By Rob Beschizza at 8:29 am Wed, Jul 4, 2012
Capture the magic of a Child or Puppy or Charles Carreon.
Looks like art to me.
Well, that’s settled then?
Hey, guys, the universal taste arbiter is giving away free consultations on BoingBoing! Hurry up, they might tell you whether the things you like are art or not!
feel free to like it, never said you can’t. But, it ain’t no Art.
What a silly, pompous, and arbitrary attitude. I don’t even care for this woman’s work myself — though I would simply call it “art that totally fails to interest me”, or maybe loosely, “bad art,” but I would at least have the sense to know underneath that, that I don’t speak for the world.
I just have a serious intellectual grudge — and I’ll confess it’s nothing more — against people who see the category of “art” as some kind of award ribbon or license, to be petulantly withheld from things that displease them. I’ve seen far, far too many armchair pundits reject good things hastily on these grounds, only to look like fools when it turned out they were following a personal prejudice or social trend. (Not that I think Susan Hunt is some misunderstood genius, or even skillful. But you know, I’m also not the one asserting my gut feeling about her is cosmic truth. And you’re not just insulting her work; you’re saying it’s NOT EVEN WORK. What a needlessly callous and dismissive sentiment!)
Above all, it’s the obtuse absoluteness of such snarky blanket dismissals that annoys me — the presumption that you speak on some sort of objective and authortative level about an aesthetic question that has preoccupied people for millennia, i.e. “What is art?” It’s just off-the-scale hyperbole, and it comes off like an attempt to bully people who disagree.
Feel free to enjoy it, but it ain’t no theory of aesthetics. It’s just a tantrum, an argument by definition, and it doesn’t give anyone the faintest grounds for intelligent further discussion. All you can do is shake your head and say, “Well, that settles it, then, doesn’t it.”
As the Universal Arbiter, I declare this to not be a post.
No offense, but this is a mean post. Charles is a dick, yes, but you know how much flack this woman’s going to undeservedly get as a result of you publicizing this link? Sure, the vast majority of your readers are normal, but with Boing Boing’s readership, even the “outliers” percentage will result in an overwhelming number of unkindnesses.
No offense, but couldn’t that logic be applied to just about any activity on the Internet that criticizes or draws attention to someone?
Yes, and maybe that’s a good thing.
I agree with Mike H. Posting this encourages a kind of schoolboy snickering. It’s unkind. Reminds me of a boingboing post several years ago. My memory is that the poster used the word “parhetic” to describe a self-published ‘zine made by and for farm wives. I still remember it because I felt shocked at how obviously cynical it was.
And here I was thinking that parhetic is a real word. Dang.
Sorry, I did misspell “pathetic.”
What makes you think that this post is mocking the artist? It’s a portrait of Charles Carreon. You seem to be projecting your own scorn.
Yup, egg on my face. I’m sorry, I didn’t grasp what was going on when I made my comment.
The tag realistic people is beyond hilarious, though.
Was this portrait commissioned? Or is she just a litigation fan?
This sort of reminds me of creepy people posting sneaky pictures of “hot” people on Flickr.
She could court the trekkie market simply by renaming the subject “John Billingsley”.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin