I think this art is bad and it makes me want to fart
. By making the fart sound like a very nice idea, she, like the cartoons on which she employs, undermines both the age of the fart and the greater publics ability to detect humor. And it is good, for two reasons: first, the joke itself is good, and second, it serves a purpose. For one, it establishes the status of the fart as an index of gender (this is the only body we have), and, secondly, it serves as a signifier for the fact that both male and female fart in the same place, in the same world; the difference being, that if a man makes a fart in a vacuum cleaner, the result is good, as long as he keeps his distance and doesnt trigger a big explosion in the environment. In contrast, to make a fart in a vacuum cleaner is bad, as far as it is an explosion of raw, unedited stupidity, but as long as you keep your distance and dont trigger one, it is good. And the fart is good as far as it is a personal event, in that it is one that you and your partner can both enjoy. Thats one reason it is good art, and thats the only reason its powerful.
in a gallery. But the artist, I am told, is giving the work his word, and he seems to be delivering. No doubt the idea is to make it clear that if you buy this art, you are being given a copy of it—what else is new? Let me tell you that these works are not what they seem. The pieces make little sense, especially in the context of a gallery. What I mean to say is that they are not really pieces of sculpture, but they are obvious too-seeming connections of parts that are supposed to be sculptures. The connection of those parts is meant to be either a series of structural parallels, or something to be done with a set of parts. We cannot look at these things without thinking of the pieces of Descartes and the Platonic dialogues, or even of Paul Klees Encyclopaedia of Art. But these pieces have a very low kind of production value. They are clear, simple, and very easy to overlook. But they are not new enough, and they are too easy for the audience to forget. The pieces are simply there to be looked at, but the images are hard to find and they can be missed. These pieces are not new enough to be new, but they are not too easy to overlook.
more, of course. But the farting is less the point than that the farting has to be. It must be seen as an act of obscenity—a threat to be ignored. I think we must speak out against it. Is there anyone in this world who would not rather a gorilla fart than a Catholic priest? Or who would not rather church bells be ringing? There may be many more opportunities for the colonizing colonizer, and I am sure there are many more equally pressing reasons why. So lets face it, this art is not only bad and it does not make me want to fart more, but it is also very much of this world. It is all there. And the fact that it is in such bad taste is what makes it important, because it is not only bad, but it is evil. Who cares? Its just art. The power of art is something you can fuck around with. And whats of it, exposing it? Maybe its a word to be held to, or perhaps its a statement to be made, and we should all be aware of it. Or maybe we should all be aware of it, even though that means we should be aware.
. When it comes to the topic of the toilet, however, it is the artists own body that is exposed, broken, degraded.A clearly marked difference exists between graphic art and paintings. Some of the gallery owners were of two minds about their easel size paintings. They painted them to fit the art and, by extension, to stand in front of it and be mortified. Others of them felt that the paintings had to be small, an eminently painterly limitation. Painting is always the most natural response to the frame, and if it isnt, theres nothing left for it to do. The reason is obvious: the frame marks the canvas and it forces the painters to fit it. In the end, the frame is the place for the escape, the place from which the artist realizes that the landscape of his imagination is more than imaginary.I propose a reflection on how our desire to be controlled in the face of the environment, our wish to be autonomous, our fear of being so self-contained, has its counterpart in our hopes for the art of this century. The frame exists for a purpose—it can be a blank canvas. But art is always a façade, and art cannot help but be a façade too. To create an illusion of autonomy, or at least of separation from the world of things, is the goal of modernism; to create a meaningful art is a struggle for recognition in a world where there is nothing left to do.
I think this art is bad and it makes me want to fart a lot. I can't express my amusement because I know what it is. I understand all too well what it is, but my good feeling is over. The art has become more interesting because the consequences are explicit. Bad Art is no longer bad in a way that is revelatory.This is true of painting as well as sculpture. Bad Art is art that is sloppily derivative and it is highly offensive to see originality denounced as an empty gesture. Bad Art is not original, but not the problem either. Good Art is original and derivative and it is the problem. It is an art of appearance, not of thought. Originality in art is not opposed to originality.It is difficult to say whether painting is a problem or a solution, and the recent work of John Currin is neither original nor derivative in the usual sense of the term. His paintings are as close to sculptures as to paintings. His paintings have the same formal qualities as canvas. They are flat, sometimes on the verge of puncture, and that is a given. His painting involves a heavy reliance on the spatial relationships of surface, which are very difficult to achieve by painting. The figure in the paintings is not simple abstract figure; he is a partial figure in an alien landscape. This artificial figure is sometimes as distorted as that in sculpture. The distorted figure in the paintings is usually a cartouche, or a half figure, and usually accompanied by the field of which the figures are parts. One knows too much about curving forms in painting to be able to say much more, and I feel that Currin is conscious of this dilemma. His figures are alien landscapes, and the figures are in some sense the limbs of a metal spire, or metal rod, or a figure-like off-hand, which is seen as a sculpture. But the sculptures are abstract. They are finished abstract figures that have been colored in by Currin and are partially or fully removed from their original context.