Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 4:06 AM
Sun Nov 29
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/19/09
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
Where would they like us to mail the samples?
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
And I function...
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
And the perfectly average man with the perfectly average-sized penis of 9 inches who manages to have a satisfactory sex life.
07/06/09
07/06/09
But how does one get into the position to be able to put someone sleeping in a museum and call themselves an artist? Do you have to be embedded in the art scene? Well-established? Anyway. Maybe this makes me a conservative yokel without any kind of appreciation for the more intelligent "pleasures" of life. Or maybe it just makes me someone who went to a museum and "didn't get it."
..in a most salient fashion. Why account for it when you can just write me off as a "frat boy"? [True story: I'm a college dropout! He's uneducated. No wonder he can't appreciate it!] Also, if you read through the rest of the comments, you'll note the stuff I did enjoy. But what's wrong with being cynical about art? I feel like if you're unendingly sincere about it, you're probably getting hosed by the artist.
Meanwhile, Ponomino: I'm not a journalist, and I'm not trying to be. Nor am I trying to be an art critic.
The best comment so far came from The Boulevard of Broken Queens, who asked the more interesting question..."is it satisfying your idea of an art experience? does it fufill your personal criteria for an art object" these, apparently, were not. therefore, they do not qualify as art for you, or rather only qualify as objects which were indicated to you as art.
That's accounting for art. And for the $12 I paid to support it, whether I enjoyed it or believed in it. I obviously believe in it enough to shell out money for it, though, so as far as sincerity goes: back the fuck up.
07/06/09
07/06/09
that was the only false note in the piece for me - IMHO, it's just never an interesting question anymore, not after postmodernism. because now it's always art if someone says it's art, so the more interesting question is, "is it satisfying your idea of an art experience? does it fufill your personal criteria for an art object" these, apparently, were not. therefore, they do not qualify as art for you, or rather only qualify as objects which were indicated to you as art.
I like the puppy idea, and can the giraffe be reworked to look like maurizio cattelan's "not afraid of love"? because I'd like to see that.
07/06/09
But I do think your version of this pseudo-dilemma is more up to date than the original poster's.
07/06/09
07/06/09
07/06/09
the more interesting question is, "is it satisfying your idea of an art experience? does it fufill your personal criteria for an art object" these, apparently, were not. therefore, they do not qualify as art for you, or rather only qualify as objects which were indicated to you as art.
If you didn't already have a gold star, I would've given you one for this. Nicely done.
07/05/09