A discussion of two artists who use controversy and nausea to get our attention. But is it art?

Below are a couple of examples to help you weed out Bad Art from Good Art.

Here’s example number one: A lame dude named Mark McGowan claims to be an artist, and a recent art piece involved him eating three bites of a corgi dog meatball that had been cooked in apples and onions. The purpose of the “art work” was to protest a fox hunt of Prince Philip’s. The first thing wrong with this alleged art act is that it’s icky. This should make your Bad Art Sense tingle like mad. Now let’s examine the logic of the artist.

McGowan has eaten a dog (who died of natural causes) to protest a royal fox hunt. Perhaps a more logical protest art piece would have involved a group of fox-costume-wearers chasing down an actor playing Prince Philip? While yes, the corgi is the Queen’s pet, the logic of eating a dog to bring attention to the torturing of a fox just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Here’s what one can gather from this piece of alleged art: Mark McGowan enjoys the attention but has no substance to his art, therefore his artwork must be judged as lesser. One could even say, it is not art but a publicity stunt. Evil Knievel was more interesting, really, and the only thing he ever ate was dust.

The next alleged artwork is from a Chilean artist named Marco Evaristti who had some of his body fat removed via liposuction, and then used the fat to make meatballs. He then invited over twelve friends who helped him chow down.

The logic behind this fatty feast? To quote the artist, “First, I want to show people that meatballs made with fat are no more disgusting that the meatballs you buy in the supermarket.” Not true. The meatballs from the grocery store are made from cow, not dude. Meatballs made from ground beef are our birth right as members of the Top of the Food Chain Club. Let's recap: Eating meatballs made from people is cannibalism, not art.

More from the meatball artist, “Second, it’s a dialogue with a modern society that lives to eat, rather than eating to live as it should be.” How does making meatballs out of one’s own flesh reinforce this idea? It doesn’t. This is artwork that is icky and made out of fatty and faulty logic, therefore this alleged work of art is not art at all, just a pitiful cry for attention.

Remember, if Good Art is good for your soul, Bad Art is bad for your soul. Make your art experiences rich and nutritious, not fatty and canine.

Here's the follow-up discussion on this article:

View all related messages

Post to this discussion

For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Mary Rayme's Art & Society topic, please visit the Discussions page.