Yes, but is this art?

[The Mad Hatter]

A British graffiti artist who goes by the name "Banksy" smuggled into New York's Museum of Modern Art his own picture of a soup can and hung it on a wall, where it stayed for more than three days earlier this month before anybody noticed.

Prankster Smuggles Art Into Top Museums
Thu Mar 24, 2005 02:57 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Many a visitor to New York's Museum of Modern Art has probably thought, "I could do that."
A British graffiti artist who goes by the name "Banksy" went one step further, by smuggling in his own picture of a soup can and hanging it on a wall, where it stayed for more than three days earlier this month before anybody noticed.

The prank was part of a coordinated plan to infiltrate four of New York's top museums on a single day.

The largest piece, which he smuggled into the Brooklyn Museum, was a 2 foot by 1.5 foot (61cm by 46 cm) oil painting of a colonial-era admiral, to which the artist had added a can of spray paint in his hand and anti-war graffiti in the background.

The other two targets were the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the American Museum of Natural History, where he hung a glass-encased beetle with fighter jet wings and missiles attached to its body -- another comment on war, Banksy told Reuters on Thursday.

"It was just an outsider's view of the modern American bug, bristling with listening devices and military hardware," he said.

An art Web site called www.woostercollective.com has posted pictures of the artist -- wearing an Inspector Clouseau-style overcoat, a hat and a fake beard and nose -- hanging up his work at the four museums and describing how he did it.

Speaking by telephone from an undisclosed location in Britain, Banksy said he conducted all four operations on March 13, helped by accomplices who filmed him and provided distractions where necessary.

"They staged a gay tiff (lovers' quarrel), shouting very loudly and obnoxiously," said the artist, declining to give his real name or any personal details beyond his occupation as a professional painter and decorator.

It is not the first time he has staged such stunts. Last year he smuggled work into the Louvre in Paris and London's Tate, attracting attention in the British media.

"My sister inspired me to do it. She was throwing away loads of my pictures one day and I asked her why. She said 'It's not like they're going to be hanging in the Louvre.'"

He took that as a challenge. "I thought why wait until I'm dead," he said.

<b> His preferred creative outlet, graffiti on trains, </b> was growing more difficult due to greater security so he decided to branch out into infiltrating museums. "I tend to gravitate to places with less sophisticated security systems," he said.

Officials at the Natural History Museum declined to comment on security. Museum of Modern Art officials said only that the offending picture was taken down on March 17.

It was unclear what gave the game away but <b>Banksy's version of Andy Warhol's iconic images of Campbell's Soup Cans showed a can of Tesco value tomato soup, a discounted brand sold by a British supermarket chain.</b>

"Obviously they've got their eye a lot more on things leaving than things going in which works in my favor," Banksy said. "I imagine they'll be doing stricter bag checks now."

<b>He said the painting in the Metropolitan Museum, a small portrait of a woman wearing a gas mask, had been discovered after one day, while the others stayed up for several days. </b> The paintings were fixed to the wall with extra-strong glue.

Asked how he managed to escape notice while putting them up on a busy Sunday at the museums, he said: "They do get pretty full, but not if you put the pictures in the boring bits."

 

[MK]

.

..................No.

 

[BellyTank]

Of course it is-

BT.

 

[Deleted member 259]

this artists opinion

From the physical piece to the execution of the plan - it's all art.

Anyone who attempts to make us think and does it in such a way that it doesn't injure anyone - By a minor alteration in our everyday lives - I applaud. :clap

 

[jamespowers]

NO.
For some reason my vision of art is that which can support itself. This art cannot. It is just some junk sneaked into a museum with mostly actual art on display.
I bet the fool ends up getting a grant or something from the government NEA. :kick: Just great. :rage:

Regards to all,

J

 

[BellyTank]

Art is a wider concept than that-
-it can be interactive- it can be whatever the artist says(or does)...
-Concept!

BT.

 

[ITG]

If someone can draw a picture (like of a person or whatever) I easily consider it art. My stick figures that I draw are not art. But some of my 10-year old students can do amazing work when they have art class at school (no I'm not their art teacher thankfully).

 

[BellyTank]

...many people seem to think that 'Art' is something which resides in a frame and was created 200 years ago...

BT.

 

[Deleted member 259]

Dictionary.com

Just for Reference


art1

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
-- a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
-- b. The study of these activities.
--c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
6.
--a. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
--b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
7.
--a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
--b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice� (Joyce Carol Oates).
8.
--a. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
--b. Artful contrivance; cunning.
9. Printing. Illustrative material.



I think Banksy can fill a couple of these catagorys.

 

[jamespowers]

Geez, by those definitions Hannibal Lechter and Jeffery Dalmer are artists! Let's not forget that the term artist is an integral part of con artist.
Art should actually look like something first off. It should also have character, depth and be instantly recognizable as that which it represents.
Interestingly, the "art teachers" of today discourage artists who strive to create great masterpieces as they actually did two hundred years ago. My wife is an artist. I know. Professors wanted no part of anyone who wanted to paint in the style of Rembrandt or such. Saying such things as "you will never be able to create such works."
Boy that is encouraging! :kick: It is no wonder that many artists of today create dreck that must be supported through grants because no one will buy the stuff.

Regards to all,

J

 

[jitterbugdoll]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, JamesPowers. My husband is also an artist, and very talented in the 'classical' style (and I am not biased because he is my husband--his work is truly amazing!) He specializes in figure paintings and portraits, but you know what? That style of work does *not* sell. People would rather hang a piece of paper splattered with paint and call it art, then hang up a picture that can actually be recognized as something. I believe this has something to do with the fact that abstract art can be anything you want it to be—you don’t have to have talent to scribble on a page, and you can interpret said scribbles in any way you want.

Anyway, I asked my hubbie about this topic, and he called Banksy's 'work' political satire, and nothing else. To quote my husband, he remarked: "I hate being termed an “artist� because in being called one you are placed in the same group as all of the no-talent people who happen to have big mouths and the desire to ‘make a statement’."

I agree with him on this front, because I’m sick of hearing the common belief that all creative outlets (including literature, movies, etc) have to ‘mean something’. Sometimes, a painting of a nude is just that—a painting of a nude. We need to stop analyzing everything and enjoy beauty where we see it (and sorry, soup cans don’t say beauty to me!)

 

[jitterbugdoll]

I I forgot to mention that my husband does enjoy non-traditional art forms, such as cartoons, comic books and caricatures. But again, the artists he likes have real talent--they have the ability to render works that, even though exaggerated or not ‘true to life’, have an undeniable lifelike quality to them.

One of his favorite artists is Sebastian Kruger (http://www.krugerstars.com/), who is known for his outlandish, but incredibly lifelike, caricatures. It takes talent to truly capture the soul of a person—and even though his work is non-traditional, I’d call it art and hang it on my wall much more readily than most of the other new stuff out there.

Another thing that bothers him is the heavy use of computers in illustration and design work—gone are the days when the pictures in magazines, or on billboards, etc, were actually drawn by hand. Computers have the ability to fudge talent where very little actually resides, and that ends up hurting the real artists.

 

[BellyTank]

Some of you guys seem very 'narrow', maybe conservative is a fair term, in your perception of 'art'.
The type of art you appreciate is obviously what you want it to be- but just because you personally don't see any worth in a piece doesn't make it 'not-art'. Preference matters, of course-
Art can be 'a picture' of a flower but it is, in its broad sense, a mode of expression, or expressing an impression- that's why there is meaning in it and attached to it and it can be analysed. Analysis has already gone into the design of it- it didn't happen by accident. The 'Old Masters' can be analysed too- in terms of composition, proportion, geometry, colour psychology, choice of content and on and on.
Some art IS challenging and that's a good thing- an artist can have a creative concept and express it and it is art. Time moves on and art moves with it- that's progress. Is the work of Jackson Pollock art?

BT.

 

[BellyTank]

Jitterbugdoll-

-you must acknowledge that commercial illustration is just that- people get paid to do it and there's always a deadline. Using a computer and one's illustrative skills can speed up the process. Also, the digital medium is the way- so having the work in a digital form is often necessary. When 'drawing' using a computer, we are still drawing- but the pen is now the stylus and the paper, the drawing tablet. The skill is still there- but there are also many so-called Desktop Publishers who have absolutely no artistic talents- just the way it is. Photo-comping is another skill that is used in commercial art, using powerful software but it allows relative artistic freedom and removes the barriers of reality in creating a photographic image. Some images that you see in the 'everyday media' could not possibly have been made without an enormous budget or impracticable set up. There are a new group of 'artists' using computers, those who would not have discovered art without a computer- but there are also those of us who use the computer as a further tool in the cause- those of us who already possess some artistic talent.

BT.

 

[jamespowers]

Jitterbugdoll, I agree with your husband. Talent is in the ability to create depth, shadow and nuance to a figure or scene. It is warmer than a picture and captures a certain sense of life in a two dimensional plane.
Let's face it when elephants can paint and people buy it then that buttresses the no-talent argument for sure. I don't think the elephant is planning the work in his mind with "proportion, geometry, colour psychology, choice of content and on and on."
I do however attribute this to real masters who plan their works with great symetry and thought---not just throw paint at a canvas. All art is meant to be challenging. It should require thought and test the bounds of an artists' talent. Michaelangelo used to choose his pieces of marble by looking at them carefully from all angles. He said that the image was within the marble and all he was doing was chipping away the excess marble. He could see the image before he even picked up the chisel. Once a patron walked into his shop and witnessed him dismantling a piece with a hammer because it was not perfect in every way. He stopped him and the unfinished piece sits in a museum now. That unfinished piece is worth ten times ten thousand banksys and it should be. Artists who look at a canvas and see the picture in the canvas work the same way.
My view of art is that it is art. The term does not change with the times. It needs no interpretation. It does not change with time or we would have thrown out all the works of the old masters to replace it with the modern dolts works. I suppose people who think art's definition changes over time also look at the US Constituion as a living document. Both are not. Words mean things and their definitions only change in the world of George Orwell.
Jitterbugdoll, tell your husband to take heart. There are still those out there who appreciate the classical style where scenes break from the canvas and run through the mind. There always will be no matter who tries to redefine what art truly is. :cheers1:

Regards to all,

J

 

[Lauren]

Depends... I have seen some amazing "graffiti" art. My favorite kind is Stencil Graffiti (I have a book with pictures of it from all over the world".

Reminds me of Mona Lisa Smile where she says something like "Here's a picture of my mother. Is it art?" And somehow it transpired into the fact that someone said it is not art until someone says it is, to which Julia Roberts exclaims triumphantly "It's art!"

Now whether or not you like it is a matter of interpretation, (personally I don't like some of Picasso's work, and I find some of Dali's work disturbing) but I cannot deny it's art.

If Pollock's work is considered art, I have no problem with graffiti being considered art, when the intent of it is to be art, not a matter of marking one's own territory.

 

[BellyTank]

I agree with you Lauren.

As I tried to say- art changes over time- but it doesn't negate all that came before it at all.

People obviously have differing thoughts on 'art' but I'm not at all convinced that 'art' is all in the 'rendering'. There is the concept- the message concept can be the art and the rendering secondary... art is a form of communication, not just decor.

BT.

 

[jamespowers]

OH boy! I can see I am wasting my time if graffitti is considered art now.
Simply put--buy what you like. If you want to consider it art fine. Just don't try and convince me that a pig is an Arabian stallion.

Regards to all,

J

P.S. My message is art because it is a form of communication and I say it is. Feel free to frame it and don't forget to pay me.

 

[BellyTank]

...and you've just proven that not all communication is art though...

Art is a bigger term than you are crediting it with JP, and if you're convinced that Graffiti cannot be 'art', then yes you definitely are wasting your time.
You have a very tight personal definition of what 'art' is- maybe you're talking about painting or drawing or a particular movement or era....?
There's much more to art than being talented at rendering a painting or illustration.

BT.

 

[jamespowers]

But I say my communication is art so therefore it is. It doesn't matter about the rendering. It is Art. Here are a few more pieces of art to include in my art communication: :kick: :cheers1: [bad] [huh]
These drawings should make it qualified for a grant---pay me. :drum:

Regards to all,

Picasso J