More on "fine art"

[DanK]

By chance, I stumbled upon this article, which shows just how far the "fine art" world has sunk into what Saturday Night Live used to mock as "bad conceptual art". It's not photography, but I think it is nonetheless relevant to some earlier discussions here.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/banan...b0913e6f8fd0b8

I read in this morning's paper that a prankster walked in, took the banana off the wall, and ate it. The "artist" is not pressing charges.

[Shadowman]

Much of Warhol's works and a few other styles were viewed similarly when first presented, however sometimes the artist might be ridiculing or rebelling against past or current tastes and often find themselves a representative of a style they tried to shun.

With regards to the banana taped to the wall, if the fruit is real and there have been no preservatives added then; as the fruit starts to rot it will be interesting to see how quickly if at all the purchaser continues to value the art piece.

[pschlute]

I am always very open-minded about art. I know what I like and what I do not. I would not normally try and classify something as non-art simply because I do not like it.

But a banana , duct taped to a wall is a banana duct taped to a wall. I think this story has more to do with advertising and raising an artists profile than any artistic merits of his work.

The same artist recently created a solid gold toilet that was installed in Blenheim Palace in England, ancestral home to the Duke of Marlborough. It mysteriously vanished overnight, apparently stolen.

I do not take the artist or his work at all seriously. Not becouse it is not "art", but because it is an attention seeking device.

[Rufus]

...I read in this morning's paper that a prankster walked in, took the banana off the wall, and ate it. The "artist" is not pressing charges...

...other than a consultancy fee to replace said banana with a another in an equally artistic manner. Best not left to amateur owners.

[escape]

Seen this on the news. I didn't take it seriously. A hoax in my view.

[DanK]

Seen this on the news. I didn't take it seriously. A hoax in my view.

I don't know what you mean by hoax. It made the New York Times, which has rigorous fact-checking, and there are at least two videos of it on the web.

[pschlute]

I don't know what you mean by hoax. It made the New York Times, which has rigorous fact-checking, and there are at least two videos of it on the web.

I don't think Daniel is claiming it did not happen. Just claiming that perhaps things do not add up ?

[rpcrowe]

The Emperor has a new suit of clothes!

[DanK]

or at least a banana

[proseak]

Many years ago when smoking was still common, I was photographing the private view of an exhibition. Someone knocked over an ashtray, and people gathered around the mess on the floor...which I then photographed.

My pics were well received, esp.those of the mess on the floor.

[escape]

I don't know what you mean by hoax. It made the New York Times, which has rigorous fact-checking, and there are at least two videos of it on the web.

A hoax in my view. Between "artist" and buyer on the public. Lots of publicity. Do we know who the buyer is?

[Manfred M]

or at least a banana

A "true" artist would have duct taped the discarded banana peel back on the wall.

[DanK]

A hoax in my view. Between "artist" and buyer on the public. Lots of publicity. Do we know who the buyer is?

The buyer (as is often the case) is not named, so it is certainly possible that she or he conspired with the artist. However, the "work" was displayed in a major exhibition, and at least a sizable number of patrons took it seriously. Those facts have been well documented in highly reputable sources. So, even if the $120,000 is a hoax, the rest is not, and either way, it shows how fatuous a sizable share of the "arts" world is.