EvilMonkey

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Judith Scott (born 1943), a fifty-five year old woman with Down's Syndrome, has spent the past ten years producing a series of totally non-functional objects which, to us, appear to be works of sculpture, except that the notion of sculpture is far beyond Judith's understanding. As well as being mentally handicapped, Judith cannot hear or speak, and she has little concept of language. There is no way of asking her what she is doing, yet her compulsive involvement with the shaping of abstract forms in space seems to imply that at some level she knows. Judith possesses no concept of art, no understanding of its meaning or function. She does not know that she is an artist, nor does she understand that the objects she creates are perceived by others as works of art. Whatever she is doing she is definitely not concerned with the making of art. What then is she doing? Unmistakably she is working, and working hard. Her formidable concentration surpasses that of most professional artists. Is it possible that she is obsessionally involved in an activity that is without meaning? Does serious mental retardation invariably preclude the creation of true works of art? Is it plausible to imagine an artist of stature emerging in the context of massively impaired intellectual development?

http://www.creativegrowth.org/gallery/featured.html

saw this webpage and thought the work this artist has done is beautiful. but what is art? and if the creator has no concept of what they are doing then is art at all?

or is the fact that this person has no forms of communicting or being influenced mean that the art that is produced is the purest, and uncontaminated there is?

serious posts only please, i do not want this to be a place to bash those more unfortunate/fortunate.

Moto Nhoj

To me, Art is defined as something someone creates for their own purpose.
An Artist is someone who has a talent for creating works that a segment of the public likes. I would classify what she is doing as art. Just because we do not know what her purpose is for creating these peices, does not mean it is not art.

Personaly, I looked at the peices she did, and I would not buy them, but I have been accused of being a Barbarous Heathen by Artistic freinds in the past, so what do I know.

HIJACKER

These paintings or sculptures have no artistic value to me. I really have never been able to understand how ANYONE, handicapped or not, can produce something so ugly and pointless and others call it a masterpiece.

On a side note though.. I guess the words Autistic and Artistic are more closely related than we thought.. hehe.

___________________________________________
SC-Customs Promo Car, CLICK - http://www.club3g.com/forum/members...rs-eclipse.html

thepipebomb

I’m no art critic, but I didn’t like any of his stuff there. I guess what’s art to one person could be ugly garbage to another and vise versa.

Jimi

Well, one of the reasons for art is shown here case-in-point. Art isn't always made to be liked by all viewers, but to be interpreted... meaning or no meaning. The woman has "no concept" of what she's doing, but she is making some of the most abstract sculptures, and they are being discussed on forums such as Webrats. How many people have something that compares to that? I don't personally care for these particular pieces, but the story behind them is more amazing than most pieces of art in history. That in and of itself is art.

:happycow:

thepipebomb

Agreed, but I still think they're ugly.

:happycow:

Jabooty_3

I guess any object that is produced can be considered art. Just because someone doesn't enjoy it doesn't mean that somebody else may not see some deeper idea or concept within it. As long as there is someone somewhere to appreciate abstract objects, just about anything will be counted as art.

People say that the mentally handicapped have no concept of art so their art is the best and purest. What if they understood art, would their pieces be better or brought down by social and/or aritistic rules and norms?

volfro

She hasn't an understanding of art, as it is socially defined and accepted. (Is it pretty? Is it meaningful to me? It's art! Hooray, let's throw gobs of money at the artist!)

However, as an artist, I can say that there's a deep connection between the artist and his or her work; there is something that is fulfilled inside you that non-artist's can't really understand. They can't understand the value of it, or why somebody would spend so much time on something, or why somebody would be so emotional about something. But, as an artist, I am totally aware of the social aspect of art--I want my friends to like it, I want my family to like it, so I curve my art subtly to appeal to a wider audience. It becomes, as a result, less valuable to me and more valuable to others; and, if art is something that is meant to fulfill oneself, that degrades its meaning (and artistic value) on a whole.

So yes, this is art. She's not doing it for anybody but herself. So screw everybody in the community's desire to attach meanings or symbols or personal signifigance to her work. It's not there to be defined. It's there to make her happy; and if it does, then it is pure art. Whether or not we think it's pretty.

Jimi

ButterMup

That's interesting, but before I go any further, I should note that her art really doesn't do much for me, either. Following the links, I was reminded immediately of larval coccoons and hairballs: two things which I, personally, don't find to be visually appealing in the least.

That said, the fact nontheless remains that everything is art to somebody.
That statement is proven by recognizing that this woman hasn't got a clue that what she's doing is being regarded as "abstract sculpture", whatever that means...but it becomes such as based upon the criteria of each individual who views it.

But does something being regarded as art make it inherently artistic?
I don't necessarily think so.
Volfro and I are largely on the same page with this, but there are enough key differences in our opinions for me to add my own thoughts.

To me, artistry is as much as a form of expression from the artist as it is a measurement of relevance to the viewer.
Artists create their works to convey a sentiment or an idea, to make a statement, or to illustrate a belief; the term "art" is nothing but a label applied by the observer, but for a work to be "artistic" means that it bears relevance imbued, first and foremost, by the creator.

For example, if a Person A were to draw a circle, for no reason other than to draw a circle, then that circle is just a circle.
If Person B saw that circle, deemed it the most expressive circle he or she had ever laid eyes on, and wanted to pay $50,000 for the privelege of hanging it in his or her foyer, then that circle has just become art.
But to the one who drew it, that circle is still, and always will be, just a circle - albeit a financially fortuitous one.
It has no intrinsic, artistic value.

Conversely, had Person A drawn that circle as a representation of, say, the inexorable, cyclical nature of birth, death, and rebirth on a cosmic scale, then that vestment of symbolism and personal relevance lends the work credence, placing a degree of his or her own intent and forthought into the piece...and thusly, the creation becomes artistic.
Maybe that circle will never impress anyone.
Maybe it'll sit in a corner and gather dust, and no one will ever look at it and say, "That's art!".
In that respect, it will never be recognized as the art of my first example, but that lack of recognition in no way dimishes the piece's artistry. This second circle is, in my eyes, even more artistic than the first, as it consists of more than arbitrary shapes and lines - it denotes a purpose and has an intention, a reason for being.

In short, I believe that the idea of "art" is largely meaningless subjective terminology.
The values which make something "artistic", however, lie within the intent of the artist him-or-herself and are present before a single viewer ever decides if they think a piece is worth a million bucks or is total crap.

So is this handicapped woman's work art? If you think it is, then it is.
But is it artistic? No. It's interesting and unusual, but unfortunately meaningless.

fieryfro

the Judith Scott art legend is a tremendous hoax perpetrated on a gullible and pompous art establishment. the question posed was, what is the ultimate extreme test case for outsider art? at first, other species were considered, elephants, ants, chimps, pets, but it wasn't thought that the credible art ascribed to them rose to a level of sophistication sufficiently impressive. the same deficiency with babies, elderly alzheimer's, and the psychopathic. for the experiment, it was decided that someone developmentally challenged, or retarded, possessed the sweetness or "corkyness" to invest fascination and wonder in the otherwise rather pedestrian art installations created by professional craftspeople. the national attention has proven the case. people are astounded that a retard could create such stuff and, what does it all mean?
it means nothing. separated from the artist's supposed biography, the work is minor.
for publicity stills and appearances, the part of judith scott was portrayed by a brilliant character actor, ms. callie kimball. the artworks were produced by the team of heather mappus, leola dublin, and dixie belle walker. the accompanying textual backup, including website, psychological textbook, and field of study was conceived by underground subversive writer holdup stevens. the film rights option has been sold to paramount pictures.

Jimi

No one's making her out to be "brilliant". She is a handicapped person who happens to make sculptures. You think she's doing this for "publicity"? She doesn't know what the fuck is going on. She just does it.

I can't find anything that says anything about a hoax. I guess you're the only one who knows?

jf

i don't think callie kimball is retarded. but the person with down syndrome in the picture on the website looks legit. lots of names in the above post from fieryfro makes me want to believe it but a lack of supporting evidence in the form of links or published works referenced makes me suspect that the hoaxiness of the aforementioned hoax might in fact not be factual thereby making it... hmm what's the word i want to use... fraudulent. i think will do
(this all means that i have no idea...)

nutkick_42

OK, here's my question: if someone within the art community had made these same objects for one reason or another, would they still be art or is the story behind them what makes them art?

To me, if it requires a back story to make it art, then it's not really art. Of course, I abhor modern "art" and miss the days when I could at least make out what something in a piece of art was supposed to be. I love surrealism, but this "twine wrapped around a stick number 5" and "random shapes on canvas number 9783557392" shit has got to go IMHO.