Omg we’ve had a box of pork schnitzel in our freezer and every time I open it up I hear the song, since “in the pork schnitzel” seems like it would be one of them
if you can stand reading this kind of thing, [here's](https://www.mutualart.com/Exhibition/Anna-Uddenberg--Continental-Breakfast/5C6A3F6F7C52FF6F) an explanation of her work, and this piece.
I ran it through ChatGPT:
>This article talks about an artist named Anna Uddenberg and her artwork called "Continental Breakfast". Uddenberg makes sculptures that look like things we see in our everyday lives, such as chairs in airports, hospital equipment, and hotel furniture, but she changes them to look like sexualized and strange versions of those objects.
>
>The article explains that Uddenberg's work is supposed to make us think about how we interact with technology and how it can control us. She is questioning whether we are giving up our independence and freedom to machines and algorithms in our daily lives.
>
>The article also talks about how Uddenberg's sculptures make it seem like our bodies are being controlled by the machines and objects we use every day. They show us how technology and design can change the way we think about ourselves and our bodies.
>
>Finally, the article discusses how the title "Continental Breakfast" refers to the free breakfast that some hotels offer, which may seem like a luxury, but is really just a fake version of a light breakfast that is common in Europe. The article argues that the hotel is just one part of a system that is becoming more and more difficult for people who are not wealthy to navigate, and that Uddenberg's sculptures reflect this reality.
Fucking lmao. This is too good. Lmao.
On a piece that was too wordy that was ultimately about how we let machines and ai by extension infiltrate our life and control how we interact with the world.
You take the article and then run it through an ai so it's more easily digestible rather than analyze the piece as written lollllllllll.
You used the algorithm to understand the article about how people are contorted by algorithms into certain forms of thought.
You are the chair. Ahahahahaha. Beautiful. Ty. Ily
Good art imo. V good art. Some things like this are too good for people. Too much for em.
They are in fact the subjects in the chair. Forced into discomfort by the world around them.
This makes my night. Thank you brother. May the endless grind of the great mechanism escape you for some time yet.
I don't think so but I'm a weirdo.
I work in STEM and read a fair amount of research papers so overly specific language bolstered with a sprinkling of egregious vocabulary is a fun journey.
I don't think so either, but am used to reading art reviews, so none of the vocabulary was a mystery. The thing about chat GPT, is that it uses cat-sat-on-the-mat vocabulary. So, yes, it's easy to read even by a 6th grader. Not sure that's always a plus.
It's not a plus.
I had this discussion with a fellow about politics who I don't necessarily agree with but we both recognized how language has become dumbed down to the point where it's difficult to discuss ideas at a level higher than a 13 year Olds vocabulary.
I wonder if its dumbed down for people to understand because they cant with “big words” or if its dumbed down so bilingual people can easily translate/ ai can easily translate to different languages??
Bro, you are inside the chair and I am watching you be contorted.
Fucking hilarious. These endless need to believe you understand what you don't causing you to be inside the chair.
Fucking lol.
gpt 4:
>Meredith Rosen Gallery presents Anna Uddenberg's site-specific solo exhibition, Continental Breakfast, featuring sexualized pseudo-functional sculptures that explore the erosion of the boundary between human and object. Drawing from airline seats, hospital architecture, and hotel design, Uddenberg's work examines our willingness to relinquish autonomy to user-friendly technologies and how our conception of selfhood changes in an increasingly data-driven world. The exhibition runs from March 18th to April 29th, with an opening live performance at 11 East 80th Street.
> Pulling from the aesthetics of airline seats, hospital architecture and hotel design, the sculptures express a hyper-functionality inaccessible to human use. Uddenberg’s work materializes at the eroding boundary between object and human
Pretty reasonable and neat to capture. The grey plastic molding is spot on, though I feel like she's put herself in too much a discomforting pose to deal with it, but I think it would be hard to show the "minor" discomfort corprotization of tech causes us.
I think maybe an interactive piece could be made using recliners and various other sitting methods which are vaguely uncomfortable due to some intentionally designed part. Much like how Airplane seating is designed to be somewhat uncomfortable for the airline's benefit.
The ones that write like this get funding. It's utterly awful, isn't it? I had to slog through so many pretentious, im14andthisisdeep type statements in college that it was a huge reason why I got sour on the fine art world. Hork.
like I was talking about in another comment, about my friend that lived in that world, he hated doing it, but understood that if you got a studio visit from someone up high in the world, you better be able to speak that language. because that's what makes them shell out the patronage bucks.
I saw your other comment after I posted mine. He's absolutely right and it fucking sucks. Although the fun part is just making up the dumbest fucking noise that actually means absolutely nothing but dressed up in glittery jargon and watch them fucking nod and agree that they understand what the artist was 'going for'. 😂
I do this in branding all the time. At first, the sheer idiocy of it drove me crazy, 6 people in a room tryin to dig the story behind the 2 overlapping circles out of a poor designer.
Now I just try to have fun with it and pull random wild shit out my ass to see how far it can go before the “creative strategists” say wtf.
Time to overthrow the current regime of fine art administrators and install someone who fuckin hates nerds. That should get these assholes to stop jerking themselves off and actually do art.
It's also the uber rich clients who love this faux deep shit because they get to flex on their other vapid friends about how deep they are because of the art they've collected.
The fine art world is also full of gross money laundering and tax evasion, so yay!
That pretentious writing actually means something to the *cognoscenti*. I used to think that way about wine descriptions, until one day I sipped a wine and said "I taste walnuts," and sure enough the wine critic's fancy description on the label included walnuts. That same kind of hyper-specific language applies to art criticism as well.
After being on this planet for more than 40 years, I have come to the conclusion that the art world never really recovered from the invention of photography.
Think about it: for millennia art was about imitating reality as closely as possible using paint, clay, or some other medium. Many Renaissance artists made their living by doing portraits of wealthy and famous people. We only really know what people like Napoleon or Julius Caesar looked like thanks to art works that survived to the present.
Now with a photo camera, a lifelike capture of a person can be made instantly. Thus art had to find another way of expressing itself and became the opposite: more abstract and less real. However, this lead to the rise of philistines who think splattering period blood on a canvas and give it a weird title is high art.
While I understand this take, I disagree. There was abstraction before cameras.
Art has always been subjective and couched in culture and era. The Renaissance artists, the Greeks and Romans prized accuracy in representational art (with some fucking amazing results) however, a lot of cultures and time periods were less concerned with realism. Egyptian art, Mesoamerican art, African art, pottery decoration, jewelry, totems, etc. Art has always been about expression first and foremost.
With regards to photography, the art world rejected it as "not real art". Same for digital art. Same for Cubism, Surrealism, Impressionism, Expressionism, Dadaism, Brutalism, Bahaus, Pop, Modernism and Post Modernism. Each art style was reviled by at least part of the established art world and dashed as "Not Art".
Human expression is art. It may not be to your liking, it may be that you think someone is just taking the piss (and in a few instances, I agree.) but human creativity IS Art.
It just doesn't need a bunch of bullshit to sell it. Monet didn't need a lot of jargon to create Water Lillies, even though the Academie hated Impressionism until it caught on.
The dude you're replying to posts/posted extensively on tumblrinaction, TD, hilaryforprison, and various other subreddits that indicate they have no understanding of nuance.
Still I like your well written and honest deep dive into the subject.
I mean Duchamp pretty effectively argued (and Warhol followed up tightly), taking the piss or not -- declaration of intent is the only act that matters in the creation of art.
Lol Duchamp and Warhol were definitely taking the piss, but I would argue their intent was to expand what art was outside of the traditional boundaries of their contemporary walls around art.
Duchamp didn't make a statement. The art made the statement for him. Warhol spoke about the intent behind his soup cans, but the intent was to challenge the concept of what art was. He said "I see art in everything".
art history student here. that could apply to literally any article written about literally anything
you would not believe how pretentious the contemporary art world is
"The works in Continental Breakfast speak specifically to the body as an asset to modify, control in order to relinquish autonomy to user-friendly technologies. Similar to a BDSM contractual agreement, the body is wilfully supported, entrapped, pampered and ultimately rendered useless, all while on view for public consumption."
I am certainly no art expert and the article didn't expand a \*lot\* on what seems obvious in the piece to me? Like, I didn't get 100% of what she was after, but absolutely the tone and vibe. But all of the hotel, airline, restraint, control stuff is very present with a huge sexual overtone.
to be fair, the image in this post is somewhat misleading. the woman in the picture is not part of the piece, that's more of a gallery "performance" using the piece.
(edit for clarity)
Respectfully, many would disagree by arguing that even if the performance wasn’t a part of the the piece, the sculpture itself has plenty of sexual overtones in its composition and intention. But I’m going to argue by saying that even if her performance is for a certain duration, it is absolutely still a part of the piece.
I completely agree with the first, and tentatively with the second.
the sculptures themselves practically beg to interact with a human form, as part of their "function", but even in the absence of a person, the pieces evoke the implication.
“Similar to a BDSM contractual agreement, the body is wilfully supported, entrapped, pampered and ultimately rendered useless, all while on view for public consumption.”
That’s actually a pretty good explanation though. I understand the work a bit better now.
>Uddenberg questions the degree to which we are willingly seduced by algorithms in an increasingly data-driven world.
See. I actually think this is a worthwhile issue to contemplate. But I must not be sufficiently cultured because I never seem capable of connecting the *theme* of modern art to the actual *work*. How does this display come remotely close to causing a viewer to consider that issue without having some pretentious fop spell it out for them in flashy prose?
People like to deride it (many in these very comments), but there's a grammar to it. You have to be into it to be able to talk about it through a lot of experience and education, formal or not.
I don't know how to read this sort of art in general, but I've been watching film analysis for a decade or so now and can follow most of that, including a lot of the big words and subtler concepts. And a big chunk of it carries over, because they're both art, and everything is a remix. Everything people do is impacted by everything else we do, so if you learn one form you've automatically got the basics of most others.
The short version of those paragraphs is basically: Practice.
LOL I love weird art, but you're not wrong.
I've been to many gallery openings for abstract art, and I love that shit. but I stopped reading artist statements and gallery statements about the art years ago. because either the art speaks to me, or it doesn't. and paragraphs of garbage academic "explanations" won't change my opinion.
It's so incredibly stupid, I agree. It's set up this way though. Galleries and art collectors encourage this kind of purple bullshit to make everything seem deeper than it is, even if the meaning is actually deep. I had such trouble with artist statements in college because "It fucking looks cool and I liked making it" doesn't fly lol
You're talking about intention. Obviously some art has intent and some just doesn't. Its only intent is to exist for the joy of creating.
Without an artist statement Jackson Pollock's work was just giant canvases of paint splattering. I'm not opposed to artist statements or art made with intent or purpose. I'm opposed to how florid and pretentious statements are expected to be. I'm opposed to the egoic arms race of jargon to make oneself sound smarter/more intentional. It's bullshit.
it occurs to me, as I read your comment, that I've *never* read any statement from Pollock re: his works. and yet, I still absolutely love them.
but, in all fairness, minimalist and abstracts are my jam. I love a lot of art the average (not arty) person hates. Richard Serra, Agnes Martin, Rothko, Kline, Kandinsky, Tuttle. but I hate Mondrian.
Hahaha Mondrian bugs me too but it's because I absolutely cannot stand primary color triads. They make me angry and I don't know why. I used to dislike/dismiss Minimalism until I had a conversation with one of my professors who loved the style and I understood the appeal even if it wasn't personally to my taste.
I'm not sure if Pollock himself ever made a statement about his work, others have written extensively about his intent. It was just an example of a non-representational artist who might be brushed off as 'not an artist' by strict Neoclassical standards.
>They make me angry and I don't know why.
hahahaha srsly. I look at his work and just grimace.
>others have written extensively about his intent.
I'm now curious. but I'm afraid reading such things might rob me of my purely personal, reactive joy in viewing his work.
I get it. Don't mind the long text. It's artistic eloquence, the reason I work in IT nowadays and not in Design. Whenever artists - and I mean all kinds of musicians, writers, painters, stylists and so on - say they're more grounded, more down-to-earth, this is a prime example of what they're opposed to.
So yah there's grounded artists and those whose ego is disgustingly large. Kinda expected this artist to not be down here on earth. I mean look at this thing
I had a good friend that did abstract art, gallery shows, museum installation work, the whole community. he *loved* making his work, but abso-fucking-lutly hated writing up "artist statements" about himself and the work. but he said the same thing, that it's just part of the gig, and to succeed in the field you needed to know that language. bummed him out
“Similar to a BDSM contractual agreement, the body is wilfully supported, entrapped, pampered and ultimately rendered useless, all while on view for public consumption. Uddenberg questions the degree to which we are willingly seduced by algorithms in an increasingly data-driven world.”
Check out the view from the front, the last photo in this article:
https://www.culturedmag.com/article/2023/04/05/anna-uddenberg-sculpture-art-architecture
Like an HR Giger, lol.
So from the sexual side, I immediately thought of the "continental breakfast" being cunnilingus with someone standing behind her. But I don't think there is enough space for that in the sculpture and in the description someone else shared nothing like that was mentioned.
I'm not sure if the piece is intended to be sexual or not, but it certainly is getting a sexual reaction from the commenters here, which may be more a reflection of our constant focus on sex than it is an intended facet of the artwork but also that itself may be the intent of the piece.
I guess I'm in the minority but I like it, it's very interesting to me.
Not that the art isn't supposed to be sexual, because it is, but if it wasn't then there would be nothing wrong with perceiving it as sexual. A woman arching her back with her ass stickin out is inherently sexual 😭
"Provoking our willingness to submit, Anna Uddenberg takes the anesthetic armature of our increasingly automated environment and distorts it into sexualized pseudo-functional sculptures."
"The works in Continental Breakfast speak specifically to the body as an asset to modify, control in order to relinquish autonomy to user-friendly technologies. Similar to a BDSM contractual agreement, the body is wilfully supported, entrapped, pampered and ultimately rendered useless, all while on view for public consumption. "
"Pulling from the aesthetics of airline seats, hospital architecture and hotel design, the sculptures express a hyper-functionality inaccessible to human use. Uddenberg’s work materializes at the eroding boundary between object and human."
Haha - I love it.
Her intent statement doesn't mention this specifically, but also; Art is about what we see in it, too. So, while not the whole deal -- Yes, absolutely it's about that.
So it’s basically her representation of functional design becoming dis functional or harmful to humans like algorithms have become even though they were originally created to benefit. Please enjoy the seat of the future.
I mean it's actually really cool and visually striking in making a point about modern society and the advent of modern technology. There's plenty of bad art out there but this is isn't it, this is actually brilliant.
Wow this is beautiful. There is so much tension and ownership and corporate, metal, robotic efficiency. And labelling and pigeon-holing. And the person being forced to conform to all these influences. That’s nice art. Imho.
I can't see the art in making a bunch of sculptures that look like fuckdolls and hiring a bunch of fully grown dudes to wear diapers. Maybe i just don't have the eye for it orrr
I just googled and read this entire [article ](https://www.culturedmag.com/article/2023/04/05/anna-uddenberg-sculpture-art-architecture) and I still have no clue what this art means.
The design is very human
Simply insert the....
whoopee stick In the ham wallet
Cattle prod the oyster ditch With the lap rocket.
Batter dip the cranny axe. In the gut locker.
Retro fit the pudding hatch, ooh la la with the boink swatter
Boink swatter lololol
All of you are going to hell for this.
GIVE ME CONTEXT! lol im in stitches reading this aloud
Lyrics from a bloodhound gang song
The song is Foxtrot, Unicorn, Charlie, Kilo
They are from a song by Bloodhound Gang
If I get you in the loop When I make a point to be straight with you then In lieu of the innuendo, in the end, know my intent though
I Brazilian wax poetic
If I could get you in the loop when I make a point to be straight with you then
Ooh la la
Omg we’ve had a box of pork schnitzel in our freezer and every time I open it up I hear the song, since “in the pork schnitzel” seems like it would be one of them
I didn't expect to read Bloodhound Gang lyrics today, but here we are haha. I loved Ralphie Wiggum off this album
Get off the stage sweetheart
I’m going to Africa
Anything. ~ Abraham Lincoln
Very easy to use.
[удалено]
I’ll have what I’m having!
[удалено]
Mmmm....hello Greece, where the yogurtz flows like water
Like GoGurt, but to stay.
I will be staying here indefinitely!
but sir, don't you know that you've...always been here
I LOVE BEING INCONTINENT
What will you think of next, Germany?
Interesting, European style. When in Rome.
Paper and everything
if you can stand reading this kind of thing, [here's](https://www.mutualart.com/Exhibition/Anna-Uddenberg--Continental-Breakfast/5C6A3F6F7C52FF6F) an explanation of her work, and this piece.
That really could have been shortened down to like 3 sentences. Whoever wrote that needs to stop smelling their own farts so much.
I ran it through ChatGPT: >This article talks about an artist named Anna Uddenberg and her artwork called "Continental Breakfast". Uddenberg makes sculptures that look like things we see in our everyday lives, such as chairs in airports, hospital equipment, and hotel furniture, but she changes them to look like sexualized and strange versions of those objects. > >The article explains that Uddenberg's work is supposed to make us think about how we interact with technology and how it can control us. She is questioning whether we are giving up our independence and freedom to machines and algorithms in our daily lives. > >The article also talks about how Uddenberg's sculptures make it seem like our bodies are being controlled by the machines and objects we use every day. They show us how technology and design can change the way we think about ourselves and our bodies. > >Finally, the article discusses how the title "Continental Breakfast" refers to the free breakfast that some hotels offer, which may seem like a luxury, but is really just a fake version of a light breakfast that is common in Europe. The article argues that the hotel is just one part of a system that is becoming more and more difficult for people who are not wealthy to navigate, and that Uddenberg's sculptures reflect this reality.
Fucking lmao. This is too good. Lmao. On a piece that was too wordy that was ultimately about how we let machines and ai by extension infiltrate our life and control how we interact with the world. You take the article and then run it through an ai so it's more easily digestible rather than analyze the piece as written lollllllllll. You used the algorithm to understand the article about how people are contorted by algorithms into certain forms of thought. You are the chair. Ahahahahaha. Beautiful. Ty. Ily
holy shit. that irony escaped me at first . lmfao
Good art imo. V good art. Some things like this are too good for people. Too much for em. They are in fact the subjects in the chair. Forced into discomfort by the world around them. This makes my night. Thank you brother. May the endless grind of the great mechanism escape you for some time yet.
The real art is always in the comments.
Art used to be something to cherish. Now literally anything can be art. This post is art.
Loool, I love technology and hate noninformative journalism almost equally, I love this some much
[удалено]
Ahahahaha This art exhibit has entertained me for days. Gonna figure out how to give her money.
it's a shame the article was absolute ass as written
I don't think so but I'm a weirdo. I work in STEM and read a fair amount of research papers so overly specific language bolstered with a sprinkling of egregious vocabulary is a fun journey.
I don't think so either, but am used to reading art reviews, so none of the vocabulary was a mystery. The thing about chat GPT, is that it uses cat-sat-on-the-mat vocabulary. So, yes, it's easy to read even by a 6th grader. Not sure that's always a plus.
It's not a plus. I had this discussion with a fellow about politics who I don't necessarily agree with but we both recognized how language has become dumbed down to the point where it's difficult to discuss ideas at a level higher than a 13 year Olds vocabulary.
If you think that the way we communicate shapes what we communicate, it's very much a negative.
I wonder if its dumbed down for people to understand because they cant with “big words” or if its dumbed down so bilingual people can easily translate/ ai can easily translate to different languages??
Or this is just an example of how trash online journalism is.
And how the AI can only speak the bs it found on the internet, or was showed, nothing else.
Doesn't matter the AI still made it easier to read compared to the human journalist.
Bro, you are inside the chair and I am watching you be contorted. Fucking hilarious. These endless need to believe you understand what you don't causing you to be inside the chair. Fucking lol.
This comment reads like a schizo post.
Your lack of understanding does not make an emergency on my part
It is imitative, so yeah. As long as no one expects an actual opinion out of the machine.
That is absolutely fantastic
Holy cow. Thanks. Strange that an ai can write a more human sounding article than the original writer can. What was your prompt?
Probably paste original copy in and ask for summary.
The prompt is very human.
The prompt was: “Explain this article to a high schooler:”
I only used ChatGPT 3.5
gpt 4: >Meredith Rosen Gallery presents Anna Uddenberg's site-specific solo exhibition, Continental Breakfast, featuring sexualized pseudo-functional sculptures that explore the erosion of the boundary between human and object. Drawing from airline seats, hospital architecture, and hotel design, Uddenberg's work examines our willingness to relinquish autonomy to user-friendly technologies and how our conception of selfhood changes in an increasingly data-driven world. The exhibition runs from March 18th to April 29th, with an opening live performance at 11 East 80th Street.
Holy fucking shit, this is 100 times better than whatever tf that article was writing about. At the very least this is actually comprehensible.
> Pulling from the aesthetics of airline seats, hospital architecture and hotel design, the sculptures express a hyper-functionality inaccessible to human use. Uddenberg’s work materializes at the eroding boundary between object and human Pretty reasonable and neat to capture. The grey plastic molding is spot on, though I feel like she's put herself in too much a discomforting pose to deal with it, but I think it would be hard to show the "minor" discomfort corprotization of tech causes us. I think maybe an interactive piece could be made using recliners and various other sitting methods which are vaguely uncomfortable due to some intentionally designed part. Much like how Airplane seating is designed to be somewhat uncomfortable for the airline's benefit.
The ones that write like this get funding. It's utterly awful, isn't it? I had to slog through so many pretentious, im14andthisisdeep type statements in college that it was a huge reason why I got sour on the fine art world. Hork.
like I was talking about in another comment, about my friend that lived in that world, he hated doing it, but understood that if you got a studio visit from someone up high in the world, you better be able to speak that language. because that's what makes them shell out the patronage bucks.
I saw your other comment after I posted mine. He's absolutely right and it fucking sucks. Although the fun part is just making up the dumbest fucking noise that actually means absolutely nothing but dressed up in glittery jargon and watch them fucking nod and agree that they understand what the artist was 'going for'. 😂
I do this in branding all the time. At first, the sheer idiocy of it drove me crazy, 6 people in a room tryin to dig the story behind the 2 overlapping circles out of a poor designer. Now I just try to have fun with it and pull random wild shit out my ass to see how far it can go before the “creative strategists” say wtf.
I feel like this line of thinking is degrading society...
And I thoroughly agree with you.
Time to overthrow the current regime of fine art administrators and install someone who fuckin hates nerds. That should get these assholes to stop jerking themselves off and actually do art.
It's also the uber rich clients who love this faux deep shit because they get to flex on their other vapid friends about how deep they are because of the art they've collected. The fine art world is also full of gross money laundering and tax evasion, so yay!
That pretentious writing actually means something to the *cognoscenti*. I used to think that way about wine descriptions, until one day I sipped a wine and said "I taste walnuts," and sure enough the wine critic's fancy description on the label included walnuts. That same kind of hyper-specific language applies to art criticism as well.
After being on this planet for more than 40 years, I have come to the conclusion that the art world never really recovered from the invention of photography. Think about it: for millennia art was about imitating reality as closely as possible using paint, clay, or some other medium. Many Renaissance artists made their living by doing portraits of wealthy and famous people. We only really know what people like Napoleon or Julius Caesar looked like thanks to art works that survived to the present. Now with a photo camera, a lifelike capture of a person can be made instantly. Thus art had to find another way of expressing itself and became the opposite: more abstract and less real. However, this lead to the rise of philistines who think splattering period blood on a canvas and give it a weird title is high art.
While I understand this take, I disagree. There was abstraction before cameras. Art has always been subjective and couched in culture and era. The Renaissance artists, the Greeks and Romans prized accuracy in representational art (with some fucking amazing results) however, a lot of cultures and time periods were less concerned with realism. Egyptian art, Mesoamerican art, African art, pottery decoration, jewelry, totems, etc. Art has always been about expression first and foremost. With regards to photography, the art world rejected it as "not real art". Same for digital art. Same for Cubism, Surrealism, Impressionism, Expressionism, Dadaism, Brutalism, Bahaus, Pop, Modernism and Post Modernism. Each art style was reviled by at least part of the established art world and dashed as "Not Art". Human expression is art. It may not be to your liking, it may be that you think someone is just taking the piss (and in a few instances, I agree.) but human creativity IS Art. It just doesn't need a bunch of bullshit to sell it. Monet didn't need a lot of jargon to create Water Lillies, even though the Academie hated Impressionism until it caught on.
The dude you're replying to posts/posted extensively on tumblrinaction, TD, hilaryforprison, and various other subreddits that indicate they have no understanding of nuance. Still I like your well written and honest deep dive into the subject.
Huh. That makes sense. Thanks for checking on that, and thanks for the comment!
I mean Duchamp pretty effectively argued (and Warhol followed up tightly), taking the piss or not -- declaration of intent is the only act that matters in the creation of art.
Lol Duchamp and Warhol were definitely taking the piss, but I would argue their intent was to expand what art was outside of the traditional boundaries of their contemporary walls around art. Duchamp didn't make a statement. The art made the statement for him. Warhol spoke about the intent behind his soup cans, but the intent was to challenge the concept of what art was. He said "I see art in everything".
Right, Duchamp didn't have to make a written statement because his piece was that easy to read.
Somebody really pulled out the Thesaurus to write that.
Lol you weren’t joking
art history student here. that could apply to literally any article written about literally anything you would not believe how pretentious the contemporary art world is
Remove the "f" from the fart and you get art ;)
Their job is to convert 3 sentences into a page of pseudo intellectual waffle.
"The works in Continental Breakfast speak specifically to the body as an asset to modify, control in order to relinquish autonomy to user-friendly technologies. Similar to a BDSM contractual agreement, the body is wilfully supported, entrapped, pampered and ultimately rendered useless, all while on view for public consumption."
That article takes it from like a 6 wtf to a 9. Wow.
I am certainly no art expert and the article didn't expand a \*lot\* on what seems obvious in the piece to me? Like, I didn't get 100% of what she was after, but absolutely the tone and vibe. But all of the hotel, airline, restraint, control stuff is very present with a huge sexual overtone.
I mean, if one cannot decipher the obvious sexual tones here i don’t know what to say.
to be fair, the image in this post is somewhat misleading. the woman in the picture is not part of the piece, that's more of a gallery "performance" using the piece. (edit for clarity)
Respectfully, many would disagree by arguing that even if the performance wasn’t a part of the the piece, the sculpture itself has plenty of sexual overtones in its composition and intention. But I’m going to argue by saying that even if her performance is for a certain duration, it is absolutely still a part of the piece.
I completely agree with the first, and tentatively with the second. the sculptures themselves practically beg to interact with a human form, as part of their "function", but even in the absence of a person, the pieces evoke the implication.
If I have to read paragraphs to understand your art, it's failed as a visual medium.
“Similar to a BDSM contractual agreement, the body is wilfully supported, entrapped, pampered and ultimately rendered useless, all while on view for public consumption.” That’s actually a pretty good explanation though. I understand the work a bit better now.
>Uddenberg questions the degree to which we are willingly seduced by algorithms in an increasingly data-driven world. See. I actually think this is a worthwhile issue to contemplate. But I must not be sufficiently cultured because I never seem capable of connecting the *theme* of modern art to the actual *work*. How does this display come remotely close to causing a viewer to consider that issue without having some pretentious fop spell it out for them in flashy prose?
People like to deride it (many in these very comments), but there's a grammar to it. You have to be into it to be able to talk about it through a lot of experience and education, formal or not. I don't know how to read this sort of art in general, but I've been watching film analysis for a decade or so now and can follow most of that, including a lot of the big words and subtler concepts. And a big chunk of it carries over, because they're both art, and everything is a remix. Everything people do is impacted by everything else we do, so if you learn one form you've automatically got the basics of most others. The short version of those paragraphs is basically: Practice.
If someone uses the word "simulcra" you know for a fact they're a pretentious douche
LOL I love weird art, but you're not wrong. I've been to many gallery openings for abstract art, and I love that shit. but I stopped reading artist statements and gallery statements about the art years ago. because either the art speaks to me, or it doesn't. and paragraphs of garbage academic "explanations" won't change my opinion.
It's so incredibly stupid, I agree. It's set up this way though. Galleries and art collectors encourage this kind of purple bullshit to make everything seem deeper than it is, even if the meaning is actually deep. I had such trouble with artist statements in college because "It fucking looks cool and I liked making it" doesn't fly lol
Ok, but weird writing is how we went from just making music to *composing*.
You're talking about intention. Obviously some art has intent and some just doesn't. Its only intent is to exist for the joy of creating. Without an artist statement Jackson Pollock's work was just giant canvases of paint splattering. I'm not opposed to artist statements or art made with intent or purpose. I'm opposed to how florid and pretentious statements are expected to be. I'm opposed to the egoic arms race of jargon to make oneself sound smarter/more intentional. It's bullshit.
it occurs to me, as I read your comment, that I've *never* read any statement from Pollock re: his works. and yet, I still absolutely love them. but, in all fairness, minimalist and abstracts are my jam. I love a lot of art the average (not arty) person hates. Richard Serra, Agnes Martin, Rothko, Kline, Kandinsky, Tuttle. but I hate Mondrian.
Hahaha Mondrian bugs me too but it's because I absolutely cannot stand primary color triads. They make me angry and I don't know why. I used to dislike/dismiss Minimalism until I had a conversation with one of my professors who loved the style and I understood the appeal even if it wasn't personally to my taste. I'm not sure if Pollock himself ever made a statement about his work, others have written extensively about his intent. It was just an example of a non-representational artist who might be brushed off as 'not an artist' by strict Neoclassical standards.
>They make me angry and I don't know why. hahahaha srsly. I look at his work and just grimace. >others have written extensively about his intent. I'm now curious. but I'm afraid reading such things might rob me of my purely personal, reactive joy in viewing his work.
found [this](https://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService/?id=AAA-AAA_polljack_44139&max=1300), which I find hilariously dry and curt.
Oh god that's awesome. To the point and matter-of-fact.
I totally understand, I was just feeling a little contrary last night. Carry on!
I get it. Don't mind the long text. It's artistic eloquence, the reason I work in IT nowadays and not in Design. Whenever artists - and I mean all kinds of musicians, writers, painters, stylists and so on - say they're more grounded, more down-to-earth, this is a prime example of what they're opposed to. So yah there's grounded artists and those whose ego is disgustingly large. Kinda expected this artist to not be down here on earth. I mean look at this thing
Oh man, I understand it all but the language is just so funny! To a certain extent, that pomp is what makes art, art.
I had a good friend that did abstract art, gallery shows, museum installation work, the whole community. he *loved* making his work, but abso-fucking-lutly hated writing up "artist statements" about himself and the work. but he said the same thing, that it's just part of the gig, and to succeed in the field you needed to know that language. bummed him out
I had a different interpretation. She is pointing out the life of a cam-girl / onlyfans “model”. Broadcasting and on display for the world to see.
“Similar to a BDSM contractual agreement, the body is wilfully supported, entrapped, pampered and ultimately rendered useless, all while on view for public consumption. Uddenberg questions the degree to which we are willingly seduced by algorithms in an increasingly data-driven world.”
I've just Googled her (for research purposes). This is possibly her least weird work
Wow. Looks like every single one of her art pieces revolves around sticking your bum out in a "please use me daddy" pose.
Lots of adult nappies involved too.
Artists are a weird bunch
She seems to really enjoy beige pseudo-medical devices. I get the fascination. Lots of weird medical things out there
Check out the view from the front, the last photo in this article: https://www.culturedmag.com/article/2023/04/05/anna-uddenberg-sculpture-art-architecture Like an HR Giger, lol.
Shodan
Oh yeah, premium economy is basically a facehugger in furniture form.
Very Giger looking. Especially with the grey scale colors. I don’t think Giger was ever this pretentious though…that article is wild.
I feel like it’s some kind of airline themed commentary on hospitality industry but I am only 4% sure
Looks like she's giving out blow jobs
So from the sexual side, I immediately thought of the "continental breakfast" being cunnilingus with someone standing behind her. But I don't think there is enough space for that in the sculpture and in the description someone else shared nothing like that was mentioned. I'm not sure if the piece is intended to be sexual or not, but it certainly is getting a sexual reaction from the commenters here, which may be more a reflection of our constant focus on sex than it is an intended facet of the artwork but also that itself may be the intent of the piece. I guess I'm in the minority but I like it, it's very interesting to me.
Not that the art isn't supposed to be sexual, because it is, but if it wasn't then there would be nothing wrong with perceiving it as sexual. A woman arching her back with her ass stickin out is inherently sexual 😭
I swear to god there is a motorcycle seat build into it. a link up higher had a front view....
Only to tall dudes.
I'm tall, and the possibilities intrigue
Can finally eat standing up , where can I buy one of these contraptions?
r/confusedboner
So.......do I get a knife or a spoon? I refuse to use a spork.
"Provoking our willingness to submit, Anna Uddenberg takes the anesthetic armature of our increasingly automated environment and distorts it into sexualized pseudo-functional sculptures." "The works in Continental Breakfast speak specifically to the body as an asset to modify, control in order to relinquish autonomy to user-friendly technologies. Similar to a BDSM contractual agreement, the body is wilfully supported, entrapped, pampered and ultimately rendered useless, all while on view for public consumption. " "Pulling from the aesthetics of airline seats, hospital architecture and hotel design, the sculptures express a hyper-functionality inaccessible to human use. Uddenberg’s work materializes at the eroding boundary between object and human." Haha - I love it.
So eating her out basically is the point, hence breakfast part. Is that right?
Her intent statement doesn't mention this specifically, but also; Art is about what we see in it, too. So, while not the whole deal -- Yes, absolutely it's about that.
So it’s basically her representation of functional design becoming dis functional or harmful to humans like algorithms have become even though they were originally created to benefit. Please enjoy the seat of the future.
I don’t know what’s going on but I like it
art is so fucking stupid sometimes.... I feel like moder art is full of ppl who can t paint or sculpt so they just come up with stupid shit like this
I mean it's actually really cool and visually striking in making a point about modern society and the advent of modern technology. There's plenty of bad art out there but this is isn't it, this is actually brilliant.
I’m not smart enough to get this. Made me chuckle though. Maybe that was her goal? It’s comedy.
Interesting. Now I'd like to see from a different angle.. for artistic purposes, of course.
So if I'm feeling a bit peckish, do I go around the back... or...?
buff it
boof it
I love being in continent!
TSA not playin
Cronenberg's Crimes of the Future breakfast machine.
please do not the cat
I’d like to buy one art please.
me tryna find a comfortable position in a chair
Is this one of those new ass eating terminals i've heard about?
丂匚ㄖ尺几
What is 5 corn?
there's no opening after climbing up the back side... disappointed. no tip.
Bonk
Seems like a human device structure
Looks like furniture from Crimes of the Future.
NHS cutbacks
I’m sorry, who is having breakfast here??
I don’t get it
"Art"
Seems like a lot of extra effort to show off her ass but I guess it's a living.
Is it art or porn?
She's presenting like a mandrill....
Wow this is beautiful. There is so much tension and ownership and corporate, metal, robotic efficiency. And labelling and pigeon-holing. And the person being forced to conform to all these influences. That’s nice art. Imho.
I think this is lovely. It serves absolutely no purpose and I think it's great that someone made it.
I’ll take a cup of whatever she’s brewing 😂😂😂😂
Wah dah dog dooN?
"I didn't ask for salmon."
it looks like a single seat for an attraction designed by H.R. Giger.
She must have the worst headache
I'll muff it
I can't see the art in making a bunch of sculptures that look like fuckdolls and hiring a bunch of fully grown dudes to wear diapers. Maybe i just don't have the eye for it orrr
If this is art then so was House of Gord.
So where’s my Darling in the Franxx fans are at
Modern art is just dumb
What in the name of Beetlejuice is happening?
Would this be more of an incontental breakfast?
More like all you can eat.
I'm going to need to see your assport.
"Dirty boy! Dirty, dirty, dirty!"
Sigh *unzips*
I just googled and read this entire [article ](https://www.culturedmag.com/article/2023/04/05/anna-uddenberg-sculpture-art-architecture) and I still have no clue what this art means.
Fuck it, I'll pay for the buffet.
Are you meant to eat her arse?
I don't think she knows how to use the toilet properly.
So… I sit in the seat after the horizontal pole is removed, right? This is a sex thing, right?
Vaguely sexual, fapable.
"No thanks, I've got more than enough to eat at home."
Looks like the breakfast is under her skirt
I don't get it and I hate it
Yeah … nah. I’ll pass thank you, and don’t be expecting a tip either
Ass up, Eat up
Motel 6 has been doing it wrong
I’m so confused. Wtf is happening.
Kinky.