Tart is art

Hips – temporary source of fascination

Every image I make or take kills 1000 of my words. This is probably why I don’t talk too much.  It’s upsetting that i can recall the most unimportant things i see, but never remember my favorite poems.

This is a picture of the sun. Sorry about the burn. It is beautiful, isn’t it?

If you can’t find your words I’ll understand.

Also hit like&subscribe if chair is one of your 1000 words.

Thank you.

  1. VladimirC Said,

    Congratulations, this is a great idea. I was looking a few days ago at Malevich’s “Black Square” painting, this has something similar in it (esthetically). The idea shows us one of the great lessons Duchamp ready mades shown us – the importance of contextualization in art.

  2. ©M Said,

    I’ve used Malevich’s squares as an inspiration before. I find simple shapes very expressive.
    Although contextualization of art seems to broaden understanding of an art piece, i thing it is narrowing it down. Because the people who can understand what you are saying must have resembling concepts. I knew little about Duchamp except his most influential works, and i thought he had a great sense of humor.

  3. VladimirC Said,

    Yes, regarding contextualization you are partially right. Duchamp’s fountain would have no sense by itself, but as it was gave everybody a lesson. On the other hand, a big curator in Romania used to say that in the right context everything can be art. I don’t think that’s true, as it excludes the artist and other factors like being the first one to do it. Doing another fountain now will not be art.

    Regarding understanding, do you want to be understood by everybody ? That would probably make your works being entertainment. But not even entertainment is universal, as it does not relates to universal concepts (but opposite to art it relates to way more concepts from a given time and space). How much can we understood Japanese art, even if some of us like it. I know these are clichés, but always true.

    Damien Hirst is one of the most sold artists of our time (again talking about him a week or so ago, nice coincidences). He is an icon for British art and for modernism. Why isn’t he entertainment ? Because I think he found the perfect equilibrium between his concepts and symbols and the world.

  4. cm Said,

    I was thinking that by knowing the artist, the movement he is part of, other cultural events of the time, some art history, etc, would be easier to understand a piece of art. Even so, I could still not like it.
    If i don’t understand, and let’s say I was a simple worker at the time Duchamp’s fountain was out, I’d probably say that’s entertaining (just this case), and artists are kinda crazy. I wouldn’t even waste my time on it. Or maybe I’d have some laughs with my buddies.
    The curator should have said “in the right context everything can be art once”. Why not exclude the artist after-all? Artists use pseudonyms. And there is art made by anonymous.
    I don’t intend for everybody to understand what I do, but I’m sure we all have our own interpretation of everything we see.

    I wonder on which wall i could hang a half of cow, get a chair in front and gaze for a couple of hours. : P

  5. VladimirC Said,

    Yes, I understand. But it’s very important that you can like/dislike based on pure subjective perception on on side, and understand the work on the other.

    I think that context was always important, but in different ways. Before renaissance help us understand factual data about an work an art, but not always (think about El Greco who was expressionist long before the current).

    In modern art context can became the art itself, but I would not go so far as to say that we can have art without artist, this would make everything to relative to be understood.

    Duchamp had a great sense of humor as you said, and a deep symbolist approach to things. Maybe his fountain is a powerful surrealist symbol which we can’t understand. Think about the fact that “the bride stripped bare by her bachelors” it’s explained by the artist, but the explanations itself are very hard to be understood in a rational way (which is normal in the given context). Maybe a thing can be so obvious that is very hard to be understood. Or maybe some things don’t need to be understood. Again surrealism is a great example as rational approaches are hardly found in the current, that being many people mistake when trying to rationalize something from it. Sometimes it’s impossible to understand as it was made by an artist in deep relation with his subconscious. Just an example

  6. ©M Said,

    You’re right, we can’t dismiss the artist even if he died before his work was recognized, was never known or separated himself willingly or not from his work. What he did is all part of him. Personally I’d like a psychological portrait of some artists through their art.
    I think it’s helpful for someone to explain his work in order to share the feelings he had when getting the idea. But he cannot expect others to see the result exactly the way he sees it. It is important to let go of your work once you’ve finished it. People can like the same thing just as much, but for different reasons.
    So I don’t believe there are things (in art) we must accept as they are or we’ve been explained they should be. As you said, context can become art, and is through the viewer’s eyes that some things are complete.

Add A Comment