Is parody an art-form?

[Stocka]

So often in art circles, you'll see that parody is often pushed as art. Take for instance, pop-art.

Likewise, in music circles, bands, or musicians, often become a parody of themselves or another element of music (ie: David Bowie, U2, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Marylin Manson, Smashing Pumpkins, to name a few).

In one sense, I can understand that taking something, and parodying it, is essentially making that 'thing' an art-form in itself, by which a parody, or imitation, can be measured against an original, and all further like-productions can be considered a continuation of that art.

However, is parody a "sincere" form of art, or is it merely a pi$$ take?

 

[BrisGirl]

Would, Andy Warhol and the 'campbell soup can' be an example?

Art......is a personal thing.

You either like it or you don't.

pi$$ take or not, it comes down to what you like and if your willing to pay the money.

 

[Shinboners]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

For instance, John Clarke and Bryan Dawe do some brilliant parodies with their interview p*ss takes, however, I consider that humour rather than art. Keep in mind that the source material is day to day current affairs.

Andy Warhol did his p*ss takes of every day commercialism, and yet I consider his work to be art, even though the source material is day to day consumerism.

Both situations are trying to make a statement of the artists view of what is absurd with day to day life, and yet, their method of delivering their statements makes me think of one method as being art and the other not art.

Which of course comes back to my original point, art is in the eye of the beholder, and hence, whether parody is art or not also is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[skilts]

I know a lot about art, but I don't know what I like.

 

[Stocka]

What about the notion of "bad art"?

I can imagine, that once upon a time, someone saw something intending to be "artistic", which 'they' thought was absolutely scheisenhausen, but thought that replicating such an idea would constitute novelty, and therefore the process of imitation of such could "become an art" in itself (and perhaps be measureable). Perhaps this could be described as "artistic representation" of "bad art".

Judging by the comments in the thread so far, it seems as though the idea that what constitutes 'art' is in the eye of the beholder. Is this the only measure by which artistic works or non-artistic works can be judged according to their "artfullness"? Likewise, where do people draw the line between what is art (good or bad), and what isn't? Is art even truly measureable at all?

Similarly, do people consider "bad art" as art? Do people consider "bad art" as a clever artistic representation of "bad art", or as just bad art?

 

[Fat Red]

Um, yeah.

Thinking about art at all is something I'm still relatively new to, and it's very confusing.

To say that art is in the eye of the beholder may be true, but is not very helpful. If the criteria for what is or is not art are individual and subjective, then it is not possible to discuss what they should be.

As for whether art is good or bad, I'm happy for people to have their own criteria to judge that, but if they want anyone else to listen they should be able to explain those criteria. I find very little writing about are that does so and so seem unable to learn anything about the area.

As for whether parody is art or not, it must depend on what your criteria for art are?

 

[BrisGirl]

'Blue Poles' by Jackson Pollock.

Never got it, never liked it but it is worth $millions.

Art......?

 

[skilts]

This is going to sound pompous, but bear with me. Stocka, are you talking about postmodern type of art, as in Warhol? I've been to lectures over the past fifteen years in which people tried to explain postmodernism in terms of the art being reflective of our everyday surroundings. That which surrounds us is grist for the mill and a part of what is art to us. I must admit none of the lectures I've attended completely convinced me that three pieces of plastic on a piece of canvas constitutes art.

The topic you raise has caused more tearing out of hair than just about any other in academia. There is no congruence of ideas on what actually constitutes art. There is further discord on what is high art and what is, for example, craft.

I can offer some interesting takes that some others have had on the subject though. Some see art as a statement about what it is to be human, in a certain place, at a certain time. Others see it as the lies we tell ourselves about our being, which effectively allow us to continue living. Within these lies there may also be an ultimate truth. Maybe we are the type of beings who need these lies. Others still, think that the only way we can talk about a work of art, is as the thing in itself, which is dictated by that which surrounds it and from which it stands apart.

Confused yet? I certainly am. I'm not knocking your choice of topic, but I have theory that the only meaningful encounter we can have with a work of art is by direct confrontation with it. Viewing a painting, or listening to a piece of music is the totality of the art experience. Talking or writing about that experience causes us to be at least once removed from that direct exposure to it.

 

[jim boy]

Well firstly answering the topic question, no, parody is not a form of art. It is however, a tool which can be utilised, in much the same way paint is not art, but graphical displays composed of paint are.

Artists have long used parody, a good example of this is the recently renovated St Paul's (I think) where one of the masons remodelled a gargoyle in the form of Jeff Kennet. This reflects a practise in humour used by centuries of stone masons.

Moving on though, this topic has drifted into the much trickier question of 'what is art?'. For me the best definition came from Jean Cocteau, who said something about art being what defies convention, or something along those lines. Skilts talks about the human condition and the way in which we interact with art. I don't think that is untrue, but it's a little too airy-fairy for me.

Take the picture below

Here is a good example of both humour and the ability of art to raise questions. Magritte's 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe' or 'This is not a pipe', begs the question 'well what is it then?' And the answer is that it is a painting, made of oils and canvas arranged in a way that it gives the impression of being a pipe. So if mere oils and canvas can equate to art, not by the physical being of what they are, but by the unseen arrangement of artist, then it stands to reason that virtually anything that conveys to the viewer a message can be construed as art.

Well that might be, but 99% of such examples does not get classed as art. Why? well because it's generally not very interesting. Oddly techical execution isn't that important. Andy Warhol, technically wasn't very good, but he still made good art. The examinataion of the human condition is a vitally intersting subject, but really anything that gives us food for thought qualifies, much to the chagrin of some. The Turner prize winning display last year of Martin Creed http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1698000/1698032.stm raised much controversy, not as to whether it was worthy, but whether it was art at all. Critics such as Robert Hughes can't stand the socalled patheticness of it. For me, art is always around, but is generally soul-less and dull. However the odd diamond sparkles.

 

[Stocka]

Great post Jim Boy (as have all the posts been so far).

Reading between the lines of what you wrote though, is it true to say that you're kind of saying that 'art' is at least intentional in some form, rather than just spontaneous (although, the intention may be to use some form of spontenaeity, just as parody, in order to be artistic)?

 

[Stocka]

Likewise, just reading from that article in Jim Boy's post, the particular artist pertaining to the story had the following to say:

"I think people can make of it what they like. I don't think it is for me to explain it.

"The thing for me is to try and make things, try and do things and show them to people - that's what I get excited about.

"I'd like to keep trying to do that."

Now, while the artist in question didn't say that he couldn't explain his work, he did intimate that he felt it wasn't his position to do so. But at the same time he says he wants to "make things", and try and "do things", and "show them to people".

Now, if the artist "can't" explain what his work is (rather than "won't"), then how does he know if he is actually "showing" anyone anything at all?

Surely there has to be some sort of motive, or plan in such circumstances for something to be warranted as 'art', and it is by this which the value of an artistic representation can then be somewhat judged.

 

[Stocka]

Some other great quotes from that article:

Film-maker Julien was in the running for his video of gay cowboys in a swimming pool.

Ray in Bed is a home video featuring Mr Billingham's alcoholic father reluctantly waking up as his wife brings him a cup of tea.

In 1998, Chris Ofili caused outrage when it was revealed elephant dung was used in his works.

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by Stocka
Likewise, just reading from that article in Jim Boy's post, the particular artist pertaining to the story had the following to say:

"I think people can make of it what they like. I don't think it is for me to explain it.

"The thing for me is to try and make things, try and do things and show them to people - that's what I get excited about.

"I'd like to keep trying to do that."


Now, while the artist in question didn't say that he couldn't explain his work, he did intimate that he felt it wasn't his position to do so. But at the same time he says he wants to "make things", and try and "do things", and "show them to people".

Now, if the artist "can't" explain what his work is (rather than "won't"), then how does he know if he is actually "showing" anyone anything at all?

Surely there has to be some sort of motive, or plan in such circumstances for something to be warranted as 'art', and it is by this which the value of an artistic representation can then be somewhat judged.

There doesn't have to be a plan, this is the path of determinism. Art is not something set apart from the world. It is only of this world, otherwise we wouldn't recognise its importance. The purpose of art is NOT to develop a defintion of itself.

 

[ian_rocks]

Well art is anything that is expressive, parody is expressive eg. you could say something is ****. So, yes it is art!

 

[jim boy]

I've been thinking a bit about the topic and what constitutes art in general. A number of explanations proferred here seem right, expression, communication, juxtaposition of a piece against it's envirnoment, interrogation of the human spirit. But there's one thing that's been bugging me, and that's the fraud. Back in the mid-nineteenth century, argument raged over whether the Elgin marbles where indeed the work of Pheidias. If they were made by Pheidias, then they were great were great works of art. If they weren't, well they were just lumps of rock. Move forward 150 years and a recent debate exists as to whether the copy of Van Gogh's sunflowers owned by a Japanese insurance company is a genuine Van Gogh (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1896000/1896422.stm) or just a good effort by one of his contemporaries. Why should it matter? It wasn't that Van Gogh cast some sort of magic spell over his work that means only genuine Van Gogh trade marked pieces enriches the soul. It mattered because if it wasn't a Van Gogh then it's value as art decreases. So, if the artist didn't paint it then it isn't art. So logically from there, you can say that art is merely the output of an artist or artisan. It's value reflects as much on the artist as much as the technical competence of the piece.

So I have to disagree with Skilts, art is determined, it can't be spontaneous in the sense that no pre-meditation exists. An artist quite simply can't make art without at least deciding what he/she is going to do. Art is literally what an artist manufactures, just like a plumber produces plumbing. The technical execution of a piece, it's originality, the layering of hidden messages, the tricks to make us reflect, the expression of emotions etc are all just tools applied by the artist in their piece of art to make it more pretty or challenging to the intellect and therefore better art. Martin Creed may have just have thought it would be kinda cool to have a light going on and off in a room, without worrying too much about delivering a specific message, although he realised that a lot can be read into it and it will mean different things to different people. If he gave his own interpretation he risks invalidating the interpretation of the work to others. This is similar to a comedian not explaining a joke and just letting the audience appreciate it for what they read into it. It doesn't matter if you're laughing at the wrong bits. Andy Warhol's early work have a fair number of paint drip lines on them. As he later said, at the time he thought it was arty, he didn't attach any meaning to them at all.

You might call art the output of a loose collection of trades of a non-utilitarian nature. The traditional trades such as the painters, print makers, sculptors etc and joined more recently by multimedia and installation art.

Getting back to the original question of this post, as the output of an artist is art, even works which reinterpret earlier work can be considered as art, but not very good art if by the standards by which that discipline is measured, the new output does not reach any great standards. As to whether music is art, well that's a whole new question.

 

[Voice of Reason]

http://www.satirewire.com/news/june02/worldcom.shtml

I was sent this link, which might shed some light on it all.