“Sentimental?!” Remind me never to browse through the spokeswoman’s (s)crapbook.
“…*seminal* work.” (Emphasis mine). That’s a whole other can of worms.
Grrr! It’s crap like this that keeps real art out of museums! It doesn’t take talent to can your own shit, people!
BS….LOL He wasn’t “looking at a lot of issues that are pertinent to 20th century art”. He had run out of ideas and was selling worthless SHIT (literally!) to anyone stupid enough to give him money for it. THIS IS WHY I WANT TO BE AN ARTIST. I want to make millions of dollars pissing, shitting, and vomiting and selling it to people who think that they’re willingness to PAY FOR IT makes them smart/understanding of women’s issues in the 21st century/avant-garde/fill in your own bullshit reason here.
And for the record, I don’t think this artist was crazy or eccentric. Have no talent (and he might have been talented and just ran out of ideas), but still want to make money? Shit in a can. GENIUS. Wish I had thought of it first. AND THEN TO SELL IT AT THE PRICE OF GOLD? If I knew where this guy was buried, I would dig him up and make him my agent.
It was from his “Corn and Peanuts” period.
How did he get it to be precisely 30 grams?
Actually I don’t want to know.
Okay, you people have clearly never taken an art history lesson before because you’ve completely missed the point. It’s fucking dada art! After world war one many people believed that mankind was not capable or worthy of beauty and set about to destroy art by creating “anti-art” or dada which defied the very definition of art. Without dada we would never have surrealism, modernism or pop art. Great artists like Andy Warhol and Salvidor Dali simply would not exist as they did. This particular piece may have been created well after the original movement (which was ended prematurely by the advent of world war two) but it has the same principles, the same noble intent. He wasn’t trying to create art, he was exploring the meaning of being an artist and polarizing the very definition of art. Until you change the landscape of culture as we know it, you have no right to condem him and judge him based on one series of artwork, which probably did more to change the world than you have in you entire lives.
What do you mean, “YOU people?”
I took two years of art history, myself. Not that it matters.
This is shit in a can, and it didn’t change the fucking world. Come down off your throne.
I mean everyone here who seems to think that they can do better. I’m not trying to insult people, I’m just frustrated that people are comparing a piece of anti-art to fine art and then accusing it’s creator of being talentless without any sort of context or cross analysis. It’s not supposed to be “good” in the sense that everyone is harping on about, it supposed to be a can of shit and that’s exactly what it is. That is the point of it. Works like this did change the world, or at least the art world, broadening the horizons of what people could get away with and allowing more freedom of expression and creativity.
Look, I’m sorry that I rode the high horse so hard but I was angry that people were insulting the Manzoni’s talent and significance based purely on one work, which was deliberately designed to be shocking, gross and as far from any other work of art as possible. I’ve always admired artists with the balls to do things that are both shocking and in good humour, which is a hard line to tread.
You must be logged in to post a comment.