Jump to content

Art Or Ar*e


rak sa_ngop

Recommended Posts

Would a pic from the front, but on the other side have been revealing? You have avoided this, the obvious angle...any reason for this, not that it's important.

In this land of relatively thin people, It's the last sculpture of its type I would expect to see. I'm no expert, but it looks to be an original 'concept', and a bit of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree absolutely Gary...living things are far more fascinating. If the taxpayers in my country had paid some w*nker 'artist' a ton of money tp produce it, my attitude would be radically different. I assume that the Thai taxpayers didn't pay for this. It's just that, as far this sort of stuff goes, it's a bit of fun, and probably an original idea.

In the scheme of things, it's importance rates well below a well-designed toilet bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art, I say, (in Lumpi Park :D ).

There's a very long tradition of sculptures of athletes poised; this indeed seems a modern take.

Some sculptors like to play with seemingly impossible balancing acts, too. It's playful and fun.

I think the brown-ness may not be undeliberate ... i.e. it does not refer to westerners :o .

Who's the sculptor ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can see, I agree Jetset (but that's just my personal preference). Is there a head involved? Possibly not, as one can see where the emphasis lies.

No, no head, just an enormous pair of golden globes pointing skywards! Lovely! :o

BenjasiriPark2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ease up people - this is "ART" I'll have you know. Art's function is to give us a good laugh, or cause for much staring, pondering, ruminating, and learned, highly serious discussion, all while licking an icecream. As for it's importance relative to licking icecream on a hot day, icecream wins.

Wote Street Willy -- now this is serious stuff, people. Appropriate respect, pihlease.

However I wouldn't be seen dead anywhere near an icecream anywhere in Wote Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would a pic from the front, but on the other side have been revealing? You have avoided this, the obvious angle...any reason for this, not that it's important.

In this land of relatively thin people, It's the last sculpture of its type I would expect to see. I'm no expert, but it looks to be an original 'concept', and a bit of fun.

I think it is informed in part by Botero, who also exaggerates parts of the body without retaining true scale. Has very good movement. To me it can be read in two ways, from the front a bold and exuberant leap into the future, from the rear looks like a child running to its mother.

Who is the artist, and what is the piece called?

Cheers,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry OP, I didn't bother to read through the posts. What's that thing for?

One difficulty in reading contemporary art, is that the works are often part of a debate or consideration of ideas. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to understand a work without knowledge of the background. We might enjoy it at a superficial level, or perhaps find it "silly".

A year ago, if someone printed "why don't you shut up" on a t-shirt, no-one would find it funny; but when King Carlos said those words to Chavez, it changed the meaning. Now, if someone writes on a T-shirt, "why don't you shut up", we understand it to be a reference to King Carlos, and perhaps find it amusing. Again, in 5 years, no-one would understand the T-shirt. The context is important.

Cheers,

Mike

edit> typos

Edited by phibunmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One difficulty in reading contemporary art, is that the works are often part of a debate or consideration of ideas. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to understand a work without knowledge of the background. We might enjoy it at a superficial level, or perhaps find it "silly".

I would say this is true of all art, contemporary or not.

For example a Caravaggio might 'look like good art' but how many people understand what makes it ‘great art’?

An example of what we might call ‘Traditional Art’ , acceptable to a wider audience because it doesn't challenge their eyes – While totally missing the point that it was meant to challenge the mind, the beliefs of the day, the political, religious and social status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One difficulty in reading contemporary art, is that the works are often part of a debate or consideration of ideas. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to understand a work without knowledge of the background. We might enjoy it at a superficial level, or perhaps find it "silly".

I would say this is true of all art, contemporary or not.

For example a Caravaggio might 'look like good art' but how many people understand what makes it ‘great art’?

An example of what we might call ‘Traditional Art’ , acceptable to a wider audience because it doesn't challenge their eyes – While totally missing the point that it was meant to challenge the mind, the beliefs of the day, the political, religious and social status quo.

That is true, for example most people have lost the knowledge of the symbology used in many of the older paintings (especially 16th 17th 18th C). We completely miss the significance of a particular coat of arms in a della Francesca, or an orange in a Vermeer. We miss the "story". Much of the symbolism used, especially in religious painting, would at the time have been readily understood even by lay people.

However, up until Impressionism, composition and technique generally followed established, but evolving, principles, which can be appreciated by the majority. It is difficult to spot either technique or composition in something like Klein's "International Klein Blue 79" or Malevich's (much earlier) "White on White". Except to say that perhaps the composition is perfect; but that is precisely the type of debate that I was referring to.

So, a question of degree. I agree with you, but think that since the Impressionists, the back story becomes a lot more important if you want to get anything out the art work at all. (Not in all cases, of course).

edit> re-wording

Edited by phibunmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

– While totally missing the point that it was meant to challenge the mind, the beliefs of the day, the political, religious and social status quo.

Sorry to go on, but I totally agree with this. Consider, for example, Caillebotte's 'floor scrapers'. Most people now see this work either in an art book or on the internet - and totally miss the point that he used a larger canvas than was considered reasonable to depict manual workers. The challenge that he was making to convention, and the Academy in particular, is lost.

Ok, I'll shut up now :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...