Reminds me of something my dear friend Jenn once said. “I stopped caring about who got credit when I stopped caring who signed my paycheck. I started caring again when I realized I was carrying guns so if I didn’t get good credit, I could get in trouble. The guns made getting my share of the credit a lot easier.” Then after cracking a vulgar joke at my expense she added: “You know they say good people can do infinite good if they don’t care who gets the credit? Well when things are morally neutral, I’ve learned you either care or you slowly sink into the mire of life because everyone forgets you’re not furniture.”
I have to admit, Brig… how is this different from the “blank canvas” art that sells for stupid amounts of money to huge accolades of art appreciators? Jimmy took something mundane and turned in into art. (By lining them up, I guess.) Spill and Randie did the work, yes, but they didn’t do the art. So Jimmy puts ’em rank and file and suddenly it’s art. Why? Because he saw it as art and called it art and people agreed?
I suppose that’s an eternal undefinable of art: What is art? Unfortunately for Randie, she didn’t think of her part in this as art and missed the chance.
The guy could credit his assistants though. Or does he really expect people to believe he did any actual work? Admittedly this is a joker who calls pictures of the contents of trash cans ‘art’. I’m not going to try and debate that fine line, but I will note that I think way too much of ‘art’ is just convincing someone that if they don’t shell out cash for some hunk of junk and the ‘artist’s’ explanation they’re just not savvy enough to understand, and who wants to be told they don’t understand things?
It’s an interesting argument… one that has stayed with me. Exhibit A: Jeff Koons. His work has been the source of this very conversation. He is the highest paid living artist in the art world… and yet much of his work is done be craftsmen and not by him. Fair?
And there is the question of Warhol… and his Factory… and the urinal by Duchamp. Yes… it’s an interesting conversation.
Did Jimmy set those gnomes up himself or did he pay some guy with a strong back to do it? And the contractor who tiled the floor in that room, doesn’t his skill add to the effect? And are we going to bring up the sculptor of the original gnome which all of that greenware was made from? And … Randi? Randi, why are you sketching a strong young man bending over setting up gnomes? Why isn’t he wearing a shirt? Randi!
Hahah… I doubt that Jimmy set all those gnomes up by himself…. I’m sure that he directed someone. Museum staff… perhaps? Randie definitely needs to make some art to deal with all this anger! Sketching (or engraving) in the sketchbook would help!
Just having had an interesting argument on the topic, I would like to quote a friend: “Warhol’s work was art at one point based on creativity….. nobody had ever made a painting of soup cans before! But now, those same images aren’t art. They are historical relics and memorabilia, but not art.” I thought that was an interesting view.
That is interesting. No art can exist in human-dome without also living in art history. Art lives in time and whatever time that art was created in becomes part of that culture and says a lot about the world, at that time. That is why when looking at art, you need to know the context. By knowing what was happening in the world when that painting was created, you have a better understanding of the work. Conversely, if you want to know about a period in history, you look at the art created at that time. It’s that wonderful circle… art imitating life imitating art imitating life.
The answer, of course, is simply that there are many levels of the art definition. For some – probably Jimmy – art is defined by dollar signs. It’s art because people buying it as art make it art. For other artists, it’s the opposite: Once it’s sold for something as base as money, it then ceases to be art and becomes product.
The one thing that is present with all definitions of art is emotion. A painting becomes “art” to the viewer if the work causes emotion – any emotion – in them.
So is Jimmy’s work “art” for Randie because of her anger. No, because the anger comes not from the art but from the circumstances that made it art for others. But that doesn’t mean Jimmy’s piece won’t at some point become art for Randie.
Of course, the irony/truth in all this is that Jimmy’s work is a representation of art within a comic strip that evokes thoughtful emotion in its viewers. That make’s Brig’s strip true art.
Pete… that is the most wonderful thing anybody could say. Thank you.
You’re right. Art is… darn right hard to explain… because it is different to everyone…but the bottom line is that it elicits emotion. I feel sorry for those who buy art because it is merely an investment. The value of a work has been determined to be x and so they buy it because of what it is worth on paper, not that it has personal attachment and worth.
Perhaps you could tell a lot about how Randie feels about art by what artists she enjoys and who she disdains. Van Gogh, Picasso, Modigliani, Singer Sargent… vs. Koons.
When asked to define ‘eternal art’, my circle of friends named one artist pretty well universally. His name? Bill Watterson. So apparently among my various lunatic friends the most appreciated artist is a cartoonist. Which I can agree with….. I’m here after all!
He paid them to do the work assigned to them. They did the work he paid them. Who created what is not an issue here. They did not say they wanted to be credited for the work done outside of the money he was paying them. Yes, I do agree unless he did the work himself I don’t think he should take sole credit for it. Also, I understand her feeling about the matter I had people do that to me and its hurts. It doesn’t help that the guy is a jerk and has been a jerk to her as well. It also is a bad thing that she may be drunk at the moment as well.
I personal would have just walked away and let him live his life on his own and not worked with him ever again.
Hello, Padanew!
Yes, there was money exchanged. And Randie seemed happy to get that paycheck. And actually, the job was given to Spill, not Randie… her help was subcontracted.
And yes, Randie would still be tipsy.
There are a lot of hard feelings … Randie never DID like Chow, a friend of Spill’s. She also doesn’t like the artist Jeff Koons (Koonz in the strip)… an artist Jimmy would adore and emulate. Also, making those gnomes was time consuming and labor-intensive. To do the hard work and have another artist take credit for it would be really hard to swallow (although maybe another glass of wine wouldn’t be!)
I suppose it also comes down to creativity/imagination too, “you had all these resources and you just did *that?!?*” it rather implies laziness vs Spill and Randie’s industry.
Hi, Kath… I look to Dada/Surrealism… Dada embraced the absurd. What could be more absurd than taking a product of a factory…a urinal, signing it and calling it art…? Of course, it is a little more complicated than that. But Jimmy isn’t lazy… he’s so high-brow that he can take something very low-brow, mass produced* gnomes, paint them gold and stick them in a museum and call it art, with his name on it.
* produced by Spill and Randie.
Gnomes, Gnomes on the range
Where the art never looked quite so strange
Where sometimes is heard
A discouraging word
And nothing is likely to change!
Encore!
Me… **clapping**
Reminds me of something my dear friend Jenn once said. “I stopped caring about who got credit when I stopped caring who signed my paycheck. I started caring again when I realized I was carrying guns so if I didn’t get good credit, I could get in trouble. The guns made getting my share of the credit a lot easier.” Then after cracking a vulgar joke at my expense she added: “You know they say good people can do infinite good if they don’t care who gets the credit? Well when things are morally neutral, I’ve learned you either care or you slowly sink into the mire of life because everyone forgets you’re not furniture.”
You *want* credit for creating all these gnomes?
Well, credit and the money!
Like some sort of mad scientist … who did it for the money… and now is sorry for what she did… but still wants credit? it’s so complicated, isn’t it?
I have to admit, Brig… how is this different from the “blank canvas” art that sells for stupid amounts of money to huge accolades of art appreciators? Jimmy took something mundane and turned in into art. (By lining them up, I guess.) Spill and Randie did the work, yes, but they didn’t do the art. So Jimmy puts ’em rank and file and suddenly it’s art. Why? Because he saw it as art and called it art and people agreed?
I suppose that’s an eternal undefinable of art: What is art? Unfortunately for Randie, she didn’t think of her part in this as art and missed the chance.
The guy could credit his assistants though. Or does he really expect people to believe he did any actual work? Admittedly this is a joker who calls pictures of the contents of trash cans ‘art’. I’m not going to try and debate that fine line, but I will note that I think way too much of ‘art’ is just convincing someone that if they don’t shell out cash for some hunk of junk and the ‘artist’s’ explanation they’re just not savvy enough to understand, and who wants to be told they don’t understand things?
It’s an interesting argument… one that has stayed with me. Exhibit A: Jeff Koons. His work has been the source of this very conversation. He is the highest paid living artist in the art world… and yet much of his work is done be craftsmen and not by him. Fair?
And there is the question of Warhol… and his Factory… and the urinal by Duchamp. Yes… it’s an interesting conversation.
Did Jimmy set those gnomes up himself or did he pay some guy with a strong back to do it? And the contractor who tiled the floor in that room, doesn’t his skill add to the effect? And are we going to bring up the sculptor of the original gnome which all of that greenware was made from? And … Randi? Randi, why are you sketching a strong young man bending over setting up gnomes? Why isn’t he wearing a shirt? Randi!
Hahah… I doubt that Jimmy set all those gnomes up by himself…. I’m sure that he directed someone. Museum staff… perhaps? Randie definitely needs to make some art to deal with all this anger! Sketching (or engraving) in the sketchbook would help!
Just having had an interesting argument on the topic, I would like to quote a friend: “Warhol’s work was art at one point based on creativity….. nobody had ever made a painting of soup cans before! But now, those same images aren’t art. They are historical relics and memorabilia, but not art.” I thought that was an interesting view.
That is interesting. No art can exist in human-dome without also living in art history. Art lives in time and whatever time that art was created in becomes part of that culture and says a lot about the world, at that time. That is why when looking at art, you need to know the context. By knowing what was happening in the world when that painting was created, you have a better understanding of the work. Conversely, if you want to know about a period in history, you look at the art created at that time. It’s that wonderful circle… art imitating life imitating art imitating life.
The answer, of course, is simply that there are many levels of the art definition. For some – probably Jimmy – art is defined by dollar signs. It’s art because people buying it as art make it art. For other artists, it’s the opposite: Once it’s sold for something as base as money, it then ceases to be art and becomes product.
The one thing that is present with all definitions of art is emotion. A painting becomes “art” to the viewer if the work causes emotion – any emotion – in them.
So is Jimmy’s work “art” for Randie because of her anger. No, because the anger comes not from the art but from the circumstances that made it art for others. But that doesn’t mean Jimmy’s piece won’t at some point become art for Randie.
Of course, the irony/truth in all this is that Jimmy’s work is a representation of art within a comic strip that evokes thoughtful emotion in its viewers. That make’s Brig’s strip true art.
But we already knew that. 🙂
Pete… that is the most wonderful thing anybody could say. Thank you.
You’re right. Art is… darn right hard to explain… because it is different to everyone…but the bottom line is that it elicits emotion. I feel sorry for those who buy art because it is merely an investment. The value of a work has been determined to be x and so they buy it because of what it is worth on paper, not that it has personal attachment and worth.
Perhaps you could tell a lot about how Randie feels about art by what artists she enjoys and who she disdains. Van Gogh, Picasso, Modigliani, Singer Sargent… vs. Koons.
When asked to define ‘eternal art’, my circle of friends named one artist pretty well universally. His name? Bill Watterson. So apparently among my various lunatic friends the most appreciated artist is a cartoonist. Which I can agree with….. I’m here after all!
He paid them to do the work assigned to them. They did the work he paid them. Who created what is not an issue here. They did not say they wanted to be credited for the work done outside of the money he was paying them. Yes, I do agree unless he did the work himself I don’t think he should take sole credit for it. Also, I understand her feeling about the matter I had people do that to me and its hurts. It doesn’t help that the guy is a jerk and has been a jerk to her as well. It also is a bad thing that she may be drunk at the moment as well.
I personal would have just walked away and let him live his life on his own and not worked with him ever again.
Hello, Padanew!
Yes, there was money exchanged. And Randie seemed happy to get that paycheck. And actually, the job was given to Spill, not Randie… her help was subcontracted.
And yes, Randie would still be tipsy.
There are a lot of hard feelings … Randie never DID like Chow, a friend of Spill’s. She also doesn’t like the artist Jeff Koons (Koonz in the strip)… an artist Jimmy would adore and emulate. Also, making those gnomes was time consuming and labor-intensive. To do the hard work and have another artist take credit for it would be really hard to swallow (although maybe another glass of wine wouldn’t be!)
I suppose it also comes down to creativity/imagination too, “you had all these resources and you just did *that?!?*” it rather implies laziness vs Spill and Randie’s industry.
Hi, Kath… I look to Dada/Surrealism… Dada embraced the absurd. What could be more absurd than taking a product of a factory…a urinal, signing it and calling it art…? Of course, it is a little more complicated than that. But Jimmy isn’t lazy… he’s so high-brow that he can take something very low-brow, mass produced* gnomes, paint them gold and stick them in a museum and call it art, with his name on it.
* produced by Spill and Randie.