wut? After looking over the wiki page on Durer, I don't see anything to back up what you said. He even seemed to be on good terms with the protestant leaders.Dags90 said:
Pile of wood = art?
- Thread starter JoshasorousRex
- Start date
Recommended Videos
We can look at two traits of an object.
Quality (as piece of artwork)
Effort required (to Produce)
No matter how hard we try, Artistic Quality will never be proportional to Effort Required. I've been to an Art Gallery where a square canvas painted solely red spoke more to me than a painstakingly created portrait the took up an entire wall of the room.
Yes, yes, I can prattle on about Perspective is Reality all day and say that if one person thinks it is art, then it is art, but to be honest, that makes the word lose ALL meaning and is clearly not what it was intended for. And it annoys me then when I try to argue that games are Art, because what the hell does that mean if ANYTHING can be Art. So, I suppose we can say that TEEEEEECHNICALLY this is art. And TECHNICALLY anything can be art. But Reeeeeeally, Art is something that was born of emotion, and can convey emotion, and has a unique style, and is just truly great.
But yeah.. If someone gets enjoyment out of something, it's Art. But then, you could call a Sunset Art. I suppose that Art is the ability to see the profound in the ordinary, no?
Quality (as piece of artwork)
Effort required (to Produce)
No matter how hard we try, Artistic Quality will never be proportional to Effort Required. I've been to an Art Gallery where a square canvas painted solely red spoke more to me than a painstakingly created portrait the took up an entire wall of the room.
Yes, yes, I can prattle on about Perspective is Reality all day and say that if one person thinks it is art, then it is art, but to be honest, that makes the word lose ALL meaning and is clearly not what it was intended for. And it annoys me then when I try to argue that games are Art, because what the hell does that mean if ANYTHING can be Art. So, I suppose we can say that TEEEEEECHNICALLY this is art. And TECHNICALLY anything can be art. But Reeeeeeally, Art is something that was born of emotion, and can convey emotion, and has a unique style, and is just truly great.
But yeah.. If someone gets enjoyment out of something, it's Art. But then, you could call a Sunset Art. I suppose that Art is the ability to see the profound in the ordinary, no?
Whether something is or isn't art is NOT based on the skill required to create it, it depends on what the artist's intent was in making it.
Art is entirely subjective, (meaning that it has no definition and art is whatever you want it to be) which means that there is no specific list of requirements for something to be "art". What I consider to be art, however, is anything that someone creates solely for the purpose of exploring and presenting an idea to an audience.
So yes, a pile of wood CAN, theoretically, be art.
Art is entirely subjective, (meaning that it has no definition and art is whatever you want it to be) which means that there is no specific list of requirements for something to be "art". What I consider to be art, however, is anything that someone creates solely for the purpose of exploring and presenting an idea to an audience.
So yes, a pile of wood CAN, theoretically, be art.
Yes, it is art, not for the skill or imagination required, but for the artistic intent. If it gets exposed as an art piece and expresses something, it is well within the broadest definition of art.Subzerowings said:It's called dadaism.
Could I make that? Sure. It would be declared art as soon as I declare it as art and that's the point of dadaism.
That said, dadaism is intentional anti-art, something like testing the boundaries to see how far you could go with ridiculous works of art and still be called an artist. It might not be hard to achieve (the point is that "a child could do it") or admirable, but as long as it creates this kind of discussion, it's dadaist art.
EDIT
You ninja, youuuFrozen Donkey Wheel2 said:
I never said he disagreed with the Protestants, but he did pretty much stop making art after they came to power. He instead focused on treatises. The wiki page probably doesn't give a full view. It mentions the Apocalypse cuts published 1498 but doesn't mention how it was pretty much a cash-in on the fears that 1500 would be Y2K. He was selling the spiritual equivalent of the freeze dried food sold during Y2K. He then began to question this role in art when the Protestant reformation was going on, and eventually stopped altogether.countrysteaksauce said:
Art is not about well a drawn painting or expertly carved statues, its about emotion, sepcifically the artist's emotion not YOUR'S.
The artist is just expressing himself, he doesnt really care what a bunch of smart arsed losers on the internet (like us) think.
The artist is just expressing himself, he doesnt really care what a bunch of smart arsed losers on the internet (like us) think.
Do you know what I saw at the Museum of Modern "Art" once? Literally just a pile of bricks on the floor. I actually couldn't believe it at first, but sure enough, I found a tag on a nearby wall which denoted this eyesore as "art". I swear, modern art is the worst thing to happen to art since Jackson Pollack spewed paint on a canvas and sold it for millions.
Yes, yes of course, that's what I meant. An artist's true skill lies in his or her ability to convey. However, that conveyance can often be made more compelling with material skill.Verlander said:
But when it comes to something like the piece in this topic, (which as a sculpture relies on form) which does not convey any meaningful message through its form, much less in a compelling or skillful manner, can it really be considered art? The only way I could understand the message was through the name of the piece!
Literally. My art teacher told us the story of the man who made a machine that creates poop when you feed it.henritje said:
He sold it for about a quarter of a million dollars.
According to the dictionary art is: "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional".Digi7 said:
Games, Mona Lisa, and a pile of wood are all expressions of creativity and imagination. Art does not need to provoke a specific emotion to be art, though if your argument was purely regarding the quality I can't argue against you.
Where did the Protestants come into power that forced him to stop making his artwork? He still received patronage from the catholic emperors of the Holy Roman Empire and kept making religious artwork past 1500. Moreover, what is so negative about providing a product to meet demand?Dags90 said:
sadly that might actualy work, now if you,ll excuse me I will now sell my bags of trash we,ll start bidding at $9001,-Drakmeire said:
Well personally have a little rule as myself like a lot of other people don't "get" modern art. If I can do it it isn't art. Well not good art anyway.
