Lazy implies to me a lack of work, and a lack of vision. Sharon lacks neither. Calling it lazy art is dismissive of her vision and her hard work, and shows a lack of perspective about what it takes to put together an art show like this. It's one Hell of an undertaking!
Still, I admit it's fetching.
Yes, it is. I especially love the textures of the 3D work and the gradients of the rust work.
The comment wasn't meant as dismissive, demeaning or insulting. But perhaps it did come across that way. Mea culpa. Obviously, OCD-liek art requires determination and hard work, not to mention, as you say, organizing the show itself.
Historically, whenever I was drawn into discussions on what is art and what isn't, we generally couldn't agree on anything and the debate ended in crossed arms and divergent gazes.
Then, the term lazy art was coined. Perhaps it is a little trolling, but it merely indicates there doesn't seem to have been a larval period in which the artist would need to develop his or her technique to an extent which would decisively set her apart from mere mortals. In other words, that her works cannot be reproduced unless one spend the time learning how to do it rather than just what. The idea itself may or may not construe art, but the execution should show more than short-term dedication if it is to be called art rather than lazy art.
Comments 7
Wow, thank you burgunder!
Reply
Some of these fall into my definition of lazy art. If I can repeat it when I've seen it once, it's a bad sign.
Still, I admit it's fetching.
Reply
[p.s.] That's the best lolcat, ever!
[p.p.s.] If it works out, you're totally hired. I make a damned good dinner and will supplement with beer!
Reply
Still, I admit it's fetching.
Yes, it is. I especially love the textures of the 3D work and the gradients of the rust work.
Reply
The comment wasn't meant as dismissive, demeaning or insulting. But perhaps it did come across that way. Mea culpa. Obviously, OCD-liek art requires determination and hard work, not to mention, as you say, organizing the show itself.
Historically, whenever I was drawn into discussions on what is art and what isn't, we generally couldn't agree on anything and the debate ended in crossed arms and divergent gazes.
Then, the term lazy art was coined. Perhaps it is a little trolling, but it merely indicates there doesn't seem to have been a larval period in which the artist would need to develop his or her technique to an extent which would decisively set her apart from mere mortals. In other words, that her works cannot be reproduced unless one spend the time learning how to do it rather than just what. The idea itself may or may not construe art, but the execution should show more than short-term dedication if it is to be called art rather than lazy art.
Reply
Leave a comment