So here's a conceptual art piece I would love to see someone make. Take photographic reproductions of art works which are canonical or in galleries today. Select works that could well be interpreted as porn. Set them in a slide show to a (current?) hit song which is entirely about sex/objectification. ( hotel, motel, holiday inn..., or she hit floor ...) See how many people you can offend in the 3 ish minutes afforded by a pop song. {also play the music really loud.}
This particular gallery offended me more then rest of the art in this category. just google image search (not with kids around... maybe?)
"Kenneth Willardt size does matter", a show in Chelsea. Its porn. They were selling big posters of the images for $40. (I believe pin-up posters is the phrase)
but there is a plethora of art to choose from in this category... Mapplethorpe, a video called "the dominatrix sleeps tonight" in the MOMA, all those nude oil pantings and sculptures... some Mike Kelley paintings...The origin of the world... the more people offended the more points you get. Someone more versed (interested in?) in art history could suggest more works, but he or she might be less willing to mock them.
The best part {for me} would be suggesting that these "high art" works were just as dependent on sex to sell (both for money and in the sense as selling critics on their artistic value) as an awful and utterly kitsch pop song is.
This particular gallery offended me more then rest of the art in this category. just google image search (not with kids around... maybe?)
"Kenneth Willardt size does matter", a show in Chelsea. Its porn. They were selling big posters of the images for $40. (I believe pin-up posters is the phrase)
but there is a plethora of art to choose from in this category... Mapplethorpe, a video called "the dominatrix sleeps tonight" in the MOMA, all those nude oil pantings and sculptures... some Mike Kelley paintings...The origin of the world... the more people offended the more points you get. Someone more versed (interested in?) in art history could suggest more works, but he or she might be less willing to mock them.
The best part {for me} would be suggesting that these "high art" works were just as dependent on sex to sell (both for money and in the sense as selling critics on their artistic value) as an awful and utterly kitsch pop song is.
Jeremiah sparked this idea... The title is a quote he said when I was describing Kenneth Willardt's work, while driving to the Sauk river.
More posts about my work and photos from NY to come. I only broke two laws, and didn't touch any art I was not supposed to. But I did loose track of the number of times gallery guards asked me not to , or to do something.