The art she reports isn't exactly Serious Business, though. She's better off going to the Weekly.

The only thing more pathetic than this trio is the trio running around town spoofing them...and I guess if they put "The" in front of their name that would be more pathetic.

Yeah, it probably sucked, and art probably goes nowhere because of this sort of crap, but whatever.

absolutely, viva bad art!

I love wasting my time and money on that stuff...

Like so many others above, you're missing the point entirely. The point isn't that SBC are bad artists. The point is, as the post stated, that when they make bad art, no one notices, because they've already been anointed the next Morris Graves/Merce Cunningham/John Cage by bandwagon-jumpers. (They get no support? Give me a break!)

And you know what? That hurts art, both locally and nationally.

This seems like Basic Understanding of the Role of the Critic 101, but maybe it still needs to be said: By praising the worthwhile and yes, decrying the insipid, critics improve the caliber of art being created. Of course you buffoons who don't like the critical opinions being expressed fall back on the "personal grudge" argument or make personal attacks. Which you'll notice the original post didn't do -- it merely critiqued the work being offered.

For the record, I sat through the SBC performance too, and whichever commenter above called it high-school caliber is right on the money -- there was simply nothing of interest there. And from a group that's so universally adored and loved (the audience was laughing literally before the first ostensibly "funny" thing even happened), that is worth remarking on.

Along with everyone else there, I paid admission, and yes, I did feel ripped off.

“Neither irony or sarcasm is argument.”

-Samuel Butler

My apologies, its hard to raise my discussion to the heights of your argument that all that counts is that somebody 'bothered to do something'... wow... do you care at all about art?

@38 You are yet to make any point beyond that you can make snide remarks. Congratulations on that by the way, what zingers! Whew! Really driving home your point there. God I'm just withering here under such an amazing argument. Wow. No seriously, you're really the one that cares about art. Way to straighten me out. Gosh i'm blushing here!

Or you could actually read the post i wrote carefully and respond to my actual point instead of misrepresenting me with that horse shit.

@33
totally depressing, agreed. people, why so grumpy ? Oh yeah summer has not arrived yet.

@34
good point, such fuss over bafoonery(sp?)
@40
This is probably the best post, so far.

"Superfurry, I served with Jen Graves: I knew Jen Graves; Jen Graves was a friend of mine. Superfurry Animal, you're no Jen Graves."

Or something along those lines.

I think that all that Jen proved here was that the show was extremely provocative....some people loved it, others hated it. But in the end I think that makes it great art.

and also, i loved the show. i don't know these guys and i laughed at the old man when he popped up on the screen, it tickled me...does that make me a hipster cheerleader? it seems soooo egocentric to imagine that just because you didn't find it funny that no one else could...

i loved the set and the video and the Awesome-band-cum-nightmare-Star-Wars-lounge-band and the cliches (big baby, you rule).

it was the best thing i saw at the festival this year (along with Schmader and tEEth).

so there. stick that in your negative Stranger hole and smoke it.

I have yet to see anybody in this thread offer an argument for why the piece was artistically interesting -- it's just 'youre wrong; I laughed." And I'm sorry, joe audience, but that's not interesting discussion.

If people want to make a real argument for why the piece had artistic merit, let's hear it.

I saw a David Lynchian dreamscape that was on the surface pretty pedestrian -- the boring deskjob, the wife in a negligee, the screaming baby, the vampy seductress -- but underneath was a current of melancholy and loneliness. The old man goes to sleep, and dreams of his youth. The people and objects of his past collide in disturbing ways, the nostalgia doesn't hold up, the characters and images turn on him and in the end he wakes up in the same bed, alone, old, with all these memories haunting him, screaming at him.

I thought some of the images were distinct and visceral, particularly the boss with the long arms and the dripping mouth. The star wars band gave a loopy surreality to the proceedings, as did the fellini-esque line dance at the end.

I'm not familiar with SBC's work, so perhaps this show was much weaker than other shows of theirs, or perhaps I was reading more depth into it than was there. But I thought the humor of the piece was secondary to an underlying pathos, the reality of getting old, the terror and humiliation. All these 'funny' images are the memories he's conjured up, because he is alone. This touched me much more deeply than some of the other shows which had a more 'serious and poetic' vibe but weren't saying much that I could fathom.

Hope I've managed to cobble together a compelling argument. Have at me.

Doesn't simply feeling that I liked it or that it made me laugh mean that it was meaningful theater? Those things mean that I connected to it, it touched a universal chord in me and moved me. So what if it just moved me to laugh. Would you call Peter Sellers a poor artist because he simply makes me laugh and I like his work? Your standards for artmaking are a bit too constrictive for the wide world of art consumers and makers. Get your hoity toity art laws off my favorite theater!

That being said, I also saw the underlying theme in SBC's piece as quite serious and thought-provoking (as 47 mentioned). Just the fact that we're still talking about it is proof of many thoughts thusly provoked! No one has yet to mention the horrid piece by Implied Violence -- probably because it was just bad. At least this piece has sparked vigorous controversy (like many great artists before them).

Are you haters upset just because SBC is successful? Who appointed you judge? Go make better art then and stop wasting your precious (and pretentious) brain matter on this stupid blog.

"Doesn't simply feeling that I liked it or that it made me laugh mean that it was meaningful theater?"
-- No.

"Those things mean that I connected to it, it touched a universal chord in me and moved me."
-- Paging Carl Jung ... "Universal chord"? What?

"Would you call Peter Sellers a poor artist because he simply makes me laugh and I like his work?"
-- No. Seeing someone kicked in the groin might also make you laugh. I think we can both agree that there are degrees of quality in art, even in comedy. Peter Sellers was a great artist because he did more than just make you laugh.

"Your standards for artmaking are a bit too constrictive for the wide world of art consumers and makers. Get your hoity toity art laws off my favorite theater!"
-- This way of thinking is why THomas kinkaid is a millionaire.

"Are you haters upset just because SBC is successful?"
-- 1) People who disagree with your opinion are not simply "haters," and 2) I'm upset because lauding crap like the sbC performance HURTS THE CALIBER OF THEATER & ART IN SEATTLE. Not to mention that I wasted $14.

"Who appointed you judge? Go make better art then ..."
-- Ah, the usual red herring: "Why don't you go make art instead of criticizing." So because I can't sing on key I'm not allowed to criticize Mariah Carey's music? Bullshit.

"... and stop wasting your precious (and pretentious) brain matter on this stupid blog."
-- "Stupid blog"? You're posting here, aren't you?

The fact that the Northwest seems to champion them as unique art stars further indicates how dangerously desperate, fleeced, and regional the art conversations are in Seattle.

And yes, this blog is stupid and I will no longer be posting or reading.

So only Good Art should be made in Seattle? That's retarded.

You have to admit, that spinning bar set was pretty well done. When carpenters make art, you''re always going to see a good set....the acting/art might be a little soft, but the sets are usually great. I was there for both weekends and I really liked the first girl of the first weekend (playing that vibes like instrument...amazing sounds), Implied Violence, and the crazy hoof dancers. That was woth the $20 dollars for sure.

You gotta make bad art. What is bad art? What is good art. Hmmm....are we artists and in a position to judge....? Take the stage and let's find out what makes it work. I honestly believe that we're all just humans and the labels don't make anything of us. I mean, bragging rights quickly fade if not backed up forever and ever.

Blah blah.

Rambler