Sculpture of Rocky Balboa found a home

[artlovelife]

I can't find the original thread...but I think this link is interesting. Seems someone thinks the Rocky sculpture isn't silly.....
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article...0&in_page_id=2

artlovelife.

[ironman]

Hi, So, the rocky statue found a home. Hopefully it's in the town dump!!!!!

[jOe~]

There have been many instances where a "work" becomes an art work, even though the original intent was aimed at serving another function. Critics, historians and the public have often "elevated/transformed" the original "intent",. Who's to argue? The garbage man? The art police?

jOe~

[Merlion]

I think the point about these long suffering Serbian villagers installing a statue of Rocky Balboa is not that they like it as a work of art. The quoted news story says it clearly, see excerpts below.

"Authorities now want to unveil the statue using Rocky as a symbol of the 'abilty to bounce back every time you are knocked down'. ....

A spokesman for the newly created Association of Rocky Balboa in the village said: 'We want to create a new image of our village because up to now Zitiste has only ever been talked about when we have floods or disasters here.

'We thought long and hard about what would represent our new image, and we came up with Rocky Balboa. He is a character who never gives up and even when he looks to be beaten he picks himself up and wins through.' "

[jOe~]

The quoted news story says it clearly, see excerpts below.

"Authorities now want to unveil the statue using Rocky as a symbol

'We thought long and hard about what would represent our new image, and we came up with Rocky Balboa.

So using the symbolic value of a public statue that elicits strong emotions in people is advertising?

jOe~

[jOe~]

For clarification I will remind you that the statue ( which really does nothing for me personally) was previously exhibited in front of a museum where it had a large following. Now again this modern day "gladiator" has found a new venue and another popular audience. This in my opinion trumps much of contemporary work which fails or does not even try to elicit meaning or emotion . Any work that can stir up emotions and feelings like this statue is in touch with something. Very few sculptures obtain that large of a following . So we have either advertising genius, or found/discovered art (since the original intent was something else). Indeed, much of ancient art was not considered as such but was later found and "elevated" and presented on modern pedestals. Though I get a bigger kick out of Koons, Oldenburg and Warhol, I defer to the Serbs and their experience. Can't argue against peoples strong emotions--that trumps intellectual criticism .

jOe~

[ironman]

Hi Joe~, First of all, one reason this "rocky" piece of shit sculpture had a "large following" and "another popular audience" is that it appeals to the general public who know absolutely nothing about art.
I don't know where to start, "trumps much of contemporary work"?
"Any work that can stir up emotions and feelings like this statue is in touch with something"?
You have got to be kidding me?
What would you have us sculptors do, make work that panders to the lowest common denominator? That's what you're suggesting.
Most of the general public knows nothing about art, and could care less. They'd rather watch football.
I'm surprised at you, Joe~, that you would feel this way.
As far as "ancient art" is concerned, it is now being looked at in a different light, more towards what it was meant to be.
Strong emotions don't trump artistic taste, excellence or intellectual criticism which by the way don't always include "feelings" or "emotions".
Well, I gotta go now, gotta get out in my studio and sculpt some of them "gumby" figures and paint some "smiley" faces.
WHY, you ask?
Because that's what appeals to everybody!
joe~, I think you should really give some thought to the quote you included at the bottom of your last post.
Have a great day,
Jeff

[jOe~]

My point is simply that if large numbers of people are moved by Rocky and want to call it art--who am I to disagree (indeed we can't even define the word)? I doubt that you or I will reach such a large audience in our life times. Like I said, I don't care for Rocky. I made that clear. But, my opinion does not matter to those people. I realize that my personal tastes verge on the elitist, but they are only valid for me. I also differ with most people on religion, etc., etc.. But again thats for me. I'm not going to call your God a hoax, or your favorite food slop (to your face that is). If most people want to eat Big Macs while praising Jesus or some other deity for providing it, so be it(I'll talk my wife into making up some of Thatch's chili and praise her for it). So when I said "Can't argue against peoples strong emotions--that trumps intellectual criticism ." ... most folk don't live by reason and intellect, so fat chance you have of changing their religions or diets( in food, sex or art) with mere words.

As far as pandering to "common" taste or appealing to everybody--never entered my head nor should it any artist. .That was not suggested by my comments. You read that into it. Appealing to "everybody" is only for politicians...and don't get me started on that one.

So is your "gumby" gonna be stainless, or porcelain (like Koons' Michael and Bubbles)? How's your definition of the word "art" coming along?

jOe~

[anatomist1]

As I said on the other thread, I think it's a mistake to make the issue about whether or not the statue is "art" and hence what "art" is. The actual controversy was about something much more specific: whether or not the statue is worthy of being featured at that public art museum. Since few of us know anything about that particular art museum, it seems reasonable to broaden it out to "a" public art museum.

The arguments about giving the piece respect due to all the attention and emotion associated with it ignores what I think is the main argument against featuring it in the museum. It isn't the statue that is generating all that interest and emotion, it's the Rocky movies. The statue merely reminds people of the movies. The statue is not noteworthy on its own merits. No one cares about the composition, technique, etc... they care about the subject matter, which could be referenced by any number of other pictures, props, etc... to the same effect.

If I took a generic snapshot of Rodin's Thinker, would that picture belong in an art museum with me listed as the artist? Rocky as a character and movie franchise is a noteworthy achievement, at least insofar as how many people are into it, as noted. I think arguments could also be made supporting the first movie and the character as worthy in other ways. Putting the Rocky movies in an art or film museum makes sense. Putting the statue in a motion picture or history museum might make sense. Putting it in an art museum doesn't.

[jOe~]

Putting the statue in a motion picture or history museum might make sense. Putting it in an art museum doesn't.

Any time someone "defines" art there will be exceptions that will prove the definition faulty. Arguments that ensue will not get closer to concepts that can impose limits on what some people think art is or isn't, should or shouldn't be. There hasn't been and there won't be a universal definition. This is my only point.

Anatomist, this thread is about the sculptures' possible new home in the village of Zitiste in northern Serbia--read the link.

If I took a generic snapshot of Rodin's Thinker, would that picture belong in an art museum with me listed as the artist?

It might if your were smart enough. This tactic has been extensively exploited already in the 80's. Indeed, there were a couple individuals, don't recall their names, who made careers of rephotographing famous photographs.Yeah, I thought that was dumb. But, they were exhibited widely in major venues and received much critical acclaim. I can't argue against the facts.

The statue merely reminds people of the movies.

Movies are the modern mythology, like it or not. Look at all the attention and worship given to movie "stars". Rocky is a hero, a modern gladiator, to the people of Zitiste. Tell them that he is make believe and they may throw Arnold, or Ronald in your face, or worse,some blond bombshell. Has any one spied Elvis lately? Like I said, I don't agree. But I can't define art for other people, let alone tell them how they should feel.

jOe~

[anatomist1]

Yeah, I didn't look at the link. Given the way it was introduced, I thought it was just a continuation of the old thread.

[ironman]

Hi Joe~, Glad you clarified that, I was starting to have my doubts about you.
The "gumby" is gonna be stainless and I'm painting those smiley faces with day-glo colors!

ART? It's whatever the artist says it is!

OR, as Andy Warhol said, "don't worry about whether it's art or not, just make it. Let them figure it out."
I assume the "them" to be the critics and curators.

As far as pandering to common taste or appealing to everybody, you're so right. It should never enter an artists head and yeah, I did sorta read that into it.

You touched on something in post #6 when you said "the original intent was something else." That got me thinking (always dangerous).
In the past, aboriginal, tribal, fetishes, masks, ancient and primitive objects were brought into the art museums and shown as fine art, disregarding their original intent, religious, ceremonial, utilitarian, etc.
That has changed, although those objects are in most respects very creative, they are now being looked at more in the context of what they were really meant for and not so much as art. With that in mind, how can we look at the rocky statue as anything but the movie prop it was meant to be!
Remember Joe~, it's all about "intent".
Have a great day,
Jeff

[jOe~]

Jeff, make an absolute statement about art and I'll knock it down for you. One of your favorites is "it's all about "intent". Let me start by laying down a basic premise. If an individual has work shown in major art institutions, both here and abroad, and has attracted the attention of major critics, then I grant them the title of art maker or artist--whether I like or hate the work--whether I think its dumb or fraudulent. I can't dispute the facts. So that said, there have been artists who have officially with-drawn the aesthetic and art component of their work by means of notarized statements. In effect they are saying that their artistic intent was not, or is no longer art. Some have said that their "not art" is intended to art. Other artists have become artists when their work was discovered and promoted by critics. The "artists' " original intent was never to produce art. This has happened to "artists" of this day and age, and to "artists" of ancient times.

As far as that "rocky" piece of shit sculpture"... "the movie prop it was meant to be!", its use has changed. Obviously, its meaning and status in the world(for some people)has been transformed. The Serbs are not promoting the film or the icon Rocky, but their spirit. "Original Intent" in this case is trumped by use, and like I said, by feelings, emotions. I can not tell other people the politically or artistically correct feeling they"should" have in their hearts, which is based on their experiences and cultures I'm not privy to. Its their "intent" to elevate Rocky to a higher status and transform it to more than a movie prop. Call it found art.

I was starting to have my doubts about you

. What the hell does that mean? That I wasn't pandering to your tastes and ideas??? Them's fightin' words--careful, I'll use my computer mouse like David v.s Goliath.

jOe~

[ironman]

hi Joe~, As usual, I get a good chuckle out of your posts!

Of course their have been artists, Robert Morris being one, who made those notarized statements. The fact that they were shown in one of the biggest ART galleries in NYC (it had to be, ironic, eh?) does however take away the impact from his theories. Had he stopped making art altogether and taken up chess like Duchamp did, I would have had more respect for him. But, he couldn't quite give the art making up, could he? So he came up with some inane intellectual game to add to the work, which created somewhat of a conundrum in the art world of that time.

The Serbs, well, they can keep rocky and stick him anywhere they want and call it art if they want to, but to me it will always be a movie prop, not art. I think your statement, "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep" fits the Serbs rather well in regards to this rocky business!

"What the hell does that mean? That I was pandering to your tastes and ideas??"

No silly, I just felt that the paragraph you wrote that relates to my doubts about you was simply not up to your usual standards of intelligence, and seemed a reversal of the clarity of thought that I am accustomed to hearing from you.
Have a great day,
Jeff

[jOe~]

No silly, I just felt that the paragraph you wrote that relates to my doubts about you was simply not up to your usual standards of intelligence, and seemed a reversal of the clarity of thought that I am accustomed to hearing from you.

Am I falling into a trap if I accept the compliment? Will I be pandering to your ideas? Can never be too careful ya know. I'm still swinging my mouse just in case.

I think your statement, "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep" fits the Serbs rather well in regards to this rocky business!

It fit this administration better, like an iron fisted glove strangling the constitution, bill of rights, freedom of the press, the environment, and all the rest. Makes Nixon look like a saint. Worst president we've ever had. Can we pay someone enough to give him a b.j. and get him out of office? What a bunch of wimp ass public servants the dems are. O.K., its out of my system for a little while.

jOe~