Artbash makes it easy (and free) to create a website if you are an artist or an art gallery.

Get started on your website now.
 

The Scream At Night / The Parameters of Anti-Art

Forum > Art Theory and History

alien-pop-band-profile-1 by Quinton Baker 7 Apr 2009 5:18 pm
16 Comments
Lo-fi-Terrorist-poet I apologize for making the comparison between music development and art once again, but parables are so easily drawn in that arrangement. You will better understand this topic by briefly visiting Lo-Fi Terrorist
After experiencing Lo-fi Terrorist, and the anti-care that goes into that sort of work, well it's hard work in it's self, ? ...to make something that is supposed to be rather awful. It is not as easy as it seems. Despite that the LFT track "Everybody is walking away from me"/LFT completely leaps off the sound board, serving to instill real fear and the colors and peaks are jarring, well in fact much of the LFT material is quite bland and delightfully dull. Another skill in it's self, the restraint needed to do F all! ...Not as easy as it seems. Listed below are parameters that could serve those interested in anti-art.

Bad Art is never Anti-Art. It's just art that you personally don't like. You may propose that anti-art is not art in these senses;

It can not under any imaginable circumstances be in any sense meaningful.

It must never contain purposeful juxtapositions that in any way relate to one another.

It must not ever contribute anything to any cultural foundation, living or dead.

It must strike the viewer with emotional and intellectual revulsion.

Also It must not strike the viewer with emotional and intellectual revulsion.

The viewer must immediately forget what they have just been looking at.

It must strive to be banal in the same way that macaroni and cheese might have nightmares of becoming.

It must not be as banal as a platonic idealized bowl of macaroni and cheese.

It must be more banal than the platonic idealized idea of banality.


Of course these parameters can never be met. But they may be what the anti-artist should be aiming towards.
Quoting Chrstphre Campbell



I would argue that non anti-artists or anti-anti-artists (artists) would benefit by carefully considering the nine commandments above, used similarily as working with off center positioning, in order to make their art stronger and appear more worked, so too making their art more suitable for the Super super modern era.

Actually the term "The Nine Commandments" (or another perspective "negative commandments") is rather interesting because as Chrstphre Campbell points out "these parameters can never be met", only degrees can be achieved from either end, the artist that strives for anti-art or the artist that uses elements of anti-art in their work. I would also add that made perfect in true lo-fi style, these hopeless commandments present anti-art as the true unacheivable and lucid rebel possessing one virtue, the use of failure not to failure, but to advantage.
image-67 anti-art white-square-900


Comments:
1 to 16 of 16
nosferatu
7 Apr 2009 7:38 pm
1 articles & 323 comments since 27 Dec 2007
striving to be more banal than macaroni and cheese...words to live by
benjamin
8 Apr 2009 1:08 am
1 articles & 212 comments since 30 Nov 2007
sounds like most landscape painting
klo27
8 Apr 2009 9:55 am
23 comments since 6 Mar 2007
Most landscape painting is like a covers band. popular at your local nightspot but doesn't get much airplay.

alien-pop-band-profile-1
Quinton Baker
8 Apr 2009 1:51 pm
34 articles & 466 comments since 4 Feb 2008
I think that landscape violates the following rule; "It must never contain purposeful juxtapositions that in any way relate to one another".

If you refer to the incompetency of many landscape artists, then that would be categorized as "Bad Art"! ...and as Chrstphre points out "Bad Art is never Anti-Art".
cadmium hed
9 Apr 2009 3:56 pm
6 articles & 432 comments since 30 Apr 2006
artists can't be incompetent.
alien-pop-band-profile-1
Quinton Baker
9 Apr 2009 5:36 pm
34 articles & 466 comments since 4 Feb 2008
all artists are incompetent at times. Many are genius at times too. Often incompetency and genius walk together oscillating. Have you ever studied a charismatic evangelist? How they are "On Fire!" on one occasion and completely seduce their fans, but at other times they fall flatter than flat by the way side.


Hmmm I was just thinking, that competency or lets say the competency adopted of the last century is in fact incompetency now (Oh Quinton you would say that!). I would argue that non anti-artists or anti-anti-artists (artists) would benefit by carefully considering the nine commandments above, used similarily as working with off center positioning, in order to make their art stronger and appear more worked, so too making their art more suitable for the Super super modern era.

Actually the term "The Nine Commandments" (or another perspective "negative commandments") is rather interesting because as Chrstphre Campbell points out "these parameters can never be met", only degrees can be achieved from either end, the artist that strives for anti-art or the artist that uses elements of anti-art in their work. I would also add that made perfect in true lo-fi style, these hopeless commandments present anti-art as the true unacheivable and lucid rebel possessing one virtue, the use of failure not to failure, but to advantage.

cadmium hed
10 Apr 2009 4:49 am
6 articles & 432 comments since 30 Apr 2006
artists can be complacent?
-following that macaroni flatline of the e=mc /survival, (eating=mainstream creativity), is a lazy antiart i guess?--
commandments-
'don't offend buyers//offend buyers enough to titillate'

'use this seasons now colors to ensure curtain and couch symbiosis//don't use this seasons hot colors so closely that buyers can't find the art amongst the wallpaper'

'don't get drunk and piss off (or on) buyers at your show//drink enough to be loud and suavely bohemian to give buyers that take home rebel/genius commodity'

etc.etc. --basically place each buttcheck opon either side of the art picket fence line of competency and coolness. antiart=artyangst.

shit i don't know i don't even like pasta(rised) art either but if it's incompetent at least it redeems itself just by existing.
though i don't know if what i just wrote does.

Untitled-1-8
apple8nothing
10 Apr 2009 5:41 am
5 articles & 245 comments since 11 Feb 2009
I believe many artists that endeavor into a deeper understanding of art, often wind up helplessly reciting books of never ending revelations. I believe reading as many of these as possible does not make an artist create better art. It is the cyclical nature of these revelations that is the key that artists must look into. There are mind blowing revelations out there, and somehow in some particular obscure way they relate to now, no mater what the times or the ch chch changes. Everything has been done before no, everything has been said before. What needs to be done is not merely relating to things that have been said but to connect these ideas in a relevant and interesting way, to say something about now. I think in a lot of cases this is ignored, and as a consequence art is made, forgotten and dies with a similar life span of a mayfly. I gues what I am getting at is that for me what makes art good is not so much what an artist is directly saying, as it has most likely already been said referenced and stored. It is more about how they are saying (ie. meduim) where they are pointing and is that interesting, prevokative or revolutionary. We are human now and we always have been, same shit different day. Art has always been around to comment on that shit, that same shit on a different cycle. It could be entertaining but it shouldn't be entertaining, but it should be interesting and clever enough to want to dig deeper for that comment made about modern times. This obviously does require a certain competency or insite both in artist and in public, and reading is essential. Artists all have their individual theories on their proudest moments of production. But no artist can be consistent in genuinely making accidental work.
Untitled-1-8
apple8nothing
10 Apr 2009 6:05 am
5 articles & 245 comments since 11 Feb 2009
The average painting elephant makes approximately 0.3 good works of art in their lifetime.
nosferatu
11 Apr 2009 5:37 am
1 articles & 323 comments since 27 Dec 2007
and the average art student also makes approximately 0.3 good works of art in their lifetime.

after all these years Im just not sure that trying really seriously hard to hit the target (with science or philosophy or good intentions and attention to technique...whatever) is any more successful than closing your eyes and throwing the dart in roughly the right direction.

anyone can do something wonderful by accident, the real trick is recognising it as wonderful when it happens. that's what creates consistency

Untitled-1-8
apple8nothing
11 Apr 2009 4:06 pm
5 articles & 245 comments since 11 Feb 2009
Yes but if say an art tutor wouldn't give their students anything to do then it would drop this accident probability rate to 0.1.

What creates consistency is identifying a wonderful accident this i agree with, but then the aptitude of the artist regarding their understanding of science philosophy etc or abilities in their technique becomes important because otherwise the artist can't remain consistent in their execution or venture deeper into what is is they are doing. This does take 'trying really seriously hard to hit the target' because if an artist can't execute his or her particular will then its back to the drawing board to shoot another dart and then if they still can't they're fucked.
pneumaticMiss
PneumaticMiss
11 Apr 2009 6:55 pm
19 comments since 12 Feb 2009
Most would rather view my rib balloons that look at art or ant-art.
nosferatu
12 Apr 2009 3:19 am
1 articles & 323 comments since 27 Dec 2007
well yes, skill definitely does count for something Apple, I agree. but skill is also not enough, more is required. I am thinking here of that hard to define x factor between a well made thing and a great work of art. (when I say skill I mean more than technique, and a 'well made thing' is a thing that appears to have all the different ingredients right (those things that an art tutor can help with) but somehow still lacks and is lacking.

I have seen this happen many times. intellectually consistent, aesthetically appropriate, good technique...should be good art, probably got good marks at art college...and yet just not doing it.
Key words: consistent, appropriate and good = boring.


alien-pop-band-profile-1
Quinton Baker
12 Apr 2009 6:04 pm
34 articles & 466 comments since 4 Feb 2008
According to Mailer, Picasso had claimed that painting cannot be taught, ...I have thought about this, and I wonder if the creative sense is a sixth sense of a sort, perhaps we all have the ability to tap into it?, and perhaps the more you exercise it, the more at hand the creative sense becomes, as you say nos, and in Yoda language, hard to define the x factor is. Hence full art works with the intangible "unteachable" creative sense present themselves consisting with the x factor. Here is an idea; perhaps cubism (in it's more pure form) was successful in almost completely exposing the world or the spirit of the creative sense? To set taste aside, confidence or charisma can substitute the x factor and can be mistaken for by less creative individuals, such as art writers. I fear that works possessing the power of the creative sense can only be recognized by people possessing the creative sense.
alien-pop-band-profile-1
Quinton Baker
14 Apr 2009 8:37 pm
34 articles & 466 comments since 4 Feb 2008
To insert another perspective;

Picasso while being a main influence,was wrong about this.


i have learned tons about style and method from watching programs on~

Warhol((my main influence))~Basquiat~JasperJohns~etc,etc!



As far as mainstream acceptence ((or the acceptence of non peers))

i cannot let that enter into question~

Creativity must be its own reward =]
paul
29 Apr 2009 3:10 am
1 articles & 141 comments since 11 Aug 2006
i firmly believe that drawing can be taught, but not painting, anyone can learn to to fly an aeroplane, but not all can become test pilots. i also think it is true that people can have "the eye" for creativity even though they are not practitioners, these people are responsible in part for the great art movements getting moving, from the guy who published Shakespeare for the first time to the first person who bought a De Chirico painting. new zealand does not have that many people who would choose to buy a portrait of a stranger over a new plasma tv. mainstream acceptance is very dangerous to creativity.
Join or Login to comment
Page Loads
1 1 2 6