Asshole visits an Art Museum...

Yes, I am a glutton for punishment. I pay attention to things that I loathe in order to fuel my inner fire of hatred. It makes me feel alive. Without anger, I am at peace, when I am at peace, I am boring... Boring is not acceptable to me. This leads me to the adventure that was last night. Anyone that has a glimpse into my mind set knows my disdain for segments of the art community. With that being said, where do you think that I went last night? Yes, to the Albright-Knox Art Gallery here in Buffalo for a special exhibition opening for gallery members only. No, I am not a member, I was the guest of someone who was... This person was actually interested in hearing my opinion on fine art. Finally! An audience that will listen to my ranting and raving on art without being offended, I cannot say the say the same for the eaves droppers who were privy to my opinions. I will admit that one good thing that came out of my adventure to the Art Gallery, is that I was inspired to create another concept to which I will bring to artistic fruition.

    "Art is what you can get away with." - Andy Warhol. Truer words have never been spoken, folks. I am absolutely dumbfounded in regards to why certain works are considered to be art at all. It takes a vivid imagination and an uncanny ability to bullshit as an artist to get people to buy into the concept of which is pawned of as art in some cases... I have talked about this in a previous blog (http://bit.ly/vdXE1f). I see some of these works and believe that there is zero artistic merit and no artistic ability and talent involved in the creation of some of these works which makes me about as qualified as some of these "artists" to create a masterpiece. You know that after seeing an image of a Jackson Pollack painting which looks like paint was just poured onto a piece of canvas, I was compelled to create my notorious piece titled 'Piss on the Canvas'. Since I had completed that painting after the blog was written, I never had the opportunity to mention this little story about my painting. I had showed it to a woman I know who happens to be an artist, and she accused me of buying the painting at an art show. So that just goes to show that the art world can be easily deceived… either that or I am a creative genius when it comes to art. While I was viewing the paintings in the gallery, I say a piece where a man was sitting in front of a canvas on a easel. I had said that I guarantee that this painting is of the artist... low and behold, the painting was titled "Self Portrait". Is the art world that fraudulent that someone with little or no knowledge on art was able to piece that puzzle together?

Let us briefly touch on the event... The exhibition is called ‘The Long Curve: 150 Years of Visionary Collecting at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery’ (Here is a link to the exhibition http://bit.ly/umZXVu). First off, this event was for Members of the Art Gallery, I managed to infiltrate the event and gain entrance as a guest of a member. One good thing about this soiree was the h'orderves and the free beer. Not only was the beer free, it was good beer to boot, all Magic Hat products. I was enjoying the Magic Hat #9 on their dime. I went to this event right from work, so I was in a suit, not under dressed in the least, but for some reason I felt like an utter malefactor while mingling in the midst of the persons attending the event. I was equally if not better dressed than most, but it was not a matter of looks or appearance… it was the elitist vibe that I felt emanating off of the participants. There were these two men in particular that really drew my ire. They were wearing trench coats that covered their striped button up shirts that were tucked into what appeared to be brand new jeans that were tight in the ankles, not quite skinny jeans, but they were awful none the less. I saw them enter the foyer where the food and drinks were being served, get their first beer, and then promptly tap their bottles in a celebratory cheers as if they were anticipating a night of getting drunk and landing some pussy… or in their case, maybe a penis in the mouth. Really? A cheers for a night of walking around an art gallery? These are the type of yuppies I loathe. At this point I knew the night was going to be interesting… I was already foaming at the mouth with hate and I had not even seen any of the art works as of yet.

We move into the gallery area and as I turn the corner I immediately see something that makes me spew venom. I really wish that I had documented who the artist was and what the title of the piece was (Which I started doing later in my excursion) of this piece of shit that was displayed in the fine art gallery. The work was a canvas that was painted white and has four cut marks in the canvas… that’s it. I kid you not; this is an actual description of this piece (see below). What kind of talent did it really take to create this piece of shit? None what so ever! The idiot primed his canvas, cut it, mounted it on top of a black canvas, framed it and somehow convinced the art world that it is brilliant. If you happen to know what this piece of shit is and who the artist is, email me (Manifesto.Idiot@gmail.com) the details. (UPDATE 3/8/2012: The Artist: Lucio Fontana, Title: "Concetto spaziale, Attese")

Of course I had to seek out the Pollock that inspired "Piss on the Canvas"... It still looks like a bunch of paint that was thrown all over the canvas. But, at least there is something on the canvas unlike the crap that I had just discussed. 

I had mentioned the painting “Orange and Yellow” by Mark Rothko in the first blog I had written about art, so I had to see that one in person as well. I still do not think there is much artistic merit to it, but you can see that there was actually some painting done to the piece. I am not as offended by it as I once was after seeing it in person.

        Here is a piece titled "To Martha's Memory" (Circa: 1970) by Jiro Yoshihara. As you can see below, it is a white circle painted on a black canvas. Is this painting symbolic of a black hole or to be clear, a vagina? I mean, really, it is titled "To Martha's Memory".  A woman can have the same affect of a black hole at times... a region from which not a thing can escape. It is like one of those bad relationships that you just cannot escape from. You fall in love with the pussy, are unhappy, but that black hole, aka: pussy, keeps sucking you in... Back to the painting. How much talent did this take to create, and who views this as a masterpiece? I am teaching my son to write on his chalk board, he can also write an "O" and he is only 2... maybe I should give him a canvas, paint and a brush.

        I am saving the best for last here, and I am not talking about the Picasso, Warhol and Dali that I had seen on this night. I was really impressed with their works, in my opinion you can see why they have the status in the art world that they do. As I looked on their works, I actually had a moment where I appreciated art... Art that I was able to look at and see how much talent it took to create. This just makes me realize that I do not hate art as a whole... just the works that I deem as utterly talentless and elementary.

        This brings me to a piece titled "Untitled" (Circa 1962-1963) by Robert Irwin (http://www.albrightknox.org/collection/search/piece:1249/). I am going to post a picture of this painting as well, but I want to describe exactly what I saw, or to appease the art community, I want to give my interpretation on the image of the painting. It is a large canvas (83 x 84 inches), painted totally orange with two "tan/brown-ish" colored horizontal lines going across the painting, essentially breaking the canvas into thirds. The faint tan lines contained within the painting almost look like guide lines that one would write on or to keep your work level.

        I am not sure if I am more shocked that this piece of shit has no fucking name or it took from sometime in 1962-1963 to complete. There is no way that something so basic should have gone into two different years to complete unless it was started on New Years Eve, and completed on New Years Day. I was so moved by this piece, that I actually was compelled to give the painting the middle finger as it was a living being, which I later learned is something that Ai Weiwei had famously done in some photographs. The title of this particular orange painting should have been something along the lines of 'Incomplete' versus "Untitled."

        Here is my theory on this piece; the painting does not have a title because it was never finished. The artist probably had a case of "artist block", and left the piece to sit while he came up with an idea of how to complete the piece. While the painting was sitting in an incomplete state, someone visited his workshop and thought the unfinished piece was a completed masterpiece. That is my theory and that is how delusional I believe that the art community is. They believe that they can find genius anywhere, even in something as simple as a canvas essentially painted a solid color. Fuck if that is the case my living room walls are works of brilliance. If Irwin actually intended this painting to be complete as it is, he is a fucking fraud who called that piece of shit art and somehow managed to get the art community to buy in to the bullshit. Full marks to him for actually passing this off as "art". I'd love to hear the back story and authors thoughts on this piece... He is still alive, maybe I should look into contacting him.

        While looking at this Untitled piece of shit, I found inspiration to be creative. In my typical true to form behavior as an asshole, I decided that I wanted to recreate this awful art work just to prove that creating this piece took zero artistic ability and that even a novice could have produced such a work.

        It comes to my attention that there is actually a market for recreated paintings. This type of work is called "Appropriation Art" which is described as: "Appropriation artists deliberately copy images to take possession of them in their art. They are not stealing or plagiarizing. They are not passing off these images as their very own. Not at all. Appropriation artists want the viewer to recognize the images they copy, and they hope that the viewer will bring all of his/her original associations with the image to the artist's new context, be it a painting, a sculpture, a collage, a combine or an entire installation. The deliberate "borrowing" of an image for this new context is called "re-contextualization." Re-contextualization helps the artist comment on the image's original meaning." With this being said, the concept of an encrypted message seems like the perfect idea for me to comment on the image's "original meaning"... What ever the fuck that meaning is.

         Even though I will be essentially duplicating this painting on a smaller scale, I am going to put my own spin on the recreation and it will also have a title unlike the original. I will be putting my "guideline" theory into action, I plan on leaving a faint encrypted message along said "guidelines". I am not going to tip my hand on what the hidden message will be, but remember that I am an asshole, so it may might not be a very nice message that is hidden within. You will just have to wait and see what the hidden message is... I can assure you that it will not say "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine" like the message Ralphie had waited for in 'A Christmas Story'. The message within and title of my recreated version of this masterpiece will be unveiled upon it's completion. 

        It is said that imitation is the highest form of flattery, in the case the imitation is exactly the opposite. I am creating an adaptation of "Untitled" because I feel that art works such as this, are a complete farce. In fact the art community is such a charade that I have come up with two ideas as a joke to mock their precious passion which actually existed on a serious nature. First "Piss on the Canvas" which ended up actually being a piece of 'Conceptual Art' and now this upcoming piece with is considered to be 'Appropriation Art'. I make these paintings to be an asshole, out of spite, but if you happen to enjoy them... great! I do not take my paintings seriously and hope that you find some entertainment in them. I am not an artist and have no artistic ability what so ever and I have never seriously claimed to be a legitimate artist. The sad part is... If I was a serious artist, my paintings might actually be accepted as genuine works of art. What a joke!

An even bigger joke would be if my paintings actually became valuable after I were dead...