It seems to reflect an inner torment that Goya faced because of the horrors that he experienced in his life, and that makes it more disturbing and real.
"He witnessed a lot of atrocity and horror. When he portrays darkness we can almost believe it's because he wants to cast a light there and get rid of it."
I completely agree with Emily's first statement...
And i also don't particularly find Gilbert and George that interesting either. I still remember the first time I saw a video of their Underneath the Arches in high school.. and I hated it.. I thought it was god awful and annoying... and that seems to be what they are aiming at well... they definately have that accomplished... they are just annoying. Not shocking. Horrifying yes perhaps when naked..but thats just b/c one of them reminds me of Dick Solomon from 3rd rock.. and I really don't want to see either of them naked...
However, I really find Tracy Emin to be quite fascinating. What I found shocking was that fact that her famous tent ingeniously forced men who wanted to go inside and see what names were i there to crawl! HA.. did not even think of that when I first saw and heard of the piece. Thats hilarious.
I also find Vito Acconci quite shocking. Not just b/c he is masterbating in front of people (seedbed), but b/c the room is empty and ppl are not knowing what to expect and then they hear noises and moans.. and him saying phrases like "I'm touching your leg". His work to me seems more shocking b/c sexual nature and habits are usually esp in the united states still some what private or supposed to be... but he serves it on a platter. I guess what I'm trying to say is yes, him making me uncomfortable with the idea that he is masterbating very close to me but out of sight yet I can still hear it.. is almost like if you were a child and accidently walked into your parents room at the wrong time.. that is shocking and uncomfortable....
BUT Jake an Dinos Chapman are not that shocking.. I just find it wierd and i don't think violence in the context of art seems that shocking. Violence is everywhere.. we have seen it throughout history.. for forever.. some disembodied person is not going to shock me... (unless that disembodied person was real and like in my shower) i just would rather not look at it... or at least for very long..
Goya work is violent and gory... but he presents it in a diff manner like ppl were saying in earlier posts... you can see his feelings his pain.. they come from the paint and out from the canvas.. they are beautiful b/c perhaps they seem more real since goya actually witnessed and went through these trials in his life
i want to agree and disagree with Devon. i think sometimes art is supposed to shock you! thats why its called avant guard. its purpose is to show you what is wrong with the world and maybe by smearing poo all over a canvas and calling it art the artist was trying to say that art had become poo and that anything could be called art! but i also agree that goya is more effective when we look at it now. but in the 1800s he was just as socking and in your face about his opinions.
I feel like goya was successfully shocking in the 1700-1800s because we are able to understand the brutal impact that war had on the spanish culture during that time plus he presented a new kind of shock factor which they hadn't experienced before. I feel like Chapman's work is just as shocking to us because it addresses issues that have become prevalent in our culture such as child abuse, homosexuality, nudity and sadly the disintegration of the bible in American Society.
I must say that Gilbert and George are, by far, my new two favorite people.
ReplyDeleteFor hundreds of years (if not longer) artists alike have been leary of touching the ideals and ideaology of the Bible; quite unfortunate. They (Gilbert and George) take the Bible for what it is, a book. It is a compilation of stories written by many that has made its way from a mere book to a way of living out your life.
"Everybody for two thousand years, they tell us: You should do this! You should do that! And when you start reading it, it's nonsense!"
I think their nakedness a little extreme, but I value their take on the book itself. They are doing exactly what artists before them have done, shocking their viewers because they want them to remember their pictures.
Collings:
"I like being served champagne by the anti-Christs at their antique table in their oak-lined sitting rrom, feeling a bit like a living sculpture myself."
It is a thrill for the viewer for some reason, to see the disturbing; the atrocities of the world and how dark the human mind can go. That’s good, if there is a message or meaning to it. Agreed, not all art has a point but disturbing art purely for the sake of being disturbing and seeing how over the top it can be just seems watery and flat. Goya already traveled that path for us; he was the innovator, the master. The Chapman brothers’ sculptures are disturbing. The viewer wants to avert their eyes but they have to see it, like cars slowly rolling by a traffic accident not out of concern for the victims but because they want to see some gore. It seems to make the viewer feel more grounded in their own lives. The pain and suffering of others makes them feel safe in an abstract way. Artists like the Chapmans and Damien Hirst serve a role in the art world but not many would have vaginal penis-children sculptures or sliced up cows soaking in formaldehyde in their homes.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree--I actually didn't like Gilbert and George at all. I didn't find their work particularly shocking, and the elements of their work I WAS shocked by, I felt was forced.
ReplyDeleteTake "Human Shits," for example (and I apologize for cursing on the blog but I figure if it's a title of the work, that's a good excuse). I feel like G&G sat down and said, "Let's make a list of really shocking things. Ok? Let's see what we've got:"
-nipples
-full frontal nudity
-literal "human shits"
And lo and behold, "Human Shits" was created.
However, I really like Goya's work, particularly "The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters." Is that weird? Goya's work is far more violent (and sometimes sexual) than a lot of the other works addressed in this chapter, yet he doesn't come across like he is TRYING to be the big bad scary violent artist guy. He just IS, and that's why it works.
decided that this book has a lot of interesting insights into modern art, but I don't particularly like the writing style. It just seems a little disjointed to me and I guess that's why I find it hard to read. but anyways...
ReplyDeleteI think that people are shocked by "shocking art" because they don't really understand what modern art is. There is still a large number of people that think art has to be visually beautiful and a form of decoration. I don't think that people are particularly shocked when they hear of all the horrible things that go on in the world, but when artists use grotesque, ugly, horrific imagery in their artwork people are shocked. the book also talks about how people aren't actually shocked but just pretend to be. I think this is probably true to some extent.
I also like Goya's work most out of the work mentioned in this chapter. It seems to reflect an inner torment that Goya faced because of the horrors that he experienced in his life, and that makes it more disturbing and real.
"He witnessed a lot of atrocity and horror. When he portrays darkness we can almost believe it's because he wants to cast a light there and get rid of it."
I completely agree with Emily's first statement...
ReplyDeleteAnd i also don't particularly find Gilbert and George that interesting either. I still remember the first time I saw a video of their Underneath the Arches in high school.. and I hated it.. I thought it was god awful and annoying... and that seems to be what they are aiming at well... they definately have that accomplished... they are just annoying. Not shocking. Horrifying yes perhaps when naked..but thats just b/c one of them reminds me of Dick Solomon from 3rd rock.. and I really don't want to see either of them naked...
However, I really find Tracy Emin to be quite fascinating. What I found shocking was that fact that her famous tent ingeniously forced men who wanted to go inside and see what names were i there to crawl! HA.. did not even think of that when I first saw and heard of the piece. Thats hilarious.
I also find Vito Acconci quite shocking. Not just b/c he is masterbating in front of people (seedbed), but b/c the room is empty and ppl are not knowing what to expect and then they hear noises and moans.. and him saying phrases like "I'm touching your leg". His work to me seems more shocking b/c sexual nature and habits are usually esp in the united states still some what private or supposed to be... but he serves it on a platter. I guess what I'm trying to say is yes, him making me uncomfortable with the idea that he is masterbating very close to me but out of sight yet I can still hear it.. is almost like if you were a child and accidently walked into your parents room at the wrong time.. that is shocking and uncomfortable....
BUT Jake an Dinos Chapman are not that shocking.. I just find it wierd and i don't think violence in the context of art seems that shocking. Violence is everywhere.. we have seen it throughout history.. for forever.. some disembodied person is not going to shock me... (unless that disembodied person was real and like in my shower) i just would rather not look at it... or at least for very long..
Goya work is violent and gory... but he presents it in a diff manner like ppl were saying in earlier posts... you can see his feelings his pain.. they come from the paint and out from the canvas.. they are beautiful b/c perhaps they seem more real since goya actually witnessed and went through these trials in his life
i want to agree and disagree with Devon. i think sometimes art is supposed to shock you! thats why its called avant guard. its purpose is to show you what is wrong with the world and maybe by smearing poo all over a canvas and calling it art the artist was trying to say that art had become poo and that anything could be called art! but i also agree that goya is more effective when we look at it now. but in the 1800s he was just as socking and in your face about his opinions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel like goya was successfully shocking in the 1700-1800s because we are able to understand the brutal impact that war had on the spanish culture during that time plus he presented a new kind of shock factor which they hadn't experienced before. I feel like Chapman's work is just as shocking to us because it addresses issues that have become prevalent in our culture such as child abuse, homosexuality, nudity and sadly the disintegration of the bible in American Society.
ReplyDelete