NationStates Jolt Archive

A man with three ears will appear at Edinburgh Napier University today to talk about his "extra" ear, which has been surgically implanted on to his forearm.

Australian performance artist Stelios Arcadiou, known as Stelarc, had the third ear created from cells in a lab in 2006. At the Edinburgh Science International Festival today, Stelarc will discuss his plans to install transmitters in his new ear, so people listen to what it is hearing online. He also hopes to grow a soft earlobe using his own stem cells.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/apr/14/performance-artist-ear-impant

Vote, and post reasons for your no doubt well considered choice...

The two are not mutually exclusive, especially in this case.

However, the article doesn't explain why he did it, what his message is.

From the available information, 'eejit' would seem to apply. But while it is seemingly pointless, it's interesting nevertheless.

Fuck, I saw it on the news. Fucking horrible. Felt sick, it was disgusting. And the guy was a freak too, had a crazy laugh. I'm having nightmares tonight.

Eejit.

I wonder why doesn't he implant an ear over his own buttocks... interesting things we could hear...

"hey, listen: he's eaten beans, hasn't he?"

The global amount of intelligence is clearly decreasing.

Eejit is a wonderful word.

Art, obviously.

And just as obviously, he is not an idiot if he can coordinate a ten year art project that has spanned ten years and has involved professionals from several cutting edge technologies.

And just as obviously, he is not an idiot if he can coordinate a ten year art project that has spanned ten years and has involved professionals from several cutting edge technologies.
First, I don't know if it would have been a ten-year project had he managed to convince a surgeon to graft the ear sooner.

Second, why does the involvement of professionals from several cutting edge technologies preclude him from being an idiot?

definitely eejit...
but it's somehow funny.. and makes no sense at all.

and he is not an idiot, he's just a bit silly.

First, I don't know if it would have been a ten-year project had he managed to convince a surgeon to graft the ear sooner.

Second, why does the involvement of professionals from several cutting edge technologies preclude him from being an idiot?If he had taken a wooden ear and nailed it into his arm and called it art, I could understand the cries of eejit.

But he worked with professionals to make an actual ear that he is trying to actually make work. Pompous? Yeah a bit. He's assuming anyone gives a fuck what his left arm 'hears.' Strange? Fuck yes. Eejit material? I don't think so.

"Performance art" is by and large nothing but pathetic juvenile cries of "Pay attention to me!!!!". As such it should be given the attention it deserves, none.

Art is all about intent, and just like Chumblywumbly said, the article doesn't say what his intent was. For all we know this guy just slapped an ear on his arm because the voices in his head wanted to communicate with the voice in his arm...or something. I'm going with eejit.

We don't have the information why he did it because, i assume, he did it only to get attention. No hidden meaning or underlying cause..

"performance art" is by and large nothing but pathetic juvenile cries of "pay attention to me!!!!". As such it should be given the attention it deserves, none.

qft

It took me a loooong time to get what 'Eejit' means...

"Performance art" is by and large nothing but pathetic juvenile cries of "Pay attention to me!!!!". As such it should be given the attention it deserves, none.

Unless its performed by attractive nekkid women. That'd be different.

It took me a loooong time to get what 'Eejit' means...
Tis a fantastic Irish/Scots word.

Unless its performed by attractive nekkid women. That'd be different.

Attractive naked women don't need to be "artsy" to gain attention. They just gotta show up.

Shame he didn't go for a penis attached to his forehead.

this modern art is rubbish. I kow of a guy who but a peice of bluetac on a wall and it sold for 50 grand....Its pathetic!

Modern art? Modern rubbish more like

this modern art is rubbish. I kow of a guy who but a peice of bluetac on a wall and it sold for 50 grand....Its pathetic!

Modern art? Modern rubbish more like

Not a patch on his piece of paper screwed up into a ball...

Modern art? Modern rubbish more like
Way to dismiss eighty years of intensely varied art.

though you may think Duchamp's Fountain is a load of pretentious wank, think of Picasso's Guernica or Rothko's chapel art.

Tis a fantastic Irish/Scots word.
Though I nearly searched an online English-Dutch dictionary for "eejit"...

this modern art is rubbish. I kow of a guy who but a peice of bluetac on a wall and it sold for 50 grand....Its pathetic!

Modern art? Modern rubbish more like

Wait -- so the idiot is the one who GETS 50K for the piece of bluetac? You're going to have to explain that to me. Now, the guy who PAID 50K is another story.

Nice judgments, most everyone. Now how about you pull your own heads out and realize that art hasn't any limitations on it that are based on what YOU think they should be doing. If YOU don't like it, YOU don't have to deal with it, do you? No. Do I think it's important? Not no, but hell no. But that's not my call, is it?

And OF COURSE performance art is about attention. It'd be pretty stupid to do something designed to be witnessed in a place where nobody could witness it, wouldn't it?

The poster who said the level of intelligence is falling was right, but not for the reasons he thinks, it seems.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/apr/14/performance-artist-ear-impant

Vote, and post reasons for your no doubt well considered choice...

I think if the artist calls it art then art it is.

Art is all about intent, and just like Chumblywumbly said, the article doesn't say what his intent was. For all we know this guy just slapped an ear on his arm because the voices in his head wanted to communicate with the voice in his arm...or something. I'm going with eejit.

So because the reporter sucks at her job, the interviewee must be an idiot?

hes clearly doing it for the money what with the price of cotton buds these days

though you may think Duchamp's Fountain is a load of pretentious wank, think of Picasso's Guernica or Rothko's chapel art.

I'd just like to toss that idea out there for a minuet

First, I don't know if it would have been a ten-year project had he managed to convince a surgeon to graft the ear sooner.

You may be correct. After looking at his list of shows and such (http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/biog/events.html), though, one could reasonably believe that he had enough clout by 1999 to be taken seriously.

Second, why does the involvement of professionals from several cutting edge technologies preclude him from being an idiot?

Because he has to coordinate all their work, which would require a minimal working knowledge of the systems involved. To have this knowledge, you would need to be smarter than an idiot.

The two are not mutually exclusive, especially in this case.

However, the article doesn't explain why he did it, what his message is.

I saw it on the news, and I found it remarkable how devoid the message of the artwork was of substance. I found so little meaning in the message, that I can't even remember now what the message was. :p

I saw it on the news, and I found it remarkable how devoid the message of the artwork was of substance. I found so little meaning in the message, that I can't even remember now what the message was. :p

you should of listened more clearly

I saw it on the news, and I found it remarkable how devoid the message of the artwork was of substance. I found so little meaning in the message, that I can't even remember now what the message was. :p

Perhaps you just couldn't hear it?:D

you should of listened more clearly

It would have fallen on deaf ears regardless.

The article makes the guy sound like he's just out for attention and nothing more; its not in any way shape or form art if you go by the evidence provided by the article.

The article makes the guy sound like he's just out for attention and nothing more; its not in any way shape or form art if you go by the evidence provided by the article.

It's almost like these artists need people to look at what they do in order to have their work perceived.

It's almost like these artists need people to look at what they do in order to have their work perceived.


They need to stop looking and look.

(Lookit meee, I'm talking arty waffle....).

i want a tail. three of them. with soft floofy fur.

the day of cosmetic recombinent genetics is at paw, or near it.

(i'd also like a fully functional second heart and a doubled neural capacity)

i want a tail. three of them. with soft floofy fur.

the day of cosmetic recombinent genetics is at paw, or near it.

(i'd also like a fully functional second heart and a doubled neural capacity)


You realise that you will be pursued by Furry Fandom forever....?

WTF? Some things are just plain wrong.

WTF? Some things are just plain wrong.
It may be silly, pointless or a bit too attention-grabbing (though the tech is rather nifty, IMO), but what about this project is "plain wrong"?

WTF? Some things are just plain wrong.

Furrys or the ear fella?

Wait -- so the idiot is the one who GETS 50K for the piece of bluetac? You're going to have to explain that to me. Now, the guy who PAID 50K is another story.

Nice judgments, most everyone. Now how about you pull your own heads out and realize that art hasn't any limitations on it that are based on what YOU think they should be doing. If YOU don't like it, YOU don't have to deal with it, do you? No. Do I think it's important? Not no, but hell no. But that's not my call, is it?

And OF COURSE performance art is about attention. It'd be pretty stupid to do something designed to be witnessed in a place where nobody could witness it, wouldn't it?

The poster who said the level of intelligence is falling was right, but not for the reasons he thinks, it seems.

If I cut off both of my hands (think about that one, for a minute) with artistic intent, I'd be an eejit. Whatever message I was trying to convey would be no less meaningful or valid as a result of my own stupidity, but I'd be stupid nevertheless.

Furrys or the ear fella?

Both

Might be art, but I also think it is sufficiently ineffectual in communicating anything to anybody to possibly classify this individual as a Gobshite.

Both

^This

It may be silly, pointless or a bit too attention-grabbing (though the tech is rather nifty, IMO), but what about this project is "plain wrong"?

Because it is pointless and silly and that is why it is plain wrong, just my opinion mind you.

Besides who puts an ear on their arm? Might as well attach a cancerous tumor to his brain.

Eejit (what a strange word!) because no one wants to have sex with a guy with an ear on his arm, and whatever you do in life, you should always consider the effect it has on your ability to get laid and adjust your plans accordingly.

If I cut off both of my hands (think about that one, for a minute) with artistic intent, I'd be an eejit. Whatever message I was trying to convey would be no less meaningful or valid as a result of my own stupidity, but I'd be stupid nevertheless.

What does it matter what you would do if you know you wouldn't do it?

I would hope your message was important and your gesture gained productive attention for it, but that doesn't have to be the case. You seem to think that the percipient of an art piece has to find meaning in it for it to be considered art...or at least "not stupid", whatever relevance that has. You're simply wrong. YOU can think what you like -- that doesn't defer or invalidate the artist or the piece. It does to YOU, but only to you.

Nice judgments, most everyone. Now how about you pull your own heads out and realize that art hasn't any limitations on it that are based on what YOU think they should be doing. If YOU don't like it, YOU don't have to deal with it, do you?

Hold on a minute. Why is it that the guy with the ear graft gets a say in what art is, but I don't? We are his audience. If we don't "get" what he's doing, or we think it's stupid, that doesn't mean we should have to remove ourselves from the equation.

Hold on a minute. Why is it that the guy with the ear graft gets a say in what art is, but I don't? We are his audience. If we don't "get" what he's doing, or we think it's stupid, that doesn't mean we should have to remove ourselves from the equation.

You don't need to do anything. By denying that it's art, you've already removed yourselves from the equation. You don't get to decide. The artist does. How you are affected by what an artist does is something the artist has to deal with and take into account...or ignore completely.

If you think it's stupid, then guess what? The art has had its effect on you. For all you know, that was the intent. All art needs are percipients -- people to see what's been done. Even one. For you to have judged it as "stupid" means you've been affected by it, and it's done its job.

Basic aesthetics.

Besides who puts an ear on their arm? Might as well attach a cancerous tumor to his brain.

Well no, because a cancerous tumour on your brain is likely to kill you eventually if not treated.


Eejit (what a strange word!) because no one wants to have sex with a guy with an ear on his arm,.

....bearing in mind the remarkable diversity of human 'tastes', we might amend that to 'very few'.

(I actually chose 'eejit' as I thought either 'Gee bag' or 'Shite hawk' might require too many repeated explanations)

Eejit (what a strange word!) because no one wants to have sex with a guy with an ear on his arm, and whatever you do in life, you should always consider the effect it has on your ability to get laid and adjust your plans accordingly.

There is a reason for rule 34.

Hold on a minute. Why is it that the guy with the ear graft gets a say in what art is, but I don't? We are his audience. If we don't "get" what he's doing, or we think it's stupid, that doesn't mean we should have to remove ourselves from the equation.

I'm not so sure that it requires an appreciative audience, i.e. an audience that actually gets it or is somehow moved by it, even if it a distasteful reaction. When I go to the gallery, I tend to whiz through the portraits of dead European people, because they don't create any reaction at all in me. But it's still art, obviously.

You don't need to do anything. By denying that it's art, you've already removed yourselves from the equation. You don't get to decide. The artist does...

All art needs are percipients -- people to see what's been done...

Basic aesthetics.
Well, no, that's quite a specific theory of art.


Besides who puts an ear on their arm?
Who throws a shoe?

Well, no, that's quite a specific theory of art.

"Art needs percipients" is basic Aesthetics.

Who throws a shoe?

Angry people from a culture where shoes represent insults when hurled.

That, or Random Task.

"Art needs percipients" is basic Aesthetics.
No it's not.

There are theories of aesthetics that deny that art needs percipients; that maintain, for example, that the person who creates an aesthetically-pleasing artefact then instantly destroys it, never to be seen by anybody, has still created art.

Angry people from a culture where shoes represent insults when hurled.
Touché.

What does it matter what you would do if you know you wouldn't do it?

I would hope your message was important and your gesture gained productive attention for it, but that doesn't have to be the case. You seem to think that the percipient of an art piece has to find meaning in it for it to be considered art...or at least "not stupid", whatever relevance that has. You're simply wrong. YOU can think what you like -- that doesn't defer or invalidate the artist or the piece. It does to YOU, but only to you.

By that definition, everything would be art. At what point do we stop considering things to be art? Was the statistical analysis of web traffic I produced at my last job a piece of art? Most sensible people would consider Marmite sandwiches to be art forms, but they'll never end up in the Tate Modern (at least not when I make them). Heck, even Coronation Street would end up being called art if you had your way!

Not a soul in this thread has found either meaning or aesthetic pleasure in the idea of growing an ear on your arm. Even those arguing, apparently for the sake of arguing, have failed to specify whether they actually like the idea. Were I to be assumptive I'd suggest that nobody, anywhere will find the idea appealing. I fail to see how there's anything more appreciable in this idea than the Marmite sandwiches I made yesterday, nor why either should be classified as an 'art form'. When nobody likes it, when it has no apparent meaning or message, or even a point, and when nobody finds the idea appealing, there comes a point when a cut-off point just has to be set.

The relevance of 'stupid', my rather confrontational friend, comes from the thread itself - that was the question being posed by the OP, after all. If you didn't like the question then you probably shouldn't have come into the thread expecting to see an intelligent critical analysis of this ear-growing lark, really. To reaffirm my original answer to that question, eejit would seem to remain very applicable, regardless of your contrary arguments.

Now, I support his inalienable right to grow or remove as many body parts as he likes, until he becomes some kind of unrecognisable, tentacle-clad mutant for all I care, but he's still a moron for doing it. YOU can call it whatever you want - art, genius, insight, whatever - but whatever you decide call it, the fact remains that he grew a freaking ear on his freaking arm.

My trousers are tight in the crotch

Not a soul in this thread has found either meaning or aesthetic pleasure in the idea of growing an ear on your arm.
That doesn't show that it's not art (depending on what theory of aesthetics you subscribe to).


My trousers are tight in the crotch
Then you shouldn't surgically attach ears onto your penis.

That doesn't show that it's not art (depending on what theory of aesthetics you subscribe to).

So now art doesn't have to have meaning, purpose, or aesthetics? Is there anything out there that you don't consider to be art?!

So now art doesn't have to have meaning, purpose, or aesthetics?
That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that art doesn't have to have meaning, purpose, or inspire aesthetic-pleasure for everybody for it to be considered art.

Otherwise, nothing could be considered art.

Who throws a shoe?

People who are trying to kill the cockroach on the other side of the room but can't be bothered standing up.

...Not a soul in this thread has found either meaning or aesthetic pleasure in the idea of growing an ear on your arm.....YOU can call it whatever you want - art, genius, insight, whatever - but whatever you decide call it, the fact remains that he grew a freaking ear on his freaking arm.

I thought it was aesthetically interesting, and thought provoking in terms of how technology is redefining the human through body augmentation.

I call it art.

I thought it was aesthetically interesting, and thought provoking in terms of how technology is redefining the human through body augmentation.

I call it art.

For that, you're going on the list.

For that, you're going on the list.
Don't tell him your name, Pike!

He wants to put a wireless microphone in it so that you can listen through it on the internet.

He wants to put a wireless microphone in it so that you can listen through it on the internet.
And a speaker in one of his teeth so you can reply.

You don't need to do anything. By denying that it's art, you've already removed yourselves from the equation. You don't get to decide. The artist does. How you are affected by what an artist does is something the artist has to deal with and take into account...or ignore completely.

If you think it's stupid, then guess what? The art has had its effect on you. For all you know, that was the intent. All art needs are percipients -- people to see what's been done. Even one. For you to have judged it as "stupid" means you've been affected by it, and it's done its job.

Basic aesthetics.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. By voicing the opinion that it's not art, we ARE participating--but your original post seemed, to me, to express the idea that that participation was somehow invalid or "stupid". Perhaps it's a simple case of semantics. I don't think that someone who says "that's not art" has removed themselves from the process any more than someone who says "okay, that's art, but it sucks."

As for the "you don't get to decide, the artist does" argument, it raises questions of who art belongs to, whether it is a thing, an expression, a conversation, a synthesis, etc., whether it can/should exist independent of the author...

*snip marmite data chart other stuff snip*

I find the idea of an ear grafted on someone's arm exponentially more appealing than a marmite sandwich.

So now art doesn't have to have meaning, purpose, or aesthetics? Is there anything out there that you don't consider to be art?!

Should there be?

You know what's always been a funny argument to me? People who look at certain abstract paintings and say, "That's not art, my five-year-old could have done that." As if the work of five-year-olds isn't art.

You know what's always been a funny argument to me? People who look at certain abstract paintings and say, "That's not art, my five-year-old could have done that." As if the work of five-year-olds isn't art.

I love you. :fluffle: Hey, check your TGs on UMP.

As if the work of five-year-olds isn't art.
That's actually one of my major problems with institutionalist theories of art, which is sort of what Intangelon is proposing.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that art doesn't have to have meaning, purpose, or inspire aesthetic-pleasure for everybody for it to be considered art.

Otherwise, nothing could be considered art.But what if it doesn't have meaning, purpose, or aesthetic pleasure for anybody?

But what if it doesn't have meaning, purpose, or aesthetic pleasure for anybody?
I don't know if that's a possibility.

Surely it'd have meaning and/or purpose and/or give aesthetic pleasure to it's creator, at the least?

People who are trying to kill the cockroach on the other side of the room but can't be bothered standing up.

Funny enough I was watching 'Godzilla Vs Gigan' with the nephew last night. The alien Giant Cockroaches depended too much on their machinery, which is why they were squashed like the bugs they were. I'd say its time to get up and use that shoe, before they use it on you.

Finally!

I've been looking for this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnM3w8dCrz8&feature=related), from the heady future of 2031, ever since I first read about the attached ear.

How long before this technology is used to give people extra penises?

No it's not.

There are theories of aesthetics that deny that art needs percipients; that maintain, for example, that the person who creates an aesthetically-pleasing artefact then instantly destroys it, never to be seen by anybody, has still created art.

Theories within Aesthetics. You make my point for me. The percipient in your example was the creator him/herself.

By that definition, everything would be art. At what point do we stop considering things to be art? Was the statistical analysis of web traffic I produced at my last job a piece of art? Most sensible people would consider Marmite sandwiches to be art forms, but they'll never end up in the Tate Modern (at least not when I make them). Heck, even Coronation Street would end up being called art if you had your way!

I think you've got it. Art as a label is inherently subjective. You might not think your statistical analysis is art, but I know that there's a small segment of the population who might think so -- people who see beauty in seas of data. Your insistence that something must be gallery-worthy to be art is a huge fallacy.

Not a soul in this thread has found either meaning or aesthetic pleasure in the idea of growing an ear on your arm.

How do you know that? Have all who've read the thread posted their opinion? Personally, I think it's interesting.

Even those arguing, apparently for the sake of arguing, have failed to specify whether they actually like the idea. Were I to be assumptive I'd suggest that nobody, anywhere will find the idea appealing.

Were you? You've already assumed far more than that. Once more -- it doesn't matter what YOU think when it comes to whether ANYONE ELSE has the mindset to consider something art. And thank Buddha for that.

I fail to see how there's anything more appreciable in this idea than the Marmite sandwiches I made yesterday, nor why either should be classified as an 'art form'. When nobody likes it, when it has no apparent meaning or message, or even a point, and when nobody finds the idea appealing, there comes a point when a cut-off point just has to be set.

Conjecture and assumption. The artist doesn't care. If the artist cared, he'd go for something more conventional. Though apart from money, I can't imagine why anyone would want to please someone like you, or anyone specifically. What happens to music when it's designed to appeal to mass audiences (and thus get considered "art")? You get Top 40 commercialized tripe, for the most part. Some exceptions exist, but the fact that there are more musical genres than there are breeds of dog means that there's some niche out there for everyone, your broad pronouncements of "nobody likes it" notwithstanding.

The relevance of 'stupid', my rather confrontational friend, comes from the thread itself - that was the question being posed by the OP, after all. If you didn't like the question then you probably shouldn't have come into the thread expecting to see an intelligent critical analysis of this ear-growing lark, really. To reaffirm my original answer to that question, eejit would seem to remain very applicable, regardless of your contrary arguments.

The relevance of "stupid" is that it shows anyone reading the thread who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground about art, and the principles of Aesthetics. That doesn't make those people stupid, just ignorant. Ignorance in large groups likes to make decisions for other people...y'know, like what is art.

Now, I support his inalienable right to grow or remove as many body parts as he likes, until he becomes some kind of unrecognisable, tentacle-clad mutant for all I care, but he's still a moron for doing it.

Your opinion. No more or less valuable than anyone else's, regardless of its popularity.

YOU can call it whatever you want - art, genius, insight, whatever - but whatever you decide call it, the fact remains that he grew a freaking ear on his freaking arm.

Yes. Yes he did. You've managed to boil your post down to "it's weird and icky and I don't like it, therefore it's not art." How sad.

So now art doesn't have to have meaning, purpose, or aesthetics? Is there anything out there that you don't consider to be art?!

If someone can derive aesthetic pleasure from anything, then guess what? To them, that anything is art. Why is that so hard to understand?

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. By voicing the opinion that it's not art, we ARE participating--but your original post seemed, to me, to express the idea that that participation was somehow invalid or "stupid".

No idea how you got that. Participation is crucial for most art -- not required at all, but if the artist desires to get some kind of concept across, he needs an audience. If he doesn't, he doesn't.

Perhaps it's a simple case of semantics. I don't think that someone who says "that's not art" has removed themselves from the process any more than someone who says "okay, that's art, but it sucks."

It's a matter of degree. "That's not art" is a legitimate response, of course, but it's also dismissive and seemingly impervious to any counter-argument, as Mobius III has shown us.

As for the "you don't get to decide, the artist does" argument, it raises questions of who art belongs to, whether it is a thing, an expression, a conversation, a synthesis, etc., whether it can/should exist independent of the author...

Of course it exists independent of the creator.

How long before this technology is used to give people extra penises?

Didja hear about the guy with five penises? His pants fit him like a glove!