Conceptual Spew Via Sparky - the Artist'.

[Sparky Kronkite]

http://www.the-artists.org/Images/haacke.gif

I had a show with this dude last night - a "Conceptual Artist." Think about that - Conceptual Artist. I invite you to check out the other info on him.

http://courses.smsu.edu/dcs503f/Artists/artist_pages/haacke__hans/haacke__hans.htm

http://www.dialnsa.edu/iat97/Documenta/haacke.html

http://www.dialnsa.edu/iat97/Sculpture/haacke.html

Provocation, as subtle, or as blatant as it may be perceived by differing individuals - purely for prevocational reasons - is "that" art?

Is everything art?

I've obviously got nothing against provocation and can even see some sort of creative relationship in the "act of provocation," and the "reaction to provocation," - but is that creative relationship art?

For me, what I believe constitutes pure art - aesthetic pertinence and value must be present in the work. If a work is to provoke, great - better though if it also provides aesthetic pertinence and value.

So, what is aesthetic pertinence and value?

The simplest was I would put it, is: Do you want to buy it? Do you want to hang it on your wall? Do you want to put it on your lawn? Do you want to include it as part of your collection? Will you feel proud when you share it with others?

When I ask myself the above questions regarding Hack's work - the answer across the board is NO!

I don't find it worth my effort and money. I would not feel proud to share it with others. I would feel I would have to explain it all the time.

Now there's a key!!!! If a work - hell let's call everything art for a moment - if a work requires explanation, let's say to most people - if most people scratch their heads in bewilderment - if the message is not conveyed via the medium - is it "not successful as piece of artwork?

And - if "provocative art, by conception" - fails to provoke - and therefore the message is lost - is that not then a "failed work of art" and therefore not art at all?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

So, today - on this one subject......

everyone here is un-provocable????

Bunch of conceptually low IQ's.

 

[Todd]

oh that was supposed to be art?

 

[CreamyLady]

If no one "gets it," Sparky, it has failed as a medium of communication. However, it might still succeed if it captures the eye in the case of visual work or the ear in the case of audio work.

As for the piece that allegedly cost Haacke his Guggenheim show, it strikes me as nothing more than a graphic display for the trial.

That is, of course, the problem with conceptual art. So often it looks like a graphic display of something else; advertising, exhibits, even a booth at a trade show. It's hard to "see" it as art.

 

[Siren]

My definition