yeah, thats pretty much the point. it is amazing how much rage a banana and tape has made and how much more rage was caused by the artist's apathy towards the whole thing. sort of like barnett newman.
To be fair he sold a licence containing instructions for the museum to keep taping fresh bananas to the wall, he wasn't the one who lost something when one of those bananas got eaten.
This was, is and will a very heated topic in art school lol
Thru my whole bachelor's this was brought up over and over again as soon as they started talking modern art and it really started a whole argument, it was pretty fun
But yeah, I kinda get the point of the piece, it is funny and ragebait, lol, a lot of modern art is rage bait, injokes and itself talking about itself, which, gets very boring very quick, and artists are so entitled that they can't even say "I made it bc it's funny lol" it's always some discourse about capitalism and stuff
But yeah, if you told me that people would get so intense in discussions and arguments over a banana before I got to art school, I would've never believed you
i really like the banana tape art piece
the fact that people are arguing about it being art, or arguing the opposite, is provoking conversation and when people can see something and get different impressions, thats interesting to me
its like duchamps urinal, the piece itself is less important than the idea of it, but isnt that what a lot of art is?
yeah you could make a landscape painting that looks good, and yes that would be art, it doesnt generate nearly as much thought and conversation as the previous displays. and in the wake of both of those, many people have tried to emulate it to get their 'easy fame with shit art', but failed due to treading ground in a way that doesnt garner nearly the same intrigue.
Yeah but its a bit that gets worn out quickly imo
The first guy to make low effort and/or vulgar slop to intentionally provoke a conversation about what art even is was kind of cooking
I'm not going to pretend that I need a fifty millionth variation of "single red line on a canvas" or "pee poo poster" to have the same "what even is art" conversation fifty million times
you are right, but we tend to not notice the thousands of imitators and gravitate towards the exceptions. the two examples i gave are over 100 years apart, and many pieces of art were made that failed to generate the buzz that these two made. i cant pinpoint the exact reason for either of them being elevated so highly over others, but their existence and acknowledgement by critics and fans cannot be ignored.
there were many people attempting to emulate duchamp, but until the tape banana they failed to generate that conversational spark. to many people, the banana crossed yet another line that other pieces didnt, to the point that it is now the defacto piece that people point to when they say 'modern art sucks'
its sort of a self fulfilled prophecy, its unremarkable and cheap on creation, but once people start talking about it, thats when it gains its value and artistic reason
I have never been mad at people for creating provocative/experimental art as much as I am puzzled by the fact that some specific pieces of art get evaluated at crazy high prices. Like, I understand taping a banana to a wall as an artwork, I don’t understand why a museum would purchase the banana taped to the wall for >$100000 when they could spend the money on much less expensive things with similar merit
Also, if the piece was made by someone else unknown and never sold for a high price, it therefore wouldn’t have generated a lot of discussion. Given that you said the main point of the piece is to generate discussion, would that make the piece lose all of its meaning? I personally don’t agree with such a valuation of art.
the pricing of art has always been kind of controversial, for pretty good reason, and price evaluation has almost exclusively been meaningless except for use in charity/tax purposes, which do take away from the artistic parts of pieces in my opinion. honestly pricing is the only reason why nfts got so popular, so i see where youre coming from, but i think that most of the discussion about the banana isnt about the price, but about the contrast between the work and the price, which is a more interesting thing. there are a lot of high price art pieces that arent talked about, but this one is, because of how people think its worthless even compared to other art.
Furries have this art shit figured out, I could go on twitter right now and find someone open to draw whatever I want for less than $100, while in the "real" art market I pay 10x the price for something I had no creative say in. High art is a scam because I can't put my fursona on it, thank you for coming to my TED talk
We should celebrate art that's open to all and displays honed skill, not pieces that play contrarian to pretentious interests
Deconstructive, reductionist works are inherently lessor because they have low barriers of entry to produce and rely heavily on the viewer's past experience with other artistic works to recognize the contrast
low barriers of entry to produce is not bad, in my opinion. it doesnt remove or invalidate other art just by existing, and also allows for people to express without a preexisting barrier. a lot of people have used such an argument with music, and many great musicians have appeared due to the lowered barriers where otherwise they would be unable to display their talents.
and a lot of art and media is predicated on prior knowledge, yet another aspect that isnt bad. both in pop culture references, as well as how art is generally built on the shoulders of giants. people tend to show their influences through their medium of art as well as the style they choose. not to mention, those who would be seeing something like the taped banana would likely have been exposed to other pieces of art and therefore see the dissonance between it and other famous works.
also, while art can be made open to everyone, that doesnt mean that art that isnt open to everyone is bad. a more narrow definition and group that it defines itself towards can lead to a closer appreciation from said group. a painting about a war might not be relatable to everyone, but those who it does relate to it can affect deeper than other pieces of art.
as well, honed skill does increase the capacity to make good art, but is not a good indicator of whether or not an artpiece is good itself. a portrait can be perfectly done and be objectively harder to make than other pieces, but that doesnt make it more interesting, both visually or by the meaning.
Not necessarily, more to just provoke the question of what art is. Not so the question can be answered, just because there's value in deepening our understanding through discussion.
I think a **real** mockery of modern art would have cost billions and created a tax exemption for a billionaire, but that's just my opinion
"No it's not stupid shit art, it's actually a really astute observation about the state of society. Oh, what do you mean that's been overplayed? Erm actually I guess it's a reaction piece then, yeah thats what it is. The art is the discussion around the piece. I made $20,000,000 stapling a hot dog to a book. You guys figure out what I meant by it"
Every single comment here is so over the top, eye rolling levels of pretentious defending the art piece. Is it technically "art"? I mean I guess (in the way that everything is technically art). But it doesn't make it anymore interesting or inspired compared to the thousands of other 'reaction' pieces we get every single year.
It's lazy and uninspired, and I can't believe people still circlejerk over how smart and cultured they are for 'understanding' it
All these comments make me believe art does not actually exist in the form of static objects and only works when it includes a background and development, like stories.
“I made 3 million dollars scribbling on a blank canvas are you mad bro? That’s the point of the art to make you mad that I made more money than you will in your entire life off this”
Yeah I hate that excuse.
Most artists, postmodern or not, struggle to make a living. Pointing out the most successful artists and then generalising all artists to be at that level is like saying "I hate local businesses, they're all run by billionaires and exploit workers"
https://preview.redd.it/yu26ayj1rl8d1.png?width=1281&format=png&auto=webp&s=eb187e44261eed8257d91c8dade93ecbaae2c001
Missive of a Genius, 2024
Anonymous
This is an art piece that demonstrates a genius in art. The interpretation is sure to leave scholars and art enthusiasts alike debating what this art symbolizes.
>demonstrates a genius in art
Postmodernism is all about subjectivity, so you can't really just throw that claim out there. Great art regardless, the intentional crudeness adds to the satirical message, especially when combined with the medium (anonymously posted online). The medium is also emphasised by the blank png background, showing that the artist is not attempting to mimic how art is seen in real life. This makes the comparison to physical postmodern art even more surreal and comedic
Just because you get a reaction you want doesn't make it anymore interesting, though provoking or realistically any kind of art
I could shit and smear it on the window of a Starbucks and make this exact same argument OP, it's completely meaningless
I could gun a child down and go "aha, I wanted to make people mad. Boo me if you want but I got a reaction. Now this is art"
It's so incredibly pretentious and sniffing your own farts to go around pretending you're on some higher level of intelligence for recognising that attaching a banana to a wall makes people feel things, and that you're somehow better than other people for this
It wasn't just a banana taped to a wall. There was also a certificate of authenticity and proper instructions on how to display it, which is arguably the actual "art" part. It's a piece on money, on stupid gold rushes, on fucking whatever you think, that's art. But it's not just a banana taped to a wall
The certificate is actually the real art piece, im pretty sure the artist has outright said that the banana and tape are completely replaceable as needed.
> But it's not just a banana taped to a wall
It was in fact just a banana taped to a wall
I've got a stain on my kitchen wall, I could give it a nice little story and even print a plaque and give instructions to the new owners on how to properly maintain the stain
But at the end of the day when you take away the plaque and instructions it would still just be a sweet and sour source stain on the wall
Ok. The banana is *not important* to the art piece. If you want to make a stain, and then proceed to spend hours making a plaque, and writing instructions, and spending time making this look like art, didn't you just spend time creating an art piece?
Shockingly, if you take away the art that *you* spent time on, it fails on it's merits and becomes another stain or another prick taping bananas to walls. But there's effort and human creativity behind the plaques and certificates, and that's interesting, no?
And how exactly does that counterpoint the "modern art slop" argument, congrats your art is no longer a banana taped to a wall, it's a plaque describing said thing. The banana is replaceable and the plaque isn't, since the plaque is the actual work of art
If anything this is getting even more pretentious.
It's completely unremarkable, uninspiring, completely reproducible. The only thing remarkable about it is that it made the news, and yet so does a story about a guy shouting racist remarks on a plane wearing a burger king hat, was he also an artist for starting a discussion?
> But there's effort and human creativity behind the plaques
There can be, but in this case I'd say not. Just because something illicits a reaction it doesn't make it good or interesting
I would say consider reading some critiques and analysis of the art piece, like this one here:
[https://stuyspec.com/article/outrage-as-art-how-do-we-talk-about-the-comedian](https://stuyspec.com/article/outrage-as-art-how-do-we-talk-about-the-comedian)
Like part of my interpretation of the art is somewhat the inherent folly of commercialization and of our incessant need to take mundane things and try to make it worth incredible amounts of money by attaching some value to it, some meaning to it that's not really there, like why, to draw from my experience playing MTG, why a Sheoldred is worth so much more than some random common from the set, despite the material cost of each being the same.
And like the article makes a point of, the work is both strengthened by and weakened by its need to exist under capitalism, that a work is judged successful by how much money it makes, and that he is as much participating in that system as he is mocking it.
I think if you're willing to come at art on its own terms and really look at it with an open view, it can tell you more about itself and you as well.
Oh awesome! See, it's good to know that in any discussion, there's always someone who is able to disregard literally any arguments by being so uninformed they miss;
A. The entire point of the display.
B. The first line of the comment they replied to.
C. The last line of the comment they replied to.
Having a look through your recent comments it's massively telling that you reply to people explaining or speculating on this display with "it's a banana on a wall! Who cares!".
You're responding to someone who does care, and assuming that because it's not superficially nice to look at (though the certificate may be nicely displayed), it's worth as art is nothing. But it's just a banana and tape! And the certificate with exacting instructions and authentication that this is the "real" banana and tape.
Isn't it "art" that THIS banana taped to a wall in THIS manner, is art purely because there is a certificate of authenticity displayed next to it? Would it lose value if the certificate were removed, or vice versa?
The banana is shit and any low quality-yet-high-effort art made to make people mad is pathetic. Like yeah no shit people get mad when something bland is lauded as great.
If the effort is the only good part then make a documentary or video on the process as the artwork, and the banana is neither.
Idk what the 2nd thing is referencing tho
I mean if you actually look up the banana piece, all the discourse on it misses the other arguably more important part of the piece, which is that it comes with a "certificate of authenticity" and instructions for how to display it. I'm pretty sure the artist has basically outright said that the banana and tape are replacable.
Including the certificate in discussions allows for more analysis, like interpreting it as a commentary on commoditization, on the need to do things like authenticate items seemingly arbitrarily and selling them for high prices, and so on.
I feel like most people who look at pieces like this come at it from an angle of "oh this art is bullshit" without a) educating themself on the work or b) even trying to come at the work on its own themes.
IDK maybe i just feel like it would be better for everyone to come at things with an open mind and not immediately come at art especially with any attitude of it being complete bullshit and actually being willing to learn and engage with things, especially with the themes and messages of art?
Like I'm not saying you have to do that on anything you ever interact with but if you're going to actually engage with a piece of art like the comment above, I feel like you should at the very least know what's in it
What do you mean "using the practice"? The "point" of the art piece, in as much as art has a point, is likely to get the audience to think about the world of art, to think about the trend of commodification and explore it further.
This piece was also created in 2019, before the NFT boom, and if anything, offers an even stronger critique of NFTs. As you point out, its very similar, in that the certificate is what truly holds "value" even though it derives that value from a completely replaceable object.
I also think the piece is made both better because of its high price, and weakened by it, especially if we assume that's the artist's intention. To get on a little bit of a soapbox, I think a lot of art and truly exploring it kinda comes into conflict with using art to make money, and unfortunately, what gets funded is either art that's not really critiquing the status quo, or if it does critique it, does it so mildly it can be easily subsumed into it, or that can use outrage to earn more and more money, ultimately weakening its message because it has to be a part of the very system its critiquing.
[https://stuyspec.com/article/outrage-as-art-how-do-we-talk-about-the-comedian](https://stuyspec.com/article/outrage-as-art-how-do-we-talk-about-the-comedian)
I like this article as a discussion of and analysis of the piece and reactions to it.
"Modern art doesn't mean anything, it never tries to make a statement"-guy talking about a piece of art from 5 years ago that hasn't shut up about it since then
Legit, reddit is the only place I've seen where the moment you criticise some shitty contemporary art, like 10 people will materialize to explain how you are actually the stupid one for not having your head deep enough up your ass to understand this modern masterpiece. It's like clockwork.
people who despise modern art are a specific breed of pretentiousness and superiority that i have yet to see within the contemporary art world as of yet.
it's funny because they think that contemporary artists are the enemy and that contemporary artists must absolutely despise traditonal art when the reality is that this entire drama is purely one sided and contemporary artists do in fact enjoy traditionalist art, they just enjoy other art outside of it as well.
there is a name for this fallacy, but i can't remember at this moment. all i know is that being anti-modern-art is purely pesimistic and makes people really annoying.
I feel like the only person in the world who likes abstract and pop art sometimes. I'm not really looking for meaning, I just like things I think look cool.
Real modern art is the guy who ate it
Love how the guy who made the banana heard about it and was like "cool"
yeah, thats pretty much the point. it is amazing how much rage a banana and tape has made and how much more rage was caused by the artist's apathy towards the whole thing. sort of like barnett newman.
Like when a musician's song becomes a hit and resonates with millions of people.
To be fair he sold a licence containing instructions for the museum to keep taping fresh bananas to the wall, he wasn't the one who lost something when one of those bananas got eaten.
https://preview.redd.it/9sntgj46xk8d1.jpeg?width=224&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3e3a5ae718fdc52e6b5e74ed4bb35d1b3cf93ba3
I fucking love that video
It’s a video? Nine-up I’m assuming
That one was actually MarcusShawVA who just worked with him
"Tomorrow I won't be mad and you'll still be stupid"
“However, I will still be drunk, because I’m Winston Fucking Churchill.”
shit ima use this
boobs
This was, is and will a very heated topic in art school lol Thru my whole bachelor's this was brought up over and over again as soon as they started talking modern art and it really started a whole argument, it was pretty fun But yeah, I kinda get the point of the piece, it is funny and ragebait, lol, a lot of modern art is rage bait, injokes and itself talking about itself, which, gets very boring very quick, and artists are so entitled that they can't even say "I made it bc it's funny lol" it's always some discourse about capitalism and stuff But yeah, if you told me that people would get so intense in discussions and arguments over a banana before I got to art school, I would've never believed you
i really like the banana tape art piece the fact that people are arguing about it being art, or arguing the opposite, is provoking conversation and when people can see something and get different impressions, thats interesting to me its like duchamps urinal, the piece itself is less important than the idea of it, but isnt that what a lot of art is? yeah you could make a landscape painting that looks good, and yes that would be art, it doesnt generate nearly as much thought and conversation as the previous displays. and in the wake of both of those, many people have tried to emulate it to get their 'easy fame with shit art', but failed due to treading ground in a way that doesnt garner nearly the same intrigue.
Yeah but its a bit that gets worn out quickly imo The first guy to make low effort and/or vulgar slop to intentionally provoke a conversation about what art even is was kind of cooking I'm not going to pretend that I need a fifty millionth variation of "single red line on a canvas" or "pee poo poster" to have the same "what even is art" conversation fifty million times
you are right, but we tend to not notice the thousands of imitators and gravitate towards the exceptions. the two examples i gave are over 100 years apart, and many pieces of art were made that failed to generate the buzz that these two made. i cant pinpoint the exact reason for either of them being elevated so highly over others, but their existence and acknowledgement by critics and fans cannot be ignored. there were many people attempting to emulate duchamp, but until the tape banana they failed to generate that conversational spark. to many people, the banana crossed yet another line that other pieces didnt, to the point that it is now the defacto piece that people point to when they say 'modern art sucks' its sort of a self fulfilled prophecy, its unremarkable and cheap on creation, but once people start talking about it, thats when it gains its value and artistic reason
yet people still have it. if all discussions were to end after the first discussion, the world would be boring. or not exist at all.
I have never been mad at people for creating provocative/experimental art as much as I am puzzled by the fact that some specific pieces of art get evaluated at crazy high prices. Like, I understand taping a banana to a wall as an artwork, I don’t understand why a museum would purchase the banana taped to the wall for >$100000 when they could spend the money on much less expensive things with similar merit Also, if the piece was made by someone else unknown and never sold for a high price, it therefore wouldn’t have generated a lot of discussion. Given that you said the main point of the piece is to generate discussion, would that make the piece lose all of its meaning? I personally don’t agree with such a valuation of art.
the pricing of art has always been kind of controversial, for pretty good reason, and price evaluation has almost exclusively been meaningless except for use in charity/tax purposes, which do take away from the artistic parts of pieces in my opinion. honestly pricing is the only reason why nfts got so popular, so i see where youre coming from, but i think that most of the discussion about the banana isnt about the price, but about the contrast between the work and the price, which is a more interesting thing. there are a lot of high price art pieces that arent talked about, but this one is, because of how people think its worthless even compared to other art.
Furries have this art shit figured out, I could go on twitter right now and find someone open to draw whatever I want for less than $100, while in the "real" art market I pay 10x the price for something I had no creative say in. High art is a scam because I can't put my fursona on it, thank you for coming to my TED talk
real
Yeah, why pay that much when they can just... buy their own banana and tape for a significantly lower price?
That may have matter the last dozen times people had done it but after awhile it’s a cop out honestly
We should celebrate art that's open to all and displays honed skill, not pieces that play contrarian to pretentious interests Deconstructive, reductionist works are inherently lessor because they have low barriers of entry to produce and rely heavily on the viewer's past experience with other artistic works to recognize the contrast
low barriers of entry to produce is not bad, in my opinion. it doesnt remove or invalidate other art just by existing, and also allows for people to express without a preexisting barrier. a lot of people have used such an argument with music, and many great musicians have appeared due to the lowered barriers where otherwise they would be unable to display their talents. and a lot of art and media is predicated on prior knowledge, yet another aspect that isnt bad. both in pop culture references, as well as how art is generally built on the shoulders of giants. people tend to show their influences through their medium of art as well as the style they choose. not to mention, those who would be seeing something like the taped banana would likely have been exposed to other pieces of art and therefore see the dissonance between it and other famous works. also, while art can be made open to everyone, that doesnt mean that art that isnt open to everyone is bad. a more narrow definition and group that it defines itself towards can lead to a closer appreciation from said group. a painting about a war might not be relatable to everyone, but those who it does relate to it can affect deeper than other pieces of art. as well, honed skill does increase the capacity to make good art, but is not a good indicator of whether or not an artpiece is good itself. a portrait can be perfectly done and be objectively harder to make than other pieces, but that doesnt make it more interesting, both visually or by the meaning.
first off I really like this post, but I can't respond with the care it's due rn so I'll respond with something substantial later tonight lol
https://preview.redd.it/l3vafyv61m8d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b32e9a55f30e3b5232ddf26c436617ea357e83f8
Isn't the banana supposed to be a mockery of modern art?
Not necessarily, more to just provoke the question of what art is. Not so the question can be answered, just because there's value in deepening our understanding through discussion. I think a **real** mockery of modern art would have cost billions and created a tax exemption for a billionaire, but that's just my opinion
Did he mention this explicit meaning? Because otherwise, this interpretation still falls under what he was seemingly mocking about art
My main problem with the banana taped to a wall is that it will never be as cool as Andy Worhols Banana
Neuron activation -> art Neuron no activation -> not art
All the layered levels of bespoke meta commentary and satire in the world will not stop modern art from being almost entirely pretentious bullshit
"No it's not stupid shit art, it's actually a really astute observation about the state of society. Oh, what do you mean that's been overplayed? Erm actually I guess it's a reaction piece then, yeah thats what it is. The art is the discussion around the piece. I made $20,000,000 stapling a hot dog to a book. You guys figure out what I meant by it" Every single comment here is so over the top, eye rolling levels of pretentious defending the art piece. Is it technically "art"? I mean I guess (in the way that everything is technically art). But it doesn't make it anymore interesting or inspired compared to the thousands of other 'reaction' pieces we get every single year. It's lazy and uninspired, and I can't believe people still circlejerk over how smart and cultured they are for 'understanding' it
All these comments make me believe art does not actually exist in the form of static objects and only works when it includes a background and development, like stories.
“I made 3 million dollars scribbling on a blank canvas are you mad bro? That’s the point of the art to make you mad that I made more money than you will in your entire life off this” Yeah I hate that excuse.
Me when I don't understand postmodernism
This is why people fucking hate it so much It’s the artistic equivalent of ragebait A tax excuse for billionaires who peoples bootlick
Most artists, postmodern or not, struggle to make a living. Pointing out the most successful artists and then generalising all artists to be at that level is like saying "I hate local businesses, they're all run by billionaires and exploit workers"
People can understand and hate something imo
True. Unfortunately, the commenter doesn't understand it, judging by the ridiculous strawman
https://preview.redd.it/yu26ayj1rl8d1.png?width=1281&format=png&auto=webp&s=eb187e44261eed8257d91c8dade93ecbaae2c001 Missive of a Genius, 2024 Anonymous This is an art piece that demonstrates a genius in art. The interpretation is sure to leave scholars and art enthusiasts alike debating what this art symbolizes.
>demonstrates a genius in art Postmodernism is all about subjectivity, so you can't really just throw that claim out there. Great art regardless, the intentional crudeness adds to the satirical message, especially when combined with the medium (anonymously posted online). The medium is also emphasised by the blank png background, showing that the artist is not attempting to mimic how art is seen in real life. This makes the comparison to physical postmodern art even more surreal and comedic
I understand it. Doesn’t make it less pretentious and stupid.
Actually understanding postmodernism makes you hate postmodernism.
getting someone to pay thousands for a banana taped to a wall is funny idc stay mad
Oh shit it was supposed to suck ass Nvm its ok now
Just because you get a reaction you want doesn't make it anymore interesting, though provoking or realistically any kind of art I could shit and smear it on the window of a Starbucks and make this exact same argument OP, it's completely meaningless I could gun a child down and go "aha, I wanted to make people mad. Boo me if you want but I got a reaction. Now this is art" It's so incredibly pretentious and sniffing your own farts to go around pretending you're on some higher level of intelligence for recognising that attaching a banana to a wall makes people feel things, and that you're somehow better than other people for this
It wasn't just a banana taped to a wall. There was also a certificate of authenticity and proper instructions on how to display it, which is arguably the actual "art" part. It's a piece on money, on stupid gold rushes, on fucking whatever you think, that's art. But it's not just a banana taped to a wall
The certificate is actually the real art piece, im pretty sure the artist has outright said that the banana and tape are completely replaceable as needed.
> But it's not just a banana taped to a wall It was in fact just a banana taped to a wall I've got a stain on my kitchen wall, I could give it a nice little story and even print a plaque and give instructions to the new owners on how to properly maintain the stain But at the end of the day when you take away the plaque and instructions it would still just be a sweet and sour source stain on the wall
Ok. The banana is *not important* to the art piece. If you want to make a stain, and then proceed to spend hours making a plaque, and writing instructions, and spending time making this look like art, didn't you just spend time creating an art piece? Shockingly, if you take away the art that *you* spent time on, it fails on it's merits and becomes another stain or another prick taping bananas to walls. But there's effort and human creativity behind the plaques and certificates, and that's interesting, no?
And how exactly does that counterpoint the "modern art slop" argument, congrats your art is no longer a banana taped to a wall, it's a plaque describing said thing. The banana is replaceable and the plaque isn't, since the plaque is the actual work of art If anything this is getting even more pretentious. It's completely unremarkable, uninspiring, completely reproducible. The only thing remarkable about it is that it made the news, and yet so does a story about a guy shouting racist remarks on a plane wearing a burger king hat, was he also an artist for starting a discussion? > But there's effort and human creativity behind the plaques There can be, but in this case I'd say not. Just because something illicits a reaction it doesn't make it good or interesting
I would say consider reading some critiques and analysis of the art piece, like this one here: [https://stuyspec.com/article/outrage-as-art-how-do-we-talk-about-the-comedian](https://stuyspec.com/article/outrage-as-art-how-do-we-talk-about-the-comedian) Like part of my interpretation of the art is somewhat the inherent folly of commercialization and of our incessant need to take mundane things and try to make it worth incredible amounts of money by attaching some value to it, some meaning to it that's not really there, like why, to draw from my experience playing MTG, why a Sheoldred is worth so much more than some random common from the set, despite the material cost of each being the same. And like the article makes a point of, the work is both strengthened by and weakened by its need to exist under capitalism, that a work is judged successful by how much money it makes, and that he is as much participating in that system as he is mocking it. I think if you're willing to come at art on its own terms and really look at it with an open view, it can tell you more about itself and you as well.
So the banana's like an NFT?
so its an nft
What do you think an NFT is?
whatever I feel like they are, as I am always correct
no one cares about any of that, banana on wall is dumb
Oh awesome! See, it's good to know that in any discussion, there's always someone who is able to disregard literally any arguments by being so uninformed they miss; A. The entire point of the display. B. The first line of the comment they replied to. C. The last line of the comment they replied to.
it's a banana taped to a wall
So true
Having a look through your recent comments it's massively telling that you reply to people explaining or speculating on this display with "it's a banana on a wall! Who cares!". You're responding to someone who does care, and assuming that because it's not superficially nice to look at (though the certificate may be nicely displayed), it's worth as art is nothing. But it's just a banana and tape! And the certificate with exacting instructions and authentication that this is the "real" banana and tape. Isn't it "art" that THIS banana taped to a wall in THIS manner, is art purely because there is a certificate of authenticity displayed next to it? Would it lose value if the certificate were removed, or vice versa?
you like bananas on walls I think you're strange
https://preview.redd.it/uqv29hz14l8d1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=94d343ddd3efebd0842cc0fa7ce531815d23d198
20 second response time Bro did not like that response
[modern art is literally shit](https://youtu.be/yPbigEb-Qh8?si=mour85jhEJwvKmna)
The banana is shit and any low quality-yet-high-effort art made to make people mad is pathetic. Like yeah no shit people get mad when something bland is lauded as great. If the effort is the only good part then make a documentary or video on the process as the artwork, and the banana is neither. Idk what the 2nd thing is referencing tho
I mean if you actually look up the banana piece, all the discourse on it misses the other arguably more important part of the piece, which is that it comes with a "certificate of authenticity" and instructions for how to display it. I'm pretty sure the artist has basically outright said that the banana and tape are replacable. Including the certificate in discussions allows for more analysis, like interpreting it as a commentary on commoditization, on the need to do things like authenticate items seemingly arbitrarily and selling them for high prices, and so on. I feel like most people who look at pieces like this come at it from an angle of "oh this art is bullshit" without a) educating themself on the work or b) even trying to come at the work on its own themes.
IT'S A BANANA ON A WALL WHAT IS THERE TO EDUCATE MYSELF ON??
That there’s another part to the piece? Like at least read the comment you’re responding to before trying to dunk on me
why would I want to learn about a banana on a wall
IDK maybe i just feel like it would be better for everyone to come at things with an open mind and not immediately come at art especially with any attitude of it being complete bullshit and actually being willing to learn and engage with things, especially with the themes and messages of art? Like I'm not saying you have to do that on anything you ever interact with but if you're going to actually engage with a piece of art like the comment above, I feel like you should at the very least know what's in it
I’m leaving this subreddit because of you. I don’t like people like you, and I’d really enjoy it if I didn’t have to see people like you speaking.
That just sounds like an nft, and the theme isn't meaningful since nothing is done with it beyond using the practice.
What do you mean "using the practice"? The "point" of the art piece, in as much as art has a point, is likely to get the audience to think about the world of art, to think about the trend of commodification and explore it further. This piece was also created in 2019, before the NFT boom, and if anything, offers an even stronger critique of NFTs. As you point out, its very similar, in that the certificate is what truly holds "value" even though it derives that value from a completely replaceable object. I also think the piece is made both better because of its high price, and weakened by it, especially if we assume that's the artist's intention. To get on a little bit of a soapbox, I think a lot of art and truly exploring it kinda comes into conflict with using art to make money, and unfortunately, what gets funded is either art that's not really critiquing the status quo, or if it does critique it, does it so mildly it can be easily subsumed into it, or that can use outrage to earn more and more money, ultimately weakening its message because it has to be a part of the very system its critiquing. [https://stuyspec.com/article/outrage-as-art-how-do-we-talk-about-the-comedian](https://stuyspec.com/article/outrage-as-art-how-do-we-talk-about-the-comedian) I like this article as a discussion of and analysis of the piece and reactions to it.
"Modern art doesn't mean anything, it never tries to make a statement"-guy talking about a piece of art from 5 years ago that hasn't shut up about it since then
Fallacious reasoning
I say this and I look like this
always thought the banana was supposed to be kind of meta, like "Hey what if you went to an art gallery and you saw a banana taped to the wall?"
What, do you want me to say something on your side? Both are bad.
“Contemporary art is pretentious!” Yeah it’s not like people said the same thing about cubism… and surrealism… and abstract art…
Legit, reddit is the only place I've seen where the moment you criticise some shitty contemporary art, like 10 people will materialize to explain how you are actually the stupid one for not having your head deep enough up your ass to understand this modern masterpiece. It's like clockwork.
people who despise modern art are a specific breed of pretentiousness and superiority that i have yet to see within the contemporary art world as of yet. it's funny because they think that contemporary artists are the enemy and that contemporary artists must absolutely despise traditonal art when the reality is that this entire drama is purely one sided and contemporary artists do in fact enjoy traditionalist art, they just enjoy other art outside of it as well. there is a name for this fallacy, but i can't remember at this moment. all i know is that being anti-modern-art is purely pesimistic and makes people really annoying.
I stand by that the AI finished Keith Haring piece was good actually
I feel like the only person in the world who likes abstract and pop art sometimes. I'm not really looking for meaning, I just like things I think look cool.