Leonard the George

(via suicidaltendancies)

suicideblonde:

waxandmilk:

Lilly Robbins (Miami Dolphins cheerleader)
Photo by Abbey Drucker

haleycrain:

bryonmcdonald:

Talk About Space by Ed Ruscha

Oil on Canvas, 1963

This painting sold at Christie’s for $3,529,500 on May 14, 2002.

The very uselessness of art that makes it so incomprehensible to evolutionary biology makes it all too comprehensible to economics and social psychology. What better proof that you have money to spare than your being able to spend it on doodads and stunts that don’t fill the belly or keep the rain out but that require precious materials, years of practice, a command of obscure texts, or intimacy with the elite? Thorstein Veblen’s and Quentin Bell’s analyses of taste and fashion, in which an elite’s conspicuous displays of consumption, leisure, and outrage are emulated by the rabble, sending the elite off in search of new inimitable displays, nicely explain the otherwise inexplicable oddities of the arts…. The value of art is largely unrelated to aesthetics: a priceless masterpiece becomes worthless if it is found to be a forgery; soup cans and comic strips become high art when the art world says they are, and then command conspicuously wasteful prices. Modern and postmodern works are intended not to give pleasure but to confirm or confound the theories of a guild of critics and analysts, to epater la bourgeoisie, or to baffle the rubes in Peoria. - Psychologist Steven Pinker

While I don’t espouse all of his sharp assertions, he does have an excellent point on the power of the elite and high art’s wastefulness. Although there are some people that would call this particular piece by Ruscha worth the $3.5 mil, I think it’s trash. On the other hand, I am sure there are many people who think Rothko, one of my favorite postmodern artists, is a talentless fraud. I do think it is interesting, however, that in an anecdotal study of more than 400 people across the country, art critic James Elkins found that more people shed tears to Mark Rothko’s works of art than any other artist’s.

Ohhh, you knew this would just make me smolder, didn’t you? Okay, I’ll play. :)

Is Mr. Pinker speaking of artists, or businessmen? Some are one, some are the other…the most successful are both. But there are not many of those, and so businessmen, in a time completely lacking (for better or worse) the highly regulated institutionalization and patronage of “high” art, will tend to have the upper hand. It would appear that this Ruscha is quite a businessman and not much of an artist—but who’s to say that he wasn’t genuinely inspired or moved to create this? Perhaps pop art is all ABOUT the art of business…and who’s to say that’s not a legitimate concept to explore? You know, “the art world” doesn’t force anyone to like anything. Great thing about art—if you don’t like it, you don’t have to look at it. Opinions and debates are one thing, but to sit on your ass and bitch about an artwork just to hear your own voice is missing the point. Move on and find something that inspires you, or make something you like better. (PS, not you at all, Bryon! A general “you.”)

Anyway, I’m drifting. Back to this Pinker twit. To fail to recognize—or rather, to pick and choose—the contributing factors that form what he so broadly deems “the art world” and then dismiss all art as a wasteful exercise in narcissism for all involved is absurd and incredibly small-minded. Moreover, for a PSYCHOLOGIST to altogether ignore the vast significance of art and creativity to the human mind in favor of crabby, condescending remarks about a more “useless” profession than his own is just embarrassingly petty.

Basically, Harvard schmarvard—he’s a jackass and I don’t like him one bit.

It doesn’t sound like Mr. Pinkerton is neglecting art’s social value.  And I don’t believe that he’s calling art itself useless as a creative pursuit.  Instead, he begins by examining art in an evolutionary context.  And inside that context it’s true that art plays no critical role in our lives.  It is not necessary to sustaining either or minds or bodies. 

He then goes on to examine how we have evolved socially to look at art in terms of its aesthetic verses its economic value.  His conclusion is that there is a huge and arbitrary disconnect between the two.  The aesthetic value of art is in its ability to symbolically capture social ideas and ideals.  (Whether these ideas and ideals are expressed implicitly or explicitly is of little concern.  But I would argue that all good aesthetic is symbolic at some level.)  However, in western art a piece can go from priceless to worthless based on its means of production.  If it is exposed that a piece is a replica, or was in fact produced by a lesser artist, it loses value.  And if a piece is mass produced, none of the replicas have any value.  Why is this?  Aren’t the ideas and symbols, which make a piece important, still present?  Isn’t the aesthetic still there?  Absolutely.   

What it comes down to is commoditization.  In western society we are overly concerned  who has made a piece, rather than what it is.  (Just think about our obsession with labels and name brands.)  The way we value things is also based on how accessible they are (i.e. supply and demand).  So despite its aesthetic if something isn’t “original,” or if it is too accessible, it loses its value.  This is an extension of our economically dominated mindsets.  In the end, art is beholden to hype in the same way that the stock market is beholden to speculation.

So when you put these things together Mr. Pinkerton’s argument is right on the mark.  As a biological creature art is largely worthless since we do not need it to survive.  And as social creatures our attraction to “high art” is economically logical, but neglects its true value.  It neglects the important symbols and ideas that make art timeless and great.  Consequently, the way that most people understand and value art makes it “useless.”

(Note- I agree that exploring the art of business is perfectly legitimate and important.  But pop art’s treatment of art as a commodity was a reflection of the times we were living in.  As a response to the birth of the mall, the crash of the stock markets and then the emergence of a new era of opulence it was both socially relevant and symbolic.  And it was this social relevance that gave pop art its value.)

(via vache)

joyengel:

generic1:

It’s simple.

Yes,it’s that simple…and racist.  Plus, how could you ever talk bad about the place that gave the world whistle tips?  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FGaRRPMuuI)

suicideblonde:

corndogboobs:

THEM THANGS