another b*****t artist!!! these guys give art a bad name. had one in sarasota, did these crappy lookin paintings with weird names(his name is sid soloman)...and it looked like spilled paint on a canvas....sold his stuff for thousands.....all i can say is "buyer beware" and you dont alway get what you pay for....hehehehehe you want to see an artist????? go here: http://artakiane.com/home.htm
[ February 26, 2005, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Bruce Bowers (Member # 892) on :
Art is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you think it sucks doesn't make it bullsh*t.
I just hope that no public funds went into this project. Now, that would be bullsh*t...
Posted by Don Coplen (Member # 127) on :
quote: The artists are paying for the project without sponsorship or donations. Jeanne-Claude said they were hopeful it would cost less than $21 million, but he added they would not know the final amount until the piece is completed.
[ February 26, 2005, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Don Coplen ]
Posted by Bob Rochon (Member # 30) on :
Looks like the Pumpkin People from oompa loompa land all decided february was laundry month.
thank god it was temporary!
Posted by Bruce Bowers (Member # 892) on :
Well, without sponsorship or donations does not eliminate the possibilities of GRANTS. It's all in the semantics, eh?
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
No Bruce, read their website. They do not accept donations, grants, tax money or volunteered labor.
They fund their projects themselves, by selling other works!
In the TV story I saw about them, it was obvious Christo is the artist, Jean-Claude is all about the business end of it.
Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
Personally I think the gates are great. If scheduling would permit it I'd be there to see them. I've always liked Christo's work.
From what I read he broke out his own checkbook to pay for it, like most of his other projects. The payoff comes from selling collages and paintings after the fact. 8" x 10" drawings sell for $30,000, 4' x 8' collages sell for $600,000. The working drawings and blueprints were selling for as much as $250,000 per page. You can rack up some serious jack at those prices, if it's worth it to somebody to pay that.
And OP, how in the heck to you give artists a bad name? Seems to me that the most famous artists were all alchoholics, drug addicts, mentally unstable, psychopaths or fairies who never capitalized on their talent, others did after they were dead.
[ February 26, 2005, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Patrick Whatley ]
Posted by Mikes Mischeif (Member # 1744) on :
Looks Like The Home Depot Pit Area at a NASCAR Race.
Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
Yee haa...something else Tony Stewart can get blamed for!
Posted by Bruce Bowers (Member # 892) on :
Ahhhh, I see it now... It wasn't on "The Gates" page. It was on another. I did have to go looking for it though.
That's cool. I am glad that they do it the way they do. I wish they would come here and do something cool. Our waterfront looks like crap.
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
being a great artist...has nothing to do with talent....its allabout some fat wallet bozo who dont know crap from art...will buy a piece from these quazi artist...and the rest is history....its all who you know not what you know. look at any warhol, jackson polock, and in my opinion picasos work is nothing to brag about...but who am i...nobody...so people buy crap, it becomes art....but itsnot really!!! and people like the girl i said to go look at, the guy who painted emet kelly clown pic, some of the greatest talented circus painters....all die penniless.....and some of the great sign painter fall in here also...
[ February 27, 2005, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: old paint ]
Posted by Dan Sawatzky (Member # 88) on :
Art is certainly subjective. And some of the 'great' artists have more marketing skills than talent in my opinion. Or the folks backing them. But that's life.
I'm not passing judgement on this 'art'... I simply don't understand what all the fuss is about... either way. It does nothing for me.
But then again, I am extremely passionate about what I do as art and not everybody agrees or likes what I do either. And that's ok with me too.
Life goes on.
This post reminds me of a project we were doing in West Edmonton Mall a few years back... a Bavarian style winter theme for the skating rink there in the center of the mall. We were of course surrounded by the public and tried to politely answer their endless questions.
My son, Peter, was asked rather bruskly WHAT THEY WERE DOING? by a 'gentleman' who approached the crew. Without cracking even the slightest smile Peter gestured towards the sign base and entry arch and said in his 'most educated voice'..."It's a monument depicting man's inability to deal with his natural environment"
The guy immediately went ballistic (maybe it was OP's brother )and started SHOUTING about government waste and useless grants to ARTISTS. He raged on for quite a while giving a disertation on his considered opinion of public art before stomping off in a big huff. The crew had a wonderful laugh and we continued on with our privately funded sign project.
It's ALL about perception.
-grampa dan
Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
But what defines that talent, OP? Is talent the ability to copy something you've seen or can see? Is talent the ability to create something that's never been seen? Can the "art" in a project be everything leading up to the final piece...and not the finished project itself?
Warhol made people notice everyday objects by presenting them in a new fashion. Pollack sought to capture the energy of an image, not the visual. Picasso was on the frontier of a whole new movement in art. Just because none of them painted a traditional scene of a fruit in a bowl does not mean they were not talented artists.
And wasn't Emmett Kelley a signpainter who became a clown?
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
there is the problem...yes art is selective. personally i like most realistic art, divinci, botachelli, michealangelo, dega, rubins, rembrant. i also love dali, escher, frazeta, vallejo, rowenna. iam also a potter so i have a sence of "utilitarian art", things of use. so yes i tend to not see anything in something that nothing more then a mish-mash of colors and you can give it a name.. (like thousands of yard of orange material and they call it the "gate" i dont see anything but thousnds of yard of orange material)..and people stare at it for hours tryin to see what the artist saw(you need to do the same drugs)hehehehe.
Posted by Joey Madden (Member # 1192) on :
Lemme see, all these replies in regards to artists are from persons who are primarily signmakers, ummmmm sounds interesting but for some reason doesn't hold up.
Oh well
and Joe, BEWARE THE TRUTH.....YOU MAY NOT LIKE WHAT YOU FIND
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
glad to see your alive and well joey....hehehehehe
Posted by Mark Matyjakowski (Member # 294) on :
If you have to explain why it's art ... it isn't ...
... at least to the person your trying to explain it to.
Hey Joey, even though making signs pays my bills ... can I reply about artists if I hold my pinky out far enough as I drink ... hehe
Posted by John Zant (Member # 1619) on :
OK, I understand that most people don't like the gates. But it's got you talking about art, doesn't it? I see art as a reactive subject. If I can't **** someone off with it, or make them talk about it/art then I'm not doing my job. Christo's stuff? some I like, some I don't. But it is art, like it or not. I enjoy painting a nice pastoral scene for myself, but for show, I'd rather not. There are many artists who are far better at it than I. I admire the fact they paid for it out of their own pocket. 25 million. They put up. Kudos to them.
Posted by John Deaton III (Member # 925) on :
Joe dont think its art unless its got a peeing calvin in it somewhere. Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
well on the other hand the guy who did all the gay nudes...considered it as art....but most of the other people saw it as repulsive....if you like "the gates" then gay art is art to....hummmmmmmmmm
Posted by Bob Rochon (Member # 30) on :
I don't care it still looks like everyone in new york has Orange laundry and hung it out out to dry Posted by Jillbeans (Member # 1912) on :
The Gates left me cold, inspired nothing in me, and I agree with Bob-O. However, I was highly entertained by OPs spelling of the artist's names.... Love....Jill
Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on :
I know Jill, it reads like a menu. Posted by Bobbie Rochow (Member # 3341) on :
OP, I must agree with you on this one!!!!!
And staring at the gates trying to figure out what it means reminds me of being stoned-out as a teenager listening to "Stairway to Heaven" over & over again, trying to figure out the "hidden meaning" of it.
What REALLLLLLY INFURIATES me is hearing about all the junk they call "art" that the National Endowment of the Arts funds!!! It is disgusting, & in my opinion, disrespectful & criminal.
My son was in school & they took a field trip to Pittsbugh to the Warhol museum & he saw a picture of Jesus in urine. I wonder what Warhol thought when he met Jesus in person? (I know, just my opinion)
I'm sorry, I know some of you are probably did not like that comment, but I think what they call "artwork" has gotten way off!
To each his own, right? That is my opinion.
Posted by Bobbie Rochow (Member # 3341) on :
CORRECTION......
My son has just informed me that Warhol did not do Jesus in urine, that was nother "artist's" work. He said that Warhol did Jesus' face on punching bags, & one had a black eye on him with swear words directed toward Him. My question... what did Jesus ever do to him?
My son also said that Warhol would urinate on some of his canvas's. Something about oxidation. Any of you ever tried this? he, he!
Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
Why do people always drag the NEA into it without having a clue about what the NEA does, how it does it, and more importantly why it does it? I?ll admit, I get defensive of the NEA. I believe it provides an incredibly valuable service and is ESSENTIAL for us, as a nation. The stuff below is taken from a draft of a paper I wrote in college. The figures are based on 1997 so they may be a little outdated.
Look back through history. ALL of the great civilizations were known for their artisans and their support of them. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Mesopotamians are remembered for their artistic achievements and the cultural changes that come from supporting them. Not just painting but poetry, theater, and mathmatics. Funding for creative thought is essential to the advance of any group.
Japan, the most technological and innovative country in the world requires arts education all the way through college and has the largest government outlay for arts grants in the world.
You realize that government funding is the reason we have the font Times Roman? Do you realize that the design for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was funded through an NEA grant? How about Sesame Street? Without the NEA there would be no arts or music education in smaller school districts.
The NEA does not fund obscenity or pornography, the very argument is insane. Yes, some of the things funded through grants from the NEA to organizations have been used to fund controversial art and events. The NEA does not have the power, thanks to the constitution, to make the decision on what is controversial and what is not. It leaves those decisions to local communities and local courts. Robert Mapplethorpe, the photographer who is almost always brought into the NEA funding argument NEVER received NEA funding. His ?controversial? work consisted of 7 photographs in an exhibit of over 100. The NEA grant in question was used by the curators of the show to rent gallery space. Only 16 grants out of the 80,000 that the NEA has given have even been considered ?profane? and of the few that have gone to court none have been deemed so. This small section of NEA funds accounts for less than 1/100th of 1% of their total budget. In comparison, the federal government spends more than that on staples?in an hour.
The NEA is one of the smallest government programs too. It takes up a whopping .000018% of the federal budget. You?re talking about 65 cents per person. Germany spends $73 per person, Italy $35, France and Sweden $32.
Every Pulitzer prize winning play, 22 pulitzer prized for literature, half the Oscar winning docuentaries, 49 MacArthur "genius awards," 31 National Book Awards, & 10 Obie Awards for Theater.
Without art a culture crumbles. Artists are among the first people silenced among communist and socialist countries. Artistic endeavors have been among the first funded at the beginnings of advanced society.
Just because it doesn?t match your couch does not mean it?s not art.
Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
And if you consider Warhol?s Punching Bags is it not possible that he was trying to show how Jesus takes blows for the sin?s of the world? That was his explanation from the start. You can believe that explanation or not. The point is, that like most "controversial" art, it's not offensive unless you choose the see it that way.
Posted by Bobbie Rochow (Member # 3341) on :
Sorry, did not know it was that long. The article states that Warhol was a devout Catholic, & it explained that he also had done pictures of the last supper that have been found, unfinished. i apologize for not searching my info before posting it. I, myself would never depict the Lord's suffering in that way, but we are all different.
I appreciate what the NEA does, in funding all these things, but I still think it is awful that they end up paying for this other slime when they do so much good for others.
I do want you to know, tho, even tho I do not worship Buddha or Mohammed, I would never offend those who do by creating offensive artwork containing those subjects.
But I am glad you posted that, or I would not have searched & found that out. Too bad they didn't explain that to the kids on the field trip, instead of the art teacher having to apologize to them later.
No, it does not fit my couch, but I am sure it is art to someone-you are right! Posted by Michael Latham (Member # 4477) on :
I applaud whats name, the artist. I do not consider this art but love the bright orange canvas on a dreary Central Park in winter. The blandness of the Park, and the brightness of the fabric to me just wakes me up! I would NEVER consider it art! A facelift for the Park, a spash of color for the city, even a gateway to spring, but not ART. Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
Nah, not as offended as that sounded...and that is the longest link I've ever seen.
Posted by Bobbie Rochow (Member # 3341) on :
Thank you, Pat. I will check my information more carefully before I post now!
Mike, you have a point there. It DID brighten up the dreary park! I live in a State Park next to a lake, & it is cold & snowy right now.
Gee, I wonder what Pymatuning Lake would look like with bright green sheets all around it? Might make us think it is spring!
Posted by Jim Upchurch (Member # 209) on :
We need to defund the NEA. We've seen what modern decadence has led to in the "arts", I don't care what other counties pay, I don't pay their taxes. At least not yet. When something gets abused it's time to rethink it. When public money is used to promote or attack ideologies, religious beliefs or morals it's time to let the artists stand on their own. Let those who want it vote with their dollars.
Posted by William DeBekker (Member # 3848) on :
Well.. If you Like that then you need come out Colorado In the next year or two.. They have been planning this project for at least 8 years.. I have personally met these 2 people when they came to Canon City with their Proposal/Impact Study.
This project is litterally 10 miles from my house. Personally I just think they had a deprived childhood and didn't get to wrap Christmas presents as kids so they are taking out all their pent up hostilities on natural wonders of the world.
If they really want to make a differnce with their art.. Go Wrap New Jersy. Posted by Sheila Ferrell (Member # 3741) on :
I heard a New Yorker' on the radio commenting on this 'art'. . . .he said, "...The whole thing looks like a constuction site with all that orange..."
LOL.
He was right.
And yeh...art is subjective . . .but all I'm sayin' is...there's a lot of it I don't wanna be subjected to . . . .
A 'glorified' constuction site trying to do it's impression of 'art' to the tune of whatever that outrageous dollar figure was . . . looks like he could'a thrown in at least ONE OTHER colour . . .
Someday, I'm going to get federally endowed to make 'the Emperor's new clothes' . . .and make-off like a fat-cat . . .
I'm just kiddin' . . .
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
Fascinating post. Great insights into the people contributing, and even better entertainment. I had tears rolling down reading OP's phonetically spelled list of artist's names.
I had a friend here yesterday who flew to NY for 2 days just to see the gates. She is a local successful fine artist, and teaches Art at High Point College.
Though not utterly bowled over she was very complimentary about the feel of walking through the gates, that it was meditative in an interesting way, and she was very excited about the color in the midst of winter, as the photo on the photographer's website clearly shows. I love that photo by the way. It moves and sings. She was very glad to have gone.
Christo is someone I cannot fathom. But his work and mind and imagination is something I have been smitten by for a long time. Just because I can't think that big, does not make him wrong.
And Patrick, thanks so much for what you said about the National Endowment for the Arts. The controversy over Andres Serrano's little statue "**** Christ" was centered here in NC because Jesse Helms was adamant about cutting the funding as a result.
I am clueless what Serrano was trying to do. When I saw the thing at The Center of Contemporary Art here in town, I thought the color was phenomenal. It is urine and cow's blood. Go figure.
I do wish he had not made it, because of the cost to other artists, and the controversy.
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
Well, the Gates has inspired lots of conversation, controversy and emotion... So I don't think there's any denying it, it's art. Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on :
That's not a definition of art Mike. For sure not mine If that was the case, war would qualify as such.
Posted by Steve Purcell (Member # 1140) on :
My dog laid a turd on a busy sidewalk. Some people were disgusted. Some were angry. Some were amused. Some were reminded of their own pet. Some were annoyed at the inconvenience. Some were glad for the diversion. Some pointed at it. Some simply avoided it. Everyone noticed. My dog is an artist.
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
One man's trash is another man's treasure Steve.
I can't pass judgement on the gates as I have not stood where I can experience them in person. However I have seen dozens, possibly hundreds of images of the gates by skilled photographers that are absolutely beautiful, possibly better than the exhibit itself based on comments I have read regarding those photos.
I grew up around the Laumeier Sculpture Park in St. Louis, MO which is home to many contemporary sculptures and exhibits along the nature of the Gates. Sometimes the piece itself isn't as enchanting as the idea that somebody had what it takes to build it in the first place, such as a sculpture named "The Way" by Alexander Liberman. It appears as some randomly placed round steel tubes, except the overall size is 65'x100'x100' and the tubes are like 6ft diameter. It's absolutely impressive, even if the sculpture itself doesn't convey any meaning to you.
I remember hanging out in the sculpture park all the time as a kid though... maybe the fact we used to climb all over the sculptures like jungle gyms gave us more awareness or the ability to appreciate. Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on :
If you are crawling and playing on them Mike, they aren't "like" jungle gyms, they are that. Besides what kind of reverence is that for great art?
That's what we need, to immerse ourselves in the art to appreciate it. Maybe I can persuade the Detroit Institute of Arts to allow us to finger paint over the Renoirs.
Posted by Sheila Ferrell (Member # 3741) on :
Uh . . .Mike??
I think that actually WAS a 'jungle gym' or more commonly known as 'monkey bars' . . .
LOL . . .it was 'New wave play-ground equipment' created to help people get away from stereo-typical, ho-hum, 'expected' play areas. . .
You don't see them much because the concept did'nt 'go over' to well . . .extrememly expensive for public schools, and most people don't have enough room for them at home . . .
Obviously, I'm just kiddin' Mike.
(I think...lol)
. . . Could'nt help but imagine a kid playin' on the 'sculptures' thinking it's ONLY some silly 'art' when all the time, they were intentionally created as futuristic play-ground equipment . . .
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
David, 5 and 6 year old kids will climb on dang near everything. Most of the sculptures are too big though. Our moms (me, sis, cousins) did stop us, of course and eventually we grew out of it.
It's a regular park too, with large open neatly manicured fields, exercise pathways, etc so we always went there for picnics instead of staying inside watching TV.
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
Mike: that was moving what you said.
I was really glad to find your post, you grasped something big about courage and vision and breaking ground, and that is what Christo does, along with staying his own man, staying ethically clean, without giving any of his power away, or compromising his vision.
Yes.
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
Steve...
That's the best comparison I've seen yet...
Yo, OP - I don't really care for Picasso either...but believe it or not, that dude could actually draw....have you ever seen some of his pencil sketches?
All's I can say is there must have been some interesting varieties of mushrooms growing is his front yard in those days....hehehe.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Rolling On The Floor]](graemlins/rolf.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Applause]](graemlins/applause.gif)
![[For Your Information]](graemlins/fyi.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)