Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Art or Bullshit?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Newyork City
    Posts
    14,975

    Art or Bullshit?

    Andres Serrano's 'Shit' Show
    The Piss Christ artist returns. And God is still in the details.

    When the artist Andres Serrano had doubts about his latest project, he asked God for direction. "Just before I started to make these pictures, I had a moment of panic: What if I can't find beauty, diversity? What if they don't look good?" The first photograph he took was a self-portrait of his own poop, and when the film came back from the lab, "I realized I saw a face—actually a face—in it! A sign."

    You remember Serrano, the fellow who made the famous Piss Christ in 1989, which featured a crucifix submerged in urine, prompting an apoplectic Jesse Helms to lead the fight to end government funding for such projects and to declare: "Serrano is not an artist. He is a jerk."

    Now, the genial renegade is back, fulfilling his desire to do, in his words, "something that would provoke even me"—namely, shooting 66 different piles of doo-doo dumped by as many animals, blown up to eight feet high and ready to hang on the walls of the Yvon Lambert Gallery beginning September 4.

    Serrano, who is wearing a Blackpool Bombers T-shirt, a humongous rhinestone-studded belt, and a pair of artfully molting, pointy $1,000 Gianni Barbato boots—real shit-kickers—is telling me about his latest creations in his East Village home, a once-normal-looking residence transformed by votive candles, chandeliers, ecclesiastical statuary, and the replacement of every inch of sheetrock with limestone into a sort of medieval crypt.

    "I always said I wouldn't work with children and sex, and I wouldn't work with shit, so when I came up with this idea [which dawned on him, to the best of his recollection, during the nude wrestling scene in Borat], I had to put myself in a special place. I had to prepare myself mentally—it was a scientific and aesthetic investigation."

    Serrano used his own caca for the first picture; for the second, he recruited Luther, the Dalmatian who is sitting at his feet as we talk. A benevolent God once again intervened. "I saw a dog face in the dog shit! Then I became less nervous. As I started to make the work, I felt a close affinity with Goya and the work he did at the end of life—the underworld creatures. I too started to see figures and creatures in this work."

    It's not as easy to photograph animal waste as you might think. In fact, it's illegal to swipe the stuff from a New York City zoo for your own delectation. Serrano went all the way to Ecuador to scoop up what he was after.

    "Bullshit had to be included in the show in New York, but the bull was in Ecuador. We drove from Quito up north to a huge estate. I don't like to talk about my work in advance. When we got there, I said, 'I want to go where the bulls are, but I didn't come here to photograph the animals—I came here to photograph the animals' shit.' First, people said: 'Are you crazy?' But when they saw I was not only crazy but also serious, from then on everyone accepted it and was very supportive.

    "The worst part is the smell of certain animals. I would have a mask on for those occasions. The human is the worst, and then dog—but we pick up dog shit every day in New York! I would look at it from all angles. Sometimes I wore a glove; sometimes it had things in it—debris and garbage—and that became part of the picture, too."

    Unlike some artists who offer one-word answers no matter how much you poke and prod, Serrano loves to talk. He has given each of his 66 images titles—"Not all literal; sometimes symbolic, sometimes funny"—that are an integral part of the work. "This show is very conceptual," he says. "I realized how ingrained the word shit is in the English language. My work is all about language." (And of course, when you think about it, how much of the power of Piss Christ was derived from its title?)

    Serrano gets up from the old wooden chair he's perched on and opens a book on the refectory table. "It's time I show you the work," he says, lovingly opening the pages of a tome he plans to sell in conjunction with the exhibition.

    "We start with Bull Shit. I see a bull here, resting against the moon—it's like a child seeing things in shadows on the wall. Here's Good Shit and Bad Shit—see, no difference!"

    1 2 Next Page » Recent Articles
    More by Lynn YaegerPrepping for Fashion Week 2008
    The usual heels, but knock off the
    Last edited by Phyllis Hyman Cherry; 09-03-2008 at 11:48 AM.
    As I proceed to civilize the uncivilized
    Word to wisdom from the groove to the wise
    I guess im the verbalizer for the fact im moving blackwards
    This asiatic blackman is a dog spelled backwards





    Brand Nubian dropping science.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    24,583
    Yes, it's art.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Newyork City
    Posts
    14,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Blake View Post
    Yes, it's art.
    Yes,but certaintly not in the same way that Basquait or Warhol is art right?
    As I proceed to civilize the uncivilized
    Word to wisdom from the groove to the wise
    I guess im the verbalizer for the fact im moving blackwards
    This asiatic blackman is a dog spelled backwards





    Brand Nubian dropping science.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    underneath the earth
    Posts
    14,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Blake View Post
    Yes, it's art.
    shitty art.
    I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter. ~ Winston Churchill

    Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls. The most massive characters are seared with scars. ~ Khalil Gibran

    men ARE the new women...hee hee

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Newyork City
    Posts
    14,975
    [QUOTE=Friday;829158]shitty art.[/QU



    LOL.
    As I proceed to civilize the uncivilized
    Word to wisdom from the groove to the wise
    I guess im the verbalizer for the fact im moving blackwards
    This asiatic blackman is a dog spelled backwards





    Brand Nubian dropping science.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    24,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Phyllis Hyman Cherry View Post
    Yes,but certaintly not in the same way that Basquait or Warhol is art right?
    What do you mean?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Phyllis Hyman Cherry View Post
    Yes,but certaintly not in the same way that Basquait or Warhol is art right?
    It's certainly less palatable.

    Edit: It's also far from the 1st time this has been done. Many artists have used their own excretia to produce works...even their sperm.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Newyork City
    Posts
    14,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Blake View Post
    What do you mean?
    I mean a basquiat piece comes from a creative place it seems.What does it take to put animal shit together and slap it on a canvas?The thing is what is art?
    As I proceed to civilize the uncivilized
    Word to wisdom from the groove to the wise
    I guess im the verbalizer for the fact im moving blackwards
    This asiatic blackman is a dog spelled backwards





    Brand Nubian dropping science.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    birmingham, the heart of england
    Posts
    38,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Suspended View Post
    It's certainly less palatable.

    Edit: It's also far from the 1st time this has been done. Many artists have used their own excretia to produce works...even their sperm.

    Fuck, Bobby Sands is an artist, someone better tell the British government.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    24,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Phyllis Hyman Cherry View Post
    I mean a basquiat piece comes from a creative place it seems.What does it take to put animal shit together and slap it on a canvas?The thing is what is art?
    Serrano is a photographer, not a painter. For its end aesthetic, there are some different considerations that take place than with a painting, at least on the surface of things.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,589

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    berlin
    Posts
    3,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Phyllis Hyman Cherry View Post
    Yes,but certaintly not in the same way that Basquait or Warhol is art right?
    It's quite interesting you selected those 2 for comparisons, as neither of them might have been recognized as artists 50 years ago. One defaced property, the other made copies of everyday objects instead of portraits or other stuff. Is that what you meant as not their kind of art?

    they both made films too, but i have a funny idea what serrano would film, lol

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Newyork City
    Posts
    14,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Blake View Post
    Serrano is a photographer, not a painter. For its end aesthetic, there are some different considerations that take place than with a painting, at least on the surface of things.
    Point taken.
    As I proceed to civilize the uncivilized
    Word to wisdom from the groove to the wise
    I guess im the verbalizer for the fact im moving blackwards
    This asiatic blackman is a dog spelled backwards





    Brand Nubian dropping science.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Newyork City
    Posts
    14,975
    Quote Originally Posted by dag View Post
    It's quite interesting you selected those 2 for comparisons, as neither of them might have been recognized as artists 50 years ago. One defaced property, the other made copies of everyday objects instead of portraits or other stuff. Is that what you meant as not their kind of art?

    they both made films too, but i have a funny idea what serrano would film, lol
    Pop artists.Its true what you say about them not being recognized as artists some years ago.I mean is a Basquiat as brilliant as a picasso.Is a warhol as brilliant as a Jackson Pollock.Who can say,its a matter of opinion i guess.
    As I proceed to civilize the uncivilized
    Word to wisdom from the groove to the wise
    I guess im the verbalizer for the fact im moving blackwards
    This asiatic blackman is a dog spelled backwards





    Brand Nubian dropping science.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,589
    in this case it's not whether it's brilliant or not, but whether the work in question is valid as art. I say yes.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    24,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Phyllis Hyman Cherry View Post
    Pop artists.Its true what you say about them not being recognized as artists some years ago.I mean is a Basquiat as brilliant as a picasso.Is a warhol as brilliant as a Jackson Pollock.Who can say,its a matter of opinion i guess.
    It would probably be safe to say that Basquiat was not as brilliant as Picasso, in the context that Picasso, through his innovations and work, is in Basquiat’s: a primitive approach and flat two-dimensional surface form as examples.

    Basquiat is “defined” (categorized) under primitive Neo-Expressionism as a “rejection” of Minimalism and Conceptual Art dominant in the late Sixties and Seventies (from what little I know, Conceptual Art still seems to be produced quite a lot?). But this categorization implies a going back to earlier modern art and re-working adapting these older approaches. Picasso had the power to accept or reject more than most of us could ever imagine conceiving. In a hierarchy of innovation, mastery of various styles, and play with forms, Picasso is superior.

    For Pollock and Warhol, one way to look at it would be that Pollock was more the end result of an older era, culmination of Abstract Expressionism, while Warhol was on the brink of a new way of things, in part starting not just “Pop Art” but if not the, at least one of the most influential artists (for other artists) in the last 60 years.

    It seems that abstract painting had been pushed to its limits, that approach, at least for that time; Pollock being one the “last” of that era, pushing it to its temporal edge. Warhol is claimed to have rejected the critical idea that art had to be some rendering from the depths of an artist’s soul, psyche, turmoil, confusion, emotions, or whatever you want to ascribe to the “internal” and evoke such. Aside from using techniques of mass production he used external objects as art, something Abstract Expressionists didn’t do, and left them in a cold state, with no emotion attached or implied in some of his works (I’m not quite sure you could claim his car-crash silk screen as something that doesn’t elicit an emotional state).

    I’m still pretty ignorant in art, so if any of this is crass or flat out wrong, sorry cat-daddy.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,157

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    24,583
    Quote Originally Posted by ngeso View Post
    Learn Chris Ofili
    Yes but the “Piss Christ” controversy predates the “Virgin Marry” controversy, and the Young Brits, so who’s biting who?

    It’s actually a little farcical.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Phyllis Hyman Cherry View Post
    Yes,but certaintly not in the same way that Basquait or Warhol is art right?


    In the same way. In some respects even better.

    ...

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    24,583
    Quote Originally Posted by ngeso View Post
    In some respects even better.

    ...
    How'z that?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Blake View Post
    Yes but the “Piss Christ” controversy predates the “Virgin Marry” controversy, and the Young Brits, so who’s biting who?

    It’s actually a little farcical.

    Who came first wasn't my point.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    24,583
    Quote Originally Posted by ngeso View Post
    Who came first wasn't my point.
    Wasn't really mine either.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Blake View Post
    How'z that?

    a. I appreciate radicality, non-compromittal courage and the relative capacity to kick in as many teeth as possible in art
    b. There is no art that simultaneously unsettles and stunts me more than the vulgar banality of reality.

    Art is where I say anything has to go!

    ...

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    24,583
    Quote Originally Posted by ngeso View Post
    a. I appreciate radicality, non-compromittal courage and the relative capacity to kick in as many teeth as possible in art
    b. There is no art that simultaneously unsettles and stunts me more than the vulgar banality of reality.

    Art is where I say anything has to go!

    ...
    I suppose that’s all good and fine, but how does that apply to Sorrano or to Ofili and the Young British Artists? How does any of this work exemplify “banal reality”?

    Does worldwide fame?—Artists as stars with gobs of sought media attention constitutes radicalism?

    Even for this present work, how does traveling to South America (a possibly luxurious affordance) to take pictures of shit exemplify your claims?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Blake View Post
    I suppose that’s all good and fine, but how does that apply to Sorrano or to Ofili and the Young British Artists? How does any of this work exemplify “banal reality”?

    Does worldwide fame?—Artists as stars with gobs of sought media attention constitutes radicalism?

    Even for this present work, how does traveling to South America (a possibly luxurious affordance) to take pictures of shit exemplify your claims?


    You misunderstand me - I'm merely reacting to PHC implicating that Basquiat and Warhol are somehow objectively more art than Sorrano. I understand the personal preference, but leading the question with that preference is, in that instance, banal. For refutation's sake, Sorrano becomes more important than DHP-mainstreamed pop-art, despite my own indifference and relative lack of knowledge of art.

    Regarding the worldwide fame, media attention and artist stardom, I do not equate that to radicalism.

    Whether travelling to South America is luxurious in the context of art to me is completely irrelevant. I have no demand for art to alleviate the failings and augment the voids caused by reality and we the people who exist in it, particularly if we are quick to accuse and shy to react.

    (BTW, Ofili was bait.)

    ...
    Last edited by ngeso; 09-04-2008 at 06:50 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •