Well, I'm obviously in the minority here, and I like reading all of the different opinions, but as an artist, I think it is just fine. I wouldn't personally buy it for my house, and it doesn't employ the elements and principles that would cause me to consider it GOOD art, but I encourage a conscious effort to create. I don't think it is offensive at all.
But then, we've reached the stage where art is a commodity to people- they only want to buy it if it is "pretty". Art used to be a great means of conveying political opinions, religious commentary, oppression, history, social commentary, satire, incite rage, evoke sadness. Many people don't realize that artists aren't driven to create just to make money, or even to necessarily make "beautiful" things. Personally, I like work with a concept behind it, and I do a lot of "out there" stuff. I did a whole series on meat, and it was even censored on myspace as being considered "violent". I don't see how it was violent at all- it was just raw meat, like you might see in a grocery store. Some of us eat meat everyday. It was interesting that the everyday object, something we might pass in the grocery store was somehow considered SO controversial that they censored it off of my myspace. My point is- I KNOW that no one will want to buy it. But I was still driven to create it. Even if it won't hang over someone's couch. In fact, ESPECIALLY because it won't hang over someone's couch.
However, since it is how I make a living, I had to come to terms with the fact that I have to produce more commercial art, that people will want to hang. People have this crazy idea that art should match their sofa. I don't necessarily agree with that.
My neighbors backyard is an eyesore that I have to look in every day (my apartment overlooks his balcony) and I can't do anything about that. Our city streets are littered with trash, people have
cars broken down, I am subjected to seeing teenagers thongs hanging out of their pants. I guess my having to see that structure every day wouldn't bother me, in the grand scheme of things.
Though I don't necessarily find that particular structure attractive, or a successful design, I applaud their right to create. We all have different ideas of what beauty is. I, myself, have a very wide spectrum.
So the question is...who gets to decide what is beautiful? Is it fair that a group of people decide that for the rest of us?
quick example: Lucian Freud's painting of a large nude woman recently sold for $33.6 million dollars at auction. It set a record. I heard tons of people complaining that she was not attractive, they didn't "get it" they would never "buy" it, it was not "art" etc.
Anyway, I happen to love it...he's my favorite painter
But you get the point...who gets to decide what art is?
Link contains a nude, click at your own risk
http://www.artnewsblog.com/2008/05/most-expensive-living-artist-lucian.htm
