Pile of wood = art?

[s0m3th1ng]

"Hay my piece of burnt toast looks lie Jesus!"
*sell to pope for a million dollars*

Sorry, but I beat you.
This bruise on my ex's arm really does look like Jesus

 

[My name is Fiction]

The resebelance is uncany!
[Its staring at my soul!]

 

[TWRule]

Of course, if you can come up with a more comprehensive definition that doesn't lose it's meaning, please share.

My normal definition is something like "a creation not designed primarily for a practical purpose which expresses an emotion as intended by it's creator". I say 'expressed' rather than communicated because art created in isolation is still art.

You bring up a good point about art existing as beyond practical purpose - my definition actually shares that aspect but I forgot to include it in my previous post - thanks for that.

Yes, art created in isolation is still art because (referring back to my own definition) it is the quality of something that has the for such communication/expression. However, that engagement only takes place as a social activity (when the art can reach an audience).

To use a loose analogy, I guess it's sort of like saying that a plumber is really only a plumber when he's working, but while he's doing other things, he's still a plumber in the sense that he has that potential. So there's art as an activity/process, and art as a quality of potential.

But ultimately, I think we're in agreement - I just wanted to clarify that point.

 

[Gone]

Man, modern art sucks.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Spoiler: Well, what do you think the inspiration for this line was?

YOU'RE SO UGLY, YOU COULD BE A MODERN ART MASTERPIECE!​

Stupid shit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ] getting the label of "art" is hardly a recent trend, and we all know it.

 

[Halceon]

Is this art?

The object isn't art. The audacity of presenting it as art is the real art. Such is modern art.

 

[j0hnnycash]

If games can be art so can this.

They are just a pile of 1s and 0s

Pile 1s and 0s all you want but you wont make a game until you arrange them into something cohesive.

 

[mr_rubino]

Throw out anything that would even slightly get the average anti-intellectual on a moralistic rant, and they come running. So much for the gamer stereotype.

Escapist community on games as art:

Art is subjective and is designed to show emotion, everyone's definition of art is different and no one can say what is and is not art.

Escapist community's reaction to a piece of Dadaist art:

This is not art lololololololol!

Totally owned.

Anyway, I really don't get all the hate for modern art on this thread. Yes, you get the occasional red splatter that sells for millions, but it's more the 'sells for millions' part that people are annoyed about.

Performance art, and the large majority of Modern art, is really, really creepy. Reliving that experience in the Tate Modern... *shudder*

Let's just say I contracted a little equiferusophobia.

Fear of bright horses? Or horses on fire? Or am I completely off?

 

[TWRule]

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.

I'm actually arguing that not everything that the museums call art is actually art, just to clarify.

So in your definition, in what sense do you use "communication"? Certainly not all types of communication between someone who calls themselves an artist and others qualifies as art.

To me, art is something that, were you to encounter, you'd likely have some sort of immediate engagement (as intended by the artist). You shouldn't need anyone to tell you that it is art, or why it's art. The strength of this experience correlates with the quality of the art, broadly speaking, and something that cannot generate such an experience at all, is not art. Of course, depending on one's state of mind, different people have different experiences, but if only a handful of people exposed to this item are claiming to have such an experience, I think it's healthy to be suspect of it's status as art (they may have just made up their own meaning or accepted what the artist said and filled in the blanks in their mind).

 

[The Stonker]

Did it take any skill to make? Fuck no.

Does it subversively mean anything through the visuals or form? Fuck no.

Is it impressive or unique? Again, fuck no.

It holds none of the three prerequisites for art. As an artist I'm ashamed of this shit.

IT IS NOT ART.

I want to ask you, what are the three prerequisites of art?
When can I start calling something "art"?
But to the topic.
This insults me, intellectualy, ( if that's spelled right hooray!), mentally and emotionally, since I feel nothing from this.
Plus if I set horses on fire and take a picture while they're running, couldn't that be art?
Since it would make you feel disgusted that is.

 

[mr_rubino]

If games can be art so can this.

They are just a pile of 1s and 0s

Is the Mona Lisa just a pile of colourful paint?

Yes, yes it is

And with that, you've hit the "trying too hard" phase. You'd have done well to go back and explain yourself instead.

 

[The Stonker]

I have a new plan for my life.
http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/garden/rock06.jpg
this rock is my masterpiece and I will sell it for 10,000 because there is no other rock in existence like my rock so I am an artist.

I WILL BUY IT!
Only if you make me the same rock, exactly the same, the same proportions.

 

[TWRule]

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.

And that piece got quite a reaction.

I don't think that line of reasoning works, simply because the negative reaction was actually to the proposition that such a piece could pass as art, not any sort of interaction with the piece itself. If any social reaction to a claim can be art, then that makes internet trolls effective artists lol...

 

[mr_rubino]

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.

Yeah, he kinda backed you into a corner under your definition of art. Are the prints knocked out en masse and sold at Wal-Mart art?
(Trick question.)

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

Art=whatever Art 'leaders' if you will call art.
Old art, pre-1970's=real art.
pre 19th century=even more awesomer

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Yes but what does it mean?


In all seriousness, I have a similar pile of wood in my backyard.

 

[default]

If games can be art so can this.

They are just a pile of 1s and 0s

Is the Mona Lisa just a pile of colourful paint?

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)

Well, I definitely think games have the potential to be art.

I'm going to pull out the old standby here as an example, Good Ol' 'Shadow of the Colossus'

It is such a beautifully poetic game. The visuals and even just the tone of the game itself are beautiful. Don't they evoke a feeling within you? Doesn't the endless loneliness of empty, grey landscapes make you feel something? Don't you feel pain as you see your character eventually pay the terrible price for love? Don't you feel a pang of awe and hopeless fear as you see the behemoths of stone rise before you, blocking out the sky? Don't you marvel at the wonderful architecture and style? The beautiful engravings into the soaring stone pillars?

This is the TRUE art of storytelling, my good sirs, and it is without a single word in english spoken, and minimal information given. The wonder and mystery does not detract from the story, but add to it. The fact that it is an interactive experience only makes it stronger. It is YOU who has to overcome this struggle. It is YOU who can explore this vast and empty landscape. You make your OWN decisions.

A truly great artist and storyteller can tell a tale only with visuals, I say.

Now, having said that, there are only a few rare gems within the gaming world which are art. The rest are about as shallow as that pile of wood.

Look at something like Halo. Garish colours, terrible dialogue, no aesthetic tone or visual poetry. A transparent and shallow as a teaspoon story.

Gears of War. While it does have an aesthetic and quite beautiful visual tone, (namely the grey mix of stone, metal and dust, punctuated by flashes of fire and blood) it has no poetry, and is quite an ugly game nonetheless. A lot of potential was lost within immaturity and tastelessness.

No, the overwhelming majority of games are not art, but they definitely can be. We just need some developers with taste, guys!!!

 

[cheese_wizington]

I miss the days when people just painted shit.

 

[default]

Did it take any skill to make? Fuck no.

Does it subversively mean anything through the visuals or form? Fuck no.

Is it impressive or unique? Again, fuck no.

It holds none of the three prerequisites for art. As an artist I'm ashamed of this shit.

IT IS NOT ART.

I want to ask you, what are the three prerequisites of art?

Right what I listed above there, mate. That's my personal view, anyway.