Identifying Art and Bad Taste
Artists Who Use Food to Gross Us Out Usually Have No Substance.
© Mary Rayme
Jun 2, 2007
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.
The copyright of the article
Identifying Art and Bad Taste in
Art & Society is owned by
Mary Rayme. Permission to republish
Identifying Art and Bad Taste must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Jun 21, 2007 4:35 PM
Pansee Atta
:
This article is ridiculous for many reasons. First of all, it starts by assuming that the author's personal taste in art is an absolute value, that simply because she finds it 'icky' that the works somehow loses value. Most revolutionary art was considered disgusting at the time of its creation, and it is only through time that we come to appreciate its value.
Secondly, the author assumes that since she cannot find a link or understand the meaning of a work, that the work is therefore meaningless. This is an argument from ignorance. For example, regarding the corgi-eating piece, the work could be interpreted as saying that a Corgi's life is just as valuable as a fox's. We might be disgusted by a Corgi being consumed needlessly because it is a cute household pet, but those differences are merely superficial. Therefore, if we object to a pet being used in this way, we should similarly object to a fox's death. See? It's not as simple as "Mark McGowan enjoys the attention but has no substance to his art".
Thirdly, I think the debate about what constitutes art has been going on for ages. Suggesting that you can somehow conclusively put to rest all the differing opinions in a single (poorly written)article is arrogant, stifles debate, and does nothing to encourage critical thinking and open-mindedness. Because of all this, I think this article is better left in the trash heaps of forgotten art historical analysis.
Jun 24, 2007 9:11 AM
Mary Rayme
:
My point of view is that not everything that claims to be art is art. Not everyone who calls themselves an artist is an artist.
Artists must also be responsible for the message they choose to promulgate. I appreciate a well thought out piece of art and shun the shocking and attention getting for the attention's sake.
If an artist is going to attempt to make a social and/or political statement, he/she must be able to take the heat of criticism. I criticize the faulty logic of their political statements and think they could be better expressed and better thought out. I am not condemning these dudes to hell, they should just be nudged to create better art and not just media spectacles.
Thank you for your opinion.
Mar 31, 2008 9:55 PM
Jo Murphy
:
I interpreted the article as just a little bit of fun.
Sometimes the way money is spent on Art does concern me - and the way sometimes people take it all seriously.
Andy Warhol's exhibition was here in Bbrisbane lately - and people queued to buy the art keepsakes in just the way he ridculed in the exhibition.
One of the things we have to accept about life - is that it is all but illusion!
Jo
