One thing readers’ of Mitchieville can conclude, that after eight years of Piece of Art or Piece of Shit, is that art is both subjective and objective. Art can also be selective and oppressive, as well as collective and abstractive. Many times art can also be rejective and vindictive. Throw in seductive and productive, add a slice of digestive and a splash of depressive, topped with a dollop of defective and a sprinkle of interpretive, and you have art in a nutshellive.

Basically, any word that ends in *ive* is art.

So the question is, like it always is: is this work above a Piece of Artive or a Piece of Shitive?

Linkive

“Honey Boo Boo Rendered in Trash” is today’s Piece of Art or Piece of Shit? candidate.

Not since The Mayor first laid his eyes on Dog’s Playing Poker has he been so impressed with an artistic piece of work. The detail, the broad garbage strokes, the eye to detail – this is the real thing, yo!

If you are not familiar with the real life Honey Boo Boo, then God (any God but the Christian God) has spared your soul. And eyes. And heart. However, if you are familiar with her/it, then you know rendering her in garbage couldn’t be more apropos.

You know what The Mayor thinks, but the question remains – what do you think?

Piece of Art or Piece of Shit?

Marc From Calgary was good enough to send The Mayor a Piece of Art or Piece of Shit? segment. When The Mayor first opened the YouTube video Marc sent, he thought to himself that it must be a piece of art because he couldn’t understand a damn thing about it. After watching it a second time, The Mayor then thought to himself that he was mistaken, because the video was indeed a piece of shit. The Mayor then viewed it a third time and nearly took his own life because it quickly dawned on him that he just watched close to 17 minutes of utter crap. Well, 17 minutes aint exactly QUICK, but whatever, whoever, and whatever.

Your mileage may vary. You may look at this video and have an epiphany (I believe that means “shit” in French). Or, you may love it. Or, you may just watch it for the tiny breasts the singer is sporting. Either way, The Mayor is eating steak tonight for dinner, and he never gives to charity. That has nothing to do with this post, but it’s probably interesting to the average Joe Sixpack to find out The Mayor eats high quality cuts of meat and gives not a shit about those less fortunate than himself (which is just about everybody).

The End.

There will be some of you in Mitchieville that remember the piece above all too well. Some of you that do remember the story behind this piece probably just spat on your monitor.

For those of you in the unknow (unknow is a word, you shouldn’t bother looking it up, just trust The Mayor on this one), here is a bit of history behind it:

Voice of Fire is an acrylic on canvas painting made by American painter Barnett Newman in 1967.

The purchase of Voice of Fire by the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa for its permanent collection in 1989 at a cost of $1.8 million.

That’s $600,000 per stripe. A steal if you ask me.

The Mayor only remembers portions of 1989, but he certainly remembers the controversy around this painting. I remember what the Canadian public had to say about it, but what say you – is this a piece of art, or a piece of shit?

When it comes to *art*, The Mayor is of the opinion that if it involves dogs playing poker or vomiting skulls, said *art* is usually pretty good. There are exceptions, of course. This may very well be one of those exceptions.

The Mayor doesn’t have a clue what the title of this piece is called, but I think I’m going to name it “What your New Year’s day is Going to Involve.” Slather me in dry pork rub and call me Kreskin, but The Mayor has a feeling he”ll be bang-on with that prediction.

Art, shit, shitty art, who knows? Again, art is subjective, and what may be garage sale material to some is a treasure to others. I’ve made up my opinion on this one already, but I would like to hear what you think. I would also like to hear whether you’re a fan of that red shrimp sauce they stick in shrimp rings. Those two questions haunt my dreams.

An *art* exhibit on display in Loveland, Colorado that depicts Jesus Christ in various homosexual acts has caused an uproar, with proponents claiming, among other things, that the controversy in “necessary” to establish dialogue (??), and opponents claiming the piece entitled “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals” is nothing more than tax-payer funded smut”:

“This is not art — it’s smut, pure and simple,” said Minto, who said he’s not against graphic art per se. “(But) this is a museum, not an X-rated bookstore.”

The lithograph, “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals,” is part of a touring 10-artist exhibit titled “The Legend of Bud Shark and His Indelible Ink.”

Susan Ison, the city’s director of cultural services, said she asked Loveland’s cultural services board to review Chagoya’s work, and they didn’t have any problems with it. Ison said Chagoya was attempting to describe his “midlife crisis” in the piece.

“It’s very complex,” said Ison. “I really can’t describe simply what he’s trying to get at.”

Loveland resident Carol Ware said Chagoya’s piece is not something she’d want on her living room wall. But, she said, “it’s provocative and thought-provoking. I thought that is what art is all about.”

Susan Ison, the city’s director of cultural services admits openly that she has no idea what the piece represents. It’s about the artists “midlife crisis” supposedly; but we do know that Susan Ison must think the artistic piece isn’t wrapped in anti-Christian hate because if it was, there is no way the artistic piece would be displayed. You see, by definition, displaying anti-Christian hate would be a hate crime.

I’m sure Susan Ison has thought this out. If an artist came to her next month with a lithograph displaying the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) receiving anal sex from a squirrel, why that’s just artistic expression, too, “provocative and thought-provoking”. Perhaps the artist in question is having a midlife crisis, also. Since artists are so deep that no one can understand anything about the inner-workings of their collective minds, it would be wrong to judge what the Mohammad/squirrel artist held in his/her heart.

Art is subjective, so I’m told.

Sure, we see what  happened across the world when some Mohammad cartoons (artistic expression) were released, but again, not being able to get inside the brain of the cartoonist (true artists, one and all), I’m sure Susan Ison would be the first to defend the artistic expression of the cartoonist, and would proudly welcome the display to her city. Bomb scares and threats to her personal safety that would come? Think of that as more artistic expression.

If this exhibit wasn’t government funded, I wouldn’t care less where or when it was displayed. If the *artist* was touring his piece on his own dime, then he will either sink or swim on his ability as an artist. If you don’t like what he represents, don’t see it.

The Mayor has no doubt in his mind that the artist in question is little more than a weasley little coward. You see, this type of anti-Christian art has surfaced and resurfaced dozens of times over the years and has now hit the point where it’s boring and cliche. These *artists* think they are “pushing the envelope”, that they are “cutting edge”, but the reality of the matter is that they are basically little more than schoolyard bullies that take great pleasure is picking on those that won’t fight back.

The artist knows that Christians will turn the other cheek. We’ve seen this type of *art* before, and to my knowledge the artists that offended haven’t had their throats slashed for what they did. It’s easy being the hero when you know you won’t have to fight. If the artist wanted to impress The Mayor, his next piece would be about Mohammad and the squirrel I alluded to earlier.

But that would never happen, that would take guts, it would take an actual backbone.

For now, the artist will wrap himself up with all the various rights that protect him. The right to free speech, the right to this and the right to that. And that’s fine, we all get what he’s doing.

The only thing these *artists* don’t get is that when they go out of their way to offend Christians, it makes the Christian community stronger. It also opens the eyes to those outside the Christian community. But maybe, seeing as though this artist is soooooo deep, maybe that’s what he had intended in the first place.

Whoa, I just blew my own mind.

What you are looking at here is called “Annie’s Downstairs Secret”.

*Artist* – Professor Kendall Moore

18″ x 14″ acrylic on canvas panel

The Mayor doesn’t have any information on the actual “art”, but some things are self-explanatory. The picture is called Annie’s Downstairs Secret”, so from that, I have pieced together that that is Annie in the picture.

And what is Annie’s Downstairs Secret? The Mayor thinks that’s where she keeps her rabbits and cats. Her dead rabbits and cats.

Annie is obviously quite beautiful, from her wide, dark eyes, to her full, juicy lips – she is a temptress, but her terrible basement secret haunts her dreams every night, sending cold shivers up the rugged ladder of her spine.

Wow, this picture really speaks to The Mayor.

However, that’s just my take on things, yours may vary somewhat.

I’d be interested in hearing what you think this print is about, and also, Is This A Piece Of Art Or A Piece Of Shit?

This pastel drawing is entitled Magnesia. I’m not sure who the *artist* is, but this is how he/she described their work:

I have heard that the Law of Attraction is always in motion …
it is never still, but, like an unstoppable magnet, pulls the inevitable desires of the heart towards the waking soul.

This fills me with such an emotional thrill, such an adrenalin passion, such overflowing creative intention …
that I can hardly stop myself from howling with delight!

The Mayor gets the same rush when he eats a half dozen Reese Peanut Butter Cups. I can never decide what I enjoy more, the peanut butter or the chocolate. It’s like a perfect mix though; not too much peanut butter and not too much chocolate. It’s amazing. They’re amazing.

Before you decide which way to cast your vote, look at the picture deeply and study the *artist’s* words – if after 10 seconds or so you still only see a bunch of rudely drawn lines back and forth like the scratching of a dog on a screen door, then so be it, that is your subjective opinion. OTOH, if you, like the *artist* get an emotional thrill that “pulls the inevitable desires of the heart towards the waking soul”, then put the bong down, and call 9/11 because you are freaking the hell out, man!

Squiggly lines, up and down,

Squiggly lines, make me frown.

Squiggly lines, left and right,

Squiggly lines, get out of my sight.

Squiggly lines, they’re freaking terrible,

Squiggly lines, they’re freaking terrible.

Squiggly lines, they’re freaking terrible,

Squiggly lines, they’re so terrible I had to repeat it four times.

What say you, is this a Piece Of Art, Or A Piece Of Shit?

Before you decide which way you’re going to decide, here’s a little background on the sculpture in question:

Chinese artist Chen Wenling critiques the global financial crisis in What You See Might Not Be Real, on display at a Beijing gallery. The bull is said to represent Wall Street, while the man pinned to the wall represents jailed financier Bernard Madoff.

Thanks to Blame it on the Voices for supplying the info, and Emergency Exit for the original story.

For what I believe is the first time ever, I’m going to say this is a piece of art. Even if it was a piece of shit, it would be like the Dogs Playing Poker kind of art – truly ugly, but anyone would be proud to hang it in their rumpus room (haha *rumpus room*).

It’s too bad though that the artist couldn’t expand on his sculpture and have the bull gore Geithner, Bernanke, the Fed, Goldman Sachs, AIG, etc, and successive Republican and Democratic administrations that have knowingly and willingly destroyed the American economy. Maybe Chen Wenling can work on that.

 What say you – Is this a piece of art, or a piece of crap?

When Fitzroy commercial gallery director Mark Jamieson was asked by a photographer if he would consider another artist to add to his group show, Mark Jamieson asked to see the artists abstract work. He liked what he saw and quickly added her to the show. Art critic Robert Nelson was also shown the artists work and had this to say:

When shown the works without any information on the artist, Nelson said his first impression was of “credible abstractions, maybe playing on Asian screens with their reds. They’re heavily reliant on figure/ground relations.”

When the director of a well respected art gallery, and a reknown art critic agree that an artist is tremendously talented, you know the artist in question must be a little bit of special. And she sure is…

Mr Jamieson then started to promote the show, printing glossy invitations and placing ads in reputable magazines Art Almanac and Art Collector, in which the abstract work was featured. Only then did he discover a crucial fact about the new artist: Aelita Andre was Nikka Kalashnikova’s daughter, and she was then just 22 months old. She turns two tomorrow.

The art gallery has decided to keep the kid in the show, something about *looking forward to promoting new artists.* Ya, sure.

This is just more proof that it doesn’t take an awful lot of talent to be an abstract artist. If a two year old is producing abstract art and the leaders of the artistic community are eating it up, that tells me that the leaders of the artistic community are full of shit and have no idea what they’re talking about. This two year old’s work was described as a *credible abstraction*, but rest assured if the art critic (who needs a critic to critique him) knew the artist was only two, he would have considered her work as immature, and not worthy of being called serious.

That’s why I laugh when art critics say that Dogs Playing Poker isn’t art, but yet they think a bunch of splotches on canvass by a child that shits her pants is.

Hahaha, the bulldog is holding the ace of clubs under the table with his back paw. If that aint art, nothing is.

Artsy fartsy

Tate curators, who award what’s known as The Turner Prize–the world’s most provocative and prestigious contemporary art award, which is worth over $80,000.00, have shortlisted Cathy Wilkes, for her work entitled, “‘I Give You All My Money”–

She has placed a mannequin on a lavatory next to two supermarket check-out counters. Four horse-shoes and bits of discarded wood dangle from wires attached to the mannequin’s head. They appear to bear no relevance to the check-out counters on which the artist has arranged bowls and spoons, as well as empty jars with the remnants of food. Scattered across the floor are piles of tiles and broken pottery in a plastic bag.

Sophie O’Brien, one of three Turner Prize curators, saw deep meaning in the installation, explaining that the artist was “searching out the language of objects – things we overlook in our daily life” – and making us look at them with “fresh eyes”. She claimed that the artist had placed each found object with extreme precision.

Her colleague, Judith Nesbitt, the Tate’s chief curator, added: “It’s as if the narrative has been stripped away. You’re left trying to make sense of the objects to each other and to ourselves.”

She applauded the artist for prompting “so many questions” from the viewer.

It really does invoke many questions from me, such as: Does Britain not have any mental institutions to put these malcontents in? And, isn’t this art really just a mannequin sitting on the shitter with various crap spread throughout the room? And also, doesn’t Britain have any mental institutions to put these malcontents in?

The question isn’t whether I think this is art or shit, the question is whether you do.

Well, is this a piece of art, or a piece of shit?

What you are seeing here is an inflatable installation piece entitled Complex Shit that was on display in the garden of the Paul Klee Centre in Switzerland. I say was on display because it blew away, causing damage to nearby structures when the safety mechanism failed to work.

A giant inflatable dog turd by American artist Paul McCarthy blew away from an exhibition in the garden of a Swiss museum, bringing down a power line and breaking a greenhouse window before it landed again, the museum said Monday.

The art work, titled “Complex S(expletive..)”, is the size of a house. The wind carried it 200 metres (yards) from the Paul Klee Centre in Berne before it fell back to Earth in the grounds of a children’s home, said museum director Juri Steiner.

The inflatable turd broke the window at the children’s home when it blew away on the night of July 31, Steiner said. The art work has a safety system which normally makes it deflate when there is a storm, but this did not work when it blew away.

Paul McCarthy also created Class Fool, a video piece documenting the artist running around a classroom covered in ketchup with a barbie doll between his legs.

Perhaps this piece of complex shit has a hidden agenda. Inquiring minds want to know.

Piece of art or just a stupid piece of inflatable shit? Let the people of Mitchieville speak.

NEXT–Jenna Jameson Gets Naked For Animals

ALSO–A Little Linkie Love