If by "hot" you mean that "Dallas Society"/TV-host style of plastic surgery slathered by layers of makeup, then yes, I've noticed many of Trump's picks fit that definition.
I mean, he picks them based mainly on their TV appearances, so no surprise...
"Hot?" This can cover a variety of conditions. Many on Fox do seem hot, as hot for, hot against, or just hot. Nothing that ever appealed to me. When I zipped past the "real people" show it seemed that all the women had fat lips. Was that presumed "hot?" Or Dallas? Never saw that when I lived near Dallas.
It's "art" if someone decides it is -- "art" is one of the vaguest concepts on the planet. However, if anyone can put together an almost identical piece in just a few minutes, it's probably crappy "art;" to me, good "art" requires thought and a meaning that is more than "How can I put one over on people?"
I think that Maurizio Cattelan is on to something. There is the potential for an extensive series of fruits and vegetables duct taped to a wall. The climax --so to speak -- would be an eggplant wearing a condom.
Trump's selection of telegenic people could backfire on him. If he stands with them in a group, he'll look even worse by comparison. But his mirror probably keeps telling him he's still the fairest of them all, so he won't see it.
You write: "Also, have you noticed that Trump’s cabinet choices seem to be all hot-looking people?"
Seriously? You think RFK Jr. looks hot? Mehmet Oz? Elon Musk? Hot? Only in the sense of climate change. Which is certain to be accelerated once these guys take office.
And here you thought it was just a banana and duct tape (not sure the wall was included for the $6.2MM) “Maurizio Cattelan is known for hyperrealistic sculptures that lampoon popular culture and offer a wry commentary on society, power, and authority,” read the press release. Well then, that certainly makes it a bargain at six mill. Not just "art," but a um..."wry commentary." What a deal! But, in fact, the buyer didn't get the banana and the tape; no, what he got was a 14-page manual that specifies how to tape his own banana and where to put it on the wall, along with --graciously --a certificate of authenticity. This, as reviewed, um...obviously indicated that, "'Comedian' is deeply engaged with art-historical movements, in line with the dadaist principles of Duchamp’s ready-mades, mixed with the ephemeral nature of instruction-based conceptualism." Welcome to the world of International Art English (IAE) or "artspeak" the virtually impenetrable (for normal folk) lingua franca spoken (and often understood) by denizens of the art world. Not surprisingly, it usually starts with the artist. For example, one of my personal favorites was the description of his um...invisible...sculpture, "Io Sono" ("I Am") by Italian artist Salvatore Garau. The empty space atop the pedestal existed, he explained (presumably with a straight face), but just not in material form, and was actually more like a “vacuum.” He went on helpfully, "...the vacuum is nothing more than a space full of energy, and even if we empty it and there is nothing left, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that ‘nothing’ has a weight. Therefore, it has energy that is condensed and transformed into particles, that is, into us.” Much like how we “shape a god we’ve never seen.” Probably sounded better in Italian. This um...god-like "energy" sold for $18,000 to a buyer who may have initially thought there was no there, there. He also got a certificate authenticating the empty space. So art appreciation (and of contemporary art, in particular) probably has less to do with the art itself, than the words used to describe it. Have your thesaurus handy next time you visit a gallery. And put away that piece of fruit. Don't want the guard eyeing you suspiciously.
My son went to art school, although you would be pleased to hear that he does figurative drawing -- the kind of art that generative AI was built to make unprofitable. And indeed, he is having a challenging time to earn money. We have discussed this kind of conceptual art, and it bears a resemblance to the practice of science. The challenge is to look at exactly the same thing as millions of other people have seen, and find a different way to understand it. Most times, it will be ridiculous. But one time in a thousand, or a million, there will be a deep insight. Our challenge, as scientists and artists, is to keep trying despite the ridicule.
Also -- anyone who can afford to expend $18k on the empty space above a pedestal is someone who won't miss the $18k. Consider it a productive way to put that money back into circulation in the economy without losing anything of actual value to anyone.
Or confirmation of the "greater fool" theory. All you need is at least one other person to understand (or claim to) and be willing to pay for that understanding. Once you've established that someone is willing to pay you for your "vision," however incomprehensible to most others, you have essentially made a market. The rest is pretty much a matter of the forces nearly all other markets are subject to. Science is completely different. Insights are supported or based on inductive reasoning, formal method and substantiation of one kind or another. Subjective "brainstorms" without at least some preliminary evidence and the possibility of reproducibility are rarely accepted in the legitimate scientific community. Btw --- I would suggest spending $18,000 to support a single artist's um.."unconventional" vision --- even if it's a drop in your proverbial financial bucket --- does far less for the economy than say donating it to a charity that supports multiple artists. But then you get to spend your money as you see fit.
Yes, of course. But the scientific idea, theory or hypothesis, as you well know, is generally only as good as being capable of being tested and/or replicated, presumably on someone else's dime. In very much the same way, a creative "idea" in the arts, is only as good as someone saying it is, and ideally some other someone being willing to confirm that opinion by financially supporting it.
One of my favorite quotes is from a little book titled "101 Things I learned in Architecture School". It is, “If you can’t explain your ideas to your grandmother in terms that she understands, you don’t know your subject well enough.”
In the October 2001 issue of Architectural Record, Robert Campbell FAIA (who is the architecture critic for the Boston Globe), wrote a scathing article on the gibberish he calls ArchiSpeak. Link is below; the article in on p.35/184 (p79 in the print edition)
It was probably just an attempt to troll Americans. Our new reputation as the dumbest people on the planet makes it hard to resist seeing what we’ll fall for next
Yes, I believe those who buy such art probably all fit squarely in the Trump camp. By the way, the banana is reproductive art because anyone can reproduce it.
Trump is all about sales and marketing, so of course he chooses “hot” people to be his salesmen. He likes the glossy Fox News anchor look and so do his supporters. The irony, of course, is that most of Trump’s supporters don’t look like that and he would never hire them or even want them at his club. I suspect most of his supporters are living in a sort of fantasy world. They see someone attractive on the screen and think they’re that attractive too, they hear a billionaire talk about “fixing” the economy and they think they know that much about money too. They need a big wake up call about what Trump really thinks of them.
Like so many who collect art that meets a wide consensus as art, this collector only paid for the signature.
If you are in love with the art of Van Gogh, a poster of his work will do. If you spend 120 million euro on a Van Gogh, you're exercising your power to own something extremely rare, to the exclusion of everyone else on the planet. Love of art has barely anything at all to do with it.
I have art on my walls, including original paintings, and it's from Vietnam. And I prize a print of a Hopper house detail that was in a discount store. Somehow it fits.
I lean toward "it's not art". I see it as a provocation. Since it seems to be provocative, I lean towards "it is good" (i.e. it accomplishes its intended purpose).
If by "hot" you mean that "Dallas Society"/TV-host style of plastic surgery slathered by layers of makeup, then yes, I've noticed many of Trump's picks fit that definition.
I mean, he picks them based mainly on their TV appearances, so no surprise...
RFK Jr is anything but hot.
Oh, he's hot. A hot mess to be exact.
He actually looks kinda burnt!
"Hot?" This can cover a variety of conditions. Many on Fox do seem hot, as hot for, hot against, or just hot. Nothing that ever appealed to me. When I zipped past the "real people" show it seemed that all the women had fat lips. Was that presumed "hot?" Or Dallas? Never saw that when I lived near Dallas.
It's "art" if someone decides it is -- "art" is one of the vaguest concepts on the planet. However, if anyone can put together an almost identical piece in just a few minutes, it's probably crappy "art;" to me, good "art" requires thought and a meaning that is more than "How can I put one over on people?"
Sometimes a banana is just a banana.
I asked my wife the poll question and she wanted to clarify the "is it good" part, "You mean to eat?"
While a little brown, I would say that it's just fine to eat.
I think that Maurizio Cattelan is on to something. There is the potential for an extensive series of fruits and vegetables duct taped to a wall. The climax --so to speak -- would be an eggplant wearing a condom.
Trump's selection of telegenic people could backfire on him. If he stands with them in a group, he'll look even worse by comparison. But his mirror probably keeps telling him he's still the fairest of them all, so he won't see it.
I do not think any of them are hot. I don't think I could trust anybody who did think they were hot. UGH UGH UGH. A world of UGH.
I will see your UGH and raise you a few EWWWWs and ICKs.
You write: "Also, have you noticed that Trump’s cabinet choices seem to be all hot-looking people?"
Seriously? You think RFK Jr. looks hot? Mehmet Oz? Elon Musk? Hot? Only in the sense of climate change. Which is certain to be accelerated once these guys take office.
Andy Warhol said, “Art is whatever you can get away with.” Well, Cattelan got away with it, and he got away good.
And here you thought it was just a banana and duct tape (not sure the wall was included for the $6.2MM) “Maurizio Cattelan is known for hyperrealistic sculptures that lampoon popular culture and offer a wry commentary on society, power, and authority,” read the press release. Well then, that certainly makes it a bargain at six mill. Not just "art," but a um..."wry commentary." What a deal! But, in fact, the buyer didn't get the banana and the tape; no, what he got was a 14-page manual that specifies how to tape his own banana and where to put it on the wall, along with --graciously --a certificate of authenticity. This, as reviewed, um...obviously indicated that, "'Comedian' is deeply engaged with art-historical movements, in line with the dadaist principles of Duchamp’s ready-mades, mixed with the ephemeral nature of instruction-based conceptualism." Welcome to the world of International Art English (IAE) or "artspeak" the virtually impenetrable (for normal folk) lingua franca spoken (and often understood) by denizens of the art world. Not surprisingly, it usually starts with the artist. For example, one of my personal favorites was the description of his um...invisible...sculpture, "Io Sono" ("I Am") by Italian artist Salvatore Garau. The empty space atop the pedestal existed, he explained (presumably with a straight face), but just not in material form, and was actually more like a “vacuum.” He went on helpfully, "...the vacuum is nothing more than a space full of energy, and even if we empty it and there is nothing left, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that ‘nothing’ has a weight. Therefore, it has energy that is condensed and transformed into particles, that is, into us.” Much like how we “shape a god we’ve never seen.” Probably sounded better in Italian. This um...god-like "energy" sold for $18,000 to a buyer who may have initially thought there was no there, there. He also got a certificate authenticating the empty space. So art appreciation (and of contemporary art, in particular) probably has less to do with the art itself, than the words used to describe it. Have your thesaurus handy next time you visit a gallery. And put away that piece of fruit. Don't want the guard eyeing you suspiciously.
My son went to art school, although you would be pleased to hear that he does figurative drawing -- the kind of art that generative AI was built to make unprofitable. And indeed, he is having a challenging time to earn money. We have discussed this kind of conceptual art, and it bears a resemblance to the practice of science. The challenge is to look at exactly the same thing as millions of other people have seen, and find a different way to understand it. Most times, it will be ridiculous. But one time in a thousand, or a million, there will be a deep insight. Our challenge, as scientists and artists, is to keep trying despite the ridicule.
Also -- anyone who can afford to expend $18k on the empty space above a pedestal is someone who won't miss the $18k. Consider it a productive way to put that money back into circulation in the economy without losing anything of actual value to anyone.
Or confirmation of the "greater fool" theory. All you need is at least one other person to understand (or claim to) and be willing to pay for that understanding. Once you've established that someone is willing to pay you for your "vision," however incomprehensible to most others, you have essentially made a market. The rest is pretty much a matter of the forces nearly all other markets are subject to. Science is completely different. Insights are supported or based on inductive reasoning, formal method and substantiation of one kind or another. Subjective "brainstorms" without at least some preliminary evidence and the possibility of reproducibility are rarely accepted in the legitimate scientific community. Btw --- I would suggest spending $18,000 to support a single artist's um.."unconventional" vision --- even if it's a drop in your proverbial financial bucket --- does far less for the economy than say donating it to a charity that supports multiple artists. But then you get to spend your money as you see fit.
As a grant-supported scientist, I can assure you that there is a significant gap between having the idea and getting the opportunity to test it.
Yes, of course. But the scientific idea, theory or hypothesis, as you well know, is generally only as good as being capable of being tested and/or replicated, presumably on someone else's dime. In very much the same way, a creative "idea" in the arts, is only as good as someone saying it is, and ideally some other someone being willing to confirm that opinion by financially supporting it.
One of my favorite quotes is from a little book titled "101 Things I learned in Architecture School". It is, “If you can’t explain your ideas to your grandmother in terms that she understands, you don’t know your subject well enough.”
In the October 2001 issue of Architectural Record, Robert Campbell FAIA (who is the architecture critic for the Boston Globe), wrote a scathing article on the gibberish he calls ArchiSpeak. Link is below; the article in on p.35/184 (p79 in the print edition)
https://www.architecturalrecord.com/ext/resources/archives/backissues/2001-10.pdf?1001908800
It was probably just an attempt to troll Americans. Our new reputation as the dumbest people on the planet makes it hard to resist seeing what we’ll fall for next
Yes, I believe those who buy such art probably all fit squarely in the Trump camp. By the way, the banana is reproductive art because anyone can reproduce it.
Trump is all about sales and marketing, so of course he chooses “hot” people to be his salesmen. He likes the glossy Fox News anchor look and so do his supporters. The irony, of course, is that most of Trump’s supporters don’t look like that and he would never hire them or even want them at his club. I suspect most of his supporters are living in a sort of fantasy world. They see someone attractive on the screen and think they’re that attractive too, they hear a billionaire talk about “fixing” the economy and they think they know that much about money too. They need a big wake up call about what Trump really thinks of them.
Like so many who collect art that meets a wide consensus as art, this collector only paid for the signature.
If you are in love with the art of Van Gogh, a poster of his work will do. If you spend 120 million euro on a Van Gogh, you're exercising your power to own something extremely rare, to the exclusion of everyone else on the planet. Love of art has barely anything at all to do with it.
That might even be this artist's point.
I have art on my walls, including original paintings, and it's from Vietnam. And I prize a print of a Hopper house detail that was in a discount store. Somehow it fits.
I lean toward "it's not art". I see it as a provocation. Since it seems to be provocative, I lean towards "it is good" (i.e. it accomplishes its intended purpose).
it's art, and it's clever art, but it's still not worth $6.2 million.
Agreed... and whether it is "good" or not I guess would be in the eye of the beholder and/or purchaser.
trump's telegenic trolls