Brett Rants

It's Art

All it needs is a name.

This image is describe below and took me about longer to describe than to make
I'll call it

The Folly of Man.

Conceptual Art

Art is so passe. The new trend is to describe Art... and call that Art. It's sort of silly, because I could describe something as rarefied as an oil painting (portrait style, but of course) of some young damsel (was she a young damsel) with a single pearl earring (such a timeless style), as painted by a Dutch Master (was Girl with a Pearl Earring painted by a Dutch Master) sometime in the Sixteenth Century (or at least, in the last thousand years). Now, I may or may not have described a classic. But either way, you can be sure that I have cheated. And rather than make Art, I've described Art. Such an enterprise is no more Artistic than whispering 'Mona Lisa' in an otherwise empty gallery. But then, that's not my problem.

My Instructions

In the image above, we have two focal points. On the left, is a stack of wood: 2x4s to be exact, a factory load, so a pallet's worth. Such a pile of wood probably has a better name. But I don't know what it is.

To the right is a... Brand! New! Car! If I had to choose, a Green Cadillac Convertible. But it hardly matters, as I feel it is in keeping with the spirit of the piece to use whatever Make & Model will yield The Artist the most money in Product Placement Fees.

Poured over each (i.e. the pile of wood and The! Brand! New! Car!) is a 5-Gallon Bucket (so, we are talking 10-Gallons total) of DayGlo Fluorescent Orange Paint. It will seep between the 2x4x, ooze all about, and that will be interesting. And not only will the paint destroy the car (or increase its value by several million dollars), it will make the car suddenly worthy of notice.

The increase in attention (Valourization by Needless Destruction) is what this piece is all about. Well, that and the coolness of DayGlo Orange Paint as it oozes over the contoured (and not so contoured) surface of the car and wood (respectively). After all, we can all go down to a Mega Hardware Store and see load after load of cheap wood. And we can do the same thing for Luxury Sedans at our Local Car Dealership. But we don't, because that would be kind of stupid. But put these two items in an Art Museum (I'm thinking a Triple-Wide Gallery Space, as we don't want to crowd either the installation or the millions of gawking spectators it will bring), place them at an angle (because we are Artists, after all), cover them in paint (partially, in an aesthetically pleasing way), and suddenly, we have something worthy of notice.

Ta-da! Valourization!

25 Years Later

These conceptual pieces tend to get rehashed. First, it's insanely easy to 'tour' a piece of art that is composed of (smoke, mirrors, and) an inane instruction set. And secondly, some of these were so successful the first time they were shown (back in the 70s, that coolest of decades, it's when the 60s really happened, you know), it's sort of trendy to put them on display, once again.

So, we know there will be a repeat performance.

And for the second instalment (but not the third, which The Artist reserves the right to describe in full at a later date, but which will probably consist of a dozen motorcycles, an equal number of leather clad mannequins, and a full gross of DayGlo Spray Paint in mixed colors) instead of using paint (so, we are talking of the Second Instalment not the First or Third), a 12 Inch Wide by 24 Foot Long Orange Ribbon (Vinyl, but of course, because the bastards will cut corners, even if I, personally, prefer a Rubberized Silk Cloth with a High-Gloss Heat-Finished Sheen) will be draped over each item. We'll need another load of wood, because who knows what happened to that first one. And this time, we really will use whichever car (or kitchen dinette set, complete with refrigerator and oven) that will pay This Artist the most money to be the center-piece of this: The Promotional Opportunity of the Century.


Interpreting Art is stupid. I am a stupid person. As such, there is no one more qualified than me to interpret Art in General... and then, of course, I am the Artist, so I like to think that gives me the inside scoop on this particular piece.

In Seven Keys To Modern Art, Simon Morley gave a framework for analysing Art, which I like, so I will (butcher his insights and) try to use them here. Of course, there is 'No Try', so I have every intention of flat out butchering his methodology, which is my prerogative seeing as how I am a Cutting Edge Artist. And more importantly, this is my website, so I don't see how anyone can really stop me.

All the same, one can look at The Folly of Man (women, please learn from our example) in a number of different ways; as in, from a number of different perspectives.


Odd fact, most folks spend about 15 Seconds with the average piece of Art in an Art Museum... and the Average Artist, even less.

Now, if you will excuse me (and even if you will not), I must go.

next Brett Rants entry

Home Brett Rants Index

Next time, I give you

Man: The Folly of Woman.

© copyright 2019 Brett Paufler