Modernist and Postmodernist Con-Aritsts

[Victor Pross]

Modernist and Postmodernists con-artists

By Victor Pross

(Note from MSK:

Article removed for plagiary of Rick Bayan. See here. One paragraph came from Ruthless Reviews website from a review of The Fountainhead. See here. Since this article prompted discussion, but was plagiarized except for a very small part, the full text is provided alongside the original text here. In this manner, reference can be made when needed.

OL extends its deepest apologies to Rick Bayan and the person at Ruthless Reviews.)

Edited June 26, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Dragonfly]

and it’s just a fucking dead insect in a cup.

I didn't know that dead insects could fuck in a cup...

[Danneskjold]

I really wish I couldn't believe it.

[Victor Pross]

I really wish I couldn't believe it.

Jeff,

Believe it. It's being done. It's a reality. And it's being bought---financially speaking, and intellectually. What does it feel like being Chuck Heston looking up to see a chimp on the horsey? "It's a maaaaaad house!" :turned:

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

That was quite an inflamed statement, but you are preaching to the converted here. I can't think of any OL regular who would endorse those works you mentioned. What would be the point of me ranting and railing against communism here? To convince people of what they already know? There was one guy on another forum who appeared in the not too distant past ranting and railing against people who did not accept atheism. All he did was confuse the atheists in that environment, and practically everybody was an atheist there.

Ironically, in terms of writing style, using obscenity in an article they way you did comes off as a bit of rhetorical post-modernism itself. For example, you object to using feces as a physical normative medium, so why use it as a cognitive one to transmit an idea or an evaluation of competence in a nonfiction article for the general public? Or why refer to the sex act as a form of derision in that context? What is the difference between proclaiming "a fucking dead insect" on a philosophy forum and actually copulating in public in base surroundings as an artistic statement, like the distinct gentleman in San Francisco did? In both, the point was to make a harsh criticism by dehumanizing and degrading sex and the term for it. And in both, the point was to lower the standards of conduct in the environments where they were presented.

In fiction, foul language is often good as the local color of a character. But even in fiction, foul language is not a good choice for general omniscient voice descriptions (normal impersonal narrative)—only when a specific character is describing. But in a discussion environment, if you want aesthetic standards to be raised, your own language should reflect that, not the opposite.

There are other things to say, but I will only touch on one of them. I agree with the thesis that no talent is required to create the works you mentioned (if the word "create" even applies). I also agree that post modernism is a very weird (and often despicable) cultural manifestation. But this does not make all post modern artists without talent. Many have a high degree of technical training in academic style and it shows in their work.

It is a mistake to try to paint the whole movement as being inhabited by the talentless. Lack of talent is not an essential characteristic of post-modernism. Hell, there are plenty of talentless people who alter clip-art in presenting representational images, or who even paint representational images in some pretty horrible primitive stick-figure styles. All they show is ineptness.

I think it is better to focus on the principles that lead consumers to suspend judgment of talent in art. (It is definitely not found in your thesis that the abstract has been allowed to be contemplated aesthetically in art galleries). You will find a much stronger argument against post-modernism from identifying the aesthetic principles of why people accept what artists do.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think that Victor is borrowing again. I know he's borrowed here and there without attribution in some posts over the last few weeks because I've seen the original copy which he copied. There are numerous touches in this article which I doubt Victor authored. And there's one detail -- a detail I'm sure he did write -- which to my eye casts strong doubt on his having written the whole article.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

I think that Victor is borrowing again. I know he's borrowed here and there without attribution in some posts over the last few weeks because I've seen the original copy which he copied. There are numerous touches in this article which I doubt Victor authored. And there's one detail -- a detail I'm sure he did write -- which to my eye casts strong doubt on his having written the whole article.

Ellen

___

Ellen,

Give me a break. Come on now. The reports of these art world happenings are covered in the press--if that's what you are saying. I did not attend the shows I speak of, I am merely giving my normative take on them. It is my reaction to what is going on in the art community. But I was not a writing reporter on location.

http://www.robertsgallery.com/news.htm Martin Creed

http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2002/...02/National.htm Modern art reports

Edited January 24, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Michael

Going-ons in the art world are all over the place. I was really just having a laugh here. Don't take my rant so serious. Here, more Modern art happenings for example. To me, it is an outrage - as it is funny.

Such as:

'A human head with a steering wheel attached

A piece of rotten fruit covered with maggots

The severed lower torsos of a man and woman, topped with steak and chicken dinners sitting on plates

A Bozo the Clown mural adorned with toilet plunger, mousetrap, and other objects

A portrait of a woman the artist tells us was abused—depicted bloody, cut, with lizards skittering over her body

A face-off between Jesus and an Indian medicine man

A pair of amputated feet hanging from an industrial chain

A mother getting her throat cut, graphically, by a baby.'

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/701654/postsWhen Art Becomes Inhuman - the CON of "Modern Art.

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Conceptual_...0Forgery_20Ring [conceptual art]

Now you say: "I can't think of any OL regular who would endorse those works you mentioned."

I would like to hear it from those who would agree or disagree--and why.

-Victor

ps

And I lessened the use of expletives. You have a point.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

There was a very funny comment from a reader in the Conceptual Art Forgery Ring article you just linked to:

Wow, I'm more artistic than I thought. I've produced an interactive piece with an empty hallway that has lights turn on when you go in and turn off when you go out. It's even a conceptual piece, the hallway isn't really there. It's just suggested by the presence of a floor, ceiling and walls.

LOL...

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

There was a very funny comment from a reader in the Conceptual Art Forgery Ring article you just linked to:

Wow, I'm more artistic than I thought. I've produced an interactive piece with an empty hallway that has lights turn on when you go in and turn off when you go out. It's even a conceptual piece, the hallway isn't really there. It's just suggested by the presence of a floor, ceiling and walls.

LOL...

Michael

Michael,

I think it would be fun for OL’ers to enjoy a modern art "horror file"—or really, a ‘funny file.’ I'll look around myself. For laughs.

-Victor

Edited January 24, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Chris Grieb]

In a movie I am sure Victor has seen Beverly Hills Cop. Eddie Murphy visits a art gallery in Bevery Hills and ask the attendant what the price of an object is The price and his reaction is a great moment in movie. I think many of us would have that reaction.

[Victor Pross]

In a movie I am sure Victor has seen Beverly Hills Cop. Eddie Murphy visits a art gallery in Bevery Hills and ask the attendant what the price of an object is The price and his reaction is a great moment in movie. I think many of us would have that reaction.

Chris, back in the time Beverly Hills Cop was playing (I’m aging myself here) I have attended art shows that have left me practically gasping for air, shocked and in a state of total disbelief—not only because of the nature of the “art” (which was bad enough) but also because of the “artist’s” solemn seriousness towards his creation. At the time, I thought I had truly entered Alice in Wonderland and Lennon’s I am the Walrus - at the same time. Now, nothing shocks me.

-Victor

Edited January 24, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Jonathan]

Now you say: "I can't think of any OL regular who would endorse those works you mentioned."

I would like to hear it from those who would agree or disagree--and why.

The interesting thing to me is the power that these works have over some people. Most of it is pretty ineffective and irrelevant to me. Sometimes I'll think an installation or performance piece is clever or exceptionally odd, and I'll find myself reflecting on it now and then over the course of a week or two, but generally it doesn't grab me by the balls and make me spend endless hours writing essays, fictional stories or creating paintings about it.

But, wow, how deeply it moves Victor and many other Objectivists! It owns a part of them. It controls them and their creativity. They'll write a thousand words about it for every one word they write about the contemporary art that they allegedly love.

It makes me think that, even though I usually don't get much out of it myself, perhaps ranting Objectivists are living testaments to its power as art, and I should reconsider the significance of its value.

J

[reason.on]

Now you say: "I can't think of any OL regular who would endorse those works you mentioned."

I would like to hear it from those who would agree or disagree--and why.

The interesting thing to me is the power that these works have over some people. Most of it is pretty ineffective and irrelevant to me. Sometimes I'll think an installation or performance piece is clever or exceptionally odd, and I'll find myself reflecting on it now and then over the course of a week or two, but generally it doesn't grab me by the balls and make me spend endless hours writing essays, fictional stories or creating paintings about it.

But, wow, how deeply it moves Victor and many other Objectivists! It owns a part of them. It controls them and their creativity. They'll write a thousand words about it for every one word they write about the contemporary art that they allegedly love.

It makes me think that, even though I usually don't get much out of it myself, perhaps ranting Objectivists are living testaments to its power as art, and I should reconsider the significance of its value.

J

Brilliant.

RCR

[reason.on]

I think that Victor is borrowing again. I know he's borrowed here and there without attribution in some posts over the last few weeks because I've seen the original copy which he copied. There are numerous touches in this article which I doubt Victor authored. And there's one detail -- a detail I'm sure he did write -- which to my eye casts strong doubt on his having written the whole article.

Even if he did write it all (I agree it appears debatable), it HAS been written *many* times before with much more a plum, and the examples given are very well-worn cliches. Besides, no one, not a single person here has even suggested that "anything" and "everything" is art. So, what we've got is some self-serving straw made to look like a man.

I have to admit I have a hard time taking seriously any aesthetic theorist (armchair or not) who flippantly avoids specific questions of definition like the plague, and who quite frankly has not demonstrated a very keen eye or understanding of art and art history.

I certainly do think that Victor, OL's most vocal critic of modern and abstract art, got one thing right in the essay he posted, "The critics must feel important in their role as interpreters."

Ah, well...there it is.

RCR

Edited January 24, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Victor Pross]

I think that Victor is borrowing again. I know he's borrowed here and there without attribution in some posts over the last few weeks because I've seen the original copy which he copied. There are numerous touches in this article which I doubt Victor authored. And there's one detail -- a detail I'm sure he did write -- which to my eye casts strong doubt on his having written the whole article.

Even if he did write it all (I agree it appears debatable), it HAS been written *many* times before with much more a plum, and the examples given are very well-worn cliches. Besides, no one, not a single person here has even suggested that "anything" and "everything" is art. So, what we've got is some self-serving straw made to look like a man.

I have to admit I have a hard time taking seriously any aesthetic theorist (armchair or not) who flippantly avoids specific questions of definition like the plague, and who quite frankly has not demonstrated a very keen eye or understanding of art and art history.

I certainly do think that Victor, OL's most vocal critic of modern and abstract art, got one thing right in the essay he posted, "The critics must feel important in their role as interpreters."

Ah, well...there it is.

RCR

Did I avoid a question you asked me--and flippantly? I wasn't aware. Wow.

[reason.on]

Did I avoid a question you asked me--and flippantly? I wasn't aware. Wow.

Jesus Christ, Victor--you've avoided questions from me, from Ellen, from Peter, from Jonathan...WOW, indeed.

RCR

[Victor Pross]

Did I avoid a question you asked me--and flippantly? I wasn't aware. Wow.

Jesus Christ, Victor--you've avoided questions from me, from Ellen, from Peter, from Jonathan...WOW, indeed.

RCR

Well, I don't see that I did--except for Jonathan's question.

Do you think what I cited and linked is art--all the those things?

MSK: I can't think of any OL regular who would endorse those works you mentioned.

Hold on, M. We'll see.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Give me a break. Come on now. The reports of these art world happenings are covered in the press--if that's what you are saying. I did not attend the shows I speak of, I am merely giving my normative take on them. It is my reaction to what is going on in the art community. But I was not a writing reporter on location.

No, Victor, it isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that I think you borrowed wordings. You've made a certain number of changes now from the first version. I kept a copy of the first version.

Ellen

___

[reason.on]

Well, I don't see that I did--except for Jonathan's question.

No, of course you don't.

Do you think what I cited and linked is art--all the those things?

...

As best I can understand what you are asking, yes, Victor, the many questions from myself, Ellen, Dragonfly, and Jonathan related to what is and isn't art--the main point of all this entire multi-threaded discussion--are a large part of what I am talking about.

Let me make this plain. You feign expertise in all things "art", and continue by making sweeping assertions as to what is and isn't art, and then when pressed to apply and explain your supposedly flawless theoretical formulation against real-world situations, you duck-and-cover again and again (see the "Apple Tree" discussion under the Art Quiz thread for a perfect example).

So, let's back-track and try a real easy one. So far as you've made any effort to explain it, you've made your "objective" definition of art hinge almost exclusively on your subjective perception of what is and isn't a "representation" of reality, such that what does represent reality (to your subjective perception) is art, and that which does not (to your subjective perception) is not. As argument, you've made more assertions, used your own supposed authority as "trained artist" who "knows a lot", some vague notion of "tradition", a few misc. articles, and a little it of Ayn Rand.

So, based upon this definition, I think I can conclude (if you are consistent with your definition) that the following works are NOT "art" according to you.

The initial question is simple: Am I or am I not correct in this conclusion? Yes or no will do.

RCR

Edited January 24, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Victor Pross]

RCR,

As you have set the situation up [as you understand it] the single worded answer is: no.

This is a 'no' with no explanation. That can't bode well for a full understanding.

Now, how about answering my question?

Victor

Edited January 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Apple Tree thing was my fault actually. I spoke for Victor based on something that I saw.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Apple Tree thing was my fault actually. I spoke for Victor based on something that I saw.

It wasn't your fault at all. True, your speaking for Victor was a mistake. Confidently predicting that someone else will agree with you, unless you know that person's views well -- and sometimes even then -- is stepping outside the bounds of what you can reasonably know. But in this case, it was just a spontaneous expression of your liking the painting. All Victor needed to do to correct the situation was to say something like, Sorry, Jeff, I don't consider that painting art. His dancing round the issue was no one's doing except his own.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Apple Tree thing was my fault actually. I spoke for Victor based on something that I saw.

It wasn't your fault at all. True, your speaking for Victor was a mistake. Confidently predicting that someone else will agree with you, unless you know that person's views well -- and sometimes even then -- is stepping outside the bounds of what you can reasonably know. But in this case, it was just a spontaneous expression of your liking the painting. All Victor needed to do to correct the situation was to say something like, Sorry, Jeff, I don't consider that painting art. His dancing round the issue was no one's doing except his own.

Ellen

___

There was no dancing around. I told you that Jeff did not speak for me.

Check the thread out again. This is what I said:

Jeff is a smart young man, not my mouth-peice. We are, in the end, 'stand-alone' individuals.

And grow up, Ellen.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

As best I can understand what you are asking, yes, Victor, the many questions from myself, Ellen, Dragonfly, and Jonathan related to what is and isn't art--the main point of all this entire multi-threaded discussion--are a large part of what I am talking about.

RCR,

You didn't answer my question at all. I asked you if the examples given on this thread are art? Well, are they? Look how you slip out of answering me with the bullshit above. Is the empty room with blinking lights art? Is the colored shit on canvas art? Is the bug in a cup art? MSK said that nobody here would call this type of stuff art. Yet, amazing, there is a whole industry around it and it is being sold as art. Wow, huh? How about that, dude?

Stop dancing around the question and answer it. Here, one more time: is this stuff art? Yes or no?

-Victor

Edited January 25, 2007 by Victor Pross