only if you're famous, that is.Demented Teddy said:You can throw a load of different paint colours on a canvas and make some "insightful" bullshit about what it means and make millions!
However, just because it is art doesn't mean someone should pay $1,000,000 for it. I think the big mistake is putting the word "art" on a pedestal. It should be more mundane, like "tool" or "mammal". Ironically, despite your intentions, sadfhyjmdgrw/adsc vxbdekjwa/dhuv could be considered a creative commentary on the sad state of people and modernism. Congradulations! You just made art.Demented Teddy said:sadfhyjmdgrw\adsc vxbdekjwa\dhuvBillion Backs said:Considering your post, OP, you're not getting what art's about.
Everything is art.
See that?
I demand $1'000'000 for that line!
See what we're getting at?
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.Doinstuffman38 said:Like Jackson Pollock?Demented Teddy said:You can throw a load of different paint colours on a canvas and make some "insightful" bullshit about what it means and make millions!
![]()
Autumn Rhythm... Yep... it's a "painting".
It's all fair game. Art is in the intent, and in evoking a reaction.OceanRunner said:Personally I think that whether or not something is art is a matter of opinion. After all, some of the things I've heard about that are called art to be utterly ridiculous. The most prominent example to me would be Tracy Emin's "My Bed". It makes no sense to show of some messy, unmade bed and call it "art".
So Van Gogh's a sham?Demented Teddy said:Or if I cut off my ear.DeathChairOfHell said:only if you're famous, that is.Demented Teddy said:You can throw a load of different paint colours on a canvas and make some "insightful" bullshit about what it means and make millions!
I remember reading a little about this. Pretty messed up in a number of ways. There was also (not in the same show but in a similar vein of weird) the coat made of raw meat and the statues made of fecal matter.tomtom94 said:Someone starved a dog half to death and called it art.
IcyEvils said:OT, we also had to do a study of this joker's art- Sean Scully. He pumps out this tripe all year and gets lauded for it.
![]()
![]()
![]()
In my opinion, at least this stuff has some aesthetic value. Sure, you can say "anyone can do this" but the fact is, no one else did. Some of this abstract art I think doesn't have to have any meaning behind it, though I bet it usually does, but if someone can look at it and say "That's pleasing to the eye" then I think it's worth it. Hell, even to some extent, the "squares" mentioned earlier could be interesting to look at, but I'm kinda wary of them.Soylent Bacon said:I saw a "work of art" hanging up outside a theatre before that just had rectangles. I don't remember specifically how many, but it was around two or three rectangles. They had primary colors. The whole picture was about the size of a sheet of notebook paper. Give me a break.
Actually, it might have been this:
![]()
To be fair, she is from Margate. And I live close enough to that ghost dump to understand why someone to would call that art xDOceanRunner said:Personally I think that whether or not something is art is a matter of opinion. After all, some of the things I've heard about that are called art to be utterly ridiculous. The most prominent example to me would be Tracy Emin's "My Bed". It makes no sense to show of some messy, unmade bed and call it "art".