BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times

Subject: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 11:53 AM

I think we may have reached a new low of confusion about what constitutes a seminal work in art.

The Tate Museum has recently purchased a prepared can of artist feces for enough money to keep a real artist focused on his best efforts for several years.

Not a swift trade in my opinion; especially since the high-tone intellect representing the Tate referred tot he can as a seminal work; perhaps she should review her high-school anatomy text?

Anyway, the story can be found here.

(Sigh...)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Naemanson
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 12:03 PM

It is yet another example of how people have lost track of the line between art and reality. A can of feces is reality and is only worth its weight as fertilzer. The work produced while the feces were being developed in the artist's gut can be defined as art.

Is any of his work (besides the can) on line?

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Naemanson
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 12:08 PM

I just went looking. Doesn't look like he dabbled in art very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Art Thieme
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 02:25 PM

Interesting! To chance some thread drift: Because of recent sad occurances, your post has started me thinking.----The word you've chosen, SEMINAL, infers that the actual nature of seminary life has always, even if unwittingly, fostered the transformation of those institutions into becoming SPERM BANKS--ie. semen-al. But that substance, when not spilled on the ground (to use the Biblical phrase) causes a high pressure buildup that can and has lead to the explosive situations as seen in recent church revelation(s) and scandals. (***meant to be humorous*** --Do not take seriously. Please!)

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Phillip
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 02:35 PM

I first heard of these cans back in 1977 while I was a student in Florence. What was being said then was that no-one actually knew what was in the tins. It was therefore argued that the tins themselves were indeed a work of art because the presentation made the viewer think differently about tins and their possible contents and value. The Merda d'Artista itself is therefore not the work of art.

Well, I dunno. Still sounds like a load of crap to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: MMario
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 02:36 PM

Art?

if *I* had dared post anything like that I would get *THWAPPED* right up the side of my head.

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:16 PM

Jeez!! I've been flushing the stuff! I've been an artist all along and didn't know it!

Don Firth Stop the world! I wanna get off. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: RichM
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:54 PM

Don, consider yerself a performance artist, every morning!

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 05:17 PM

Oh, the style., the grace --- he's bending -- he's turning -- folks he's reaching for the roll -- can the Champ be finished????? Hang on -- no, he's just twiddling it!! Oh, what bravura!!!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: DonD
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 05:33 PM

I like the concept of the mystery contents of the can: is it? isn't it? Provocative thoughts of 'what is art?'

I'm reminded of the auction a few years ago of bottles of wine from Jefferson's wine cellar. No one could know what was in them: fantastic vintages? Vinegar? air? But no one cared or had any intention of ever opening them; it was the fact that they were from Jefferson's cellar that counted -- and boy, did it count! They went for thousands of dollars.

And the joke to me was that the price varied depending on historical records of whether it had been a good or bad year!?!

I guess the Tate bought the -dare I say shit?- for fear another museum would 'scoop' it up.

Maybe this is a musical thread: is Manura Manya on the DT?

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: mack/misophist
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 05:46 PM

A number of years ago I heard an anomymous official from Sotheby's interviewed on NPR. This subject came up and he answered it like this. He said that most newly successful artists were young people who looked upon the rich old men who bought their works with derision. He felt that they did this sort of thing because they could get away with it; because there's enough of a mindless stock market aspect to the art world that it can turn huge profits. In closing, he thought that most of them outgrew it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 07:24 PM

From the article...

The cans should increase in value, too, as they are becoming more rare. At least 45 of the original 90 cans have exploded.

I bet he's laughing in his grave.

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 08:05 PM

Let us hope and pray that 'Spaw doesn't see this thread...

All the best.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 08:37 PM

I think it's a symbolic representation of the fact 90% of art is crap.
(The other 10% is the can.)

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Helen
Date: 04 Jul 02 - 12:04 AM

This is the second reminder (unrelated) that I have had in 2 days of an anecdote a friend of mine told me years ago. A friend of his had the fairly common speech problem of being unable to pronounce the soft/breathy "th" sound as in the word "breath" and not the hard "th" sound in "breathe". So when this man referred to his research "thesis" it sounded more like "feces".

Yesterday I listened to a radio article about a man doind his thesis on the environmental advantages of composting toilets and my thought was that it is lucky he can pronounce "th".

Today you post this thread and the thought pops up in my head again: if anyone wrote a thesis on this topic I hope they can pronounce the word properly. (grin)

And.... not that I know diddly-squat (wicked grin) about Schroedinger's Cat, but...

Helen

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 04 Jul 02 - 03:55 AM

People who can define what is, and isn't, Art can probably also define what is, and isn't, Folk! I blame Marcel Duchamp myself.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Declan
Date: 04 Jul 02 - 05:33 AM

How you define Art could be a Thieme for another thread :>)

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Art Thieme
Date: 04 Jul 02 - 12:39 PM

As someone astutely once said, 90% of Art is crap.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Ars Fecalorum in Modern Times
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 02 - 01:18 PM

It's probably true that 90% of Art is crap -- the other 10% is Folk and it makes the whole hassle worthwhile!!

Here's 10% in yer eye, Art!

A