This "art" Boils My Blood....

[OohFeeshy]

What I find funny is how one guy can bung a splodge of paint on a bit of paper and get £1000000 for it, but I can draw (what I consider) a very good self portrait and get 2/10

 

[kat and james]

I KNOW.. i do'nt understand how a piece down by one person (who gets paid millions) is any different from a smear of paint done by me!! i know these modern artists have built up a name for themselves.. but if they can do it.. why can't anyone else... and how.. coz i need my finger in that pie!!!!

 

[sinistral]

Nobody's googled up the artist yet?

Biography.

Two interesting points from that bio:

Kounellis began to use live animals in his art during the late 1960s; one of his best-known works included 11 horses installed in the gallery. Kounellis not only questioned the traditionally pristine, sterile environment of the gallery but also transformed art into a breathing entity.

Part of that quote was included in the BBC story.

And, Kounellis belonged to a movement called "Arte Povera" (literally "impoverished art"):

the term Arte Povera [refers] to the humble materials, sometimes described as detritus, which Kounellis and others were employing at the time to make their elemental, anti-elitist art.

Finally, just for the sake of discussion, I found this interpretation of the artwork on this weblog:

The truth is, the artist’s statement in the exhibit of fishbowl with a knife is a poetic statement about the reality of society. He is allegorically drawing the big picture of metaphysical reality regarding the inalienable rights of human existence, and that image represents the rights of all living creatures to live amid the harsh realities of our environment on this planet.

Human life is like a goldfish constantly struggling to live amid the harshness of our existence, our society, and our environment. Jannis Kounellis’ powerful imagery of fish and knife in a fishbowl irritates and burns in the same manner as it awakens and opens one’s eyes to the ugly reality of our environment and the world at large that we live in.

[snip]

Whether the artist is, consciously or unconsciously, aware about the sensational effect that his art would evoke, it is irrelevant. The relevance of his work in our society is what matters and how it opens the viewers of art and how it elicits judgment and opinion on the part of the viewers. The poetic truth of the artist’s work is finally revealed and it is up to the public or the society whether the particular work of art liberates their quest for truth or sensationalism, for that matter.

In the end, it is a question that a member of animal rights group and the society in general must ask: “am I a fish or a knife in the fishbowl of society where I belong?"

 

[rdd1952]

I always thought of a piece of art as something you could buy (albeit some art is WAY out of most of our price ranges) and display somewhere. I certainly hope that this doesn't get sold to someone who wants to display it in their house.

 

[Boxcar Muzzdogg]

Nobody's googled up the artist yet?

Biography.

Two interesting points from that bio:


QUOTE
Kounellis began to use live animals in his art during the late 1960s; one of his best-known works included 11 horses installed in the gallery. Kounellis not only questioned the traditionally pristine, sterile environment of the gallery but also transformed art into a breathing entity.


Part of that quote was included in the BBC story.

And, Kounellis belonged to a movement called "Arte Povera" (literally "impoverished art"):


QUOTE
the term Arte Povera [refers] to the humble materials, sometimes described as detritus, which Kounellis and others were employing at the time to make their elemental, anti-elitist art.


Finally, just for the sake of discussion, I found this interpretation of the artwork on this weblog:


QUOTE
The truth is, the artist’s statement in the exhibit of fishbowl with a knife is a poetic statement about the reality of society. He is allegorically drawing the big picture of metaphysical reality regarding the inalienable rights of human existence, and that image represents the rights of all living creatures to live amid the harsh realities of our environment on this planet.

Human life is like a goldfish constantly struggling to live amid the harshness of our existence, our society, and our environment. Jannis Kounellis’ powerful imagery of fish and knife in a fishbowl irritates and burns in the same manner as it awakens and opens one’s eyes to the ugly reality of our environment and the world at large that we live in.

[snip]

Whether the artist is, consciously or unconsciously, aware about the sensational effect that his art would evoke, it is irrelevant. The relevance of his work in our society is what matters and how it opens the viewers of art and how it elicits judgment and opinion on the part of the viewers. The poetic truth of the artist’s work is finally revealed and it is up to the public or the society whether the particular work of art liberates their quest for truth or sensationalism, for that matter.

In the end, it is a question that a member of animal rights group and the society in general must ask: “am I a fish or a knife in the fishbowl of society where I belong?"

Thats an interesting interpretation. In order for something to be art, the artist must have a vision which he/she is trying to acheive through their meduim. If there is not vision involved adn the artist says, "its whatever you interpret it as," then that is not art, it has no vision. At the very best, it is bad art. A carpenter is an artist. A scientist is an artist. A philosopher is an artist. A fisherman is an artist. Anyone who must use a skill to manipulate their surrounding in order to acheive a specific vision is an artist. If this interpretation of Kounellis' work is true then it would be art.Initially, I failed to view this peice objectively. However, this person has been creating for decades and most likely has a vision when they are creating. However, thats not to say the art could have adverse effects, such as tokis pointed out.

 

[RedShark]

I held off a while before responding but now after hearing more-of-the-same i must try and get my point across.
First off, yes i think CatFish got it right when she stated "everything is art" and everything has the potential to be art. Ones own life, from their birth to the day they die may in some way be a form of art. For those of you saying this is not art i dont agree with you, although i respect and hear-out your opinion, but i personally think some respect and consideration may be missing on some of your parts. I dont want to ramble. My point is that Art serves us as both entertainment and for stimulation purposes and the artist clearly acheived this.
And for the comment saying that its not art because anyone can do it...Yea, if you ever go to a contemporary art exhibit you'd probably say that at every piece you came across, But thats just the point my friend, is that they (artist) made the exhibit and you weren't the one who did it. Its kind of frutrating hearing people say well duh i could have done that. Or if you think thats art, check this out... MAN! Perhaps the artists intentions were to push peoples buttons and get them in heated arguments about it. I think it all depends on how one perceives it. As I digress, due to current events, with evil alive and breathing, few people in power and certain inevitabilities what i think this artist was trying to get across to its viewers was that life, in it's most general sense is ####ed. Mostly because we are responsible for it. To me, the exhibit says "hey look what happens when other life forms are in our hands, they are ####ed too" We can't even support one another let alone something we will never effectively communicate with.

Global struggle against extremism, yet that's what they base marketing strategies on.
Anti-Terrorism movement yet they still manufacture and distribute Fire Arms.
That Irony is for you!
Does this sound like the opening of a bedtime story? Does it even make any sense?
They say money makes the world go round, well i say it's the desperation for that money and what we'd do for it that makes this world move. To me it seems people sure do know how to make their lives harder.
Wow, how about that for a wild tangent. When all i could have said:

To me the artist seems to have expressed his message that we are all ####ed if we dont wakeup and take action against things we'd like to see changed. eh hem, hint, hint.

 

[RandomWiktor]

I really don't see this as a debate about art so much as a debate of "Is it appropriate to use animals for whatever the hell we want, so long as we can find some kind of an excuse for the behavior?" I really don't like how we say that it is ok for "artists" to do ANYTHING, no matter how disrespectful, cruel, dangerous, or just plain stupid it may be, simply because we can't judge artwork. I would like to argue that we can, in fact, judge anything, and that judgment is one of the only things that keeps society from crumbling and falling apart. And it is getting that way; I actually had someone argue to me that RAPE is excuseable because to the rapist, it may not feel like an act of violation and violence, but something entirely different - maybe even thier interpretation of love. When we get to a point where we feel bad for murderes because they weren't hugged enough, rapists are victims of thier love of women, and animals can be turned into art media so long as it is creative, we are really getting out of hand.

I am so tired of this recent attitude that "it isn't ok to judge anything a person does at any point because everyone has thier reasons." That's all find and dandy... but it doesn't mean that there are no longer good and bad reasons. And bad reasons, which lead to bad actions, need to be judged and punished accordingly, or we risk losing order as a society. Open-mindedness is great, but there still need to be moral boundaries.

 

[Naughtygirlrlw]

RW~ Seriously...I love you!