As if you needed more proof that modern "art" is a sham

[Balog]

A local white supremacist artist is revered for his neo-nazi propaganda because everyone just assumed he was being ironic and didn't mean it. 

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/charles-krafft-is-a-white-nationalist-who-believes-the-holocaust-is-a-deliberately-exaggerated-myth/Content?oid=15995245

[AJ Dual]

Can any word other than the German "Schadenfreude" be more appropriate in this case? 

[BlueStarLizzard]

Wouldn't that be post modern?

[Balog]

Modern in the "generally occurring in the modern era" sense not modern the school of art.

[Harold Tuttle]

wow, i really like his body of work. the porcelin uzi speaks to me, and the kim jun il teapot is awesome.

[Lee]

I'd never buy anything from him...but the rabbit is also pretty cool.
http://www.re-title.com/artists/Charles-Krafft.asp

[vaskidmark]

A local white supremacist artist is revered for his neo-nazi propaganda

 

Just who reveres neo-nazi anything in the name of art?  That's like staging an exhibition of the artifacts made from tattoos removed from concentration camp inmates and focusing only on the technical aspects of the tattoo.  Sorry, but those things carry baggage.  So does neo-nazi propoganda, regardless of how "cute" or technically well executed it might be.

stay safe.

[lee n. field]

I'd never buy anything from him...but the rabbit is also pretty cool.
http://www.re-title.com/artists/Charles-Krafft.asp

"Krafft is an internationally recognized ceramicist and painter addressing the iconography of power through whimsical media. His humor jogs the viewer into a space of questioning where entertainment and critique collide.Quotes The New Yorker;  The show's standout is Charles Krafft's 'Porcelain War Museum Project', which recreates the side arms, pistols, and hand grenades of the Balkans conflict in delicate ceramics decorated in delft-style with faux-pastoral designs"POSTMODERN CERMICS says; "Krafft is one of the USA"s most sedittious artists, and plays difficult, uneasy games with content and culture". Charles Krafft¹s life-sized porcelain firearms and grenades, decorated with traditional 17th century Dutch blue and white Delftware techniques have earned him a reputation as trickster, disarming a volatile instrument by making it fragile and beautiful. Included in the exhibition will be Hand Grenades, AK 47's, Smith & Wesson Revolvers and Intratec Semi-Automatics.

[AJ Dual]

The ONLY thing I could think of that would be even better than the current situation would be if once all his work is destroyed or disposed of out of disgust with the neo-nazi, would be for him to declare he really was a fake neo-nazi after all, and the entire debacle was a big display of "performance art". 

[Boomhauer]

I just shake my head..."artists" and the "art community" seem to march to a different drummer than the rest of us most of the time.

[K Frame]

Well, if you knew anything about art history, literature, etc., you'd know that this is not that unusual.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I have always loved Jubal Harshaw's rant about "artists" in Stranger in a Strange Land

"Because the world has gone nutty and contemporary art always paints the spirit of its times. Rodin died about the time the world started flipping its lid. His successors noted the amazing things he had done with light and shadow and mass and composition and they copied that part. What they failed to see was that the master told stories that laid bare the human heart. They became contemptuous of painting or sculpture that told a stories — they dubbed such work 'literary.' They went all out for abstractions.
Jubal shrugged. "Abstract design is all right — for wall paper or linoleum. But art is the process of evoking pity and terror. What modern artists do is pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience. These laddies who won't deign to do that — or can't — lost the public. 


Mmm, one does have to learn to look at art. But it's up to the artist to use the language that can be understood. Most of these jokers don't want to use the language you and I can learn; they would rather sneer because we 'fail' to see what they're driving at. If anything. Obscurity is the refuge of the incompetent.

[Balog]

Well, if you knew anything about art history, literature, etc., you'd know that this is not that unusual.

My, that's a rather pointless and uncalled for attack.

[Gewehr98]

Attack?  No, not even close.

After Robert Mapplethorpe, I became convinced anything can be labeled as art. 

Heck, that was back in the 1980s. 

Mike's right - it should come as no surprise unless one lives in a vacuum. 

[Regolith]

Attack?  No, not even close.

After Robert Mapplethorpe, I became convinced anything can be labeled as art. 

Heck, that was back in the 1980s. 

Mike's right - it should come as no surprise unless one lives in a vacuum. 

Yeah...had to take a few art classes for my degree. For Art 101, we did a field trip to Portland to check out the art galleries there. In one of the galleries, they had a piece where some "lady" had dug the hair that had collected in her bathtub drain and glued it onto a piece of white cardboard, then framed it. 

They had a few other bizarre pieces in the random galleries, but that was the one that I can best remember.

Then there was the "outsider" "art" gallery. I put outsider in quotations because the people who did the "art" weren't actually outsiders. They were trained artists trying to duplicate the look of art done by people who are definitely NOT trained, such as small children and the mentally challenged and/or insane. I mean, what's the point? I can see how outsider art might be a thing, but only if it's done by actual outsiders. It's just kind of sad and pathetic when people who claim to be trained artists do it.

[Balog]

I didn't say it was a surprise. The modern silliness passing for art is older than most of the folks here.  And I've some history with Mike Irwin and art discussions, so in context it was a bit more than just an unjustified accusation of ignorance.

[Jamisjockey]

I didn't say it was a surprise. The modern silliness passing for art is older than most of the folks here.  And I've some history with Mike Irwin and art discussions, so in context it was a bit more than just an unjustified accusation of ignorance.

If Irwin takes a swipe at you I'd bet you'd know it.  Untwist your delicates Marine.

[charby]

I imagine that the lay person thought that Picasso, Pollack, Dali, and Warhol were a "post modern art" sham in their day also. Now their art is in museums and parts of private collections and demands a lot of money to buy. Who knows maybe in 50-100 years this guys art will be the same.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I imagine that the lay person thought that Picasso, Pollack, Dali, and Warhol were a "post modern art" sham in their day also. Now their art is in museums and parts of private collections and demands a lot of money to buy. Who knows maybe in 50-100 years this guys art will be the same.

I would say there is a diffrence between orginators and immatators, however, who knows, you could be right.

[Balog]

If Irwin takes a swipe at you I'd bet you'd know it.  Untwist your delicates Marine.

 

As I said, it's just a tiresome continuation of an old argument. Not trying to make a big deal out of it, and I'm not entirely certain why folks are so ardently defending him from a pretty mild observation about his comment? 

I imagine that the lay person thought that Picasso, Pollack, Dali, and Warhol were a "post modern art" sham in their day also. Now their art is in museums and parts of private collections and demands a lot of money to buy. Who knows maybe in 50-100 years this guys art will be the same.

In museums and worth a lot of money is not the same as good or worthwhile art, imo.

[charby]

In museums and worth a lot of money is not the same as good or worthwhile art, imo.

So, do you have any understanding of humanities at all?

I'm not saying that the Neo-Nazi art is going to be something in the Art History books but a lot of art is a depiction of the society at the time the artist created it.

[RevDisk]

http://www.antiquesatoz.com/artatoz/krafft/war.htm

http://www.myspace.com/disasterware/photos/albums/my-photos/93539

"Krafft is an internationally recognized ceramicist and painter addressing the iconography of power through whimsical media. His humor jogs the viewer into a space of questioning where entertainment and critique collide.Quotes The New Yorker;  The show's standout is Charles Krafft's 'Porcelain War Museum Project', which recreates the side arms, pistols, and hand grenades of the Balkans conflict in delicate ceramics decorated in delft-style with faux-pastoral designs"POSTMODERN CERMICS says; "Krafft is one of the USA"s most sedittious artists, and plays difficult, uneasy games with content and culture". Charles Krafft¹s life-sized porcelain firearms and grenades, decorated with traditional 17th century Dutch blue and white Delftware techniques have earned him a reputation as trickster, disarming a volatile instrument by making it fragile and beautiful. Included in the exhibition will be Hand Grenades, AK 47's, Smith & Wesson Revolvers and Intratec Semi-Automatics.

The part I love is how closed minded all of the people are being. Sure, I don't like Nazis either. Or hippies. But I buy what I buy, art wise, because something is beautiful or it speaks to me. I love that this Krafft guy being a neo-Nazi would actually make him a fairly seditious artist, as opposed to being "seditious" in a fake or mundane manner. It does show the superficiality of the modern art scene.

Looking over the pieces, it's fairly obvious the guy has a shinin' to Nazis. It'd be funny to point out to the folks sputtering their overpriced tea, tossing pitchforks and torches into their Priuses and getting ready for a good ol' pogrom that the Nazis' correct full name was National Socialist German Workers' Party. And they were indeed socialist and anti-capitalism (because capitalism was the evil system created by da Joos! to oppress the Germans and kick puppies). They also had a large amount of righty whitey tendencies too, obviously.

So, do you have any understanding of humanities at all?

I'm not saying that the Neo-Nazi art is going to be something in the Art History books but a lot of art is a depiction of the society at the time the artist created it.

I certainly do. And Balrog is correct. The modern art section tends to pick up too much junk, and not a lot of good or worthwhile art. The junk WILL be tossed eventually. The good or worthwhile art will be kept. Notice the "or worthwhile" part. We should retain copes of Das Kapital and Mein Kampfy Chair, despite and because of their evilness. Uncle Tom's Cabin was a vital anti-slavery book. Now it's apparently racist, because it popularizes a number of stereotypes.

Reason why we think old art is awesome is because the legions of junk (the overwhelming majority) was not worth saving and preserving. So will the crap modern art. It will go to the dumpsters, sooner rather than later. It would help to focus on art and not the "art scene". The more "art scene" the artist, often the worse the art.

[K Frame]

My, that's a rather pointless and uncalled for attack.

That did sound rather snarky, but it was NOT intended to be an attack, and I apologize.

I came about 3 credits short of an Art History major in college, and my point was exactly as I stated it (but with no snark intended) -- studying art history makes it very clear that these sort of shenanigans have been going on probably since Thang stuck his hand in red ochre and slapped it on the side of a cave wall and then charge Og and Grod a clam shell to see "the Hand of GAWK!"


"And I've some history with Mike Irwin and art discussions, so in context it was a bit more than just an unjustified accusation of ignorance."

OK, I'll take your word for it, but I certainly don't recall us ever discussing things artistic.

[K Frame]

"they had a piece where some "lady" had dug the hair that had collected in her bathtub drain and glued it onto a piece of white cardboard, then framed it."

Blech. What a copycat. Marchel Duchamp was doing that 100 years ago.


"The modern art section tends to pick up too much junk, and not a lot of good or worthwhile art. The junk WILL be tossed eventually."

Which is really true of every artistic period.

For every Vermeer there's a hundred Fred the House Painters who think that they're really closeted artists and they shouldn't waste the paint on their brushes at the end of the day.

[Balog]

That did sound rather snarky, but it was NOT intended to be an attack, and I apologize.

I came about 3 credits short of an Art History major in college, and my point was exactly as I stated it (but with no snark intended) -- studying art history makes it very clear that these sort of shenanigans have been going on probably since Thang stuck his hand in red ochre and slapped it on the side of a cave wall and then charge Og and Grod a clam shell to see "the Hand of GAWK!"

Thank you, and I apologize for misinterpreting your intent. Hard to discern that sort of thing on the forums, and too much time in internet land makes everything seem more hostile than it probably is.

"And I've some history with Mike Irwin and art discussions, so in context it was a bit more than just an unjustified accusation of ignorance."

OK, I'll take your word for it, but I certainly don't recall us ever discussing things artistic.

A movie director iirc, but honestly I need to stop having such a long memory for internet arguments. Again, I apologize.



Now, on the main point I was trying to make, I think I was more in line with Rev's point about the "art scene" today, and it's disdain for talent. So, serious question now as you obviously do know a lot more about all this than I do, but was the overall art culture so set against art as a craft to be perfected as it seems to be today in the past? I think about all the old masters who worked for years practicing and studying to be able to make great art, and compare that to today when the most celebrated “artists” are whoever can be the least talented and most offensive to the correct groups. Am I merely losing historical perspective here, or is the cultural of fine art these days demonstrably different (even if just in degree) than that in the past?