Comment Archives: stories: A&E: For Art's Sake
Re: “Here kitty, kitty”
I like the concept and the reviews.
Re: “You're kidding me, right?”
Opened Nov. 2 but is now gone unfortunately.
Re: “You're kidding me, right?”
I am glad you took the time to write a review for this film to include in this week's CL, however, it does not appear to be playing anywhere in Atlanta.
Re: “The art of debate”
To the rather elitist point that those of us who have not been exposed to contemporary art are threatened... perhaps we are not threatened, but, rather, offended by bigoted statements. I have been exposed to enormous amounts of art through my membership in galleries, purchasing of original works and working in perfomance art for most of my life. Get off your high horse and get close enough to the ground to smell the stench rom the excrement that is on the wall at City Hall East.
Re: “The art of debate”
So it is ok for me to hate black people, just because black criminal have victimized me an dmy family for years? White criminals have victimized us too, but the artist already gave us permission to hate white folks. Sounds like dangerous logic to me. Oh, the artist ran out of room? Pretty lame excuse.... may I suggest a clear concept before beginning to work? Larger canvas? Smaller letters? puff, puff pass??
Re: “The art of debate”
A question requests an answer. An easy way to tell if someone intended a statement as a question is a question mark. Some statements looks like questions but are commands. "Class, would you please sit down?". A tricky exception to the rule. But I don't think there are any exceptions where a sentance ending in a period is a question. Nowhere in the phrase from this artwork, "Politically its [sic] OK to hate the white man. Is it OK for me to hate if Ive [sic] been a victim.", can I find a question that requests an answer. There are two statements and no questions. It is inaccurate for the writer of this article to say that 'Alvillar has offered the provocative questions' when there are no questions in the text of the artwork. It is also inappropriate for the writer to say that Detective Ken Allen believes Alvillar's work represents not a provocative question but a definitive statement. Belief doesn't enter into the discussion. The artwork contains two statements, no question. You don't have to believe me. find someone with knowledge on the topic; consult a grammer teacher if you must. Here's a snippit from an AJC article: ------------------------------------------- Alvillar said his piece is not exactly what he would like to have displayed. He could have honed his message with a bit more space, but had room for just three rows of 11 flags, two letters on each flag. Alvillar said his first choice for the first sentence just didn't fit: "Politically, is it OK to hate the white man?" https://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/03/29/0329art.html ------------------------------------------- So he messed up on his own artwork. To understand the message now you have see the art, read the artist's explanation below the art, and know that he himself acknowledged creating an unclear message. The artwork when viewed alone surely does create debate, but not thoughtful debate. Is the artwork sarcastic? Is it talking about how beat down minorities feel? Is it pro racism? Is it against racism? Those are questions( complete with question marks!). And those are questions that artwork should be able to answer. It doesn't. [FYI: "A formula for Hate" is also the title of a Captain Planet episode. Combine that with the fact that he couldn't figure out how put a question mark on his artwork maybe the artist wasn't trying as hard as he should have been. But I bet he got paid.]
Re: “The art of debate”
Well I would say that a question is
Re: “Art to a 'T'”
This is a true phenomenon all around the world. Artists are turning to T shirts as the new real canvas. It's because it's engaged and out there, interacting with people. conceptTshirts.com brings together loads of artists with this same ideal - get work out there and seen!
Re: “The art of debate”
Rob and DaleC are pretentious (but useful) idiots. They do a disservice to art while pretending to enlighten the masses. While Rob's big argument is my lack of grammatical persuasion, he can't write two simple comments without making grammatical mistakes himself. It's also clear-he did not get it.
And DaleC obviously doesn't "get it"-so much for his "artistic" resume. I suggest he doubles up on his gallery visits and asks lots and lots of questions-he might learn something.
A recent acquaintance was under the impression that I had not seen this and linked it to me. I was reminded of all the ridiculous arguments that I could only observe from a distance-as I would have spent weeks responding to just a portion of them. The only reason I am taking the time to respond to these comments now, is because this particular article was written in my home town of Atlanta. I'm impressed by the fact that of all of the artists in this town, many who know me, not one of them took the time to comment and explain the concept of creative license to these two pseudo-intellectuals.
I wrote a piece explaining this piece and my impression regarding the Atlanta art communities response here: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aalvilla…
I won't re-read it now, but I might have left out how this story was covered by the art critics and local papers in Atlanta as a news story and not an art story. That's what an insider at Art Papers told me when I asked him why they chose not to write a single word about this episode. An episode that involved public art and quite possibly the most controversial work of art-ever- in Atlanta. DUH!