Pile of wood = art?

[DeathsHands]

Art is subjective, and unfortunately so. It's art as long as people think it is, no matter how stupid.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Anyway, isn't this classified under earthworks and not Dada? I thought the whole point of Dadaism was creating things that were considered "anti-art."

OT: Yes, it's art. Is it particularly good? No, not really--but then again, art doesn't need to be good.

I don't know, a pile of wood with no working, shape or form strikes me as fitting the definition but I guess it's subjective. Earthwork seems to just use unworked material arranged into a meaningful shape or form. If this was literally formless and meaningless it would be Dadaist in my opinion.

And yeah...in my opinion it's bloody terrible but you can't start denying things a satus based on their quality. It's a similar argument to saying that bad people aren't really people.

Well, I doubt that pile of wood stacked itself. I'm pretty sure that qualifies the artist as "working" it. Still not as impressive as the Spiral Jetty, but I'm sure it falls in the same camp. Now, had the artist just found the pile of wood in the, erm, woods and slapped the art label on it, then I'd consider it Dadaist.

Blah. Look at what art history has done to me.

EDIT: Damnedest thing, I've hit 3000 posts and I seem to have become quotable.

Nah, you just basically called out a pretty large portion of the Escapist's userbase in a very quotable and pithy post. I am not disappoint.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

It's called dadaism.

Spoiler: This is called influential in The Museum of Modern Art.

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.

Ah yes, my art classes at work once again. Yes, a pile of wood CAN be considered art. My philosophy of art teacher (who KNEW what he was talking about) once talked about how a pile of ROCKS can be considered art or how someone can make a shovel or a bottle rack art (those two were called "ready-mades"). Why is it art? Because they CLAIMED it as art. It is an idea, not simply something you make with your hands. Andy Warhol was also famous for something like as most of his works were not made by him personally. He had an entire team of assistants to do that.

 

[Joshimodo]

Frankly, I'd rather see this be considered art than 99% of the content of Flickr, deviantART and so on.

Art has no real definition, at least none that are usable to define specifics.


It's also not surprising that this went for $5000~. I've seen people pay for worse.

 

[Rickyvantof]

Face it, anything can be art. No matter how rediculous. Or rather, the more rediculous, the better, in some forms of art.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

I'm actually embarrassed to admit I'm going to university in this town.

Wow.

Hey, everyone who thinks this is art? Cover my travel expenses and pay me $7,000 and I'll create for you, in your very own yard, an inspired replica of this piece.

 

[Aphroditty]

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?

I always liked that way of thinking about it. Art's really a bunch of people hallucinating about meaning. But, really, pretty much all of human culture is people hallucinating about meaning. So we are once more back to "everything is art."

 

[Hatchet90]

If you have to question whether or not it's art, then it is art.

 

[Turbo_Destructor]

It is almost impossible to put a specific definition on what 'art' is, but every now and then you see something that you can say with complete confidence is NOT art. I believe that applies rather well in this case.

 

[TWRule]

Truer words were never spoken.

What is a picture? What is a sculpture? What is a building or a fountain? These things hold significance to us because we deemed them so. But when you break it down, to it's barest form, a picture is nothing more than a semblance of dried inks on a thin sheet of processed wood. A sculpture is no more or less than a hunk of material like marble or clay.

Is that pile of wood art? If I took it and made a face out of it, THEN is it art? The only person willing to completely define such an answer, and believe it is correct, is a person with too little respect for relativity, and too much time on their hands.

You're missing the point. Yes, these things have meaning because we deem them to, which is exactly why we have to be discriminatory in what we give meaning. If everything is equally meaningful, then nothing is meaningful.

Something having meaning at all doesn't make it art. A log in the forest has meaning in that we can recognize it as a log and what relationships such an object can have with the rest of the world. This "sculpture" has that degree and type of meaning. It does not necessarily have the particular relationship that would qualify it as art.

Art is supposed to convey a profoundly empathetic message from the artist on an existential level that teaches the audience something about themselves, and by extension, the human reality. Simply seeing a log, as you would anywhere else in the world, does not carry the potential for that kind of meaningful social/emotional engagement.

Subjectivism in one's interpretation of such a message is not the same as subjectivism in regard to whether that message actually exists. Everyone can attribute their own meanings to things, but only the artist can engage his audience with a particular experience, thus making his work "art".

 

[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.

ok you win on two counts
one for being totally right
two for creeping me out with your avatar

Scribbled it in Photoshop in two minutes... It really creeps you out?
And thanks, I am right, aren't I?

 

[ccggenius12]

That seems like way too broad a definition...

So killing people is art if you're not doing it for self-defense? Forget Van Gogh and Picasso - Hitler is definitely the greatest artist of all time in that case...

It would explain why he stopped painting. Also, he wouldn't be the greatest artist of all time under that definition, just the artist who produced the most. Not even that, as I understand it, Stalin had him beat by a considerable quantity. In Soviet Russia, art kills YOU!

 

[DarthFennec]

The three-year-old artwork ... is displayed on a town website that advertises the community as the cultural capital of Canada.

So ... so the cultural capital of Canada represents itself with a pile of wood? That's the worst advertising I've ever seen ...

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

What is art to one person may be garbage to the next, something is art based on value to the viewer, not practical application.

 

[MgsTheFury]

I looked at the photo for about 5 min, still can't figure out what I'm looking at.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

I looked at the photo for about 5 min, still can't figure out what I'm looking at.

Protip: It's a wood pile.

OR, an artist's interpretation of a wood pile. Made out of a wood pile.

 

[TeeBs]

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.

Its crude, and its simple, but in all honesty I would consider that art, because it made me think.