Actually. I think this topic does bring about intellectually stimulating conversation, as a rant was being formed in my head as I watched the video.
This is the problem with modern art (also, hipsters in general). Most "artists" these days, seem to be struggling to find something that doesn't need to be found, or isn't there to begin with.
There was another artist, the name of which escapes me, who recently had an exhibit, which was nothing more than a bunch of people standing/walking around naked. This to be, is a shining example of what abstract performance art can be. While the concept of that piece is simple, the purpose is not. That piece of art, tries to expose how vulnerable the human species has become, due to how we disdain being exposed (I.E. naked in public). It tries to explain how as a society, we view the natural image, that is the human body, as a bad thing, and cover it up. Which is not to say we should shun clothing, but that public nudity should not be illegal. Most people's argument against public nudity, usually involves children, and the damaging of their psyche. Arguers from that side of the fence, fail to realize that there is a difference between molestation, and healthy development with a realistic body image in mind. I firmly believe that if nudity were to be more common in public, the unrealistic portrayal of young men and women (especially women), would cease to be, and portrayals of young men and women would be much more suited to reality, thus allowing the youth to be better adjusted, and less self conscious, and their offspring moreso. This, I believe, would lead to a much better future, and a much better society. I believe this was the artist's intent, to show that the human body is a work of art, and the societal need to cover it, is a part of the detriment of society.
The "art" that Kudi-chan linked us to, in my opinion, tries to say that society has been, will continue to, and currently is, crumbling around us, and is "turning into sh*t". However, the difference with this piece, is that the artist fails to find a medium to convey this idea. Pretty much, what she did, was open a can of "Spaghetti Os" and piss in it (I'm not even going to delve into the pointlessness that was her monologue). This fails to convey the thought. She tries to use the act of defecation, as a physical metaphor. The foul smell/unpleasant look of urine, is an attempt to show us, what she believes society has become, "sh*t" as she would put it (yet she used urine for this. Probably because it's easier to piss on command than sh*t on command).
The problem with this piece of "performance art" is that the artist fails to provide explanation for the entire performance. Was there a reason it was a can of Spaghetti Os? Was she trying to send an anti-corporate message? Could it have been a can of soup instead? Personally, I feel this message would have been more suited to a painting. If there was an anti-corporate message within this piece of "art", perhaps a parody of Andy Warhol's "Campbell's Soup Cans" would be in order. Although, "Campbell's Soup Cans" is indeed a parody of itself, as the meaning is to show how the modern world has grown to label anything on canvas "art".
This school of thought has now expanded into the realm of performance art, and has created the beings that we now know as hipsters. Young men and women who claim to love art, yet are unable to fully explain a piece of art, or explain why one piece of art may not have the same effect on the viewer as another. This then gives way to pieces of "art" such as the one Kudi-chan linked us to, as now we have a ton of these young men and women, who fail to see the nuances that make a simple performance, such as the one I had mentioned earlier, so moving. Thus leaving a large amount of loose ends. Yet the problem now arises, when you have more and more of these people (hipsters), this incomplete mental image of art, then becomes the standard to which other pieces of art are measured. That being the case, these pieces are grown to be accepted, and even applauded, when the grounds they are built upon, are shaky at best. This, is where we can see the detriment of society. Fine art has always been the standard to which the rest of society models itself to, but now, the evolution of fine art, which is to say the evolution of society, has reversed. We lose the nuances that make fine art exactly that, causing us to appreciate something bland and with less meaning. If we appreciate something with no meaning, we are then forced to look beyond the intended message. If we are forced too look beyond the intended message, then how can we be sure there was an intended message to begin with? Should there not have been a clear concise message, or at least, not one that can be commonly established, how could we consider this art? What can we measure it to? Some may argue that art is impossible to measure. I say this is a false concept, as it must be measured by the impact of it's message. The stronger the message, the more concise the message, the better it is. This being said, one may ask how one would go about measuring the impact of the message of Van Gogh's "Starry Night Over The Rhone" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starry_Night_Over_the_Rhone
). This I say is a simple task. The message is not in the form of social commentary as one would expect if rating by the impact of the message; as the message is simply a conveyance of beauty. How well does a painting, or performance do this? How does the artist utilize specific colors to highlight the beauty? No matter the situation, art may always be measured, by the impact of it's message. Whether the message be social commentary, a conveyance of beauty, or anything else for that matter. It is simply up to the masses to find a common ground, upon which to measure each piece.
This is why I propose to all of you, find a more plausible meaning within the piece of art that Kudi-chan linked us to, as I fully admit that I may very well have missed the point. If I have missed the point, this clearly demonstrates what I said above, about art now becoming bland, and meaningless, and therefore, lacking the ability to be deemed art. If you agree with my belief as to the meaning, this demonstrates the same point, as it leads you down the road saying that there are far too many loose ends to illustrate a clear and concise meaning.
This is why I despise hipsters. They talk out their ass, with no thought to their words or actions. I know virtually nothing about art, yet I know enough to read into a performance, or painting, to find a meaning. Hipsters, just find anything that somebody labels art, to be art, with or without a meaning. Thusly, have no concept of art. Yet, society labels them as the "art people" of the modern age. Sad times, indeed
(and now, I sleep, as I am RIDICULOUSLY tired, and hopefully this rant makes sense.)