Art

Art vs. Junk

The Guggenheim is exhibiting a working solid gold toilet.

|

Hooters played a mean trick on a waitress more than a decade ago. It told her that, as the winner of a beer-selling contest, she would get a new Toyota. She was led blindfolded to the parking lot—where she was given a new toy Yoda doll from the "Star Wars" franchise.

This was not very nice, and her subsequent lawsuit produced a settlement and a new car. But there are worse things than perpetrating an adolescent prank on one unsuspecting victim. Such as perpetrating an adolescent prank on millions of them.

In a few days the Guggenheim Museum in Manhattan will unveil a new work of art, or rather a new work of "art": a functioning, solid gold toilet, which will be installed in one of the bathrooms. It is by Maurizio Cattelan, whom The New York Times describes as "one of the most expensive living artists," and is titled "Maurizio Cattelan: 'America'." That is tiresomely predictable, and about as clever as Internet trolls referring to Barack Obama as "Obummer." But like "Obummer," it flatters the dogmas of its intended audience.

The political angle matters less than the aesthetic one, though. A gold toilet is to real art what a toy Yoda is to a new automobile. But there is a sad difference between these two cases: Everyone at Hooters knew the toy Yoda was not an actual car. Nobody pretended the stuffed doll and the Japanese automobile belonged to the same taxonomic or ontological category.

Too much contemporary art tries, with a great deal of seriousness and self-regard, to claim just that.

There is, for instance, the celebrated "My Bed" by Tracy Emin, which sold for more than $3 million a couple of years ago. It consists of a messy bed with stained sheets surrounded by cigarette butts, empty bottles, dirty underwear, and so on. Put it in a cheap apartment and it's grounds for eviction. Put it in a museum and it gets short-listed for the prestigious Turner Prize, because it is brilliant art that delivers profound social commentary.

Except that it isn't, and doesn't. And the same holds true for a great deal of contemporary art—the "installations" and the "conceptual art" pieces and the piles of bricks and leftover party trash presented as if they were something inspired, which they are not—despite what smart people might say to the contrary.

And that is part of the problem. Smart people can make intelligent and even profound observations about nearly anything, including things that are quite shallow themselves. The other day the Wall Street Journal presented part of an abstract from a linguistics paper published in a prestigious journal that includes these two sentences:

"The use of stereotypical diacritics of white-collar and blue-collar social identities in the ads circulates a representation of class identities as consumer categories, even as the ads' portrayals of class difference reproduce hegemonic relationships of markedness between 'middle-class' consumers and other social categories. Examining representations of different phases of commodity formulation and social voices loosely associated with these phases, I show how various social identities are subjugated to the commercial ends of the advertising encounter, and how the advertisements both induce consumer behavior as well as reshape hegemonic understandings of social difference and inequality."

The subject of this pompous gibberish was TV ads for F-150 pickup trucks. The author is trying to say that truck ads use class stereotypes to sell trucks and, in doing so, they affect how people think about economic and social class.

Now, you can tease out a lot of interesting observations about society from motor-vehicle ads, and James Twitchell did some of that a few years ago in Branded Nation"—without a lot of obscurantist jargon and with, perhaps, even more insight.

But making sharp observations about truck ads does not turn truck ads into works of art. Yet we are supposed to think otherwise if someone puts a truck ad on a screen in a gallery. We are supposed to think this because we have been told that anything can be art, if it is made or repurposed by an artist. And an artist is, tautologically, someone who makes art—so anybody can be one.

But a category that excludes nothing ceases to be a category; a word that can mean anything actually means nothing. Hence art without standards is a contradiction in terms.

This doesn't mean that everything we call art has to be Renoir and Rodin and Bartolomeo and Bierstadt. We live in a rich, complex, gloriously diverse world, with room for lots of different ideas and lots of different tastes. There is a place for the strange and disturbing and impenetrable. And hey, it's a free country. So if you would like to have a small can of the artist Piero Manzoni's very own feces (available for the low, low price of $263,000!) on your mantle, knock yourself out. Just don't try to convince the rest of the world it's actually a shiny new Toyota.

This column originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: The Decline and Fall of Traditional Television

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 1. Draw eyes on gold toilet-tank, with visual cue to making it abstract face with toilet bowl being mouth.

    2. Name it ‘Prophet Muhammad.’

    3. Peanut gallery hilarity would ensue; enough maybe to make the news.

    Does CNN blur the toilet out? It would in a sense validates the art.

    1. Why must this actually be *done* to cause outrage?

      Haven’t you heard of Conceptual Art?

      1. The dull is strong in this one.

      2. Haven’t you heard of Conceptual Art?

        I decided to look it up.

        When there is enough concentrated bullshit on just the wikipedia intro that I almost think I walked into a manure processing station, it really says all I need to know about the ‘concept’.

      3. I have heard of conceptual art.
        I think that is the art that makes it into museums at insanely bloated price ranges for one reason and one reason only: Who they know and who they are willing to whore themselves for.

        I think the principle inspiration behind the success of abstract art is almost certainly blow jobs performed by the artists.

        You can bet the treasury that Maplethorpe, Warhol, and Pollack got where they did on the equivalent of the art scenes casting couch. That and a bunch of NEA money looking for a home for future budget allocation.

        Abstract art is as stupid as pot modernism, climate change, and the current ism’s bandied about in today’s America: All foisted upon idiots who do what they are told.

        1. a good blow job is a work of art…

  2. That is tiresomely predictable, and about as clever as Internet trolls referring to Barack Obama as “Obummer.”

    HOW ABOUT BLOCK INSANE YOMAMMA?

      1. I prefer “Piss Swerve A Door”

            1. Crusty Juggler.

  3. My junk is not art.

    1. Mine is.
      That’s why I send pictures of it to random people.
      It’s fucking ART!

      1. Good to see someone hit that nice, lazy pitch over the plate.

      2. Mine is.
        That’s why I send pictures of it to random people.
        It’s fucking ART!

        So named because it bears a strong resemblance to former Baltimore Colts great Art Donovan?

        1. Artie was my hero. Please indulge me this story:

          He used to be the “color” commentator for the Baltimore Colts. I was watching a game where on 4th down, the opposing quarterback unleashed a Hail Mary pass. The safety intercepted 40 yards downfield and was immediately tackled. Despite having just cost his team 40 yards (which clearly had not entered his pea brain), he started doing a dance, then ran off to the sidelines, celebrating all the way. The coach grabbed him and started screaming. The play by play announcer (Bill O’Donnell, maybe?) then made a critical error: he asked Artie, “What do you think the coach is saying to him?” Without missing a beat, Artie replied, “He’s probably asking him what the fuck he thinks he’s doing out there!”

          A few seconds of silence, then the play by play announcer continued as if nothing happened. Our phone rang- it was my uncle, who asked, “Ummm, did you hear what I think I just heard?”

          1. Remember when Art would guest on Letterman’s NBC show?
            Loved that guy.

  4. This was not very nice, and her subsequent lawsuit produced a settlement and a new car.

    Too bad it didn’t suddenly accelerate itself through the front of the Hooters.

  5. My favorite museum modern art is the stuff that gets accidentally removed by the janitorial staff. Now that’s social commentary.

    1. Not only does the janitorial staff throw the ‘art’ away, but the museum staff recreates the “art” from a few photos and some dumpster diving and the “artist” is OK with this since he has already been paid.

    2. The best thing about modern art is seeing other people react to it

      1. I thought the best thing about modern art was the exploration of the medium as the artistic product and the attempt to shift art away from pure representation so visual arts could continue to stand as a meaningful thing in the era of photography and other means of mass reproduction.

        1. [Points at Zeb]

          “Ha-ha!”

        2. Yeah, in theory. Instead, you get amped-up theoretical justification for a pile of slashed baby dolls covered in blood-red nail polish (titled “Baby America: Serial Commodification”), like a bloated block of exposition in a bad movie. Art that contrivedly attempts to be valueless to the average person (or, even better, off-putting) but following tightly the prescriptions and proscriptions of wealthy art dealers, curators and wealthier art investors? No thanks, I’ll be happier as a philistine and Emperors’ wardrobe reviewer.

          The substitution of “edge pushing”, theory and very predictable, very selective ‘offensiveness’ for craftsmanship and shared human experience has not been an improvement. (I state this as an absolute based on the consensus I find among myself that it is true…100%!)

    3. Sorry to be this guy again. But “modern art” is not the same thing as “contemporary art”. While modern art may not be to everyone’s taste, it is not often likely to be mistaken for garbage or ordinary objects left around.

      1. What about a canvas with one stripe painted on it. Or what about a picture of a foot or a sculpture of a person sitting on a bench? Which realm of stupidity does that fall into? Modern or contemporary?

        1. If it was made recently it is contemporary. That’s all that means. The sculpture of a person on a bench or picture of a foot sounds like an ordinary, representational piece, so probably not, but possibly modern depending on how it is represented and how the medium is used. Canvas with one stripe could be modern.

          Modernism just isn’t stupid. You may not like it. I don’t think that makes you unsophisticated or stupid. But don’t insist that everyone who does appreciate it is just faking, because they are not and you sound like as much of as asshole as the people who will call you a dumb philistine for failing to appreciate the art they like.

          1. If it was made recently it is contemporary. That’s all that means.

            Which is a silly distinction to get hung up on it and silly way to categorize art generally. Judging by composition, format and style, a person is not necessarily wrong to lump them together. If judging by the date of creation is to be the preferred means of classification of those certain mediums of art, that’s all well and good, but it’s probably best that one just accepts that the distinction will be lost on most people outside of those circles.

            If someone tells you that they don’t like modern art, I doubt that it’s much of a leap for you to assume they wouldn’t care a bit for “contemporary” either.

          2. Fair enough if I sound like an asshole. I am just looking for an intelligent translation of the beauty of a canvas with one blot of paint on it. Where is the beauty and deep interpretation of Rothko’s stuff.

            I guess I’m a philistine. although I have a sneaking suspicion that that crap is not art and it is more like wealth and fame by association; or blowjobs.

            The NEA fostered this kind of jibberish.

            Do me a favor and look at some pictures of Rothko. Replete with the smug, arrogance of a bullshit artist.

            1. +1 douche

            2. or as Rothko almost certainly said…”I only have to sell one”

    4. My favorite museum modern art is the stuff that gets accidentally removed by the janitorial staff. Now that’s social commentary.

      I “accidentally” removed some stuffing fluff from a pile of it making up a “work of art” at MOMA.

    1. Duchamp had a sense of humor though, and did some of that stuff as a joke. I think that’s different than taking this kind of thing super seriously.

      1. That’s the point. Fountain was intended as a joke. Of course, it became a sensation instead.

        1. You try coming up with concept art in 1917.

          1. “The Nun and the Hun”

            /Captain E. Blackadder

    2. I think that his whole readymade thing was a worthwhile artistic statement. But it doesn’t need to be done over and over again.

      1. But, like, the repetition is the art.

        /baldfaced lie

        1. It’s like a running gag carried out by people with no sense of humor.

          1. I doubt most of them create this crap with a sense of humor in mind. They may be clever enough to fool their fans into paying for crap though.

            1. After all, almost every one of these clowns that I have met are pretentious, self absorbed wankers.

            2. Isn’t that what I said?

          2. It’s like a comedian that does the same jokes during each appearance.

            1. So, like most comedians?

  6. Well I vana toilet made out of solid gold, but it’s just not in the cards now is it?

    /AustinPowers

  7. Whenever I find myself drawn into a debate about what does not constitute art, I find a lot of people who defend the absurd (and patently obvious) pieces of non-art using the same argument as the tailors from “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Ie, that you are not ‘sophisticated enough’ to understand, or some variation on that.

    Any time your argument can be swapped with that of the scam artists from “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, you’re just deluding yourself. It’s actually an apt comparison, as the art world echo chamber has deluded itself into declaring very obviously not-art as art, and also into dismissing the people who try to point out their failings as ‘unsophisticated rubes”.

    1. I stopped arguing that years ago. I merely admit I’m not sophisticated to understand. Which is my polite way of saying it’s crap.

    2. Art is whatever anyone says it is.

      The interesting discussion is about whether its good art or bad art.

      1. This.

        I think the “sophistication” thing is dismissive and pompous, but many people who take the “This is art. This isn’t” POV are defining it based on what they like and don’t like, and that is often based on what is culturally familiar. (i.e. you may not have even felt that way if you had lived at your favorite artist’s time period, but you’re not acknowledging it) You’re entitled to your opinions, but they don’t usually make for good conversation.

      2. Yes, this. People saying this or that is not art because they don’t like it pisses me off to no end.

        I happen to agree that an awful lot of contemporary art is crap, but that doesn’t make it not art.

        1. A really good case study would be if Pollack come out with autumn today and it were worth nothing, who would put pieces of trash on their wall covered with paint?

          It is just so dumb. If it has no beauty, what is artistic about it? To the folks who find splatters and trash interesting, I would suggest that they start painting with my two children.

          1. People find it beautiful. If you don’t, that’s fine. It’s only trash if someone throws it away.

        2. But then “art” is a meaningless concept, if it does not exclude anything.

          1. It does exclude things that people don’t call art. If people started calling everything in the world “art”, then it might become meaningless. But that’s not what happens, so it isn’t.

            Art is things that people create for their own sake. If you wanted more of a definition, that’s the best I can do. And people almost never create things entirely from scratch. Painters use paints and canvas that are made in industrial processes, musicians use instruments made by craftsmen who use materials made by other people. So the act of creation of art can be as simple as taking an object and putting it on a shelf and calling it art.

            I think any other definition leaves you just appealing to subjective aesthetic tastes.

            1. They call Rap art. that is meaningless.

              Although it is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Really stupid beholders.

              When did musicians become artists anyway?

    3. I got into an argument with a communist (“not a Stalinist!”) long ago about government-funded art. She kept insisting the government should pay artists a living wage, and that only artists could define what art was, and thus who was an artist. I said I would paint circles on walls and call it art. She said that wasn’t art. I said I am an artist and I say it’s art. She said …. on and on …. it was quite amusing that she couldn’t see the circular trap she’s laid even when she was caught right in the middle of it.

      1. Communists are strictly into Socialist Realism.

        Most lefties are deeply suspicious of non-representational art. I guess righties are that way too…

        1. My personal bias is towards works which clearly took an extraordinary degree of skill and talent to produce. Like Mainer2 downthread, if it’s something I could have thrown together, I’m less favorably inclined towards it. Moreso if it strikes me as just plain lazy and dependant on a bed of fast-talk and BS to prop it up.

      2. Only artists can define what art is and only government can define what an artist is.

    4. also please insert Fashion, Movies, Literature and OMG Poetry…

  8. I have no problem with “artists” like Andres Serrano or this Cattenal twit making their little hip “statements”. What I object to is the expenditure of public monies on profoundly adolescent, vulgar “art” intended to insult a significant portion of the taxpaying populace. If you want to insult Christians, or the ‘prudish’ (who appointed you to judge?), or some other segment of society, do so on your own dime, or with dimes collected by peoplemwho agree with you.

    This is not “censorship”. Censorship is using political or social power to prevent the publication, exhibition, or performance of ‘art’ one finds irritatng. Declining to pay for same is merely thrft.

    1. If you want to insult Christians, or the ‘prudish’ (who appointed you to judge?), or some other segment of society, do so on your own dime, or with dimes collected by peoplemwho agree with you.

      But then there wouldn’t be enough dimes. Market Failure!

      1. If the trendoids aren’t ready to pay maket prices for their little in-joke ‘art’ exhibitions, then they should do without. It’s not as if they were, as a class, poor.

        That isn’t a ‘Market Failure’ that’s a Market Feature.

    2. I wish people would stop using Serrano as an example with this stuff. Piss Christ is (I think) a really cool image. And Serrano is a Christian himself and didn’t do it to piss of Christians.

      1. this statement is stupid on it’s face…

    3. What I object to is the expenditure of public monies spent on art

      Build a wall of separation between art and State.

      State grants for art are merely the retainers given to State propagandists.

  9. “My Bed” by Tracy Emin, which sold for more than $3 million

    Well, then it must be art.

    1. It’s kind of a cool piece.

      It helps to know of the artist’s background when judging conceptual art.

      1. Art should stand or fall on its own merits independant of the artist.

        1. Not conceptual art.

          What has the opposite effect for me is reading of a musician’s bio or thought processes. That really ruins a lot of songs for me.

          1. I hated English in high school for that very reason, being explained to in great detail about what specific poems meant, as if there were only one approved meaning.

    2. When you buy her crap, do you have to go home and un-make the bed and put the trash on the floor your self or does she come over and act like a slob in front of you?

  10. “The use of stereotypical diacritics of white-collar and blue-collar social identities in the ads circulates a representation of class identities as consumer categories, even as the ads’ portrayals of class difference reproduce hegemonic relationships of markedness between ‘middle-class’ consumers and other social categories. Examining representations of different phases of commodity formulation and social voices loosely associated with these phases, I show how various social identities are subjugated to the commercial ends of the advertising encounter, and how the advertisements both induce consumer behavior as well as reshape hegemonic understandings of social difference and inequality.”

    I’m trying to convince myself that this is something more than noise, but can’t bring myself to do so.

    1. It’s about as useful as the blather of a somilier.

      (I just love the double blind study they ran on somiliers and found they couldn’t consistantly give even close responses with regards to the same bottle of wine.)

      1. I just love the double blind study they ran on somiliers and found they couldn’t consistantly give even close responses with regards to the same bottle of wine

        Do you have a cite or a link for that? IME, true pros are remarkably consistent, and in fact, you have to pass a series of blind tastings as part of MS or WCET certification.

              1. Thanks for taking the trouble. Note that these are NOT sommeliers, they are wine competition judges. Having been one myself, I can attest that their abilities are all over the map. Many are non-professionals, and outside of the big competitions, most are chosen because they’re buddies with someone.

                1. Except the pack included the ‘professionals’, and they did no better.

                  I stumbled across someone else’s writeup of the studies while looking for the direct citation (I get that there is a pay wall in front of the actual contant)

                  http://www.skeptical-science.c…..ts-fooled/

                  Oh but those judges were not true experts

                  Wrong, those tested read like a who’s who of the American wine industry from winemakers, sommeliers, critics and buyers to wine consultants and academics.

                  In fact their ability to detect the same wine was quite laughable, when he presented the judges with the exact same wine from out of the same bottle minutes apart, but told them it was different, they rated it differently. A wine deemed to be a good 90 would be rated as an acceptable 86 by the same judge minutes later and then an excellent 94.

                  1. Though I’m sympathetic, there were a lot of steps skipped in that analysis. “[W]inemakers, sommeliers, critics and buyers to wine consultants and academics” for example, is a very wide spread. He’s right, competitions are a crapshoot and wines designed to win them aren’t necessarily pleasant to drink with dinner, but IME of working in that industry for many years, skilled tasters were remarkably good and remarkably consistent. One of the best tasters I even met is (sadly) a lawyer; I handed him a glass of a white once (it had been opened in another room) and asked what he thought. He sniffed, sipped, and immediately said, “Nice, Referts? Who’s the producer?” neatly nailing the variety, the region, the village, the level, and the vineyard

                    Unfortunately, some of the worst tasters I ever encountered were popular critics. Anyone who pretends that they can distinguish 50 or 100 levels of quality is totally full of shit. Four or five maybe.

                    1. I’ll take your word for it. I can’t drink wine. Some chemical common to all varieties doesn’t agree with my nose and it just reeks to me. (I know it’s not the alcohol, but I haven’t positively identified what it is.)

                    2. I’m not a wine drinker (who has the time?), but that sucks.

    2. There are actually Artist Statement random generators. My wife does art professionally and uses them all the time since her own tolerance for bullshit is exceedingly low.

      1. My work explores the relationship between Bauhausian sensibilities and recycling culture.

        With influences as diverse as Kafka and John Lennon, new synergies are created from both orderly and random narratives.

        Ever since I was a child I have been fascinated by the essential unreality of the universe. What starts out as triumph soon becomes manipulated into a manifesto of defeat, leaving only a sense of nihilism and the inevitability of a new beginning.

        As shifting forms become distorted through emergent and diverse practice, the viewer is left with an epitaph for the darkness of our condition.

        1. I can’t tell if that’s you wrote that personally as a sarcastic response, or if you found one of these random generators.

          1. The latter.

            1. My work explores the relationship between the universality of myth and counter-terrorism.

              With influences as diverse as Kierkegaard and Francis Bacon, new combinations are distilled from both mundane and transcendant layers.

              Ever since I was a pre-adolescent I have been fascinated by the endless oscillation of meaning. What starts out as yearning soon becomes manipulated into a tragedy of greed, leaving only a sense of nihilism and the possibility of a new understanding.

              As wavering replicas become transformed through emergent and critical practice, the viewer is left with a tribute to the limits of our existence.

              1. The first line made me burst out laughing. I never got to the second.

      2. Tom Wolfe performed a nice laparotomy on artsy BS jabbering in The Painted Word.

        http://www.amazon.com/Painted-…..0312427581

    3. A good test if something like this is meaningful or not is to move around words a phrases and see if it changes the meaning or sense of the paragraph:

      “The use of stereotypical diacritics of white-collar and blue-collar social consumer categories in the ads circulates a representation of class identities as hegemonic relationships, even as the ads’ portrayals of class difference reproduce identities of markedness between ‘middle-class’ consumers and other phases of commodity formulation. Examining representations of different social categories and social voices loosely associated with these commercial ends, I show how various social identities are subjugated to the phases of the advertising encounter, and how the hegemonic understandings of social difference and inequality both induce consumer behavior as well as reshape advertisements .”

      nope

      1. My rule of thumb is “If it looks like it’s designed to make my eyes glaze over, the person who wrote it is full of shit and knows it”.

        1. Even worse, the person could be f.o.s., and not know it, but rather be encouraged by fellow denizens of the faculty lounge.

    4. “Ads for pickup trucks flatter their target audience by depicting that audience as the only people who really work for a living. This is a successful strategy for selling trucks, but it also reinforces class stereotypes (in the old Marxian sense).

      Now admire my magnificent truk nutz.”

  11. Simple rule on what constitutes art. If I can do it, it’s not art.

  12. I think anything *can be* art but the question is whether it’s good enough to be worth someone’s time. I think you could argue that bed is art in that she put it together with the goal of making art, but that doesn’t mean it’s a really good piece of art.

    The problem I have is that a lot of modern art is really just about personality cults. People get money because of their names, not because of the piece of work they produce. Once you’re known as a serious artist, you can do whatever you want and collectors will pay millions.

    That tells me the art isn’t actually the goal of what they’re doing since what the art actually is doesn’t matter to anyone.

  13. If you want me to take a dump in a box and call it art, I will. I’ve got spare time.

    1. Your stool has the wrong consistancy and color.

      1. Depends on which day you’re looking.

        1. Sorry, but no.

          You can keep your excement, we were looking for a polite way to decline to see it.

      2. Your stool has the wrong consistancy and color.

        Stoolist!

  14. My idea for a cool club would be a functioning glass toilet suspended in the air with a bouncer only allowing the Beautiful People to use it.

  15. not very libertarian to determine what art is or isn’t, however it is libertarian to say a pile of shit is still a pile of shit no matter how much someone pays for it.

    1. Correct sir.
      It is a problem, however, when tax payer dollars go to such moronic causes as the NEA. Inventing a genre to guarantee future NEA budgets is pretty bad.

      Good for the starving artist douchebag who get the dollars for this crap though.

      Although, as stated earlier, i’m sure the starving artist douchebag spends a lot of time with dicks in his mouth to get famous.

  16. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.worknow88.com

  17. I come at art from a craftsmanship point of view. If its evident from looking at the piece that a good deal of time and technique as well as thought went into it, I give it credit. Doesn’t mean I would actually want it in my home, of course. For that, it also has to be pleasing to my personal tastes.

    In the case of this gold toilet, if all this Cattalan guy did was buy a can of gold spray paint and a toilet from Home Depot, in order to make a statement, then that’s no more art than a hand lettered protest sign qualifies as a painting.

    But I do think it would be beneficial and entertaining to adopt some of these contemporary techniques and use them to satirize certain audiences. Here are some suggestions:

    A large, completely blank canvas, with the title, “Rape Culture and the Patriarchy.”

    A regular porcelain toilet with a framed college diploma from Yale sticking out of it, entitled “Free College for Everyone.”

    An exact reproduction of an early-20th-century prison’s electric chair, with a modern Dell server for home use resting on it and wired up for execution. Resting on top of the server would be a Swiffer dust cloth. The title of the piece would be, “Presidential Integrity.”

    1. Now that would be art. Heavy-handed political/allegorical art (which really turns me off as art), but it would be fun to see people react.

    2. So you subscribe to the labor theory of value of art?

      I disagree, but I also don’t really care. Art at its best is a personal thing. No surprise that ideological collectivists argue to the contrary: namely, that great art has broad social impact/messaging. I say fuck that and shrug.

      Re: “art vs junk”: Just because it’s art doesn’t mean it’s good. This is art. It’s just eye-roll-inducingly trite and stupid.

    3. If its evident from looking at the piece that a good deal of time and technique as well as thought went into it, I give it credit.

      The Labor Theory of Art.

  18. RE: Art vs. Junk
    The Guggenheim is exhibiting a working solid gold toilet.

    There’s a difference between junk and art?
    Oh yeah.
    Art is paid for by the taxpayers.
    Junk is placed in the outskirts of towns and cities.
    I get it now.
    I guess I’m just stupid.

  19. my co-worker’s aunt makes $84 an hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her pay was $19262 just working on the computer for a few hours. learn this here now

    ??? http://www.ReportMax90.com

  20. Many decades ago I signed a Campbell’s Soup can and placed it on the mantel in our family home .

    One of my artist friends I had in NYC , Rene , http://www.cosy.com/art/reneiatb/reneiatb.htm , claimed the only permanent exhibited work at MoMA : a rather attractive minimalist grill I noticed before I even met him .

  21. I quit myy office job and now I am getting paid 56 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 1 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do…UI2

    ========== http://www.reportmax90.com

  22. How long will a solid gold toilet survive in New York before some enterprising individual takes a hacksaw to it?

    1. you cannot measure time in such small increments

  23. See the short but hilariously great book by Tom Wolfe entitled The Painted Word. He exposed this nonsense back in the 70s.

  24. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  25. This should be of interest: http://www.nybooks.com/article…..eff-koons/

    And so should this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnip_Prize

  26. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  27. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  28. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  29. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

  30. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Centernet40.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.