Most ridiculous thing touted as "art"

[MassiveGeek]

Art is a way to express yourself. How you do this is your choice, and I don't want to be the judge of what's art and what's not.
But even when I draw humanoid pokémon( http://brkproductions.deviantart.com/#/d2v1i1h ) or a person with a crow on their hat( http://brkproductions.deviantart.com/art/Fashion-Victim-167191424?q=&qo= ), there's always an idea about it. The humanoid pokémon is, well, my idea of how that particular pokémon could look if it was humanoid, and the crow hat is just an idea inspired by ridicolous fashions.
So there's always some type of expression behind it.

That is not to say I enjoy modern art like a messy bed or an upside down, signed toilet. I think it's stupid as hell, and would rather spend my day sitting and admiring the beauty of the stunning St. Peter's Cathedral than walking around and art gallery filled with half assed crap.

 

[AgentNein]

...Anyone who says differently probably went to art school.

This really sums up my problem with the majority of posts in this thread. The majority of people here in this thread trying to be the arbiters of what is and isn't art for the most part have zero business taking part in this discussion. How many of you folks have studied art, it's history, or the contextual world these supposed "non-art" pieces of art came out in beyond highschool level?

I'm just gonna make a random asinine statement without merit or research. The earth is the center of the universe. Anybody who says different probably went to Science and Common Sense school, *scoff scoff*.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

...Anyone who says differently probably went to art school.

This really sums up my problem with the majority of posts in this thread. The majority of people here in this thread trying to be the arbiters of what is and isn't art for the most part have zero business taking part in this discussion. How many of you folks have studied art, it's history, or the contextual world these supposed "non-art" pieces of art came out in beyond highschool level?

I'm just gonna make a random asinine statement without merit or research. The earth is the center of the universe. Anybody who says different probably went to Science and Common Sense school, *scoff scoff*.

That not entirely serious jibe at the insular and self-congratulatory world of modern art education makes a lot more sense if one has ever watched Art School Confidential. But to clarify - the public perception of what comprises artwork and what comprises pretentious self-congratulatory crap churned out by elitists who are full of themselves and then purchased for absurd prices by people with more money than common sense or taste is starkly at odds with how those same works are perceived by veterans of art school.

Very few people are that pretentious all on their own, they have to learn it somewhere.

 

[AgentNein]

...Anyone who says differently probably went to art school.

This really sums up my problem with the majority of posts in this thread. The majority of people here in this thread trying to be the arbiters of what is and isn't art for the most part have zero business taking part in this discussion. How many of you folks have studied art, it's history, or the contextual world these supposed "non-art" pieces of art came out in beyond highschool level?

I'm just gonna make a random asinine statement without merit or research. The earth is the center of the universe. Anybody who says different probably went to Science and Common Sense school, *scoff scoff*.

That not entirely serious jibe at the insular and self-congratulatory world of modern art education makes a lot more sense if one has ever watched Art School Confidential. But to clarify - the public perception of what comprises artwork and what comprises pretentious self-congratulatory crap churned out by elitists who are full of themselves and then purchased for absurd prices by people with more money than common sense or taste is starkly at odds with how those same works are perceived by veterans of art school.

Very few people are that pretentious all on their own, they have to learn it somewhere.

Why would public perception be the correct standard to hold art to? The general public aren't artists. They don't know shit about art, they're not experts or even at all well versed on the subject. Their opinion rightly holds no merit whatsoever in the contemporary art world.

 

[HentMas]

Jesus Christ... If you can't be insightful, art is nothing to you.

And you shouldn't bother than.
Apparently, this qualifies to many posting here.

If you take "My Bed" for example... I am guessing the artist wants to show how she usually gets up in the mornings.
But it's something I'd have to ponder longer on.

As for the Black Box, you can see there's a tiny little white dot in the middle.
Does that white dot represent a lone little man in all the enveloping and massive darkness?
Could be anything. Just depends on what you're seeing.

thats a bunch of bull, it means its "ART" because you are looking for reasons of it to exist?? that single white dot, what if its a moth that stood there when the picture was taken?? i mean, come on, art is about the artist conveying their fealings thougts and intelligence into its work, not about throwing paint and expecting the "viewer" to "think" of a reason he did that, and if you actually give it a meaning, then you are even more of a narcisistic prick than the artist, because you are trying to understand the crap the artist didnt even put in there.

interpretation??, understanding??, its all a bunch of people with their heads so much of their ass they can see trough their mouth.

you know why the art of Van Gogh is interesting and engaging??, its because he managed to capture movement into its paintings, because his perspective of the world around him was somehow skewed because he was mentally ill

THATS the reason i like Van Gogh, he is showing us the world as he saw it, not because he is "expecting" me to "understand" his "view" or "meaning" its just the way he saw things and thats all.

something a little more abstract??, Salvador Dali, ALL his works have meaning and portray a bunch of emotions and motives, reason and actions, everything haves a meaning and he put a lot of effort into placing them inside his art, if you see his work you understand his meaning almost immediatly, even thought its abstract.

thats the mark of a good artist, making YOU feel what he wants YOU to feel, not making you think and try to put "meaning" into a Shamelesly half assed work.

sorry if i was offensive, i didn´t mean to be so, i just express my self rather enthusiastically when dealing with what i believe, and please excuse my grammar and spelling, i am not from the US.

 

[furry-ryuu-ken]

Spoiler: watch to see art

Is this art? YES

Spoiler: long conversation

Jesus Christ... If you can't be insightful, art is nothing to you.

And you shouldn't bother than.
Apparently, this qualifies to many posting here.

If you take "My Bed" for example... I am guessing the artist wants to show how she usually gets up in the mornings.
But it's something I'd have to ponder longer on.

As for the Black Box, you can see there's a tiny little white dot in the middle.
Does that white dot represent a lone little man in all the enveloping and massive darkness?
Could be anything. Just depends on what you're seeing.

thats a bunch of bull, it means its "ART" because you are looking for reasons of it to exist?? that single white dot, what if its a moth that stood there when the picture was taken?? i mean, come on, art is about the artist conveying their fealings thougts and intelligence into its work, not about throwing paint and expecting the "viewer" to "think" of a reason he did that, and if you actually give it a meaning, then you are even more of a narcisistic prick than the artist, because you are trying to understand the crap the artist didnt even put in there.

interpretation??, understanding??, its all a bunch of people with their heads so much of their ass they can see trough their mouth.

you know why the art of Van Gogh is interesting and engaging??, its because he managed to capture movement into its paintings, because his perspective of the world around him was somehow skewed because he was mentally ill

THATS the reason i like Van Gogh, he is showing us the world as he saw it, not because he is "expecting" me to "understand" his "view" or "meaning" its just the way he saw things and thats all.

something a little more abstract??, Salvador Dali, ALL his works have meaning and portray a bunch of emotions and motives, reason and actions, everything haves a meaning and he put a lot of effort into placing them inside his art, if you see his work you understand his meaning almost immediatly, even thought its abstract.

thats the mark of a good artist, making YOU feel what he wants YOU to feel, not making you think and try to put "meaning" into a Shamelesly half assed work.

sorry if i was offensive, i didn´t mean to be so, i just express my self rather enthusiastically when dealing with what i believe, and please excuse my grammar and spelling, i am not from the US.

Todays GOOD art is something we find visual pleasure in(ie eye candy), what are used to mean, or somtimes means today is to have a inner meaning, some thing to ponder on to get.
And i agree, its art if they spent more time on it then you pondering it, least thats how i feel.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

Why would public perception be the correct standard to hold art to? The general public aren't artists. They don't know shit about art, they're not experts or even at all well versed on the subject. Their opinion rightly holds no merit whatsoever in the contemporary art world.

The fact you'd make that argument says everything about the problem with the contemporary art world. Artistic ability and recognizing artistic ability do not go hand in hand, such that only those who can produce "art" are capable of "getting" it. The lens of public perception is in fact a perfectly valid standard to apply, because the 'art' in question is invariably created and displayed for public consumption.

One does not have to have studied musical theory and composition themselves to know that 'modern' classical music is a horrible abomination rife with needless atonality, clashing melodies, and other musical techniques that combine to make something as wonderful as a symphony orchestra into an instrument of sonic torture - one simply needs to listen to it (I strongly suggest not doing that though).

Likewise, putting live goldfish into blenders filled with water and calling it a work of art is quite readily apparently not artwork - it's a bunch of blenders with fish in them. If I put fish in my blender, then dare people to turn it on by plugging it in and placing it in a heavily trafficked area, I'm just a sick bastard, not an artist. Empty rooms where the lights flicker at random are not magically "works of art" because somebody calling themselves an artist gave that empty room a title, art where the "artist" either does nothing or does something that anyone could do without requiring any talent whatsoever are obviously not works of art. The modern art world is akin to the old fable of the Emperor's New Clothes - they show us these works of extreme laziness and explain that they're actually masterpieces, but we the public simply cannot comprehend them, as we are not artists.

And that is bullshit.

 

[Caligulove]

the music video for "Alejandro" by Lady GaGa

I didnt even think was art until I heard some coworkers talking about how deep, prolific and artistic it all was, and how brilliant LG is.
...

 

[J. Reed]

For those who don't know..

Spoiler: My Bed

Yep that is pretty ridiculous. How about Kazimir Malevich?

Spoiler: Black Square

Nah, nah, nah, I got a better one. White square on white background. Or White on White or whatever it's called. I go to an art school, and that shit ain't art.

Ah yes, Malevich's other piss take. It's in the Museum of Modern Art.

Spoiler: Suprematist Composition White on White

Do you think he's actually being serious, putting 'Suprematist' in the title?

I haven't seen it personally, but I've been told that in the Museum of Modern Art, there's a piece called "Blue Canvas." Can you guess what it is?

And I think I have here the musical equivalent to "Black Square" and "White On White." I haven't read all the posts, so I don't know if this has been brought up, but it's definitely worthy of this thread.

Spoiler: 4'33"

One of my textbooks describes this "song" as a "... truly unique work... the sounds in the room and the audience become the musical experience."

So my experience would probably be: "... the hell is this?"

 

[rokkolpo]

i generally refuse to call things art.

guy: look it's a masterpiece of art!
me: it's a sculpture.
guy: it's art in being a sculpture!
me: it's a pointy rock, how does it move you or say anything to you in a way other than ''Ow what a weird shape for a rock''
guy: ........were in a museum it's all art.
me: so that's your definition of art? to be in a museum.
guy: look at that thing there!
me: *sigh*

it makes me sad people admire things just because the tag says ''art''.
most of them don't even like it.
in my experience something can be skillfully done, look really pretty and still not be art in my book.

if everything is art it's just another word for item or thing.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

Ignoring the bugbear in the room (the notion that citing Wikipedia automatically lends credence to an argument), so does randomly re-arranging the items on top of my desk. That is not artwork, I have simply re-arranged my bloody desk.

Sure, that could be art. I never said art had to be exhilarating or profound, it can be shitty and boring as well, it doesn't have to take hardly any talent or time to make.

There is a stark difference between taking the contents of a box of macaroni and cooking it in the normal fashion, then labeling the end result as art and actually making art with the contents of a macaroni box.

Of course there's a stark difference, one involves following some simple instructions on a box and the other involves tedious hours of detail and craft. The first example could still be argued to be art. That doesn't mean I think we should have bowls of macaroni and cheese in art museums or that it should be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars though, because bowls of macaroni and cheese are generally very boring.
[/quote]

 

[iLikeHippos]

Jesus Christ... If you can't be insightful, art is nothing to you.

And you shouldn't bother than.
Apparently, this qualifies to many posting here.

If you take "My Bed" for example... I am guessing the artist wants to show how she usually gets up in the mornings.
But it's something I'd have to ponder longer on.

As for the Black Box, you can see there's a tiny little white dot in the middle.
Does that white dot represent a lone little man in all the enveloping and massive darkness?
Could be anything. Just depends on what you're seeing.

thats a bunch of bull, it means its "ART" because you are looking for reasons of it to exist?? that single white dot, what if its a moth that stood there when the picture was taken?? i mean, come on, art is about the artist conveying their fealings thougts and intelligence into its work, not about throwing paint and expecting the "viewer" to "think" of a reason he did that, and if you actually give it a meaning, then you are even more of a narcisistic prick than the artist, because you are trying to understand the crap the artist didnt even put in there.

interpretation??, understanding??, its all a bunch of people with their heads so much of their ass they can see trough their mouth.

you know why the art of Van Gogh is interesting and engaging??, its because he managed to capture movement into its paintings, because his perspective of the world around him was somehow skewed because he was mentally ill

THATS the reason i like Van Gogh, he is showing us the world as he saw it, not because he is "expecting" me to "understand" his "view" or "meaning" its just the way he saw things and thats all.

something a little more abstract??, Salvador Dali, ALL his works have meaning and portray a bunch of emotions and motives, reason and actions, everything haves a meaning and he put a lot of effort into placing them inside his art, if you see his work you understand his meaning almost immediatly, even thought its abstract.

thats the mark of a good artist, making YOU feel what he wants YOU to feel, not making you think and try to put "meaning" into a Shamelesly half assed work.

sorry if i was offensive, i didn´t mean to be so, i just express my self rather enthusiastically when dealing with what i believe, and please excuse my grammar and spelling, i am not from the US.

Hey, no offense taken. I can see you're enthusiastic about art and take their side quite well.

I myself enjoy art, and Salvador Dali is one of my favorite artists. Though I had to take a good minute to sometimes understand what he was meaning with some paintings.

But, not everyone can enjoy art. And not everyone share the same thought of it.
But I can honestly say I see something in those two pieces, whether your opinion on them.



Wikipedia - Art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art]

PS: I don't find Van Goghs art the least interesting. Don't make it an absolute.

 

[Durgiun]

For those who don't know..

Spoiler: My Bed

Yep that is pretty ridiculous. How about Kazimir Malevich?

Spoiler: Black Square

Nah, nah, nah, I got a better one. White square on white background. Or White on White or whatever it's called. I go to an art school, and that shit ain't art.

What do you think of my artistic masterpiece?

sadfhyjmdgrw\adsc vxbdekjwa\dhuv

It represents the randon chance and consequences that exist constantly in our lifes!

Gibbering crackhead peanut butter caaseroles fly fine without their zigote brethren. Hah! My masterpiece is better than yours. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha na-na-na-na-na-na.

 

[Durgiun]

Nah, nah, nah, I got a better one. White square on white background. Or White on White or whatever it's called. I go to an art school, and that shit ain't art.

Ah yes, Malevich's other piss take. It's in the Museum of Modern Art.

Spoiler: Suprematist Composition White on White

Do you think he's actually being serious, putting 'Suprematist' in the title?

Good GOD! Looking at that thing makes me wanna go there and burn it to Hell! I've spent a good chunk of my life, from wee little legs to my long hairy ones, practicing and honing my art skills. And all this jack off had to do is slap on a white paper square on a white paper rectangle. It's official, there is no God.

 

[lee1287]

Puttign dead animals into that stuff that stops them rotting. Dickhead.

 

[Radiationsickman]

I remember seeing a YouTube video about a girl licking cake from a public toilet,
by doing this she got her art major thingy.

 

[Muffinthraka]

Art is meant to involve: skill, intensity, emotion, insight and so on. Both from the artist and from the viewer. It does not need to contain all these elements. Young children will draw because they have emotion (they draw how they feel, or the things they love).
For example, if "My bed" had a manequine with its head in its hands sitting on the side of the bed, and the artwork was renamed "The Breakup" I would say that was art.
I'm an ametuer sketch artist, my drawings are simple but I draw because I went to and I try to draw as well as I can: intensity and emotion.

 

[Harley Q]

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.

Yes I will, my next piece will just be a scalpel on a dinner plate. I am going to be so rich.

I was in the Tate Modern once with my brother and there was this area that looked like a sitting room, my brother leans on the tv cabinet and this security guard comes over and tells him to stop leaning on the artwork. It is a TV cabinet. Gah!