Poll: Art or not?
- Thread starter ExplosiveSheds
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Art doesn't have a definition, but that's been said by a lot of people here so I doubt I need to repeat it. It's art to her, it's art to the guy who bought it, therefore it's art.
Radeonx said:
Marter said:
chenry said:
NekoiHiokans said:
Billion Backs said:
Sleekgiant said:
Radeonx said:
Demented Teddy said:
What laziness of thought!GrinningManiac said:
Oh yes, the newest catchphrase has caught on and it is interesting to see artists making art of the exploitation of such normative mindsets yet again.
This is so true. At least the Dadaists, who started the whole shock art movement, knew what they were making was crap. The real art in Dadaism was the mustache twirling and snickering they did as people payed ridiculous amounts of money for things such as a stolen urinal that had been signed by the artist, and a Mona Lisa poster with a mustache drawn on it and some initials which stood for "she has a nice ass" in French. Modern modern artists actually believe what they are making is good, whereas the whole point for the dadaists was that it was worthless, yet there were idiots out there who would buy it.Valksy said:
If art is supposed to make you think and gain a better understanding or humanity, than this piece has succeeded in being art. We are all thinking about it and we now all understand that somewhere there exists a person who will pay an absurd amount of money for some one else's soiled bed.
I don?t think public funds should be used to support art like this, but I welcome wealthy individuals or organizations to fund such things, just so they can redistribute their wealth around a bit. I applaud the artist for coming up with the idea to sell their bed as art and find a buyer for it.
I don?t think public funds should be used to support art like this, but I welcome wealthy individuals or organizations to fund such things, just so they can redistribute their wealth around a bit. I applaud the artist for coming up with the idea to sell their bed as art and find a buyer for it.
You can, and someone else will say this is art and video games aren't and then we're all back to the square one.Redingold said:
It's lazy to think of art as... subjective? As opposed to spending time arguing on the internet of what art is? If being lazy means not getting into a pointless debate, then fuck it I'm laDer Kommissar said:
Art is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects." This is not art. It's someone's bed. If I got my garbage can and set it on a pedestal, it's not art. It's a garbage can. I'm sick of this new "modern art" crap that's just random objects. People can argue that it's art all they want, but have you ever heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes? Say that I don't get it all you want, this isn't art and the idea that it sold for that much is depressing.
If the artist was trying to make a statement, it could be considered art, but I dislike this approach because it means any douchebag can exploit the concept and sell their trash claiming there is some deeper meaning to it.
Therefore, I voted trash, since I believe art should be something the artist has actually put an effort into. Sure it may be symbolic and all, but I can infuse my bed with all the symbolism I want (cradle of virginity etc.) And it still won't sell for 150 000 pounds.
To me this is nothing but a person capitalizing on her name. Keep in mind though, I respect her for that, if people are actually stupid enough to be willing to pay 150 000 pounds for her bed, she'd be a fool not to take the opportunity.
Therefore, I voted trash, since I believe art should be something the artist has actually put an effort into. Sure it may be symbolic and all, but I can infuse my bed with all the symbolism I want (cradle of virginity etc.) And it still won't sell for 150 000 pounds.
To me this is nothing but a person capitalizing on her name. Keep in mind though, I respect her for that, if people are actually stupid enough to be willing to pay 150 000 pounds for her bed, she'd be a fool not to take the opportunity.
I'm not going to say that art is subjective, though it is to a certain extent of course, because that just leaves the door open for any hack with a canny sense of marketing to create "art" that is nothing of the sort.
No, here's the real test of whether or not you've created art: Did it require any sort of talent and actual effort to create? Could a chimpanzee be handed a bucket of paint and turn around to produce a "work of art" indistinguishable from your own?
If the answers to those questions are "no" and "yes" respectively, you have not in fact created a work of art. Horribly ugly modern art statues that municipalities inexplicably erect in parks and other public places? Not my taste for certain, but the person who made them is still a bloody sculptor, and it is therefore art (bad art, but art nonetheless). A dirty bed that somebody else made and all you did was sleep on it, label it art, and sell it for a fortune? Not art.
This is why suspending a crucifix (that you didn't make) in a jar (that you didn't make) of urine (that you probably did make, but it's urine - the chimp could have done that part) isn't art, but painting a crucifix in a jar of urine would be.
Without the application of skill, what you've created is just junk that clueless people with far too much money will inexplicably pay for. Modern "artists" are laughing all the way to the bank.
No, here's the real test of whether or not you've created art: Did it require any sort of talent and actual effort to create? Could a chimpanzee be handed a bucket of paint and turn around to produce a "work of art" indistinguishable from your own?
If the answers to those questions are "no" and "yes" respectively, you have not in fact created a work of art. Horribly ugly modern art statues that municipalities inexplicably erect in parks and other public places? Not my taste for certain, but the person who made them is still a bloody sculptor, and it is therefore art (bad art, but art nonetheless). A dirty bed that somebody else made and all you did was sleep on it, label it art, and sell it for a fortune? Not art.
This is why suspending a crucifix (that you didn't make) in a jar (that you didn't make) of urine (that you probably did make, but it's urine - the chimp could have done that part) isn't art, but painting a crucifix in a jar of urine would be.
Without the application of skill, what you've created is just junk that clueless people with far too much money will inexplicably pay for. Modern "artists" are laughing all the way to the bank.
Its not art, its modern art (or as I say, talentless art) but none the less its still counts as art.
