Guerrilla signage.
May 9, 2002 1:46 PM Subscribe
Guerrilla signage. What happens when an artist gets sick of being stuck in the wrong freeway lane. (With video.)
Whether or not it's art, I really admire someone having the nerve to alter traffic signs for the benefit of local motorists. And to climb all the way up over fast moving traffic.
Would he like to come visit my city and add a few signs around here? I get lost sometimes, too.
posted by katieinshoes at 2:06 PM on May 9, 2002
Would he like to come visit my city and add a few signs around here? I get lost sometimes, too.
posted by katieinshoes at 2:06 PM on May 9, 2002
It didn't hurt that his work is displayed before 150,000 people daily. On an average day, even the Louvre gets only one-tenth that many visitors.
That rules.
posted by electro at 2:06 PM on May 9, 2002
That is very cool. I'd love to pull a stunt like that, but I'm afraid I wouldn't have the patience to do it so seamlessly.
I didn't care much for the "artspeak" either; it's a worthwhile project just as a cool prank. MIT students do this all the time and they are called "hacks".
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:14 PM on May 9, 2002
I didn't care much for the "artspeak" either; it's a worthwhile project just as a cool prank. MIT students do this all the time and they are called "hacks".
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:14 PM on May 9, 2002
MIT students do this all the time and they are called "hacks".
Ah, Mars, you are so right (1, 2)
posted by vacapinta at 2:22 PM on May 9, 2002
Ah, Mars, you are so right (1, 2)
posted by vacapinta at 2:22 PM on May 9, 2002
I personally wouldn't call the end result "Art". I thought the real art in this story was the mini-documentary.
posted by stormy at 2:31 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by stormy at 2:31 PM on May 9, 2002
It didn't hurt that his work is displayed before 150,000 people daily. On an average day, even the Louvre gets only one-tenth that many visitors.
Except in the Louvre, people know they're looking at art. In this case they're just looking at an improved freeway sign.
A much funnier and more biting fake-sign prank was the ones advertising the new subway line that would connect Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, etc. with downtown.
posted by cell divide at 2:40 PM on May 9, 2002
Except in the Louvre, people know they're looking at art. In this case they're just looking at an improved freeway sign.
A much funnier and more biting fake-sign prank was the ones advertising the new subway line that would connect Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, etc. with downtown.
posted by cell divide at 2:40 PM on May 9, 2002
i'm surprised that Caltrans isnt pressing charges. even the whole thing is funny as hell and definatley a good thing for all those motorists, what the artist did was illegal.
im glad he's not being busted, but im shocked that he's getting away with it. i suppose Caltrans just wants to cut their losses after being embarrassed.
is it art though? i saw an old man spit this seed and it made a perfect arc before it fell to the ground. i'd call that art. so i guess this is too.
posted by tsarfan at 2:41 PM on May 9, 2002
im glad he's not being busted, but im shocked that he's getting away with it. i suppose Caltrans just wants to cut their losses after being embarrassed.
is it art though? i saw an old man spit this seed and it made a perfect arc before it fell to the ground. i'd call that art. so i guess this is too.
posted by tsarfan at 2:41 PM on May 9, 2002
I'm not saying he can't call it what he wants, but he makes the word meaningless when he uses it this way.
the word has no inherent meaning anyways. i've come to think of it as a pretty poor term because it serves to confuse and enrage people more than it explains.
were i to place this within the art canon i would probably point to the performance art pieces in the 70s where artists claimed "work is art!" or "life is art!" and then documented their day-to-day routines. there's also a long tradition of self-manufacturing objects that would traditionally be mass-manufactured, though i can't think of specific examples at the moment.
anyhow, defining "art" is a long and ultimately pointless endeavor -- it's better to look at the work and say "do I like this?"; the answer can be no.
personally, though this guy scored an endorsement from Coagula's Mat Gleason (who is fucking rad) i'd say the work itself is pretty damn uninteresting to me (i think it's similar to the problem you have with it -- the work is too damn functional, and so loses some of it's interest) -- still, I have no problem discussing it as an art piece.
posted by fishfucker at 2:43 PM on May 9, 2002 [1 favorite]
the word has no inherent meaning anyways. i've come to think of it as a pretty poor term because it serves to confuse and enrage people more than it explains.
were i to place this within the art canon i would probably point to the performance art pieces in the 70s where artists claimed "work is art!" or "life is art!" and then documented their day-to-day routines. there's also a long tradition of self-manufacturing objects that would traditionally be mass-manufactured, though i can't think of specific examples at the moment.
anyhow, defining "art" is a long and ultimately pointless endeavor -- it's better to look at the work and say "do I like this?"; the answer can be no.
personally, though this guy scored an endorsement from Coagula's Mat Gleason (who is fucking rad) i'd say the work itself is pretty damn uninteresting to me (i think it's similar to the problem you have with it -- the work is too damn functional, and so loses some of it's interest) -- still, I have no problem discussing it as an art piece.
posted by fishfucker at 2:43 PM on May 9, 2002 [1 favorite]
Except in the Louvre, people know they're looking at art.
ps. i love this sentence.
posted by fishfucker at 2:45 PM on May 9, 2002
ps. i love this sentence.
posted by fishfucker at 2:45 PM on May 9, 2002
I lost a bid at a charity auction for a fake street sign. It was styled after local parking ordinance signs, and showed a stick figure leaning on his car horn, slashed through ghostbusters-style. Below the image it read "Not a Doorbell."
I wanted it so bad. This guys a genius.
posted by me3dia at 2:47 PM on May 9, 2002
I wanted it so bad. This guys a genius.
posted by me3dia at 2:47 PM on May 9, 2002
I have an expansive definition of "art", but this falls just outside it, right next to whatever it is that Joey Skaggs does - as well as the M.I.T. hacks. When pulled off well, like this guy did, they're both enjoyable to see and oddly satisfying, but they're still not within the realm of things which are done to be immediately perceived and appreciated as "art".
posted by yhbc at 2:51 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by yhbc at 2:51 PM on May 9, 2002
Who gets the lawsuit when his art falls off and through the windshield of someone's Jag?
posted by TuffAustin at 3:16 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by TuffAustin at 3:16 PM on May 9, 2002
My cow-orker provided this quote:
"art is whatever three or more people say it is; not counting you and your mother..."
dave hickey
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:24 PM on May 9, 2002
"art is whatever three or more people say it is; not counting you and your mother..."
dave hickey
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:24 PM on May 9, 2002
It's art, to me, anyway.
I find it completely brilliant, with a little of everything: unimpeachable production techniques; serious risk of harm to life, limb, and liberty; professional-quality documentation (I consider the video to be documentation of the piece).
I'd like to see the full video... then I could make a judgement as to whether I think it's conceptually sound -- whether it has theoretical merit. I couldn't say just by watching the snippets on the LA Times site.
Of course, these judgements are all subjective, and the debate has been going on for ages.
In my mind, the intent of the artist -- in this case, Richard Ankrom, whose name hasn't been mentioned yet in the thread -- makes a huge difference as to whether I consider something art or not. (That's not to say that everything intended to be art is art, much less "good art.")
Physical context matters, too, to some extent, but, you know, there is such a thing as public art (e.g. Richard Serra, etc., etc., etc.).
cell divide, if you assert that it's art because "people know they're looking at art," then you must think Duchamp's urinal (you know, the one he signed "R. Mutt" and put in a gallery) was art, too, right? Same goes for Jeff Koons' Michael Jackson and Bubbles, right?
Anyway, my main point is that it's not so simple. (I personally think all the things I mentioned are art, whether they piss me off, make me ponder the nature of art, or make me say, "damn, that guy has guts.")
on preview: "they're still not within the realm of things which are done to be immediately perceived and appreciated as 'art.'" yhbc, why? just curious. are you making an assumption about Ankrom's intent, or...?
Lawsuit: I can see it now. "I'm going to sue Richard Ankrom. I'm going to sue Jaguar. I'm going to sue the state of California. I'm going to sue CalTrans. I'm going to sue the rivet company. I'm..."
Great quote, ..._spleen, and maybe there's a grain or more of truth to it.
posted by gohlkus at 3:36 PM on May 9, 2002
I find it completely brilliant, with a little of everything: unimpeachable production techniques; serious risk of harm to life, limb, and liberty; professional-quality documentation (I consider the video to be documentation of the piece).
I'd like to see the full video... then I could make a judgement as to whether I think it's conceptually sound -- whether it has theoretical merit. I couldn't say just by watching the snippets on the LA Times site.
Of course, these judgements are all subjective, and the debate has been going on for ages.
In my mind, the intent of the artist -- in this case, Richard Ankrom, whose name hasn't been mentioned yet in the thread -- makes a huge difference as to whether I consider something art or not. (That's not to say that everything intended to be art is art, much less "good art.")
Physical context matters, too, to some extent, but, you know, there is such a thing as public art (e.g. Richard Serra, etc., etc., etc.).
cell divide, if you assert that it's art because "people know they're looking at art," then you must think Duchamp's urinal (you know, the one he signed "R. Mutt" and put in a gallery) was art, too, right? Same goes for Jeff Koons' Michael Jackson and Bubbles, right?
Anyway, my main point is that it's not so simple. (I personally think all the things I mentioned are art, whether they piss me off, make me ponder the nature of art, or make me say, "damn, that guy has guts.")
on preview: "they're still not within the realm of things which are done to be immediately perceived and appreciated as 'art.'" yhbc, why? just curious. are you making an assumption about Ankrom's intent, or...?
Lawsuit: I can see it now. "I'm going to sue Richard Ankrom. I'm going to sue Jaguar. I'm going to sue the state of California. I'm going to sue CalTrans. I'm going to sue the rivet company. I'm..."
Great quote, ..._spleen, and maybe there's a grain or more of truth to it.
posted by gohlkus at 3:36 PM on May 9, 2002
Gohlkus, it can still be art even if people don't know they're looking at it. But that doesn't mean it isn't funny to compare viewership with the Louvre to a Freeway installation which is indistinguishable from a normal freeway sign. To me, it's art because a person wanted to change reality, and did so.
By that definition, of course, everything we do is art, because we naturally change reality with every breath, thus rendering the definition silly. However I think you can still see my point.
posted by cell divide at 3:40 PM on May 9, 2002
By that definition, of course, everything we do is art, because we naturally change reality with every breath, thus rendering the definition silly. However I think you can still see my point.
posted by cell divide at 3:40 PM on May 9, 2002
Ah, cell divide, I completely agree with you. Good point.
posted by gohlkus at 3:42 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by gohlkus at 3:42 PM on May 9, 2002
Why is it art when someone makes a knockoff of a road sign, but forgery when someone makes a knockoff of the Mona Lisa?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:46 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:46 PM on May 9, 2002
i find the "is it art" question less interesting than the notion that a guy found a usability problem and fixed it. this happens to me 20 times a day with computer applications and i'm helpless to do anything about it. what i wouldn't give to be able to "fix" some of the horrible UI in Outlook, etc. etc. (and unfortunately, the answer is not OpenSource since i'm locked into the MS Office suite because that's what my company uses...)
posted by gwint at 3:53 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by gwint at 3:53 PM on May 9, 2002
Why is it art when someone makes a knockoff of a road sign, but forgery when someone makes a knockoff of the Mona Lisa?
Oh, but who says forgeries can't be art?
posted by vacapinta at 3:58 PM on May 9, 2002
Oh, but who says forgeries can't be art?
posted by vacapinta at 3:58 PM on May 9, 2002
"...who says forgeries can't be art?"
I'll try that as my defense if I'm ever on trial for forgery. "No, Your Honor, it wasn't a forgery, it was performance art."
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:01 PM on May 9, 2002
I'll try that as my defense if I'm ever on trial for forgery. "No, Your Honor, it wasn't a forgery, it was performance art."
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:01 PM on May 9, 2002
It's only a forgery when you reproduce something and try to pawn it off as the original.
posted by crunchland at 4:03 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by crunchland at 4:03 PM on May 9, 2002
"It's only a forgery when you reproduce something and try to pawn it off as the original."
And this doesn't apply in this situation because...?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:07 PM on May 9, 2002
And this doesn't apply in this situation because...?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:07 PM on May 9, 2002
Judge: Ok, we'll agree that it was both. We are only convicting you for the former.
What crunchland is saying is that if you reproduce the Mona Lisa and hang it in your bedroom - no problem. If you attempt to sell it as the Mona Lisa - problem. Whether its art or not is independent of criminal intent.
You can rob a bank and call it performance art. I doubt it will keep you out of jail.
Reproducing valuable items (Mona Lisa, jewelry, currency) and trying to pawn them off as such is a crime. Ankrom was not trying to illegaly profit from this. That's the difference.
posted by vacapinta at 4:23 PM on May 9, 2002
What crunchland is saying is that if you reproduce the Mona Lisa and hang it in your bedroom - no problem. If you attempt to sell it as the Mona Lisa - problem. Whether its art or not is independent of criminal intent.
You can rob a bank and call it performance art. I doubt it will keep you out of jail.
Reproducing valuable items (Mona Lisa, jewelry, currency) and trying to pawn them off as such is a crime. Ankrom was not trying to illegaly profit from this. That's the difference.
posted by vacapinta at 4:23 PM on May 9, 2002
...because he wasn't trying to pawn it off as the original. In the quite literal sense, a duplicated painting is a replica until you try to sell it or appraise it as if it were the original. A material gain needs to be present for it to be fraudulent and a forgery.
Here the only material gain was to the properly-educated driver, which falls on the opposite side of the equation, hence not a forgery.
posted by kfury at 4:25 PM on May 9, 2002
Here the only material gain was to the properly-educated driver, which falls on the opposite side of the equation, hence not a forgery.
posted by kfury at 4:25 PM on May 9, 2002
forgery when someone makes a knockoff of the Mona Lisa
This isn't forgery. The Mona Lisa was painted in the early 1500s and has no copyright or trademark applied to it. It's quite legal to make your own copy of the Mona Lisa. People are in the Louvre and other museums painting and drawing copies of paintings all the time. If you tried to pass off your copy as the original, then you might be in some trouble. (And then there's the question of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre being a forgery, either because it was stolen & replaced or because the real one is in the Louvre's basement along with the real Venus de Milo.)
As for the fake road sign, modern art is confusing. Actual road signs aren't art (unless they're out of context, in which case, um, maybe?) so a copy of them is not a forgery in the artistic sense...it's art! Or something. (Modern art makes my head hurt.)
Speaking of Koons and "is this art?", here's a relevant MeFi discussion about the sale of his Michael Jackson and Bubbles.
posted by jkottke at 4:26 PM on May 9, 2002
This isn't forgery. The Mona Lisa was painted in the early 1500s and has no copyright or trademark applied to it. It's quite legal to make your own copy of the Mona Lisa. People are in the Louvre and other museums painting and drawing copies of paintings all the time. If you tried to pass off your copy as the original, then you might be in some trouble. (And then there's the question of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre being a forgery, either because it was stolen & replaced or because the real one is in the Louvre's basement along with the real Venus de Milo.)
As for the fake road sign, modern art is confusing. Actual road signs aren't art (unless they're out of context, in which case, um, maybe?) so a copy of them is not a forgery in the artistic sense...it's art! Or something. (Modern art makes my head hurt.)
Speaking of Koons and "is this art?", here's a relevant MeFi discussion about the sale of his Michael Jackson and Bubbles.
posted by jkottke at 4:26 PM on May 9, 2002
Of course he was trying to "pawn it off" as an original Caltrans "work," that was the entire point.
posted by kindall at 4:30 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by kindall at 4:30 PM on May 9, 2002
Thank you, kindall.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:36 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:36 PM on May 9, 2002
Hmm. Maybe it has something to do with monetary gain?
Besides, I think that the art here is not the plywood and the paint and the reflectors and stuff. The art was in the concept and the process.
But don't feel bad about being confounded by this. Greater minds than ours have struggled with defining art for many years. Jesse Helms, for one.
posted by crunchland at 5:03 PM on May 9, 2002
Besides, I think that the art here is not the plywood and the paint and the reflectors and stuff. The art was in the concept and the process.
But don't feel bad about being confounded by this. Greater minds than ours have struggled with defining art for many years. Jesse Helms, for one.
posted by crunchland at 5:03 PM on May 9, 2002
On a tangential note (what comment here isn't?), there's the work of Rigo (1, 2, 3 - scroll down) here in San Francisco which is inspired by street signs.
posted by vacapinta at 5:19 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by vacapinta at 5:19 PM on May 9, 2002
seems apparent there are NO DESIGNERS, NO TYPOGRAPHERS, NO REAL ARTISTS in MF. Highway signage is an interprative systematized art and craft solution for the visual needs of motorists. Granted, the highway signage is not particularly expressive, but it does communicate something visually, and took a TON of time to create. It is of immense economic value. (Just imagine what driving would be like having hand painted signs that local towns put up instead of this system.) If an artist renders something she/he sees, what difference does it make what the medium is? When photography first started painters all said: that's not art,it's just an image, and yet we have Walker Evans, Ansel Adams, etc etc.
posted by greyscale at 6:17 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by greyscale at 6:17 PM on May 9, 2002
I'm glad someone finally brought fonts into this discussion, greyscale. Fonts are functional and utilitarian, yet I don't think anyone would dispute that they can also be art.
posted by rcade at 6:26 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by rcade at 6:26 PM on May 9, 2002
Ah, Walker Evans. Yes, the man is truly an artist behind the wheel. At last, we find common ground.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:35 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:35 PM on May 9, 2002
He looks pretty good, considering he died over 25 years ago.
posted by crunchland at 7:22 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by crunchland at 7:22 PM on May 9, 2002
You know, I've gotta agree with Mars way upthread: the only reason there's a debate on whether or not this is art is because the guy who did it is known as an artist. Otherwise this would be a "stunt" or a "statement," both of which are much more useful and specific words in this case.
it does communicate something visually, and took a TON of time to create. It is of immense economic value. (Just imagine what driving would be like having hand painted signs that local towns put up instead of this system.)
Okay, mister I'm-the-only-real-artist-speaking, I don't see how any of those things you mention qualify anything as "art" either singly or put together and I certainly don't see how highway signage is "more" of an art than hand-painted signage just because it's more systematic and carefully executed. Whatever happened to "craft," anyway? What's wrong with the notion that a useful and functional tool can be built incorporating the quirks and personal touches of the builder and appreciated as such without having to dump it in the same cultural category as that Matisse in the museum or Crime and Punishment or a Chris Rock stand-up routine? Because "craft" is nothing to sneeze at. Sometimes "craft" can be more remarkable than "art."
posted by furiousthought at 8:10 PM on May 9, 2002
it does communicate something visually, and took a TON of time to create. It is of immense economic value. (Just imagine what driving would be like having hand painted signs that local towns put up instead of this system.)
Okay, mister I'm-the-only-real-artist-speaking, I don't see how any of those things you mention qualify anything as "art" either singly or put together and I certainly don't see how highway signage is "more" of an art than hand-painted signage just because it's more systematic and carefully executed. Whatever happened to "craft," anyway? What's wrong with the notion that a useful and functional tool can be built incorporating the quirks and personal touches of the builder and appreciated as such without having to dump it in the same cultural category as that Matisse in the museum or Crime and Punishment or a Chris Rock stand-up routine? Because "craft" is nothing to sneeze at. Sometimes "craft" can be more remarkable than "art."
posted by furiousthought at 8:10 PM on May 9, 2002
http://www.walkerevans.com
sorry for the attitude. I spent the last 3 years studying typography.
posted by greyscale at 8:23 PM on May 9, 2002
sorry for the attitude. I spent the last 3 years studying typography.
posted by greyscale at 8:23 PM on May 9, 2002
I'm-the-only-real-artist-speaking
Ego.
Sometimes "craft" can be more remarkable than "art.
Yes, for you, the craft is yours, the art is what it becomes when you sell/display/get attention/ to it. No one has to appreciate your craft, your art (result) is the value to others, your craft is only of value to you, unless you impart that knowledge, (teach) then it still only belongs to the student. For the non-"artist" it makes no sense. Why should it, isn't that your "job". But I am sure you have already experienced this, said as another "artist". My ego on display, sorry.
posted by bittennails at 8:25 PM on May 9, 2002
Ego.
Sometimes "craft" can be more remarkable than "art.
Yes, for you, the craft is yours, the art is what it becomes when you sell/display/get attention/ to it. No one has to appreciate your craft, your art (result) is the value to others, your craft is only of value to you, unless you impart that knowledge, (teach) then it still only belongs to the student. For the non-"artist" it makes no sense. Why should it, isn't that your "job". But I am sure you have already experienced this, said as another "artist". My ego on display, sorry.
posted by bittennails at 8:25 PM on May 9, 2002
Fonts can indeed be art. This guy, however, didn't make a font. His contribution was limited to reproducing exactly two design elements that someone else had already specified and placing them in the positions required by Caltrans's signage documents. In short, there was not a single part of the actual "work" that involved creativity. Even the idea was not creative; it was obvious to anyone who drove that stretch of highway that the signage could be improved.
The only artists in this scenario are the people who designed the highway signage specification decades ago, who not only came up with a successful design but documented it so well that a random yahoo could develop signs precisely to spec. Now that's art.
posted by kindall at 9:07 PM on May 9, 2002
The only artists in this scenario are the people who designed the highway signage specification decades ago, who not only came up with a successful design but documented it so well that a random yahoo could develop signs precisely to spec. Now that's art.
posted by kindall at 9:07 PM on May 9, 2002
My issue is with people playing fast and loose with the cliche 'pawn it off.'
The 'artist' (whether he is one or not) didn't try to 'pawn it off' as caltrans work, as there was no material gain. If he was paid by motorists to lobby CalTrans to change the sign and then just did it himself, then he would be 'pawning it off' as CalTrans work. Doing it himself in secret doesn't mean he's pawning it off to anyone, as there was no barter exchange between him and any other party.
If you choose to morph the cliche 'pawn it off' to mean any kind of deception, then you lose the ability to link that term to any moral compass society already has regarding the term 'pawning it off' because you're changing the definition while trying to maintain the same moral value, and that's cheating.
In effect, you're pawning off a cliche as meaning something else so we'll all think you're right.
posted by kfury at 9:14 PM on May 9, 2002
The 'artist' (whether he is one or not) didn't try to 'pawn it off' as caltrans work, as there was no material gain. If he was paid by motorists to lobby CalTrans to change the sign and then just did it himself, then he would be 'pawning it off' as CalTrans work. Doing it himself in secret doesn't mean he's pawning it off to anyone, as there was no barter exchange between him and any other party.
If you choose to morph the cliche 'pawn it off' to mean any kind of deception, then you lose the ability to link that term to any moral compass society already has regarding the term 'pawning it off' because you're changing the definition while trying to maintain the same moral value, and that's cheating.
In effect, you're pawning off a cliche as meaning something else so we'll all think you're right.
posted by kfury at 9:14 PM on May 9, 2002
...And give you cred for it. That would be the exchange in that final example. In the 'artist's case, there was no recognition, therefore there was no cred received.
Now that it's public that he did the work, it's simultaneously public that it's not a real Caltrans sign, and so he's not trying to pawn it off as anything (except in the eyes of those who might say he's trying to pawn it off as 'art.')
posted by kfury at 9:16 PM on May 9, 2002
Now that it's public that he did the work, it's simultaneously public that it's not a real Caltrans sign, and so he's not trying to pawn it off as anything (except in the eyes of those who might say he's trying to pawn it off as 'art.')
posted by kfury at 9:16 PM on May 9, 2002
If you choose to morph the cliche 'pawn it off' to mean any kind of deception
No morphing is actually needed, since as far as I can tell that's what it means already. According to dictionary.com, "pawn off" is defined as "to dispose or get rid of deceptively." At m-w.com I found the definition "to get rid of or pass off usually by deception." I don't see anything in either definition that mentions material gain.
You might have had better luck arguing that he wasn't actually "disposing" of the work, although the second definition includes the phrase "pass off," which I think covers the situation here.
posted by kindall at 9:22 PM on May 9, 2002
No morphing is actually needed, since as far as I can tell that's what it means already. According to dictionary.com, "pawn off" is defined as "to dispose or get rid of deceptively." At m-w.com I found the definition "to get rid of or pass off usually by deception." I don't see anything in either definition that mentions material gain.
You might have had better luck arguing that he wasn't actually "disposing" of the work, although the second definition includes the phrase "pass off," which I think covers the situation here.
posted by kindall at 9:22 PM on May 9, 2002
I think it's interesting how this event became such a mass-media meme so fast. It was in today's LA Times, I saw it posted here, on Fark, a couple other blogs, and AP News, NPR was interviewing him as I listened on the way home, and there he was again tonight on the NBC national news.
It probably helps a lot that A) It was a beneficial act, B) It is a clever and novel story, C) There is a lot of audio/video/imagery available, and D) The perpetrator isn't being prosecuted, as one would generally expect.
Certainly better than the idiot(s) here in Washington State that are pulling some copycat mailbox bombings today.
posted by kokogiak at 9:36 PM on May 9, 2002
It probably helps a lot that A) It was a beneficial act, B) It is a clever and novel story, C) There is a lot of audio/video/imagery available, and D) The perpetrator isn't being prosecuted, as one would generally expect.
Certainly better than the idiot(s) here in Washington State that are pulling some copycat mailbox bombings today.
posted by kokogiak at 9:36 PM on May 9, 2002
Of course it's art! That thing would look *awesome* above my couch!
posted by diddlegnome at 9:37 PM on May 9, 2002
posted by diddlegnome at 9:37 PM on May 9, 2002
This guy, however, didn't make a font. His contribution was limited to reproducing exactly two design elements that someone else had already specified and placing them in the positions required by Caltrans's signage documents. In short, there was not a single part of the actual "work" that involved creativity.
Does art have to be creative? The artistry of the Vermeer forger Van Megeren has already been mentioned, and to pick something more contemporary, Damien Hirst created a sculpture called Hymn that's an giant copy of a children's science toy. Neither was original, but I think both fall comfortably within the definition of art.
Personally, I don't see any reason to take a restrictive position on what constitutes art. You cheat yourself out of some amazing work. One of the most intriguing works of art I've ever seen is a Java applet.
posted by rcade at 9:44 PM on May 9, 2002
Does art have to be creative? The artistry of the Vermeer forger Van Megeren has already been mentioned, and to pick something more contemporary, Damien Hirst created a sculpture called Hymn that's an giant copy of a children's science toy. Neither was original, but I think both fall comfortably within the definition of art.
Personally, I don't see any reason to take a restrictive position on what constitutes art. You cheat yourself out of some amazing work. One of the most intriguing works of art I've ever seen is a Java applet.
posted by rcade at 9:44 PM on May 9, 2002
http://www.walkerevans.com
He might be the world's greatest artist for all I know, but if he is, that website doesn't do him justice.
posted by Neale at 10:55 PM on May 9, 2002
He might be the world's greatest artist for all I know, but if he is, that website doesn't do him justice.
posted by Neale at 10:55 PM on May 9, 2002
Sorry, greyscale. The phrase "real artist" instantly gets my hackles up no matter who says it.
Bittennails, what in gravy are you talking about? I'm using the word "craft" to denote things that are primarily functional, but whose construction involves significant personal touches, aesthetic judgments, etc. A finely crafted, I don't know, hammer doesn't become art if I sell it to somebody. Ornate carvings or not they're gonna use it to hit nails. Designing highway signage specifications falls under this category: craftsmanship. Carefully constructed, successful. There's nothing wrong with this. Craftsmanship is good. The world could use a lot more of it.
My point of view is, for something to be a piece of art, it has to primarily function as expression. That's really the extent of my definition, and it's pretty inclusive. Fonts can certainly be art, in the same way that architecture can. Or they can be pieces of craftsmanship, or simply of engineering. For example, Joe Spooky's very first goth font is probably art - primarily expressive - while Helvetica (due to its ubiquity more than anything) isn't as much. Yet Helvetica would be the more remarkable of the two, most likely, if you stopped to consider it. Which is why not considering something "art" doesn't mean you have to cheat yourself out of it.
posted by furiousthought at 11:04 PM on May 9, 2002
Bittennails, what in gravy are you talking about? I'm using the word "craft" to denote things that are primarily functional, but whose construction involves significant personal touches, aesthetic judgments, etc. A finely crafted, I don't know, hammer doesn't become art if I sell it to somebody. Ornate carvings or not they're gonna use it to hit nails. Designing highway signage specifications falls under this category: craftsmanship. Carefully constructed, successful. There's nothing wrong with this. Craftsmanship is good. The world could use a lot more of it.
My point of view is, for something to be a piece of art, it has to primarily function as expression. That's really the extent of my definition, and it's pretty inclusive. Fonts can certainly be art, in the same way that architecture can. Or they can be pieces of craftsmanship, or simply of engineering. For example, Joe Spooky's very first goth font is probably art - primarily expressive - while Helvetica (due to its ubiquity more than anything) isn't as much. Yet Helvetica would be the more remarkable of the two, most likely, if you stopped to consider it. Which is why not considering something "art" doesn't mean you have to cheat yourself out of it.
posted by furiousthought at 11:04 PM on May 9, 2002
Does art have to be creative? The artistry of the Vermeer forger Van Megeren has already been mentioned, and to pick something more contemporary,
I've never tried to copy a painting by hand, but I don't have any doubt it is extremely challenging and requires significant skill as a painter in one's own right.
posted by kindall at 11:19 PM on May 9, 2002
I've never tried to copy a painting by hand, but I don't have any doubt it is extremely challenging and requires significant skill as a painter in one's own right.
posted by kindall at 11:19 PM on May 9, 2002
Van Meegeren wasn't copying paintings by hand. He was creating new works that could be passed off as lost paintings by Vermeer.
posted by rcade at 9:21 AM on May 10, 2002
posted by rcade at 9:21 AM on May 10, 2002
i'm still confused why people desire so strongly to refuse works the term "art".
It's not like calling something "art" confers upon it some kind of measurable benefits that would otherwise change should we call it a "stunt", "prank", or "hack".
at least, not, i think, to anyone who's ever attempted to write purposefully about art (except philosophers, I suppose, and they're a naughty bunch anyways.) calling, say, "Untitled #1" art, doesn't by itself make it "good", or "valuable". I can do all sorts of shit, call it art, but it doesn't mean the MOMA's going to be breaking down my door for a retrospective; or that i'll get namechecked by critics. They might do that if the work is good, but establishing this involves meeting varied and ever-changing subjective critera.
what i'm suggesting is that whether than arguing about whether this piece is "art" or not, people in this thread are wanting to argue whether this is GOOD art, or BAD art, but getting caught up in the semantic swamp of the word "art" and going nowhere.
as for the work itself, i've got to say that this piece -- while well put together -- to me is rather uninspiring. i tend, as I'm guessing most people in this thread do, to like work that is a little more confrontational. Of course, it seems to compel viewers to consider what we base (and possibly why we value) authencity, which is always nice, and the guy had enough craftmanship and gall to pull a fast one on a bunch of people -- which I applaud. It's really hard to say a lot about, however, because this is the first work the artist has done in this vein, and so there's really nothing to compare it to. I don't think any art critic would seriously consider writing about this for more than a paragraph -- it's more the speed of tv news and lifestyle newspaper sections.
I agree that we *tend* to think that if we call something "art" it's suddenly a cultural good, whereas "prank" and "stunt" and "hack" tend to imply subversive or otherwise lowbrow activities -- but hey, folks, art's (well, duchamp) been doing the latter since 1913!
plus it's addressed many of the contentions raised in this thread -- the concept of authencity has been a starting point for COUNTLESS works, including the one in question in this thread.
yes, i realize the tone of post this is kinda arrogant, but uh. yeah. sorry if i offend, i'm really not trying to; i just feel passionately about these things because i spent a good year arguing with art history students about how fucking stupid art is and then, well, joined the other team.
for the record, i now like fucking stupid art.
posted by fishfucker at 1:41 PM on May 10, 2002
It's not like calling something "art" confers upon it some kind of measurable benefits that would otherwise change should we call it a "stunt", "prank", or "hack".
at least, not, i think, to anyone who's ever attempted to write purposefully about art (except philosophers, I suppose, and they're a naughty bunch anyways.) calling, say, "Untitled #1" art, doesn't by itself make it "good", or "valuable". I can do all sorts of shit, call it art, but it doesn't mean the MOMA's going to be breaking down my door for a retrospective; or that i'll get namechecked by critics. They might do that if the work is good, but establishing this involves meeting varied and ever-changing subjective critera.
what i'm suggesting is that whether than arguing about whether this piece is "art" or not, people in this thread are wanting to argue whether this is GOOD art, or BAD art, but getting caught up in the semantic swamp of the word "art" and going nowhere.
as for the work itself, i've got to say that this piece -- while well put together -- to me is rather uninspiring. i tend, as I'm guessing most people in this thread do, to like work that is a little more confrontational. Of course, it seems to compel viewers to consider what we base (and possibly why we value) authencity, which is always nice, and the guy had enough craftmanship and gall to pull a fast one on a bunch of people -- which I applaud. It's really hard to say a lot about, however, because this is the first work the artist has done in this vein, and so there's really nothing to compare it to. I don't think any art critic would seriously consider writing about this for more than a paragraph -- it's more the speed of tv news and lifestyle newspaper sections.
I agree that we *tend* to think that if we call something "art" it's suddenly a cultural good, whereas "prank" and "stunt" and "hack" tend to imply subversive or otherwise lowbrow activities -- but hey, folks, art's (well, duchamp) been doing the latter since 1913!
plus it's addressed many of the contentions raised in this thread -- the concept of authencity has been a starting point for COUNTLESS works, including the one in question in this thread.
yes, i realize the tone of post this is kinda arrogant, but uh. yeah. sorry if i offend, i'm really not trying to; i just feel passionately about these things because i spent a good year arguing with art history students about how fucking stupid art is and then, well, joined the other team.
for the record, i now like fucking stupid art.
posted by fishfucker at 1:41 PM on May 10, 2002
when i lived in NY in the mid-eighties, there was a guy who would pay art students minimum wage to do the actual paintings, which he would then sign and call his own. as i recall, 'his' work went for thousands of dollars. the actual pieces were certainly art, but were they his art? is he an artist, or simply a clever enterpreneur with a good gimmick?
i suppose the same could be said of andy warhol, although in my opinion his art was a little more provocative and challenging.
posted by modge at 2:06 PM on May 10, 2002
i suppose the same could be said of andy warhol, although in my opinion his art was a little more provocative and challenging.
posted by modge at 2:06 PM on May 10, 2002
It's not like calling something "art" confers upon it some kind of measurable benefits that would otherwise change should we call it a "stunt", "prank", or "hack".
Well, it makes you an "artist" rather than a "stunta," "prankster," or "hacker." Which means... chicks. I think we can all object to it on this basis.
posted by kindall at 2:52 PM on May 10, 2002
Well, it makes you an "artist" rather than a "stunta," "prankster," or "hacker." Which means... chicks. I think we can all object to it on this basis.
posted by kindall at 2:52 PM on May 10, 2002
Not that anyone is gonna read this, but:
Fishfucker, I agree with you on most all of your points. I just think splitting hairs about art vs. craft vs. stunt vs. hack is kind of...fun. (Yes, my life is empty and sad.) Calling whatever you do "art" does not confer any measurable benefits, true. But it's always an attempt to do so - whether what you're doing is puking on other peoples' paintings or building road signs to Narnia or making fonts or coding or drawing stupid comic strips.
Okay, but that's all beside the point. Really, I'm just bored silly of headline-grabbing Duchamp riffs that aim to "stretch the boundaries of art" or some shit but really just set off people's bullshit detectors. It isn't doing the high art world any favors. That's why I took the huffy 1890's-aristocrat stance here. But I guess the days are long past when a painting could get covered in a newspaper.
That piece of fucking stupid art is a hoot, by the way. I wonder if they're having a dorm-room retrospective.
posted by furiousthought at 2:56 PM on May 10, 2002
Fishfucker, I agree with you on most all of your points. I just think splitting hairs about art vs. craft vs. stunt vs. hack is kind of...fun. (Yes, my life is empty and sad.) Calling whatever you do "art" does not confer any measurable benefits, true. But it's always an attempt to do so - whether what you're doing is puking on other peoples' paintings or building road signs to Narnia or making fonts or coding or drawing stupid comic strips.
Okay, but that's all beside the point. Really, I'm just bored silly of headline-grabbing Duchamp riffs that aim to "stretch the boundaries of art" or some shit but really just set off people's bullshit detectors. It isn't doing the high art world any favors. That's why I took the huffy 1890's-aristocrat stance here. But I guess the days are long past when a painting could get covered in a newspaper.
That piece of fucking stupid art is a hoot, by the way. I wonder if they're having a dorm-room retrospective.
posted by furiousthought at 2:56 PM on May 10, 2002
what about the art of medicine? yeah, lets talk about medicine now. the healing arts.
posted by greyscale at 4:49 PM on May 10, 2002
posted by greyscale at 4:49 PM on May 10, 2002
« Older The Butterfly Grid. | Is this taking so-called morality too far? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
How do you all define art?
posted by luser at 1:59 PM on May 9, 2002