Art? or the work of a crazy person?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

Thread Tools Display Modes
  12 December 2005
Art? or the work of a crazy person?

the Artist said this about his work:

Q. To begin with, could you describe this work?

A. Yes, of course. What I've done is change a glass of water into a full-grown oak tree without altering the accidents of the glass of water.

Q. The accidents?

A. Yes. The colour, feel, weight, size ...

Q. Do you mean that the glass of water is a symbol of an oak tree?

A. No. It's not a symbol. I've changed the physical substance of the glass of water into that of an oak tree.

Q. It looks like a glass of water.

A. Of course it does. I didn't change its appearance. But it's not a glass of water, it's an oak tree.

Q. Can you prove what you've claimed to have done?

A. Well, yes and no. I claim to have maintained the physical form of the glass of water and, as you can see, I have. However, as one normally looks for evidence of physical change in terms of altered form, no such proof exists.

Q. Haven't you simply called this glass of water an oak tree?

A. Absolutely not. It is not a glass of water anymore. I have changed its actual substance. It would no longer be accurate to call it a glass of water. One could call it anything one wished but that would not alter the fact that it is an oak tree.

Q. Isn't this just a case of the emperor's new clothes?

A. No. With the emperor's new clothes people claimed to see something that wasn't there because they felt they should. I would be very surprised if anyone told me they saw an oak tree.

Q. Was it difficult to effect the change?

A. No effort at all. But it took me years of work before I realised I could do it.

Q. When precisely did the glass of water become an oak tree?

A. When I put the water in the glass.

Q. Does this happen every time you fill a glass with water?

A. No, of course not. Only when I intend to change it into an oak tree.

Q. Then intention causes the change?

A. I would say it precipitates the change.

Q. You don't know how you do it?

A. It contradicts what I feel I know about cause and effect.

Q. It seems to me that you are claiming to have worked a miracle. Isn't that the case?

A. I'm flattered that you think so.

Q. But aren't you the only person who can do something like this?

A. How could I know?

Q. Could you teach others to do it?

A. No, it's not something one can teach.

Q. Do you consider that changing the glass of water into an oak tree constitutes an art work?

A. Yes.

Q. What precisely is the art work? The glass of water?

A. There is no glass of water anymore.

Q. The process of change?

A. There is no process involved in the change.

Q. The oak tree?

A. Yes. The oak tree.

Q. But the oak tree only exists in the mind.

A. No. The actual oak tree is physically present but in the form of the glass of water. As the glass of water was a particular glass of water, the oak tree is also a particular oak tree. To conceive the category 'oak tree' or to picture a particular oak tree is not to understand and experience what appears to be a glass of water as an oak tree. Just as it is imperceivable it also inconceivable.

Q. Did the particular oak tree exist somewhere else before it took the form of a glass of water?

A. No. This particular oak tree did not exist previously. I should also point out that it does not and will not ever have any other form than that of a glass of water.

Q. How long will it continue to be an oak tree?

A. Until I change it.
If you were touched by an Angel call the Police

I intend to live forever. So far so good
  12 December 2005
Lets not get started on this...
  12 December 2005
Sounds like crazy to me. . . besides, what's the use of an oak tree that looks and feels exactly like a glass of water?
  12 December 2005
The art of this is that it is supposed to make you question reality. The same things that make up and oak tree make up a glass of water they are one in the same. When you realize this, you realize that the glass of water could really be anything. That is why the interview is right by the glass and I wouldn't doubt if the guy interviewed himself. The guy is crazy though if he thinks philosophy is going to get him anywhere expecially when it is this unclear.
"If you would stop twitching so much and shut up maybe you would learn something" -- My third grade teacher

Last edited by ndat : 12 December 2005 at 03:30 AM.
  12 December 2005
A is a.
always has been.
always will be.
When this kind of thought process becomes the
As an's a favorable flexible landscape to explore, but hopefully in reality the indivdual in question has learned to differentiate between logic and uh what's the word..oh yes

Some people say the glass is half full.
-but what is it full of.
and maybe in that..lies the answer.

Last edited by CLONEOPS : 12 December 2005 at 03:58 AM.
  12 December 2005
I want to punch this person to death.
  12 December 2005
Punch him to death??

You're missing such a big opportunity to be even more creative than that. Throw a glass of water over him which is really a plague of killer bees!

The poor guy, maybe he just looks like an artist but his substance is really just that of a piece of cardboard.
~ Jared Martin

Maya, 3Delight, mentalray, Maxwell Render, ZBrush
Photoshop, Fusion, Vegas Pro, Syntheyes
  12 December 2005
"There is no spoon."

t-man152 where did you find this? I want to email this to some friends, but I would prefer to know the source. Thanks.

[edit]Nevermind I got it[/edit]

tumblr ░░░░ facebook

Last edited by joana : 12 December 2005 at 04:55 AM.
  12 December 2005
Originally Posted by Bonedaddy: I want to punch this person to death.

This is exactly the reaction that the artist wants from you. You come into the gallery thinking you are going to be viewing something "good" and intead you are being shown something like this. The artist continues the act by explaining to you why his piece should in fact be respected, when what it is actually doing is shocking your further. So shocking you want to respond to it even when there is nothing interesting about it. Response creates controversy. Controversy generates attention. Attention generates money.

This is the face of contemporary art. You want to be rich, you make a video of a naked woman committing suicide in a church. Hate the game but don't hate the players.

Last edited by helicopterr : 12 December 2005 at 03:23 PM.
  12 December 2005
Originally Posted by Bonedaddy: I want to punch this person to death.

And i want you to want to do it.
hey! maybe he would like to be ass shanked with a christmas ornament.

  12 December 2005
I can see some idiots standing around that saying "Wow man, that's deep. What a great artist"
  12 December 2005
So gnomic. Don't we have an art theories forum for this... stuff?
The Third Party | Homepage | My Reel
"You need to know what you're doing before you start, and to start because you need what you're doing."
  12 December 2005
I want to know where this is displayed so I can go drink his oak tree and call it a performance art.
  12 December 2005
Isn't that in the Tate Modern in London or has the oak tree moved.

Well I seen it in london on a wall near other "art" by people like Gilbert & George and Tracy Emin ( not sure of spelling)

This was the best thing on show.

And people talk about it too.
Thread Closed share thread

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Society of Digital Artists

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.