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?
They didn't force him. He sympathized and stopped of his own accord. It took him a while, he didn't wake up the day Martin Luther posted his thesis and say "No more art from me."
My point was that someone who "provides product to meet demand" is probably not the best way to defend art, especially seeing as the person in the OP was clearly meeting a demand for wood sculpture.
Interesting art either causes some sort of emotion on the observer or it makes people dicuss. I´m not saying this is good art, but it certainly is interesting enough to cause some debate.
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?
They didn't force him. He sympathized and stopped of his own accord. It took him a whle, he didn't wake up the day Martin Luther posted his thesis and say "No more art from me."
My point was that someone who "provides product to meet demand" is probably not the best way to defend art, especially seeing as the person in the OP was clearly meeting a demand for wood sculpture.
Initially, when I mentioned Durer, I wasn't referring to his selling art to exploit some fear, I mentioned him because his paintings were well-done and pleasing and constitute a good example of art, unlike the pile of wood. Though, I suppose, if people are willing to patronize things such as the pile of wood, then arguing with the market doesn't make sense.
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?
They didn't force him. He sympathized and stopped of his own accord. It took him a while, he didn't wake up the day Martin Luther posted his thesis and say "No more art from me."
My point was that someone who "provides product to meet demand" is probably not the best way to defend art, especially seeing as the person in the OP was clearly meeting a demand for wood sculpture.
Technically, other people's thoughts ARE the art in this type of art. What value this kind of movement has is that the mass consternation and questioning of the audience is the art object.
I get that the definition of art is hard to pin down, but we really have to stop with this post-modern subjectivist, "art is whatever art is to you" crap.
Art requires skill. It requires vision. It requires creativity. It must be designed to have meaning to both the artist and whoever else he/she wants it to (but not the artist alone). Whatever art may or may not have, if it does not have these things it is not art. People can have differing and equally valid opinions of a work of art, but we need to start regarding the status of art as the objective thing that it is, or else we'll continue to have crap like this passed off as brilliant art.
Reminds me of an old episode of King of The Hill where someone steals a medical image of Hank's colon, frames it up in a museum, then it's declared a masterpiece and is the chief exhibit. Today's "Art" isn't art in my opinion, it's just lazy splashing of multicolored paint on a canvas, calling it "symbolic", then selling it for thousands...
Seneschal said:
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.
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.
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
Frozen Donkey Wheel2 said:
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.
But what "Emotion" does a bloody unicycle attached to a stool get across? Sorry but that sort of defeats your argument for me. There isn't any "Emotion" or "Ideal" some of these things are trying to convey, it's just cheap work in my opinion.
I dare any escapist out there to go to a museum of "Modern" art and NOT find one painting that looks like someone just splashed random amounts of paint onto a canvas and called it art.
I don't remember mentioning "emotion" as a prerequisite of art. In fact, the dadaist movement's greatest masterpiece was drawing out all the entitled people that wanted to establish "universal prerequisites for good art". Their reaction is the art, the art snobs are the canvas, and the pile of wood/bricks/cans of feces is the brush.
Why yes, yes I believe I am. I do it regularly as it goes. It's not everyone but it really highlights how self serving the arguments for 'games as art' are when our super-special definition of art is exposed as 'whatever is convenient for validating my lifestyle'.
I won't pretend that some people have such an attitude - however, I think it's completely possible to have a non-arbitrary coherent conception of art which includes video games but may not include piles of wood.
This sculpture is only art by the nominal definition of art: "I'm calling this art, so it is therefore art." It makes no sense to hold such a definition, because as we can all see, it makes the word "art" meaningless and doesn't attribute any criteria to the category of art.
I'd say we all have in intuitive conception of what the characteristics of art should be, but they resist definition. The closest I've come upon a bit of contemplation is this:
Art is a quality of an expression of human creativity characterized by it's potential to inspire a social and emotional engagement of human empathy when taken in it's unity. In other words, art communicates the emotions of the artist to his audience in regards to some aspect of common humanity through creative expression. The important thing to note here is that the piece itself must have this communicative potential, the audience can't just create their own meaning and attribute it to an item (even if they might interpret the artist's message in different ways with real art).
So some games would then qualify as art, some would not. Piles of wood, most likely not.
Of course, if you can come up with a more comprehensive definition that doesn't lose it's meaning, please share.
I hate the "I can do it, therefore it's not art" argument. So what? Artists are just people too, the training they do in order to get their degrees and suchlike is a conceptual one.
You may be able to pile logs on top of one another, but you could also paint like the renaissance with enough practice, or sculpt, or whatever. The skills are immaterial.
Mate, the skills are the most material part of art. The true skill lies in applying those talents to the conveyance of an idea, emotion, a concept or a story through the creation of a piece through whatever medium you so choose, that can effectively convey that.
Not at all. Some of our finest artists today can't paint/draw/sculpt like the masters, but it doesn't affect their ability as an artist. They use their minds to convey an idea or emotion accurately, while the technical skill can (and often does) take a back seat.
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.
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!
Ah, ok I'm with you. Well, yes. I mean, I'm not an expert on artists such as the YBA, but they have successfully proven that you can. This was never my thing.
Is it a sculpture though? I thought it was an installation. Were it an installation, they everything was a part of the piece, and therefore changes the subject dramatically.
My opinion (and that's all it is) is that it is art, because it was intended to be. Much like Duchamp's "Fountain" (most over referenced art piece ever), it's all about the relationship between the artist and the audience via the piece. In that respect almost anything can be, and is art, while the physical properties of it only define the price
You know what? I would barely call the Mona Lisa good art.
Hell it's an amazing technical exercise, but does it make you feel anything? Does it signify any underlying concept or idea? Do you feel any emotion when you look at it? Does it convey anything to you?
No. It's just a woman sitting on a chair.
Now that is what true art is about, and no one seems to understand that.
Right now I'm painting a picture of a bird we have around these parts. Does it take talent? Very much so. Is it art? No.
Well actually that's a really good point which i agree with. Its also why, in my eyes, videogames are art. The Mona Lisa doesnt mean much to me but im fairly sure its classed as art. If we are working on the examples you raised then (good) games make me care for the character, signify a lot of underlying concept ideas and raise a hell of a lot of emotion! Therefore if the Mona Lisa is art then so are games as they raise stronger emotions.
Actually re-reading this im not entirely sure if im just aggressively agreeing with you or making a counter point. Erm do you think games are art? (sorry its been a long day for me)
I won't pretend that some people have such an attitude - however, I think it's completely possible to have a non-arbitrary coherent conception of art which includes video games but may not include piles of wood.
This sculpture is only art by the nominal definition of art: "I'm calling this art, so it is therefore art." It makes no sense to hold such a definition, because as we can all see, it makes the word "art" meaningless and doesn't attribute any criteria to the category of art.
I'd say we all have in intuitive conception of what the characteristics of art should be, but they resist definition. The closest I've come upon a bit of contemplation is this:
Art is a quality of an expression of human creativity characterized by it's potential to inspire a social and emotional engagement of human empathy. In other words, art communicates the emotions of the artist to his audience in regards to some aspect of common humanity through creative expression. The important thing to note here is that the piece itself must have this communicative potential, the audience can't just create their own meaning and attribute it to an item (even if they might interpret the artist's message in different ways with real art).
So some games would then qualify as art, some would not. Piles of wood, most likely not.
Of course, if you can come up with a more comprehensive definition that doesn't lose it's meaning, please share.
I'd have to disagree with you here. There is a massive amount of precedence that counters this, starting(ish) with Marcel Duchamp, and his "Fountain", followed by thousands of artists since.
Art is a communication between artist and audience, nothing more, nothing less.
Davey Woo said:
One trip to the Tate Modern in London was enough for me to dismiss all 'modern' art as utter crap.
Literally, anything can be passed off as art these days, provided you have a good enough 'reason' behind it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
