What is the most detestable, the most repellent, and the most pointless work of art you have ever seen?
In 1995, Jake and Dinos Chapman created Ubermensch, a lifelike 12ft-tall fibreglass image of Hawking in his wheelchair perched on top of a rocky pinnacle. It was clearly not a homage to Hawking's intellect or courage. Its title – meaning "Overman" or "superman", a term used in Nietzsche's philosophical writings – is plainly intended sarcastically. The work seems to suggest that Hawking, the modern superman, is a prisoner of his sick body. It stresses his carnal weakness and mocks the idea that his mind has somehow conquered matter.
It is less a work of art than a sneer. The Chapmans went on to make more interesting art. But the clumsiness of this caricature betrays their limitations.
They got it bizarrely, horribly wrong. Hawking's story really is an epic triumph of the human mind. His defiance of illness is profoundly moving, his ability to mentally explore the universe in spite of it an inspiration for our time and times to come. How many lives are so poetic? - Guardian.
So, the question is: What is the purpose of art?
5 comments:
To express one's self no doubt, and though this is a depreciating, unnecessary and petty thing to do in my eyes, it indeed is an expression of their thoughts and feelings and therefore is considered some sort of art.
On the other hand, people who want to belittle and degrade others should do so within their own homes or where such slanderous ideas are appreciated rather that make a fool out of themselves in public.
The term 'art' means form. It is a portrayal of one's thoughts, emotions, inspirations, and feelings. Some piece of art may seem hideous or a petty thing to our eyes, but to the artist's eye its their masterpiece. Its their EXPRESSION. It's their portrayal.
In the Chapman's case, their work may seem 'less then a work of art and more of a sneer' as the author stated in his article, however, its how they see it. They're human, and it's a basic right to have an opinion. Should they choose to express it, is their choice. Which they did, in a very obscure manner, but its their expression.
To me, no work of art can possibly be pointless. You see, the mere fact that the definition of 'good' art is subjective, makes it difficult to make a universal claim that it is 'pointless'. Yes, the above artwork is not necessarily accurate or realistic enough, but thats not what art is about. Art does have to have a point. It does not have to have a purpose. It does not have to have a meaning which everyone can agree on. Thats what makes it so extraordinary.
Art is merely an expression of all that is inside you; Your thoughts, emotions, views, personality etc. The artwork featured above may seem pointless and pathetic to me and you, but to the artist himself, it may hold a lot of meaning and thats all that matters.
I feel that art is a form of expression. Like Simrah mentioned:
It is a portrayal of one's thoughts, emotions, inspirations and feelings. Most importantly art has to be something that flows from the abundance of your heart. Not in the sense of it has to be good natured. But rather it has to be something you wholeheartedly believe.
As for me I don't consider this to be a work of art because, and mind you I could be wrong, this seems like more of their way of disgracing Hawking out of sheer envy rather than something they feel from there heart.
I don't like being the odd one out but I'd have to go against popular opinion on this one.
Post a Comment