?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Journal of No. 118


July 21st, 2010

Purple Haze @ 09:27 pm

Tags:

To LJ-cut, or to not LJ-cut, that is the question. I think I'll post and then go to sleep and see what awaits in the morning.

"Keith Boadwee, Adjunct Professor of Fine Arts at the California College of the Arts, and visiting faculty member at the San Francisco Art Institute ... part-fills his rectum with (non toxic) water-based paint using a rubber hot water bottle with an attached plastic tube. Then, by carefully positioning himself near a large blank canvas placed horizontally on the art-studio floor, he is able, at the appropriate moment, to eject and direct a constrained jet of paint. Thereby rapidly creating one-of-a-kind artworks with an appositely chaotic and spontaneous feel."

ETA: OK, now it's too early in the morning for this kind of thing (in my timezone anyway)


 
Share  |  Flag |

Comments

 
[User Picture Icon]
From:thelastmehina
Date:July 22nd, 2010 05:21 am (UTC)
(Link)
That's quite a talent he has there....

What I want to know is, how did he get the idea to paint this way in the first place?
[User Picture Icon]
From:marlo
Date:July 22nd, 2010 06:50 am (UTC)
(Link)
OMG LOL XD
[User Picture Icon]
From:bestepisodeever
Date:July 22nd, 2010 07:17 am (UTC)
(Link)
hmmm.
[User Picture Icon]
From:colleency
Date:July 22nd, 2010 07:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
Um....ew.
[User Picture Icon]
From:essentialsaltes
Date:July 22nd, 2010 01:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Er, happy anniversary?
[User Picture Icon]
From:dogofthefuture
Date:July 22nd, 2010 10:17 am (UTC)
(Link)
It's not art, it's a stunt, and not really a very good one. It doesn't say anything, it doesn't even ask anything except "hey, we did this, would you call it art?" I wouldn't, because it's a stunt for the sake of the stunt. Not for art.

I didn't think much of John Waters getting Devine to eat a piece of dogshit either, except for exactly what it was. Yeah, he got a human being to eat some fresh dogshit and filmed it. So what? It's not art, it's not groundbreaking film, it's just gross. (To be fair, I don't think Mr. Waters gave a, well, crap. He just wanted to do it to gross out his audience, and fair play to him.)

But art? I just don't think so. Some of Christo's works have been stunts and also maybe still art (though I really don't know which). But this? Nah. I'd call it "shit" except I assume that that description has already been pretty well-played.

I mean even Mondrian, with his nothing but lines and rectangles, at least placed them to be, presumably, pleasing to the eye. But this is nothing more than Jackson Pollock via rectum, and as my 5-year-old pointed out about Jackson Pollock's paint splashes: "That's not what I call art."

Anyway what ever happened to deliberately creating something beautiful? I don't care if whatever-his-dick said it was dastardly, because he was wrong.

*sigh* I can already imagine counter-arguments here, about what is beautiful, and whether art should provoke thoughts, and etc. But really I don't care. Art should only metaphorically come out of your ass. The (oh for Pete's sake) End.
[User Picture Icon]
From:dogofthefuture
Date:July 22nd, 2010 10:21 am (UTC)
(Link)
Oh hey, do you want to know about a stunt that WAS art? Philippe Petit's walk between the under-construction twin towers of the World Trade Center. THAT was art in the form of a stunt.
[User Picture Icon]
From:aaronjv
Date:July 23rd, 2010 09:14 am (UTC)
(Link)
OMG that's beautiful!

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

ART!

I'm just jealous I didn't get paid to do this myself.

Journal of No. 118