Interesting? Probably not.

Nope. Then again... I'm immediately turned off when writers pen such nonsense as "One artist defining our age" or "Ten Best Artists Working Today" or "Ten Trailblazing Artists You MUST See". :mad:
 
Even worse is when someone posts a mediocre work of art and it gets comments like "Amazing!":sick:

The Sistine Cieling is amazing. Bernini's Apollo and Daphne is amazing. This:

71977c737d07dd067790ddeb635030b0.jpg


... is NOT f*cking "AMAZING"... although you would think such stuff was from comments on social media.:mad:

OK... enough with my rant.:oops:
 
Neo-Dada trolling IMO (and I agree some element of Surrealism). I smiled at some of the jokes inherent in the concepts, but I'm not sure it goes far beyond something like Manzoni's "Artist's Shit." Just places it more into a contemporary context where the Web is ubiquitous and decades of conceptual art being adopted more into the status quo.

Also, the "pieces" that are basically just instructions have plenty of precedent. Mostly I think of Kienholz's "Concepts Tableaux."
 
Even worse is when someone posts a mediocre work of art and it gets comments like "Amazing!":sick:

The Sistine Cieling is amazing. Bernini's Apollo and Daphne is amazing. This:



... is NOT f*cking "AMAZING"... although you would think such stuff was from comments on social media.:mad:

OK... enough with my rant.:oops:
Sometimes, knowing the work of the artist and seeing their improvement, their work is "amazing". Not the work itself but the improvement. And if I want to pronounce it amazing, I will do so. 🤪😝😜
 
Well, like Barnum said...

And I like this reader comment--

"Hi. I bagged my house in Berkeley in 1987 (for fumigation purposes, but of course purpose is not considered state-of-the-art any longer). I'd be happy to provide Mr Bader with a signed certificate of authenticity."
 
Back
Top