apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Totally fun. Thank you for making me smile!

HILARIOUS

I love this!!

This is fun; this rabbit/cow thing reminds me of some kind of rabbit/(something I can't remember) that's depicted in East Texas lore. It also reminds me of the idea of counting sheep as float above ones head.

Love it. Love that at first glance it is pure fun, but the fact that it is cowhide makes it something else entirely.

You could sell this alongside serious "real" art. Could see a whole series of iconic shapes made from "off" textures... a factory silo made of astroturf... a four-leaf clover made from a Scottish tartan...

But ya need a headboard. :)

Inspired.

DIY Droog? There should be some kind of special category prize for this... And it looks really cool on the wall above your bed!

I remember that rug--I loved it too!!! Great job, it really looks great :-)

I absolutely love this. Cute rabbit. Cool cowhide. So perfect together!

I love it too. I'm a big Droog fan. But is it art? Or is it design?

Totally charming.
DIY Droog, you kill!

Curtis,
Is it the mythic postcard jackalope?

Curtis, are you talking about the jackalope? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackalope

so utterly and completely beyond AWESOME i can barely contain myself!!
this just made me feel so warm and fuzzy inside
i think i would be just the happiest person in the world if i woke up and saw this every day in my bedroom
i just might have to make my own
LOVE!

Oh Man!!! That is some kickin' rabbit!! I need that.
Boris, thank you so much.

guido & Liz -
Yes! That's it! Exactly! This is prettier, but the cowhide, although it's more of a dead-on parallel pattern that works perfectly as rabbit or cow, it does remind me of the jackalope. Having lived 10 years in the Shreveport/Bossier (Louisiana) metroplex, Texas was (a little too, perhaps) close by.

Brooke--
Yes.

ps--
Is that the same Brooke of contest entry #30?

Same Brooke

Sorry, it's just too too self-conscious.

Wow, I would not expect the question "Is it art or is it design?" from someone immersed in the art/gallery world.

Why not?

Because I would expect someone like that to acknowledge that art and design have fewer and fewer boundaries...

Actually, I would expect someone like that to not want to define any boundaries at all.

I like the look of the rabbit on the wall made of cow hide, but do I think it's good art? No.

And sometimes like what the HGTV guys do to decorate a wall. But do I consider it good art? No.

Um, you asked originally "Is it art? Or is it design?", NOT "Is it good art?"

Two very different questions entirely.

Since you are an experienced gallery person, I would not be surprised by the question "Is it good?" since that's largely what gallery people do.

I voted "really not my cup of tea" because I can't enjoy the artwork knowing that it must have come from a creature that had a grueling and very sad life. (If you've ever taken 5 from SF to LA, you know exactly what I am talking about.)

I don't think it's art, Patrick, but I know that some will.

I think if a gallery person did not know the source, and saw it at a reputable gallery or art fair or design school, there may be room for a different opinion about whether it is "art," good, bad or indifferent.

That said, I really like the look of it on the wall.

Sure. And we read above what would be in the press release. As it stands, I'm not impressed with it as art. I am impressed with it in the way that I would be with a well designed decorative pillow or curtains.

Most of all, I think it's tacky that you are belittling a fellow contestant in what I am interpreting to be a really condescending way.

But maybe that's just me.

I don't think I'm being tacky at all. And I don't believe I'm belittling the contestant. I love the piece. It looks great there. But it's a Droog Design rug put up on the wall.

I purchased one of these rugs in Mexico last June. I haven't really liked the shape ever since - your rabbit inspires me. I should flip the skin over and draw a template of something and cut it out... anyone have suggestions? I'm not into rabbits...maybe something else?

Anyone?

Click on my name to email me.

Nah, Brooke. It's a different shape than the Droog bunny. And the Droog rug was solidly light brown. And it was a rug, most likely woven or knotted. This on is hide.

It WAS inspired by a Droog rug. Otherwise, I disagree.

And by the way, I want one. Great motion in that bunny-pose.

Kate M. My mistake, but that doesn't change my drift.

LOVE the bunny.

Since I seem to be crabby and confrontative today anyway, I'm going to say what's on my mind. When people in the official art world pronounce that a perfectly nice cowhide rabbit is "not art" but "design" or "crafts" -- and don't explain why, other than that it's "not art" -- this contributes to alienating potential buyers like me.

Now let's figure here. The husband and I have educations, disposable income (yeah, we live in a slum, but that's so we can afford a biggish apartment and still BUY STUFF (hint hint)), and willingness to improve our environment. We ought to be a target market for art galleries -- real ones, not the Leroy Nieman-focused galleries that sell to wealthy tourists on Fisherman's Wharf.

But we buy folk crafts, vintage art pottery, and other things that are Not Art. Why? Because we don't appreciate a sales pitch that treats the buyer as too stupid to "get it."

Yes, I believe there's a difference between Art and "grandma's painting on china plates." I believe there's a difference between Art and the "starving artists" paintings sold to go over the sofa. I've heard P(too) articulate some of that difference in terms of depth of meaning (sorry if I've misrepresented you, P(too) -- your explanation reminded me of how literary classics are defined, anyway). I have not heard Brooke articulate her standards for Art. I would like to.

I would genuinely like to be informed here, and I will shut up and listen.

There isn't a difference between all those things. It's purely aesthetic. There's tons of books out there so dive into them. No one is keeping you from learning about this stuff. The work above is an appropriation of someone else's thoughts and work. Yes it is art. Once someone says that it's art, I have to believe that it is. They said it. But in any case, what comes to mind first, when viewing this bunny, is the baggage that appropriation in contemporary art carries. To me, this is not an interesting example of appropriation art. See Richard Prince or Jeff Koons for interesting examples of appropriation.

Look, even though all of it is called art, some of this is just pretty stuff for walls, which is fine. But people who work with art enjoy a little more of a challenge.

"But people who work with art enjoy a little more of a challenge."

Oh dear GOD you have sooooo totally just proven Wende's point.

And "pretty" makes something no less art than "ugly" makes it good.

Brooke quoth: "Look, even though all of it is called art, some of this is just pretty stuff for walls, which is fine. But people who work with art enjoy a little more of a challenge."

Please explain what constitutes "more of a challenge." What I'm reading here is not an explanation, but a putdown to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I'm sincere in asking for an explanation. I work with people who can explain what makes a novel "classic" or "schlock," so I have to believe that a similar explanation is possible in the visual arts.

When I state an opinion here at AT, I usually explain why I think that way, so that people who disagree (and many will) can evaluate whether my standards are mistaken, whether I've misapplied them, whether I'm fixating on something minor, or what. Many regular posters I respect also make a point of explaining WHY they think what they think. I have learned a good deal from these people (the minute I start naming names, I'll leave out someone, so I won't).

I would be thrilled to hear the basis of your standards. You (and the "art world") lose credibility with me when you either cannot or will not explain.

Cut Brooke some slack. She's in therapy because of those white bread, suburban, totally embarrassing parents who named her after the nice girl in the Blue Lagoon.

I'm still following all these debates and would like this one to come to a fuller conclusion. I would be most interested in what the professional gallery people have to say about what is art and who gets to be it and who doesn't and who should promote it and who shouldn't. I honestly don't understand why a rabbit made of cowhide, (that hide is a challenge for me) is any less valid as art or less challenging than a painting of a girl blowing snot. I truly would like to hear. On my first trip to NY with Andy, when I was very young, we went to an installation which was a large space seperated by a low partition and filled with sand. As we gazed at this expanse of sand the people beside us said that we were supposed to climb up there and run around on it. Andy immediately did so. Not wanting to miss out on this art experience, I followed. I spent my childhood running in plowed fields and thought this must be some kind of sophisticated NY treat that I didn't "get" the meaning of. The helpful bystanders disappeared and soon the gallery director himself came and yelled at us. It was extremely embarrassing. Sometines I have a feeling art is and in joke played on us outsiders. I hope this is not often true.

Kate, I SO agree that sometimes it feels that art is a joke played on outsiders. Sometimes it's just so far out there conceptually that it ends up alienating the viewer.

But that said, I don't really know if I agree that this rabbit is art. NOW DON'T FLAME ME. Let me explain. I mean, yeah, it's something cool to hang on a wall. But ultimately, to me, art denotes something original, and while the execution was done personally, the idea was not. So this may not be a poster, per se, but it is a facsimile of an original nonetheless. We could, of course, quibble over whether this is an interpretation, but both sides would probably score some points and then we'd all hate each other.

Please don't get me wrong; I'm not dissing this either. I think hanging it over the bed is original and fun. Although am I the only one having -- oh what was that movie with Glenn Close where she kills the bunny? -- nightmares? But that's a personal failing, I'm sure, and serves no other purpose than to date me.

More to the point, it's been interesting to me how the definition of art varies by person in this contest. It seems that there are two camps. The first camp says that is that art is something to be hung on a wall--a generic space filler, if you will--as in, "You need some art there." Anything can constitute this art; its primary function is to define a space. The other definition is of original art, usually (but not always) done by a professional artist. The purpose of this art is the piece itself; the surroundings may complement, but the focus remains the piece.

Hmm, now I've outdidacticized even myself, so I'll shut up. This is a nifty conversation though.

Well, until someone boils the rabbit.

"oh what was that movie with Glenn Close where she kills the bunny?"

Fatal Attraction

if art must be original, then what do you call art that is reproduced either by the artist or another, say a lithograph or something?
is that art?
is a dali lithograph art, especially knowing that many of those were forced by his wife and there's tons of them out there??
i'm really, wicked confused
imho, the bunny is art b/c it makes its creator/owner happy
if art doesn't make you happy, then you shouldn't buy it

Hmmm, while I understand where you are coming from, Zia, not sure I can agree with the idea that art must be original. I mean, unless you are doing a straight-up copy (and I don't get the impression that this is a straight-up copy of the Droog Design), then some elements of originality inevitably enter in.

There's an artist I just read about (Kehinde Wiley) who does really interesting pieces inserting urban black men into classic portraiture. It's original and derivative at the same time, and I think his work is very clever.

Zia, I would never flame anybody. Suzanne Havala Hobbs in her review of "What the World Eats" comments,"sometimes learning more about others is the best way to learn more about ourselves." I really want to grapple with this issue with smart, insightful and considerate people. I want to see the Droog rug that inspired Boris, I think there is a world of difference between inspiration and copy. I think often originallity is dismissed as derivative when a spectator can link it to something in his own experience that the creator may have never even heard of or seen. I looked at
all the art on the Brook/Eric link. It reminded me of an exciting art experience I had as a collage student in the 70's when I saw The Hairy Who work from Chicago. Is it derivative of that?
Is it any less art because someone blazed that territory before or is it a new continuation of an exploration that in the experience of some viewers
grows richer? Or is it giving someone the shock of the new I got from the Hairy Who? If Boris hung some intestines out of his rabbit, would it be more art? I didn't see Fatal Attraction, try to steer clear of upsetting animal scenes. I had a pet bunny and my heart leaped at the liveliness of Boris 's shape. Would my heart leap at the sight of the Droog Rug? Personally, I think everything has it's place and insults and condenscention is never acceptable. I am a huge fan of the Wegman dogs, I don't care if they are in a gallery or on Sesame Street. Andy's cardboard cast stuff was in a prestigious gallery in NY, does that make it more worthy than the plastic pineapple that sits in the fruit bowl on top of it? I agree with Warhol, its all just stuff.

WOW! What a debate!

Actually, one reason that I do unabashedly decorative art is because I like it to be pretty, and I like to make people's lives better, and I kind of simply cannot be bothered to be determined to make something that narrow-minded-snobs-in-open-minded-clothing will please-please-please call art.

Art is such a funny, funny thing and such a funny, funny word, and when I was working in a picture frame shop back when I was a mere recent immigrant, having defected from the Confederacy for artistic freedom and political asylum, back in 1986, I heard a couple of different takes on one main through-line that seemed to have resonance in the art world. A Texas construction magnate was in that Madison Avenue shop buying Mont Blanc pens and we discussed briefly the John Stobart nautical prints on the walls, and art, etc., and he said, "In the construction industry, the 'professional' is the guy with the truck and the stuff."

And a friend of mine who was an ex-wife of a drummer said, "The leader of the band is 'the guy with the amp and the van."

So, it kind of occurred to me that since successful "art" was pretty much large-scaled pieces, that it was all kind of about real estate. If you could afford the real estate to have a gallery, you could pretty much hang things in there and you got to be the arbiter of at least that little piece of the art world.

But am I bitter? In the words of a drag queen whose name escapes me, "Absolutely!"

Look, Patrick (the other one)and Wende in San Francisco, obviously I'm not the first person you've heard say repeating this line of thought regarding contemporary art or you wouldn't be expressing this degree of frustration with me. Especially you, Patrick. You seem to be taking this pretty personally.

I don't know why you think that the history of contemporary art should be something you can understand in a single comment on a blog from me. People get MAs and PhDs in this stuff and study it for their entire lives. Don't you think it's a little condescending that you think you should just be able to "get it" in 30 seconds?

"I'm sincere in asking for an explanation. I work with people who can explain what makes a novel "classic" or "schlock," so I have to believe that a similar explanation is possible in the visual arts."

Of course there is an explanation - plenty of them - and I gave you the names of 2 artists to look at if you want to see interesting examples of derivitive art - Richard Prince and Jeff Koons.

And, yeehaw, I'd like to be young enough to have been named after Brooke Shields, sadly it isn't so.

I learned a long time ago that I prefer design and graphics over 'art'. I want things in my home that please my eye, entertain and interest me, and help make my space a comfortable and enjoyable place for me.

I like photography. I like graphics. I like weird, quirky objects. I do not like formal paintings or anything that 'aspires' to be important. I dont care what the artists intent was. If I think it's ugly...it's ugly and does not qualify to share my personal space. I dont want a challenge. I want things that appeal to me visually...period. If this makes me less sophisticated than your average gallery type, that is fine with me.

One of my favorite pieces is by a photographer who takes polaroids of things then manipulates the image in ways that I really like. Is it Art? I don't know. I have certainly enjoyed looking at it for several years now. You can see his work at dalebuilt.com.

(I have no connection to the photographer other than having seen his work at our local arts festival and buying a piece...so this is not an Ad for him...just using it as an example of something I really enjoy.)

I am really enjoying this debate, and Curtis, I think to a degree you hit the nail on the head. From what I've seen, most modern art is art because it's said to be art, either by the artist or the "art world" (and preferably both). This is fine with me. But, that begs the question of whether the consensus is necessary for anything creative in life--literature, art, design, film. Popular opinion by the masses doesn't determine if something is good, but in other realms (film, literature), it often determines whether it gets "out there." There are many great authors who aren't published and many "bad" ones who are. There are many films that are just big box office entertainment and brilliant, thoughtful ones that aren't seen. Visual art seems to be one place that is driven more by its appeal to a few than its appeal to many, and those few act as the arbiters of taste for the other minority that buys the art. I personally believe that much of the best art doesn't happen in the art world. The only way I determine for myself whether something is art in the modern sense is whether it speaks to me in some way or makes a statement...but historically, things that are considered art don't do that at all. Many older paintings were meant to capture a particular person or event, and the realism and technique are what stand for its quality. But a room full of sand...it's that kind of thing that really makes me wonder how things are judged. And, like many here, I need to understand the criteria by which things are evaluated. Because, if it's just making a statement or an emotional gesture, I think that really democratizes the process and makes legitimate even things that could be just considered "decoration."

Oh, and it's not that i expect to understand everything in a few minutes...I'm just saying I think it's an interesting thing to ponder and something that makes me question why something can be deemed "not art" in this contest...

Does anyone know where to get a cowhide in New York cheaply, and how much it costs?

Oh Curtis, My fantasy of this contest is one day we will meet at that bar with the Bememelman mural (Of Madeline fame)and have a long conversation about art, compulsiveness and escaping the south and so much else. Andy just admired your tv which is one of my favorite things. Go into Andy's website and see the tv/ couch we made at Sewanee TN with the students there. Get a copy of the book, "Bad Jews" and read the short story about the artist getting an award in Florida. Then read "Why cat's Paint" Those two things made me breathless with laughter.

Honestly, I wanna see the Droog bunny, because I think that it probably is lovely, but I think that what Boris has done here has done ONE thing that the art teacher of a friend of mine who went to Pratt once described as the process when "it begins to become something else."

I think this Boris' bunny is just few too many kinds of wonderful not to be art.

Setting aside the Droog thing for a moment, let's look at the process. Guyo sees rug with rabbit shape. Guyo bought a cowhide, traced an image off the web, cut it out himself. It's a great idea, and well executed, but I would think differently of it if it were a painting, acrylic on wood instead of cowhide on velcro.

Now I can't claim any skill with acrylics; if I wanted to make this myself, I'd do what Boris has done (and thank him for the idea). I don't hear Boris claiming it as high art, and I don't hear Patrick(too) or Wende defending it as such. So I'm not sure whether we're talking about this wall-rug at all or just art in general--that there's good art and bad art and no scientific consensus on which is which.

If you've heard a piece of literature described as good art in a way that makes sense to you, I think you have all the tools you need. Yes it's subjective, but some books work on multiple levels; they seem to speak, not just about those specific characters, but also the people of a region or time period, or the human condition in general. What we think of that portayal is a separate matter. There's something more happening than just the story itself, even if we can't define precisely what is there. Then there are books that are what they are: a romance that's just a romance novel; a mystery that's just a mystery. And not that we don't learn something from the characters or identify with them. They're stories, that's all.

I like art that has some meaning, some significance. I don't necessarily want it hanging in my apartment, though. Nothing wrong with simple things, or perhaps just more subtle things. For me, anyway.

How can we see this Droog Bunny? I couldn't find it on the Droog link. Back to the raging art debate: I once saw a Paul McCarthy video where he staggered around muttering "DeKooning,dekooning" and whacking at a large clown nose afixed to his face. He had to kneel on all fours and be sniffed by the collectors and I was on the floor it was so hilarious.Andy thinks this happened at MOMA.

Is the rabbit art?

I think the main determiner of whether something is art or not, is not the work itself. What determines whether a cowhide rabbit is art is not the cowhide rabbit, but the creator.

It's what was going on inside Boris' head that counts. If the thought process behind the creation of the rabbit was something along the lines of -- "I thought up something attractive. I want something attractive. How do I make this attractive? (and so on)" -- then the rabbit is not art.

However, if Boris was working along the lines of: (ex.) "I need to express my childhood growing up in Texas (and the rabbit is my chosen form of expression, and I'll stay true to purity of expression whatever may happen to attractiveness)", or "I want to challenge the AT community on what is art"... basically just being guided by "higher" mental processes rather than "base" ones, such as sensation (positive sensations due to viewing something aesthetically pleasing) -- then the rabbit is art.

Another example: What makes Tattfoo's coffee filters on the floor of his gallery art and not trash is not the coffee filters, but Tattfoo.

I think this is why art is difficult for me, too. I like folk art/decorative arts/arts and crafts items because attractiveness (and custom, which I'm very interested in, too) is the guiding force behind their creation. (I like attractive things.)

"Art art" is not pursuing attractiveness as its ultimate ideal. If a piece happens to be attractive, that's just a side benefit. And I'm tired of walking through art-art galleries hoping for a piece where art and attractiveness intersect.

Sorry if I sound like I'm being an authority on what is art and what isn't. The art/not art conundrum rears its ugly head in my life every now and then. Let's use our collective brainpower to get some closure on this and get more comfortable with art.

I've seen those cowhide rugs sell on ebay for $30 or less. Seems like a good deal and I've always wanted one. Though I think my dog would try and eat it.....

Boris, next time call it an "homage" and maybe it will be more acceptable to art snobs. By the way, I like it.

RMB, what if Boris intended to make something decorative for his own pleasure, but it reminds someone else of their childhood in Texas or animal ethics issues or an infinite amount of other baggage that can be laid on that bunny by viewers. Art lies solely in creative intent, not in the eye of the beholder?

The Droog bunny is the doormat at Matter in Brooklyn.

How badly do you want to see the original?
Take the R train to Union St, cross Fourth Ave and walk uphill on Union one block. Cross and turn left on Fifth Ave - it's a block and a half away, between President and Carroll. There's a cat vet on the corner, 2 doors down. Matter has a big paper lamp in the window, and they are open until 8pm.

I sure wisht I had a camera with me last night when I walked in there . . .

guido-
Go back there! Blog the Bunny! You have the technology! We need it!

ALL-
I'm not saying that Boris intended it to be art; I'm just saying that it feels like art to me. It's not pretty, it's earthy, it has gravity, in that it's dead, and yet it's "jumping over the moon", so it has more than one kind of levity, so it's transcendant. That's some of the kinds of thing that make feel that it's art, regardless of the intent.

Kate(NC) -
If you guys want to actually meet sometime, e-mail me at generalaesthetic@yahoo.com

Not sure where the Bemelman mural is, but when you say Madeline, I'm thinking that's in Paris?

Meanwhile... can I just remind us all that the bottom line for Boris' bunny is that, although we're kind of having a discussion about art in general that was prompted by this entry, that although we're disagreeing on a lot of little side issues related to that, that we're actually PRETTY much united about the fact that it really does look VERY cool, even though he never even claimed that it was high art? The fact that it prompts that much discussion is pretty damn swell in itself.

Curtis,
I'm thinking she means Madeline, as in the children's book and the Plaza hotel...

BTW, the Droog doormat looks VERY much like that, but a bit smaller. Boris was very clever to perfectly pull off this bit of pastiche.

fishpatrol--
I actually think this piece to be a rather droll and effective commentary BECAUSE it is cowhide (versus painted/sculpted)... the hide is in the shape of another animal (that makes it "real" but also makes it "not", it is a very dead thing in a very "un-dead" pose, etc...)

I think there is more commentary and irony in this humble execution than even Boris gives himself credit for. And, to me, perhaps he should get more credit than a Jeff Koons balloon animal or Westhighland Terrier Vase.

RMB, the coffee filters are an excellent example. To Tattfoo, that's art. In my opinion, that's art, much like Andy Warhol's painting of a soup can was art. (Not my favorite art, but still art.) Many people, however (and I'm thinking in particular of a clean freak I know) would be like, "What is this mess with the coffee filters anyway?" So I think the answer is that art is different things to different people. The fact that some people are trying to dictate what it is for everyone else is interesting.

Speaking as someone who almost became a literature professor, it's true that there is a general standard of what's considered literature, but I've seen some really interesting work with genres that are dismissed as lightweight. And usually, a work that's popular (as opposed to elite and inaccessible) can tell you just as much about society, if you are willing to be less dismissive.

I think that's pretty much what Droog intended when they made the piece that Boris copied and put on his wall.

WOW at all this. Love the debate. I have to say as an art school drop out that imo an education helps you learn the history of art and the concepts thereof. Art education does not neccessarity make you a better artist or judge of what art is. I think the rabbit would be cool in an installation in a repetitive fashion. Do I say this is art? Sure, why not. It's better than some conceptual art out there that I'm obviously too stupid to understand (so say the curators). There are great artists who've never had the "education of what art is." I think we are overthinking it somewhat. Maybe, just maybe, it's a cool ass rabbit.

I think it's interesting that no one has talked about the fact that as Boris said, Droog appropriated this design from a German designer from the 20's. Many design collectives like Droog have done this before, as well as artists like Duchamp, etc...

The Droog rug can be viewed here:

http://www.designws.com/fotopagina/anninkdeurmatten.htm

sorry for the cussing and maybe bad spelling.:)

Wasn't it Eloise at the Plaza? Madeline was in Paris. Bemelman's is in New York.

Curtis, YES. Boris, don't take it personally that this weighty conversation happened on your post. I think we all think your bunny is cool and interesting. I do, Fatal Attraction references aside (thanks a!).

I think the point about literature is excellent; in my mind, there's fluff and there's good stuff, and while fluff can be enjoyable, it tends not to have layers. Ditto with music. And, I think, ditto with art.

It's not to say that I think every piece of artwork needs to be weighted down with meaning. I, too, prefer things that look pretty. To be honest, I'm not that big fan of modern art. (It's often struck me how hard it is these days, when so much has been done before, to be original. But that's another topic entirely.) The coffee filters? I just don't see the point. I see that as a perfect example of what enrages the average person about modern art because there's really no skill in putting it together. The thought process that leads the artist to doing it is another thing entirely, but like Kate, I have to wonder if it's some kind of joke and I'm being laughed at.

Kate, personally I don't think art lies solely in the intent of the artist. Though that can be important, the art that speaks to me lets me see the world through the artist's eyes, translating his or her vision. This is true of literature, music and so on.

I have what I call the creative blah theory, which is basically that everyone feels the need to be creative. Which is great. However, just because there's a creative outpouring doesn't make a piece art. There has to be a framework of technical ability. We've all heard the phrase, "You need to learn the rules before you break them." I think that's true here.

Sorry for the disjointed ramblings.

guido and kate -
I thunk that Madeline was Paris and Eloise was The Plaza, but I must admit that I've read neither, just kinda like "guys talk - ya hear things."

At this point, it might be easier to meet in Paris than at the Plaza, considering what they're doing to the Plaza, though.

I kind of like the ephemeral quality of that coffee filter piece, myself, actually. I think they have take the idea of a coffee filter, and shown us their floral quality, and although flowers can be just decorative, Georgia Okeefe did flowers, too. Some of Jeff Koons work is not 100% executed by him, so the difficulty thing is not really a requirement in my opinion. Warhol's work was also sometimes "spec'ed", too, which I also have no problem with.

If Boris is just away from his computer, he's gonna probably faint when he sees how much debate his bedroom has created. If he's watching it all like Tom Sawyer did at his own funeral, he must either be busting a gut laughing and/or practicing the kind of restraint here by not saying anything that makes him some serious kind of classy guy.

ack
I was always one for Babar
and The Phantom Tollbooth
:D

Fiona,

Your point about literature was great! This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I get so IRRITATED with the culture surrounding literature these days because it's so self-consciously (and often pseudo) intellectual. It's that mentality of the ny times book review is the end all be all discussion in literature. Which bugs me because I DESPISE the ny times book review. It's so pretentious.

But that's totally off-topic.

the droog rug has little to do with Boris work with hide. The rug looks like a stencil and Boris Bunny looks like a very real rabbit. I say Boris Bunny works for me on every level, as decoration, personal resonance and contemplative, meaning-laden art work and it carries an emotional and intellectual message as much as a chimpanzee with a severed arm, for me, the rest of you are on your own, I hope Boris wins. This contest is going out with a bang thanks to him. A smashing success. I got to speak up, show you our stuff and will meet Curtis someday, probably end of March school spring break. The Bemelman Bar may be in the Carlyle, I'm not sure. We're not the types to have expensive NY indulgences. Bemelman illustrated the Madeline stories and lived a life of struggle and poverty. I can relate. Merchandising of Madeline, the Parisian girl was not allowed by the author during his lifetime. Buy art and buy Andy's tiles. Bye for now.

Kate-

I think there are at least two questions posing as the same one in discussions so far.

Question (1) -- "Is this art?" -- should not be confused with question (2) -- "Is this 'good' art?"

And so right now I'm not sure if you're asking if "eye of the beholder" plays a part in (A) determining if something is art, or (B) determining if something is "good" art.

I hope you don't mind if I talk about "eye of the beholder" in regards to both questions.

Let's say Borris were presenting his cowhide rabbit to the world, or just to a group of friends. He'd probably be presenting it as something: either a craftwork (like the stuffed jackrabbits with antlers glued on you can find in Texas souvenir shops) or an artwork (like the stuffed jackrabbits with antlers glued on that will be coming to a gallery near you courtesy of dani's great idea:)).

Well, if Borris said the rabbit were craftwork, there'd be a whole lot less to discuss. Coversations would stick to pretty much impressions of beauty, just like when I went to Malaysia and debated on whether to buy a carved wooden frog, and that would be that.

And Kate, maybe upon seeing Borris' rabbit you would find it to be a perfect representation of your childhood dreams. Or you might find unrealized commentary in the piece. Or you might read into it thousands of other ways. And that would all be fine.

But that wouldn't make Borris' rabbit art, because he made it just to be "pretty". However, you could take Borris' rabbit and make it into art yourself (though you'd probably have to change it up somehow).

Now what if Borris called the rabbit art (such as submitting it to the AT art contest)?

Well, I have already stated my thoughts on what constitutes art. So for me, "eye of the beholder" in regards to art/not art just means whether or not people believe the artist... for example whether people believe Borris if he says the rabbit is representative of something, or believe him if he says the rabbit was created to provoke art discourse.

If Borris says he created the rabbit to provoke art discourse and "eye of the beholder" I believe him, then the rabbit is art. If "eye of the beholder" I doubt him, then the rabbit is a rouse, a lie, "fake art".

Let's say I believe Borris and the rabbit is art. Then I want to know the quality of the art: Is it good art? Here is where "eye of the beholder" really matters. Is "The Rabbit" a good representation of lost childhood through the use of fanciful bunny form, but dead bovine skin? Does the dark coloring running the length of the face combined with the white legs represent a life speeding toward tragedy? And so on.

Kate, I hope I've given you some kind of coherent answer.

Well put, RMB.

AND stated without pretension. Imagine that.

But I still don't buy that "made to be pretty" *automatically* rules something out as art.

And as far as appropriation of a design/motif/theme goes, I can think of no more art-worthy point of departure than the object-poets of Droog.

I think their designs are always more art than anything else, so I find the "homage" by Boris to be even more apt... art imitating design imitating art... another reason it works for me.

Boris here,

I went to an art school and I did some painting and other stuff. What I learned in my art history class is that art in museums is not there to be liked or not liked, its a commentary on our society and a record of our history. Art in galleries is a little different because it often becomes a commodity.

All of it is really confusing. I just liked the shape a lot and wanted it. I suppose its a piece of decoration. But then most people who buy paintings do it to decorate their apartment. AT art contest is about art as decoration right? Jeff Koons, 2-3 years ago had his assistants cut out shapes of cartoon animals from plexiglass and the whole show was sold out. So somebody purchased a shape made out of plastic and hung it on their wall. Is it art because Jeff Koons traced a cereal mascot? I don't know. Sometimes I agree with the statement above about how the person who has the money to own a gallery can dictate what is art and what is not, or what is good and what is bad.

I just wanted something not boring to put above my bed, it was either a map of the world or the bunny and I couldn't find a good looking map.

Cheers
B.

Although many of you guys are stating your case as clearly as you can, I'm really not finding anything convincing about the peopl

*For one thing, the bunny thing is now over a bed, which is also witty, as in "...like bunnies".

*It's big, for a bunny, so that give yet another "dimension" to that funny little idea.

*It's pretty

*It has gravity what with the dead cow and all. A couple of hundred years ago, people thought that if put a skull somewhere in a painting, the reference to the brevity of life, etc. was a good thing. Honestly I can't remember what period that was, but we've all seem them.

*It's static and yet it implies motion.

*It echoes the counting sheep thing.

*It borrows from elsewhere and begins to become something else.

*It is what it is -- regardless of his intent when he made it, it's perfect for this contest because the contest is about how art is displayed in a home, and where ever else this bunny might ever find itself in a vacuum, in the context of this contest it is perfect, and it is art, even if Boris didn't mean for it to be.

*How difficult something is to execute is completely irrelevant to whether it's art of not; sometimes genius resides in the elegance of streamlined simplicity. However, it does appear to be well-executed, including the placement of the patches of color of the cowhide onto the outline of the bunny.

*The man-made versus natural is there, even though it need not have it.

*The composition and scale on the wall is very appropriate and satisfying (!) as an installation.

*It has unity, complexity and intensity.

*If you want to get really elemental and narrow-minded about it, when that rabbit outline was a rug it was design; now that it's on a wall, it's art.

And yet, I'm probably leaving out other things that would contribute to it's either being art or its being good.

I have worked in the art world since 1987 (Sothebys, Christie's, corporate art collections, galleries etc). I have no doubt that this bunny could show up at an art or antiques/vintage show years from now and a collector or even someone with just a sense of humor will pay big, big bucks for it. Or it would sell to an art dealer who would put a bigger price on it and sell it from a shiny expensive gallery. But what I love, love, love most is that Boris made it himself and so well. What a talent, great job Boris. Kate

P(too), I definitely agree that part of its appeal is that it's the hide of a real animal and looks real in a way that the original Droog rug does not. Here's another word to add to the fire--I think I'd find it more valuable if it were a painted piece. For one, I wouldn't be thinking, shoot I could go to that myself.

I guess I don't really care how something becomes art and we get to the next question, "Is it good art". That question, to me, is much more interesting, largely because our answer is usually made up more by what we bring to the work in question than its discrete measurable qualities. The couple playing guitars at a coffee shop and singing shloppy, off-key music that's really from the heart--that's not valueless, but I'm not going to buy their CD.

In a similar way, a lot of people avoid "the classics" in literature, however they make up that list, because their previous experiences with high literature were awful. The I-had-to-read-that-in-class syndrome. If you can get past that, you'll find that some of those books are wonderful, and some of them are real dogs.

I like Boris's remembrance of what museum art is about. I like that art in any form is interactive when we experience it. And I like that we're having this discussion, even if its over the interweb and not over sugary espresso drinks. Boris is in the enviable spot of seeing how people react and think about his little project. Another vote coming for you, B.

LOVE it! So whimsical and the perfect thing to hang above a bed since it's a soft material.

Thanks everyone,

I appreciate all the comments, and am flatered by all the compliments.

Cheers
B.

So...Brooke, who won the art contest with a found object (that rainbow sign) is questioning whether this hand cut bunny item is actually art? Why can she transform her curb-picking into an objet d'art but Boris' work is questioned? Art is subjective, I'll admit...but if the maker deems it art, it is only for us to determine how much (or little) we appreciate it - not for some anally-clenched dealer to question its place on the art-design continuum. Sorry, someone may have brought this up already, but there is a LOT to read there!

Fantastic! I would love to see more pictures of your home!

love it!!!!!keep doing what you love

love it!!!!!keep doing what you best.....

I've just discovered this forum and, as a former New Yorker currently living in the wilds of Atlanta, I adore the rabbit--and the questions it raises. I LOVE it, which is a qualification of my "survey" answer, that it's "not my cup of tea": would I put it on my own wall? No. But does the idea of it, the sheer pluckiness of it, woo me? Absolutely. Is it art? I'm not sure. But as someone who loves art and takes it "seriously" i wonder if this is the right question. I agree with previous comments: it IS design. Sometimes art and design collide. Sometimes they don't. (Though a rabbit over a bed is quite the statement and certainly one an arist would make.)