Comments

• 

  denice bizot May 13, 2012 at 5:58pm

  the image connie posted from the frieze art fair (above) appears to be some type of post mailer, seems rather boring, but if only we knew the material it is made from, is it white marble or compressed lint from a dryer, painted to look like a mailer, then the piece becomes more interesting; what if the dimensions are 20 feet wide in marble, then it's like WOW, WTF was this artist thinking.

  On the other hand it could be conceptual, which could have an interesting and new narrative about the way we live now or NOT.  

  ....and connie also posted that "on NPR I heard someone say that online "comments are the cesspool of the Internet."   hey people...get this ..cesspools are really important, it's where the real sh*t is being opined, which can be nasty dirty and necessary. sure some comments are lame, but some times there's a modicum of truth.
• 

  Connie Mettler May 12, 2012 at 8:18pm

  Glad to see that some of you have read this post. I thought it was very interesting and always good to look outside out art fair world to see that else is going on. The other day on NPR I heard someone say that online "comments are the cesspool of the Internet." Loved it. If you read many stories about art, art shows, or money going to the arts, reviews of art fairs the inanity of the comments is often the most interesting part of the posts.
• 

  Rob Lorenz May 12, 2012 at 4:49pm

  The question is not whether or not the pieces exhibited qualify as art.  The question is whether or not it is *good* art worthy of discussion.  One of the commentators on the article put it pretty well.

  "If the self-proclaimed artist calls it art, then it's art, no matter what. Then a series of processes-critics, other artists, curators, historians, history, etc., go into motion that will decide if or not it is important Art cannot be defined by eliminating what some believe is not art."

  To completely write it off as not being art is a bit close minded.  People are assuming that there was no thought or intention behind it.  If folks do not like it , that is fine.  They are entitled to say as much.  But to completely dismiss it without having any background info (artist statement and whatnot) is jumping the gun a bit.

  Personally, my first impression is that while it may be art, it is really, really crappy art.  It just plain sucks.  But again, I have no information to go one besides the pictures (although I doubt any kind of artist statement is going to change my mind).  If people really have that big of a problem with this type of art and want to see it go away, they should ignore it completely.  To talk about it is to validate it, even if what you are saying is not complimentary. 
• 

  Bill Coleman Entertainment May 12, 2012 at 2:04pm

  I find the discussion of the various business models at least as interesting as the art in question.  parking fees, bridge tolls, corporate sponsorship, $40 admission tickets, etc, etc, etc,.  These folks could teach a Harvard Business School course on how to monetize ART !

  I thought the comment about lookie loos hilarious, .

  Along these lines, the Improve Everywhere's subway art gallery is my favorite: http://improveverywhere.com/2009/03/18/subway-art-gallery-opening/

  Thought provoking AND hilarious.
• 

  Greg Little May 11, 2012 at 11:15am

  It seems that there is always someone willing to buy anything people create and call art regardless of how it comes across to anyone else. It is such a personal taste...but as the old saying goes "one persons ttrash is another persons treasure". I guess it seems that there is alot more "whatever you want to call it" stuff out there...but does it get juried in at quality shows?
• 

  Connie Mettler May 11, 2012 at 11:13am

  Here is some follow up from the LA Times:

  Art and money have been making news lately.
  
  A record price was tallied Wednesday night for Roy Lichtenstein's "Sleeping Girl," a 1964 comic-strip painting that reverberates against Constantin Brancusi's 1908 sculpture "Sleeping Muse." London's Frieze Art Fair just had its first outing on an East River island adjacent to Manhattan, charging $40 a head to enter a specially constructed display tent that alone cost $1.5 million to erect. Just days after Edvard Munch's iconic "The Scream" -- one of four versions -- sold for $120 million at auction and garnered thousands of headlines as the most expensive work of art ever publicly sold, a 1961 Mark Rothko abstraction fetched $87 million, more than the initial estimate for "The Scream."
  
   And don't you love the doggy term "fetch" for auction prices?

  And the rest of the story: Art Prices Reflect Income Inequality
• 

  denice bizot May 9, 2012 at 7:40pm

  thanks for posting--- the comments section is the meat of the story--not the article so much.