Explain this to me

[hereiam39]

1) Nobody is offended.

2) Leonardo. Unless I missed a conversation about the Sistine Chapel later in the thread.

Sorry, Leonardo. Wrong person.
And yes, several are offended. I was told to fuck off by at least one person, and others to a less extent. I made a mistake on Leonardo, you made a mistake on people being offended.

Good night and good bye people. It's 1:10am local time and I am done on this subject.

 

[sringwal]

Sorry, had to reply.
Not my intention at all, nor how I would even begin to take this meme. Just calm down people. I apologize for posting a simple little inference that a banana ducktaped to a wall is not a $6 million dollar piece of art and should not be considered as such. You win. I have learned to not post my option of a banana not being art here again.

Well that is how you should take the meme because that was the reason the meme was created. This is not genius level stuff.

But, then, I probably shouldn’t be surprised, given that you can’t even distinguish between Ninja Turtles. Hint. Leonardo is the one with the blue bandana.

 

[sringwal]

Pew pew.

 

[roostra]

1. Maybe. That's something of a complicated question to answer if you want something more than personal preference. But I wouldn't say you were wrong.
2. Eh. Lots of art is completely overvalued. People who buy $100M paintings never look at them, because they never leave storage. Basically the only thing that happens is the title changes. People have a lot of different motivations for paying for art. A common one is "what else am I going to do with this ridiculous amount of money I find myself with."
3. I agree with that. My point earlier was that the banana isn't waste, and is basically the same as just keeping the money in cash. But there are lots of ways of spending cash that are more productive than just cash.

I would pretty strenuously object to #1 - it may be bad art, it may be art that you hate, it may be something you don't think should be art, but there isn't a reasonable argument that this isn't art under any decent definition of the term art.

 

[superrific]

I would pretty strenuously object to #1 - it may be bad art, it may be art that you hate, it may be something you don't think should be art, but there isn't a reasonable argument that this isn't art under any decent definition of the term art.

Like I said, a complicated question. A lot of work is being done by that last prepositional. I can think of a couple of theories of art which would have some issues with this. And I've found that it's quite difficult to define art expansively (without contradiction) without running into a tautology problem. Art can't simply be something hanging in the museum, or else it is everything and the word means nothing. Art could be the display of an object in a museum, rather than the thing itself. Thus would a urinal remain a toilet in the W.C. but a work of art when mounted on the Louvre wall. But this aesthetic theory is but one of many, has its issues (like all of them), and arguably doesn't really apply here. You could also say that the eating of the banana is the true work of art there, calling into question the status of the banana prior to the consumption. But again, this is neither obvious nor uncontroversial.

 

[sringwal]

I would pretty strenuously object to #1 - it may be bad art, it may be art that you hate, it may be something you don't think should be art, but there isn't a reasonable argument that this isn't art under any decent definition of the term art.

 

[zeuxis]

Congrats to everyone on this thread. You've managed to repeat in the course of one day many of the questions raised in the art world over the last century, certainly since Duchamp entered his Fountain (that's the urinal) in an open exhibition in 1917.

Is anything made by an artist a work of art?

Does a work of art need to even have a physical form at all, or can it just be an idea? This is the essence of minimalism, which in turn is a avenue of abstraction, which can be understood as the reduction of the full details of the natural world or even the culling of some essential aspects. This process is really no different than when the ancient artist Zeuxis (my namesake) could not find a model beautiful enough to represent the legendary Helen of Troy, so he took the best parts of six different women. That was an act of abstraction, made over 2000 years ago.

Now you might say that my example of Zeuxis still had the goal of beauty. Revulsion is also a form of aesthetic reaction. The fact that you see bananas every day but are revolted when someone calls it art and pays a large sum of money for it, reinforces the efficacy of the work.

Does a work of art even need to be made by the artist? Or can the artist instruct others to act on their behalf? This goes back to the idea being more important than the fabrication or handskill. Since the happenings and performance art movements of the 1960s, people have been exploring the boundaries of this question. A work "directed" by the artist can be just as sufficient, if the idea behind it has merit. In this sense, why should art be held to a different standard than performing arts? Do you need Shakespeare to be present to perform Hamlet? Do you need Mozart on piano?

Then there are questions about the adequacy or efficacy of traditional forms of representation and art-making in the contemporary world. Can representation or fabrication sufficiently address the problems and concerns faced by the world today? For example, was Jackson Pollock's manner of dripping paint on a canvas a legitimate way to express the ineffable destruction wrought by the atomic bomb? Certainly a representation of destruction would communicate the ideas too, but it would be done in a much more defined, and therefore more limited, manner. The abstraction itself is like the difference between reading a book where you have a lot left for the reader to interpret and visualize, vs a film adaptation where the director makes those choices for you.

Does art have to address something eternal? Does it have to last to be good? Going back to Zeuxis, an ancient Greek painter, none of his paintings survive. But he is known because people wrote about his work, and those descriptions and stories survived. One of the main points of still-life painting in the early modern period was that it preserved things that would otherwise perish, thus addressing on multiple levels a theme of vanitás. This is the idea that all things of this world perish, and what we should be focussed on is the eternal preservation of the soul. Well, people paid a lot of money (and still do) for those paintings that are basically telling them that they shouldn't be spending money on things like this. The banana reinforces this same principle. It's value is to question the very nature of the things that we value.

All of this said (and it was probably said better and certainly more succinctly by sringwal earlier in the day), I personally don't like the banana. I think it's a cheap knockoff (so to speak) of ideas that other artists presented more powerfully over the last hundred years. The fact that it's a tired idea but still has people roiled in controversy just goes to show that most of the public is sadly about a hundred years behind the art world in considering these issues.

It shouldn't be that surprising though. How many people know the basics of Einstein's theories of relativity? That's also a hundred years old. We've got leaders of the world questioning how vaccinations work. We've got a president who thinks you can a-bomb a hurricane. So yeah, spend that six million dollars toward getting a more informed public, and maybe people will realize that six million dollars is a very small investment to make in getting people to think about what it means to be a human being in contemporary society.

 

[sringwal]

No. I disagree. You said that far better than I did.

 

[breepf]

Does a work of art even need to be made by the artist? Or can the artist instruct others to act on their behalf? This goes back to the idea being more important than the fabrication or handskill. Since the happenings and performance art movements of the 1960s, people have been exploring the boundaries of this question. A work "directed" by the artist can be just as sufficient, if the idea behind it has merit. In this sense, why should art be held to a different standard than performing arts? Do you need Shakespeare to be present to perform Hamlet? Do you need Mozart on piano?

Art as management: it's really a question that Hollywood studios answered decisively in the 1930s.

Thanks for the post in its entirety--very interesting detail about the point of still-life painting.

 

[sringwal]

But to go back to one of Zeuxis’ points, consider the banana.

Not the banana on the wall, but the banana in the grocery store. And all that the “Big B” Banana represents (The banana that you picture in your mind when you think the word “banana”).

There is “art” (beauty and revulsion) in the genetic creation of a fruit as cheap to harvest and transport as the banana.

Yet, we take it for granted. As if somehow we, personally, have done something to deserve any of the amenities of modern society.

Which is why I always make sure to “thank” the bananas at Food Lion as I drive my cart by them, even when I opt not to buy them on that particular trip because, you know, I have options.

Or “Chom Choms,” as John Green calls them in his YouTube Crash Course series.

The next time you are in the grocery store, ladies and gents, please make sure to thank the chom choms as you exit the produce aisle.

 

[UNCatTech]

And rather than smugly complaining about the cost of the banana, you and every other person who has posted that meme over the last several months could go out and buy a piece of art that you enjoy by a local artist.

Or, if you are in North Carolina, drive to Seagrove and buy a few pieces of pottery from one of the last true artisan communities in the South East.

We do this very often.

 

[milom98]

Maybe somewhat explained (reference to thread title)? I know little to nothing about transactions like this but someone explain to me how this is all legit.

Crypto mogul who ate a $6.2 million banana gives Trump an $18 million payday

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/crypto-mogul-ate-6-2-151710208.html

A Chinese cryptocurrency entrepreneur who paid more than $6 million for a banana duct-taped to a wall has purchased $30 million in crypto tokens from a Donald Trump-backed venture.

TRON founder Justin Sun, who ate his $6 million conceptual-art banana after buying it at auction, said his company was committed to “making America great again” after buying into World Liberty Financial for $30 million.

The purchase stands to directly benefit the president-elect.

Prior to Sun’s involvement, World Liberty Financial had only sold roughly $24 million in tokens, falling short of a $30 million threshold that would allow a Trump-owned company to begin collecting “75 percent of net protocol revenues,” according to filings reviewed by Popular Information.

With Sun’s new stake in World Liberty Financial, Trump can reap massive profits — to the tune of $18 million.

Last year, Sun and three of his companies were charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission for the unregistered offer and sale of crypto assets and for “fraudulently manipulating the secondary market” with a crypto token “through extensive wash trading,” or the manufacturing of interest and sales around tokens to “make it appear actively traded without an actual change in beneficial ownership.”

Sun is accused of “orchestrating a scheme to pay celebrities” to promote his crypto tokens without disclosing they were being paid to do so. Those celebrities included Akon, Lindsay Lohan, Lil Yachty, Jake Paul and Soulja Boy.

Sun is also joining World Liberty Financial as an adviser, effectively making him business partners with the incoming president.

The president-elect serves as World Liberty Financial’s “Chief Crypto Advocate,” while his oldest sons Donald Jr. and Eric are the company’s “Web 3 Ambassadors.” Trump’s 18-year-old son Barron Trump is the company’s “DeFi Visionary.”

Through Sun’s purchase, Trump’s company was awarded more than 22 billion World Liberty Financial tokens, which are worth more than $300 million at its current sale price. But the tokens are effectively worthless because they cannot be transferred, circumventing securities law with a disclaimer the tokens are “locked indefinitely in a wallet or smart contract until such time, if ever, [the tokens] are unlocked through protocol governance procedures in a manner that does not contravene applicable law.”