Most ridiculous thing touted as "art"

[Arcane Azmadi]

Literally ANYTHING can be art these days, it's reached the level of a joke. When I was in primary school (god, THAT was a long time ago!) and we went on an excursion to the National Art Gallery in Canberra, my friends and I would go around admiring the leather couches provided to rest on instead of the pictures.

 

[Audio]

I remember something in the news about some Art proformance in London. Everyone waited in a circle to see what the artist had to show. In the end, it was some scruff, kicking a drinks can about.
Oh yes...there was confusion

I suppose it was meant to represent Youth culture and rubbish disposal. Either way, I wouldnt call it ART at all.

 

[amucha98]

.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

I would never pay for a painting such as that, mostly because artists are generally egotistical assholes who think their work is worth millions when really art should be something that is more free than the air we breathe, but as a painting, I think it's quite beautiful.
If something inside him just clicked one day and said "you NEED to go and throw a fuck load of paint at a massive piece of canvas" either as a stress reliever or a form of self expression, why not? As long as it comes from somewhere pure and honest, I have no problems with any of it.
It's just when it starts to become all about THE DAILY STRUGGLE OF TEH MODERN SOCIETIEZ HURRDURRR and it's a chair painted white in a room full of lobotomised jack russels then I get pissed off. Fuck pretense.
I however, whether you dislike or like that painting, defy you to call it pretentious.

Well said, I agree with you here.

I am tired of people putting some sort of hierarchical value or price on art. People seem to always act like art is supposed to be this profound, awe-inspiring masterpiece of human craft, when it doesn't have to be that. Why can't someone just paint a bunch of colorful squiggly on some paper? It's art, and I think it looks nice. I like the color, I like the texture of it. It didn't fucking change my life, but should we expect everything to? That would be boring, it makes those moments less special. If someone looks at it and thinks it's some sort of profound statement, then good for them. It's ok, sometimes I do it too. The key is not to be pretentious and not take it so seriously, but just embrace it and enjoy it as an everyday, natural thing.

Every example of "not art" that has been posted in this thread is in my opinion, art.

OT:
I think a lot of folks here may need to brush up on the definition of art.
Art is not everything.
Art is not "good" (although it can be).
Art is not necessarily the result of painstaking attention to detail, or even hard work.
It doesn't even have to be an image.
It is simply a creation which evokes emotion. The emotion can be wonder - or it can be indignation, amazement, or anger.
Trust me, most of the examples brought up are not my cup of tea. But they are, nonetheless, art. Remember, during at least one period during or after their lives, Pollock, Picasso, Dali, Monet, and Van Gogh were generally dismissed as artless. Similarly, Stravinsky, Mozart, and even Beethoven were as well. It does not change what they've created.
Art does not await your acceptance. It just is.

This. Thank you.

 

[Stryc9]

This, http://www.komonews.com/opinion/kenschram/96480219.html, because it cost taxpayers $14,000 for a bunch of painted balls at a time when government is saying they have no money. And because it's really fucking pointless, and ugly.

 

[Jaythulhu]

In the Brisbane Gallery of Modern Art, there was a looped video of a bald, fat bloke in boxer shorts rocking back and forth on a chair.

Oh, and near the Brisbane Museum there's a burnt tree trunk with some pieces of rusty corrugated iron nailed to it. My state government paid over $20,000 for it.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

I don't believe that what constitutes "art" is subjective - our appreciation for art certainly is, but art itself is not. It boils down to the application of talent and effort to a given medium to create something new. People who say "anything is art" are missing the point - naturally occurring rock formations are not art; paintings made of those same naturally occurring rock formations are.

Cutting an animal in half and preserving it in plastic? Not a work of art - you've simply cut a bloody cow, that you did not make, in half. Sculpting half a cow? Art. Using a bed for a while and then labeling it a work of art and putting it up for auction? Crass marketing yes, art no. Creating a painting of that same unmade and frankly quite disgusting and mundane bed? ART!

Essentially, if all you've done is take household objects/bodily excretions/a bucket of paint, done nothing/put it on display/tossed it at a wall, and called the outcome "art", you're a charlatan and a liar, and the people who defend those "works of art" are pretentious jackasses. There is no deep meaning in a white square with a tiny black dot in the middle beyond "I'm a lazy and pretentious asshole who has cannily figured out a way to get famous and wealthy by producing 'art' that involved less effort than a two-year old's scribblings". If a monkey could replicate your "paintings", you haven't made one - whether or not the outcome is pleasant to look at, it still takes zero talent to throw paint on a canvas at random/cover yourself in paint and roll around for a while/etc.

Whether or not art is any good or not is where the subjective interpretation of artwork comes into play, but a room with a device that randomly flings red wax at the wall? If you are calling that a work of art, you are either the artist (and thus laughing your way to the bank) or insufferable. Suspending a crucifix in a mason jar of urine is not and can never be artwork in the same way that randomly re-arranging the furniture in my living room will not make the eventual outcome a work of art. Anyone who says differently probably went to art school.

I'll quote Wikipedia:

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.

Everything you have mentioned as not being art involves arranging elements in some way.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Spoiler: Spoilered because someone might be disturbed by this.

Yes, that is exactly what it looks like.

It was auctioned for £2000 - £3000.

Wait, someone paid £2000 - £3000 for some guy's feces? Ugh, the world has truly gone mad.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

Go to the New Museum in New York. One piece was a large amount of trash poured over a "Shaggy Dog" poster. This...was art. Ridiculous.

 

[Wintermoot]

I consider the Mona Lisa art but I can also crumple up a can of coke and call it abstract

 

[Sammi Costello]

See I'm going to use this to my advantage, I plan to apply forthe turner art prize, what piece of art you wonder, well I plan to crush Coca Cola cans and call it "Human desruction for human consumption"

You'll make millions.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

I once saw a canvas painted completely blue. Not multiple shades of blue, not arranged in any pattern, just solid blue. Even the title was "Blue." It was hanging in the Museum of Modern art in New York. I have no artistic ability whatsoever and I could re-create it in ten seconds with a can of spray paint.

 

[Anonymous Overlord]

Any thing on regretsy.com (often NSFW). etsy.com (SFW and pretty cool occasionally) is a site where people make art, clothing and other things to sell. regretsy is all the things that should never be posted on esty.

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

Some of the stuff where the artist just painted two colored boxes on a blank canvas... yeah I'm sorry but that ain't art. I don't care it has some "deeper meaning". If a 5 year old can replicate it in less than a minute, I'm not considering it art.

So 5 year olds don't have any artistry? You do realize that, even if it's a finger-painting done by a kid at school, it's still considered 'art' because the word 'art' applies to any expression of creativity, right? The kid might take only ten seconds to do it, but they're still expressing themselves. It's not a qualifier, people (and nor is it 'everything'), it's an object.

Spoiler: This Goes Off On a Tangent

No wonder America is fucked up. We deny kids their creativity, and tell them not to think for themselves, and then dope them up on Ritalin if they continue to do both, anyway (meanwhile, working to ban art that we personally don't like while shouting "Think of the children!" This is the behavior of sociopaths).

I always find topics like this inane. Yes, the guy starving his dog and calling it art is just a fucking asshole, but when I see Pollock, van Gogh, Warhol, Duchamp, and so many others placed in the same category, I have to shake my head at such narrow, one-dimensional views of what's considered art. Here's a hint: it's not just about content (which most everyone here is focused on), but context, aesthetics, emotional reaction; hell, it can be the artist goofing off and having a bit of fun. Some artists focus on one or two of those aspects, others focus on all of them. They are all art (side note: games, too), because they are all about people expressing themselves, regardless of whether it's pleasing to you or me or to Cletus and Jebediah down the street.

There's another reason I find topics like this terrible: it's in the same vein as "Movies/Music/Books/Games/People You Hate" topics, in that it's entirely self-defeating, if not self-destructive, because it doesn't offer possibility for any sort of positive discussion. In fact, it doesn't involve much critical thinking, either, someone can just come on here and go "I hate this because of my penis WAAA!" and then sign off before going back to shoveling Cheetos down his throat at four in the morning, playing Modern Warfare 2. Which reminds me...*nom nom nom*...what was I saying again?

 

[Dfskelleton]

I was in a restuaunt with all sorts of art, and I foud a solid red page. Just a solid red rectangle, nothing else.

 

[MagicMouse]

EDIT: NOOOOO WRONG THREAD!!!!!

EDIT 2: I think most art is BS, from any era. All the artist has to do is make something, and then wait for the critics to see all sorts of stuff in it.

 

[Anime Guru]

That stupid Warhol picture of a can of Tomato soup. How is that special enough to call art?

 

[PurplePlatypus]

I think the worst thing I?ve heard about is ?An Oak Tree?, it?s a glass of water places on a small ledge that you look up at. I?ve also seem some pretty miserable things at my local art gallery, including a bunch of sheets of paper along the walls all of which look white until you back away and notice the subtle changes in hue, there was also a white painted canvas.

As part of my course we need to go to visiting artist lecture. One of the guys I remember not actually liking his sculptures, well I still don?t like them much but he was very interesting to listen to. I think the thought process that goes behind some works is far more interesting than the work itself.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

something in piss/fecal matter......mew thinks the top end of society that reveles in "posh nonsensical" art is broken.......

 

[sheogoraththemad]

I remember hearing a story of painters painting with their feet. I shit you not