Why artist David Shrigley has pulped 6,000 copies of The Da Vinci Code

Yes, Zen, it seems really unclear, doesn't it? The way it's worded. But it seems to me like he's slapped on a new cover. The cover says 1984, but when you open the book and read it, it's really the Da Vinci Code. That's the only thing I can come up with after reading the article and knowing Shrigley. The reason it's so much money is because of the special signed print inside (which he claimed was an "original work," but he's describing an editioned print, not an original work of art at all). But 500 pounds isn't that outrageous for a print and a limited book. However, that's only for the first couple of hundred buyers. It's 800 pounds thereafter for the rest of the edition. Not unheard of, but costly, and some portion of it (the percentage unknown) is going to the bookstore.
 
Yes, Zen, it seems really unclear, doesn't it? The way it's worded. But it seems to me like he's slapped on a new cover. The cover says 1984, but when you open the book and read it, it's really the Da Vinci Code. That's the only thing I can come up with after reading the article and knowing Shrigley. The reason it's so much money is because of the special signed print inside (which he claimed was an "original work," but he's describing an editioned print, not an original work of art at all). But 500 pounds isn't that outrageous for a print and a limited book. However, that's only for the first couple of hundred buyers. It's 800 pounds thereafter for the rest of the edition. Not unheard of, but costly, and some portion of it (the percentage unknown) is going to the bookstore.
That is what I thought. But they were signed and numbered. At 495 pounds each, I could probably do that.
 
I saw this news a couple of days ago, and my opinion is pretty harsh; an absurd waste of money energy and resources.
Just for a not very profound play on words...
In my humble opinion not art at all, there is no skill involves in the making, nothing interesting (again in my opinion) in the concept, just a silly gimmick.
 
If you've seen Shrigley's art, it is absurd. :ROFLMAO:

In my not-so-humble opinion, art can be absurd. Art is usually a waste of money, energy, and resources. Sometimes, it doesn't require much skill, but ideas, and sometimes those ideas aren't always interesting.
 
All good points in themselves.
What I am struggling with is that it takes all criteria away, it means any turd can be art (yes I know of several successful instances of feacal art).
The reason why I put such emphasis on "in my opinion".
Because nothing in those points gives me personally reason to change my opinion on this particular attempt at art.
 
Yes, we all have our opinions. I'm not saying I like the book idea. I'm just saying it is a form of art. There is also a limited edition print of his work inside as well. I don't know what it looks like, but I like some of his art.

What criteria does art have, and can you cite where this comes from? I didn't know art had a criteria.
Also, I wasn't stating my opinion to change your mind about anything at all, just an FYI. ;)
 
I never said there are general criteria. It's just that I have certain criteria for me personally, as I tried to convey. You almost make the impression that you think I want to be a kind of art police.
I don't mind anybody calling anything art. More power to them.
But nobody tells me what I should consider art or not either...
But maybe you would be more comfortable if I called it (again and again in my personal opinion) bad art, rather than not art? I sometimes get the feeling there is where the sensitivities lie.

Here in Iceland a young fellow from Germany came to visit a couple of years ago, and in the Mývatn National park he wrote the word "moss" in the moss by severely damaging it. In the arctic climate this kind of moss is the only groundcovering flora on the lava, and it takes literally ages as in several hundred years to form. His justification for this blatant act of vandalism? "Art". I can tell you it sure had shock value...

So now you tell me Arty, do you think that was art? Bad art? Shocking art Criminal art? Maybe even not art at all?
:unsure:
 
Hm Arty, you did get me thinking on what those personal criteria of mine are. Not an easy question to answer.
I think for me the personality of the artist should shine through in the work. Directly.
Take for instance your own work as an example; when I see one of your paintings or drawings here on the forum without reading the caption I instantly recognize it as yours, it has soul, life and character.
Looking at, or even holding a copy of 1984 an industrially produced book will never move me in such a way. The artist has to tell me his little "pulped fiction" joke and describe the proces to explain why this ordinary book qualifies as art and my reaction will be "meh, I already read Orwell"....;)
I'll stop rambling now, and go back to some paperwork I've been putting off to the last moment.
 
I never said there are general criteria. It's just that I have certain criteria for me personally, as I tried to convey. You almost make the impression that you think I want to be a kind of art police.
I don't mind anybody calling anything art. More power to them.
But nobody tells me what I should consider art or not either...
But maybe you would be more comfortable if I called it (again and again in my personal opinion) bad art, rather than not art? I sometimes get the feeling there is where the sensitivities lie.

Here in Iceland a young fellow from Germany came to visit a couple of years ago, and in the Mývatn National park he wrote the word "moss" in the moss by severely damaging it. In the arctic climate this kind of moss is the only groundcovering flora on the lava, and it takes literally ages as in several hundred years to form. His justification for this blatant act of vandalism? "Art". I can tell you it sure had shock value...

So now you tell me Arty, do you think that was art? Bad art? Shocking art Criminal art? Maybe even not art at all?
:unsure:
Hi E.J.H.

Hmmm. A lot to unpack here. First, let me say, if you got the impression that I was making an impression that you were the "art police," please forgive me. I thought you were literally saying that art had a criteria and was separate from your opinion. You said your opinion many times in your first post (which I totally understand, but I guess I didn't apply it to that particular statement. I can be a little dumb at times.

I see now that you have a personal criteria.

Me too. :)

I'm not comfortable or uncomfortable. I can read things too literally or analytically sometimes. Please accept my apologies. But I feel most anything can be art, depending on the context and intention. (It always depends, though, on a lot of other circumstances too, of course.) But that's me. I like that we can have this conversation. It is okay to disagree.

I do agree with there being a LOT of BAD art! :ROFLMAO: There is a lot of gimmicky art, shock art, stupid art, useless art, etc. Perhaps we can agree there?

Also, I would never tell you or, as I said before, think I could convince you what your opinion should or should not be or tell you what is or isn't art. That is up to you, of course! I didn't mean to come off like that.

As for the last question here about this German person who spelled out "moss" in the moss (oh, what a genius!), I'd say, if he meant it to be some sort of art (did he say it was?), then he should have also checked the laws because it was most certainly criminal. I'd say it was beyond stupid and bad. Was it art, though? I'm not sure because I have no in-person context to experience it. Who was the audience? What was the purpose and presentation? The thing itself doesn't make me think or feel; only your question does. I'd say your description and your question to me about this is the actual art in this scenario.
 
Hm Arty, you did get me thinking on what those personal criteria of mine are. Not an easy question to answer.
I think for me the personality of the artist should shine through in the work. Directly.
Take for instance your own work as an example; when I see one of your paintings or drawings here on the forum without reading the caption I instantly recognize it as yours, it has soul, life and character.
Looking at, or even holding a copy of 1984 an industrially produced book will never move me in such a way. The artist has to tell me his little "pulped fiction" joke and describe the proces to explain why this ordinary book qualifies as art and my reaction will be "meh, I already read Orwell"....;)
I'll stop rambling now, and go back to some paperwork I've been putting off to the last moment.
Hi again,

Not an easy question for me either! :ROFLMAO: I sometimes have a hard time with my own criteria when art is up against that thin line that blurs against the conceptual. It is very tricky, isn't it? When it moves me in some way. Or makes me think. Even if it makes me cringe, I try to pay attention to these cues. If it creates an effect within me. Makes an impact. Sometimes the affect isn't successful, like maybe the artist meant to evoke something happy, but they made something ugly and dark. It's still "art" to me, it just isn't successful, and therefore on the bad side (depending).

I want to thank you for saying what you've said about my paintings and drawings. You don't know what that means to me because most of the time, I do not know if my "character" comes through in my work. I may not be the best artist, but I do hope for what you are recognizing--a sort of personality. And when you say that it has "life," that's really the best I can ever hope for. Thank you for that. I appreciate that SO much. ♥️
 
First off no need to apologize at all. I like discussing stuff like this and do tend to ramble on a bit. And it would not be a very interesting discussion if we completely agreed on everything (though I do feel we agree on the main issues).
And yeah, that´s why I clarified some stuff, it is very personal, the opinions and the criteria , and you are right it´s a tricky subject, also to communicate clearly what I think of such matters is not easy, not in the least because my ideas about it are not thát clear to begin with...
I did not mean the part of the art police literally, had you been sitting opposite of me you would have seen the mischievous grin accompanying that remark...;)
I enjoy the conversation.

As for the nature vandalism posing at art, this was longer ago than I remembered, 10 years already (is it just me or are we getting old).
I just did a web search with some appropriate terms in Icelandic but only found this article in english, and it seems details of the story were a bit sketchier than I remembered;
In my memory the german artist had stated he had done this as art, but the article states he denied it (he does justify this kind of art by comparing it to industrial damage done to nature, a suspect "whataboutism"...)
 
Back
Top