Category Archives: WTF Art

Happy Tree vs Trashy Tree

So I saw this today

And was reminded yet again why I get so frustrated with the Modern/Abstract art community.

First off the next person that gasps and calls my art riské is getting a list of MUCH more evocative pieces than mine and told to suck it up, because I am positively conservative in comparison…you know who you are!

Secondly, artists like McCarthy frustrate me. Didn’t you study Art History? Duchamp made his point with his “Fountain” now move on, learn from it and stop peddling crap (in some cases literally).

Just because it worked for Margritte does not mean you can pull it off especially when the piece you are trying to re-create is giant, bright green and clearly resembles a sex toy. “Ceci N’est pas une…” Um yes, yes it is.

I’m sure the Slap Happy Parisian was just trying help Mr McCarthy snap  back to reality.

As good old Shakespeare said
“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;”….
Hmm wait, You say “Tree”, I say “Sex toy”…it’s still a Potato.

The other trouble with pieces like “Tree” and many, many others like it is that they cause the non Art community to question the value of Art as a discipline, especially a government funded one that will cause lil Timmy to have grand thoughts of someday creating giant inflatable sex toys and sticking them in the middle of a major city and also tends to add fodder to the grand debate to cut Arts from schools altogether.

So just a thought, for future reference (and to keep the non-Art community off our backs,) the next time you want to evoke the whole identity switcheroo you aim for subtly.

For example


How about a giant inflatable Green Lego Tree called “Sex Toy” 😉

If nothing else, Bob Ross might rest better knowing that “in our world there lives a happy little tree”.

WTF is ART issue#5 “Is ART the new Gold?”

I came across this article while I was browsing the net and thought it would make for an interesting read/debate.

Sarah Thornton explains why art is a beacon of optimism as markets tumble.

You can read the full telegraph article here then join in on the discussion.

So what do you think? Is art the new gold, the new safe market investment?

Thornton says that “museum attendance has surged and more people than ever began calling themselves artists”.

But the question I’m asking myself is: Is museum attendance and artist growth a good thing?

On one hand, the increase in artists and art may mean an artistic boom in the art market making this type of investment more widely accessible But on the flip side what happens generally when you get an abundance of something? Well in a market sense if you have 100 stocks versus 10,000 stocks the 100 stocks are going to be more valuable? But when those same 100 stocks turn into 10,000 the value plummets.

How does that translate to the art world?

Does it translate to the art world?

If every artist is a gold bar, then when gold bars(artists) increase will the value drop?

In societies past art was valued and of value because it was a rare commodity but today artists are a growing trend because the internet has helped us/them reach beyond our city or home base making us/them more easily accessible.

But, Thorton doesn’t say artists are the new gold she says ART is the new GOLD.

What does that mean?

Think about it…what does art have the makes it so valuable?

Well, How about the uniqueness of each and every piece?

It’s like no gold bar is alike making each and every piece valuable.

So yes, perhaps ART is the new GOLD to invest in.

But, the question I want to leave with you is this:

Who decides what is “pure gold” and what is “fools gold” when it comes to art?

Isn’t every piece being genuinely unique enough and valuable unto itself?


WTF is Art Issue #4: Iz degrade myself more?

Alright, so it’s been awhile since I’ve wailed on something someone’s called art.

So here it is people, issue #4 of “WTF is Art”.

As I was tag surfing, something I like to do, yanno check out what other artists are creating and what inspires them I found this: Continue reading

Well I must be doing something right!

Just thought I’d share this with my readers.

Today lol I got a C&D a Cease and Desist.

For what you might ask…well, remember the pop art piece I did of my friend Eve.

Well when I went to look at my recent comments I found this on my “about me” page:

” Dear Sir, the name arteve is copyrights by myself and at the patentamt Munich in 1999. Please sont use this name for your business because I am using this name art eve and pop art eve since the year 1998.
Sincerely eva Horstick-Schmitt germany”

I figure I’ll leave it there for posterity for awhile…it amuses me.

Anyway, apparently this person feels my descriptor of “pop art” combined with the friends name “Eve” is infringing on his/her copyright.

I’m not terribly worried since I have neither business nor art piece by that name.

However, I thought it was worth a chuckle, so I had to share.

And hey look at it this way, I’m being noticed in Munich 😛

WTF is Art Issue #3 – The debate continues

“What is Art?”

Morning glory

This age old topic has been the subject of many coffee cup conversations as well as world wide debates and yet, is never fully answered or put to rest.

Artists old and new have asked themselves “What is art?” What is it that makes things of artistic value?

Is everything I create art because I say it is?

What is it based on: skill, complexity, public acceptance? Is it monetary based? Is it for the artist, the public or a select few?

Are all mediums valid?

In 1917 Marcel Duchamp also wanted to stir up this debated when he titled a urinal “The Fountain” and submitted it to an art show as an act of provocation.

“The Fountain” was one of what he called “readymades.” The only definition of “readymade” published under the name of Marcel Duchamp (“MD” to be precise) says in André Breton and Paul Éluard’s Dictionnaire abrégé du Surréalisme: “an ordinary object elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist.”

However, André Gervais asserts that Breton wrote the definition for the Surrealist dictionary.

By submitting some of them as art to art juries, he challenged the public and his patrons on the conventional notions of what is, and what is not, art.

Some were rejected by art juries and others went unnoticed at art shows.

All this merely serves as an introduction to today’s WTF Art artist.

Continue reading

“WTF is Art” Issue #2

Well here’s another edition of “WTF Art.”

Today’s artist in question is Jessica Joslin.

Who’s Jessica Joslin you might ask, well let me give you a little excerpt from her biography:

“Jessice Joslin was born in 1971 in Boston, Ma and grew up collecting the flies off the windowsill to look at under her microscope.

Ever since, she has been enchanted with collecting a magpie’s array of remnants from the natural world…

What does she mean by the natural world you may wonder?

Well do you remember Fluffy your cat, Scruffy your dog or Penny your chicken? (May they RIP)

Well don’t fret once Miss Joslin is finished, you can be re-united and use Fluffy as a door stopper and maybe Penny as a key ring???

She may use reputable source for her parts but still…

Jessica Joslin.

You be the judge Art or just Macabre?

I personally think Miss Joslin has some past pet issues that could use some couselling. Sorry hun but Poochy just ain’t coming back.


WTF is Art Issue #1: The debate on good or bad art

Right so it’s lunch time and I was sitting here eating my bento and browsing the net when I stumbled upon 2 exhibits that kinda ruffled my fur as it were.

The first one is called “Head On” by Cai Guo-Qiang.

Head onHead on 2

It is quite literally wolves in sheep’s clothing.

I quote: “ The wolves were produced in Quanzhou, China, from January to June of 2006. The commissioned local workshop in Cai’s hometown specializes in manufacturing remarkable, life-sized replicas of animals. First, small clay models were created as movement studies, out of which Cai subsequently developed Head On’s artist editions of cast resin wolves. However, the realistic and lifelike 99 wolves that grew out of these models and drawings possess no literal remnants of wolves: they are fabricated from painted sheepskins and stuffed with hay and metal wires, with plastic lending contour to their faces and marbles for eyes. ” (source)

Ok aesthetically speaking it’s a cool exhibit. I’m even down with the artist’s intended meaning. AND I get that they’re all happy that no wolves were harmed in the producing of this piece. But that I don’t get is how they justify the sheep?

What? Because they’re edible it’s ok to slaughter 99 sheep in the name of Art?

Yippee, free mutton for the assembly crew!?




The second one, Apples as pixels

Apple pixelsApple pixels2Cherry Blossom apples

(I couldn’t find the original source for this one so if anyone knows of it, let me know.)

Ok sure, it’s beautiful, probably fairly original and all, but what the hell were they thinking. I mean first off, what an absolutely senseless waste of food. I dunno who thought it was a good idea to strip the fields of its produce and slap em on walls for decoration instead, of oh I dunno, maybe feeding the homeless or selling them and then feeding the homeless with the profit money.

I mean if that fact alone doesn’t bother you, think for moment…apple buildingwhat happens when those things start rotting off buildings?

Hmm? Not a pretty picture anymore now is it?





I dunno, in the infamous words of William Shatner I just “can’t get behind that”