This conversation is closed.

is contraversial art contraversial for the fun of it or does it usually mean something?

usually contraversial art means something, but is there a pattern in rich american artists to make contraversial art just for the sake of making contraversial art because it is a fad or something related?

  • thumb
    Oct 3 2012: Art should be from the heart. An artist is someone who says or reveals what most people are afraid or ashamed to say or to reveal.
    An artist usually just has something to say; and the art is the medium of expression.

    The courage of an artist would definately bring two main responses:
    1. You damned fool! How can you say that? What a filthy soul!
    2. This is great! I know that feeling. I can identify with that.

    It is possible that some artists choose to be intentionally controversial. But I think this is an issue of perception. When honesty hurts it could seem like an attempt by the honest fellow to inflict pain.
  • thumb
    Oct 3 2012: I think we will understand other people better if we are first willing to accept that just because someone is not like us does not mean he is probably bad or motivated by foul values.

    In much of contemporary art, the artist uses the art to raise a question or to depict a situation that should make us think. A problem or situation has typically caught the attention of the artist, and he or she raises the issue or lays out some dimensions of the issue visually.

    The artist may have a perspective on the issue that comes through in the work.

    A question is not interesting if everyone agrees to the answer. Interesting questions tend to be those one could answer differently depending on ones perspective. You might, then, say the question/subject is controversial.

    So I would say the artist is not trying to be controversial but rather to put forward something that will provoke thought in the viewer or conversation among viewers.

    The nationality or wealth of the artist is irrelevant, I believe, in this matter except to the extent that artists in some countries are constrained in the issues they may raise in their work or whether potential buyers to whom they have access will buy it from them.
  • thumb
    Oct 3 2012: Dali founded cubinest art. It was a fad of the rich. I did not see it as swerious art (IMO). However, the money from the rich was serious. What is the message in Andy Warhol's painting of Campbell's soup cans. I went to the museum and saw a white canvous with a red dot in the center. I ask what it ment they said heck if I know but its worth a lot.

    So here is how I see it.

    Great artists were commissioned by patrons in the early days. They did as they were told and received commissions. Today there are no such patrons and each artist is looking for the opening to become a "name". If a really rich guy pays you 20 million for a painting you have arrived and can expect others to "join the following."

    My answer ... they are looking for a opening so it is neither good or bad .. contraversial or not ... just people expressing themselves looking for someone to approve or not ... hoping to be discovered.

    All the best. Bob All my comments are neither fact nor fiction just the opinion of an ole guy.
  • thumb
    Oct 3 2012: In my experience, controversial art is controversial...for the sake of being controversial.
    Theres rarely legitimate justification for it (atleast currently) and the explanations from the artists usually make this immediately obvious.