Untitled is a 2003 piece by institution critique and performance artist Andrea Fraser.
For this piece Fraser sold, with the help of a Gallerist, a night of sex to a private collector.
The work sold for $20,000 dollars and was filmed, for the collectors keeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------
It raises questions of the artist themselves as the commodity rather then the value of their works. i get that. but i hate art that makes me ask "is this art." But i am forced to here.
Because I hate being on the fence about these things, I am willing to claim that i buy it.
opinions?????
For this piece Fraser sold, with the help of a Gallerist, a night of sex to a private collector.
The work sold for $20,000 dollars and was filmed, for the collectors keeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------
It raises questions of the artist themselves as the commodity rather then the value of their works. i get that. but i hate art that makes me ask "is this art." But i am forced to here.
Because I hate being on the fence about these things, I am willing to claim that i buy it.
opinions?????
7 comments:
I guess if you're (Amanda) going to buy it (the high road) I am going to take the low road and say... no fucking way!!!! Fuckkkkkk, not okay with me. Sorry, I mean, I totally get it, I totally totally totally get it, and yeah, it is art by the "everything is art" theory... but no! Fuck no! $20,000? Fuck no! And you get to keep the video??? That's fucking stupid.
I'm not going to be all black&white about it: I'm not going to say "Sex is not art, Sex is business" because sex is art, not the act of boning someone but so much art (vaild and invalid art) revolves around sex, and breaking it down and building it up and evolving it and de-evoloving it, but this is just Straight Up Hooking!!!!!!!! It's not a live performance piece with a video to take home, it's a man paying a woman to have sex with him. Even if we do deem it "art", and say Fraser is the "artist", then what does that make the man? He's not an "artist" and if this does make him an "artist" by participating, then this is his first fucking piece and it does not merit a $20,000 price tag!!!! What kind of amateur piece of shit from any medium pays $20,000 for their own piece of art???????
I'm like so outraged right now. It's not even the whole "sex for money" thing, or a criticism of Fraser for making a pretty penny from being a literal whore; No, my anger lies with the man, with the "private collector". Hey Asswipe that paid $20,000 to bang "an artist": I hope you rot in hell!!!!!!!!
Let me add again that I "get it". I just don't "approve". But I don't "approve" of Norman Rockwell's "artwork" either and there's a motherfucking BILLBOARD that informs me he is an "artist". So yeah, what do I know.
Love ya girl, thank you for putting this up,
Da Soggiest One
I just showed this to Mels and we had this whole other conversation about this and I have all these other things to say now! Ahh!!
But I guess I just want to say that I remember when this happened and thought it was bogus, but looking back on it it totally totally seems like a 2000's-ish piece of artwork. That's totally what people will think when they look back on our culture of today and in the last ten years.
And Mels is still ranting about it outside and he's making a lot of points that exchange "Sex" with "Meth" and that "Meth isn't art". And that Gallerists need to be crucified. (He's on some kind of satanic rampage) Lol, great topic Miss Manders!
Peaces,
Smog
So Fraser says he paid "not for sex, according to the artist, but to make an artwork." Is it so taboo because it involves a “stranger” or maybe because she is a woman we automatically think of prostitution? Think about Vito Acconci’s “seedbed” where he lays under a ramp masturbating. Or what about Jeff Koons’ “Made in Heaven” the series of sculptures and paintings of him and his wife have sex. What really makes these different? She did make photo stills from the video – if she made sculptures or paintings of them having sex would it be better “art”.
Performance art is always a tricky. I think this really pushes people’s morals and makes them automatically think “oh shit what a whore”. But isn’t that what she wants to show “artists are prostitutes”?
Do I consider this provocative or groundbreaking, No. It’s pretty boring to me. I’m over most “shock art” just like I’m over Photo I classes with girls taking nude self portraits of themselves from the waist up*. It’s like wanting to push the boundaries but then falling flat.
Smog, I like the exchange "sex" with "meth" idea...it's an interesting thought. To be honest maybe it would have gone over better then the sex thing at least I haven’t heard anyone doing meth and calling it a performance piece…it might be more visually aggressive and bring up more questions than sex.
For me it’s the lack of creativity that is a letdown. I might prefer going to a gallery and seeing her have sex with this man in person oppose to a video. Also about this “private collector” - who would really pay $20,000? So many people, think of him as the producer or even supplying her with the supplies (i.e. paint, canvas, marble, etc). It’s not his “piece” more like he is the materials. I don’t know that’s how I see it.
*Note: I apologize if you guys took topless self portraits of yourselves I don’t mean to diss but really vaginas are much more of a self portrait.
Double Note: I’m not really for (or against) this “art” just wanted to maybe show the other side.
Whoa I didn't write enough and because this kind of follows the theme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_student_abortion_art_controversy
I know it’s Wikipedia but all the articles I found weren’t very good. Maybe people are running out of ideas. Maybe with the internet and general surplus of materials too many people can be “artists”.
This is a fun conversation!!!!
Krank, I like what you say about wanting to push the boundaries but then falling flat. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I'm kind of like... so used to seeing stuff with shock value that nothing is really that shocking. Instead I'm just bored with the inferior motives of the Collector. If this was, as you suggest, a public sexual display (and especially any passersby video that would potential result), now that would definitely be art !!!!!!
I think it's really egotistical of the Collector to think he's worth $20,000 and to think of him watching the video tape thinking "Oh man I was worth it" or anything like that. Some kind of narcissistic voyeurism.
I also really like this: "For me it’s the lack of creativity that is a letdown." -- I totally agree with that! I think that Koons' Made In Heaven is totally tasteful and symbolic, and very similar to Crumb's work, (which I can and will defend until the day I die and can totally get behind due to getting sucked into 60s underground comix gender drama) especially his sculpture work, but I really don't think that just video still from Fraser's piece cut it. I'm giggling to myself thinking about if Fraser's sex "style" is her art "style" and I'm wondering what her other art is like... here's some more Wiki:
"For Official Welcome (2001) - commissioned by the MICA Foundation for a private reception - Fraser mimicked "the banal comments and effusive words of praise uttered by presenters and recipients during art-awards ceremonies. Midstream, assuming the persona of a troubled, postfeminist art star, Fraser strips down, [...] to a Gucci thong, bra and high-heel shoes, and says, I'm not a person today. I'm an object in an art work."[3]"
I like this one a lot better than her untitled 2003 and it answers some questions for me. I also like the sound of Art Must Hang and some of the others. Oh, I have to say though, that the Yale Abortion Girl is totally lame. She should have stuck behind it and gotten kicked out of Yale or whatever would have happened to her if she was actually miscarrying. If she was actually doing it, I would have been more interested; but it does bring up several issues; My biggest issue being Warren Ellis claiming she (Abortion Artist) is the "first great conceptual artist of the internet age"... what bullshit. LOLcats dude should be the first great conceptual artist of the internet age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think this was a great topic and I want to know what all the other people on this blog think!!!!!!!!! :) I made another comment on Boz's last post, and I'll make it again here, that those Thom Puckey sculptures are essentially the same topic and similarly themed but don't bring up issues of authenticity, ego, authority or taste. !!! Very interesting.
Love this and all of you,
Smog
wow wow wow. this is just... wow. i'll paraphrase smog here, "I LOVE YOU GUYS."
yeah i think overall, we are on the same page. however, I will stick to my claim... "I buy it."
because I am brain dead right now, and was checking the blog as a "break" from my research, I can't offer as interesting responses but...
*the patron/buyer:
I totally thought the same thing. "this guy must be the ultimate douche." ewwww, $20,000. get the fuck out of here. yuck.
*shock art:
you are absolutely right krank. is this shocking? hell no. is this groundbreaking? not so much. And while this may not be absolutely innovative (your examples are right on) the fact is that NO ONE had done this. so she did. and it is obvious (at least to me) why.
*prostitution:
this is perhaps the grayest area for me. i have to say that absolutely my first thought was, "uh yeah this is prostitution, and isn't that illegal?" but then i thought about everything else that gets branded as illegal/porn/child porn/etc... how is this different? its not. on paper this may seem like prostitution, but in conception its not. Maybe the "collector" saw it is such. and absolutely, she was begging for the "artist as prostitute" association.
*other works:
i agree smog, this is not my favorite work of hers. I get a crack out of her performance at the MET, where she posed as a docent and waited for people to congregate around her. she then took them on a tour of the museum, pointing out the masterful water fountains and the spectacular cafe. a blatant commentary on the institution and its skewed authentication and commodification of "so-called" art. that said, Untitled evokes something out of everyone (as beautifully displayed by our little blog's discussion).
*photo 101 girls:
agreed. i was just in THAT class with THOSE girls. gag.
thats about all my mind can handle right now. there were so many things i wanted to say, but i have forgotten them already.
blarggg,
manders
i thought i'd join in on this convo even though i know very little about visual art.
this makes me think of marx. i remember this one part in capital in which he discusses art, which is a sticky subject in general within socialism because art has no use value/function, yet it is a very important aspect of society/human life. anyway, if i remember correctly, he basically says that anything without use value is essentially "worth it" as long as it isn't commodified. (this is why he says that fashion, no matter how artistic/aesthetic, is always a manifestation of capitalism because it is a commodity.)
ANYWAY, i find this piece to simply be a manifestation of capitalism. i think it's stupid. but i also think that a lot of modern art is stupid. we're so immured in capitalist ideologies that even when someone appears to be "making a statement" on or "defying" them, he/she is only feeding the system (and feeding off of it). but this artist isn't even trying to veil the capitalist consumption that she is benefitting from.
Post a Comment