-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 1:03 PMIts certainly the stuff of nightmares but then we need nightmares to measure our dreams against. I'm not sure if thats good or bad. Maybe its both.
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 3:29 PMI would say good in that it creates a reaction a yuck factor as you put it. I am guessing that is what Paul was going for. So good because he got a reaction out of me that he intended. But then again I do not know his intention or context.
If he was trying to create something that made me feel warm and cuddly then he failed - then I would say bad.
Would I want to watch the clip again and again? - no. Do I think he has shown me something new? - yes. -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 3:53 PMDo you think Andrew ,we need to know his intentions before we can accept our own responses to the work? Good and bad questions can present this dilemma don't you think? -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 4:18 PMNo, I don't think that I need to know his intentions to accept my own responses to his work.
But in order to determine if his work is good or bad, I need to know his intentions, what his hierarchy is. Then I can determine if he succeeded in what he set out to do. But that again goes back to my own responses and aesthetics. Which brings us back to the whole title thing you find too simplistic
We can all agree what a square is and what the wavelength of red is, but beyond that...
another simplistic saying - "opinions are like assholes. everyone's got one and they all stink" -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 4:34 PMWell people are complicated arent they and we cant even assume that we all understand the same wavelength of red even if we occupy the same culture. You know only two years ago I just realised that not everyone could hear bats. Simplistic saying don't explain enough of the complexities of the range of human experience and possible understandings. Sometimes it just cant fit on a t-shirt, you know what I mean? -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 4:42 PMI think I should become a ManLesbian; marry Paul...and then sue him for 46 million dollars.
~V~ -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 5:08 PMdon't you mean McCartney?
....But with enough simplistic t-shirts logos, I think we can explain humanity... -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 5:13 PMHa! I wonder how many t-shirts it would take. How could we be sure we would have ordered enough. -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 5:43 PMYou mean, Paul doesn't have millions and I would turn into a ManLesbian for nothing?
Fiddlesticks.
~V~ -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 6:10 PMYou never know you might like it. -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 6:23 PM -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 2:21 AMOh dear, this kind of thing isnt good to watch first thing in the morning.
-
-
-
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 11:22 PMonly one way to find out...
my other favourite simplistic saying -
Which is a better burrito - a taco or a shoe?
i.e. by what criteria do we evaluate art? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 2:42 AMAndrew I always get burritos and tacos mixed up..in real life I mean not art life. Every time I'm in a Mexican restaurant I've got to say 'and what's that again'. Can a taco turn into a burrito? I thought they were different things completely. Well they are here anyway. But shoes are all right, they are on the ground with feet in them from time to time.
Anyway this saying....is it your saying? Is I a dadaist quote? -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 9:13 AMAs far as I know, it is my saying.
Maybe you could put some ground beef and veggies in your shoe. Some sour cream, a little salsa... -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 9:27 AMAndrew, Would that be Art or dinner?:) and more importantly would it involve tequila? -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 12:12 PMDinner is art ( if the food is good) and of course tequila, a nice añejo. -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 7:05 PMBats make noise? -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 2:42 AMHa! Kimowan,
Yes they do. I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that one. I can hear them and always presumed that everyone could. I just mentioned it one day in conversation, I had been out and there were a lot of bats calling. Well everyone just stared at me like I was mad. So I tried to find out about it and I think about 20% of people can hear it. It makes sense of my problems with mixing down music which I do from time to time. I cant locate cymbals in audible space without borrowing someone else's ears. Garden water features for example drive me nuts and make me quite tense, I think the opposite of what they do for most people. The sound of a real trumpet is impossible for me but a synth trumpet doesn't hurt at all.
Its made me think about perceptions generally. -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 8:23 AMYou've most likely guessed that I was being facetious by asking good-bad. In lay terms, I often hear, "I know what I like when I see it." People like Rothko because orange is their favorite color, or hate him because it isn't a picture of anything. They like Van Gogh because they connect with pastoral scenes, Monet for flowers, Davinci because everyone says he's good, really good. And why not?
I guess I put up Paul McCarthy as a challenge to what we think as "good."
Good-bad is a harsh question to ask of art, endlessly entertaining, however extreme. -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 8:39 AMYeah, Kimowan, the question is well asked as "good / bad" as it helps the responses be more wide-ranging, i.e.: gut, emotional, intellectual, simple prejudice, etc. If you had asked relevant / irrelevant, it would have limited the responses to a much more focused range of artistic / intellectual parameters.
Speaking personally, I can't deny McCarthy's credibility as an artist. Having said that, his work doesn't engage me on any other level than gut resistance to the idea of art being a pushing of boundaries into the disgusting and/or the use of juvenile jokes in grand scale. I just find that obvious, boring and uninteresting. -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 9:26 AMI agree with this Allan and I suppose the good/bad question does make my heart sink a little but I suspected what Kimowan was up to:) I find that extremes can be quite dull 'cause I know I'll be forced into examining the boundaries and I'm quite interested in what is in the middle, you know the thing for what it is, not about what its about to turn into. -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 11:16 AMThis might be more about self-deceit, but it still addresses good / bad. The most recent emission from Robert Genn:
"Christopher Foyle, British owner of Foyle's Bookshops, has recently published "Foyle's Philavery: A Treasury of Unusual Words." In it he defines arcane English words currently dropped or seldom used. Among them "Dentiloquy" (speaking through clenched teeth) and "Latrability" (the ability to bark). Many words have sly connections with art. One in particular needs to be returned to mainline usage:
"Kalopsia" is the condition in which things appear more beautiful than they really are. It's like where girls (and boys) in bars, for example, tend to look more attractive nearer to closing time. For example: "At 11pm the bar was high on kalopsia."
Kalopsia also applies to regular people and self-deluding artists who just can't see how bad certain art really is. As in the bar, there are pressures to overlook problems in the name of expediency. In the real world, artists with a high degree of kalopsia can remain wallflowers unless they go for the cure.
When self-esteem is low, artists tend to give themselves a premature pat on the back. We all know of artists who are forever in a state of euphoric bliss about their essentially crummy art. These folks may rationalize that joy itself is
enough, but it isn't. Pleasing yourself is loaded with potential self-deceit. The problem is compounded when an occasional observer says it's good stuff. Worse still, people can start to believe in the delusion of a perpetrator--a widespread, contagious human condition.
What's the cure? It certainly helps to know how truly excellent work can be. Seeing, appreciating and understanding competence sets higher personal goals and spurs both imagination and facility. A sense of experimentation in the studio and the application of honest doubt are healthy for growth and mastery. Good enough is never good enough. Putting in that extra thought and effort--without overworking--is key. Further, it's important not to get derailed by trend, story or hype. Everyone, particularly artists, should remember that no matter how good the story, quality still counts. The world is fully loaded with folks who are content with mediocrity. Evolved artists simply won't let themselves be one of them." -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 12:53 PMA cure for the common kalopsia. Wouldn't that be something. I can never remember if its the red pill or the blue pill. I always forget which ones which but then there is always debate about which one reveals the truth.
Unfortunity a certain level of delusion is comforting for most looking for a short cut to happiness. (Its making me think of Harvey, the Jimmy Stuart film although I know not quite the same thing)
Its bad luck, damn it, that others have to experience the mediocrity that is produced. -
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 1:01 PM<<<It certainly helps to know how truly excellent work can be.>>>
And how do we know this?
One artist's kalopsia is another artist's genius. -
-
-
Re: Paul McCarthy...good or bad?
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 1:11 PMStuff that I like and wish I had thought of ;)
Another simplistic saying-
A classic is a cliché you like. A cliché is a classic you don't like.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
