I suppose it would blow your mind if I said yes? Perspective is everything. What makes something "art" is how you look at it.Vitor Goncalves said:
Poll: does this qualify as art?
- Thread starter Rusty pumpkin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Art in my opinion occurs when something has been create with the intention (and effort) to appeal to the senses, portray a message or invoke emotions.
The problem is there's no way to prove the intention or effort was present and thus we end up with the problem of art being subjective.
The problem is there's no way to prove the intention or effort was present and thus we end up with the problem of art being subjective.
Art is an idea, if it doesn?t make sense to you, it may be clear to other people, maybe the blue splatter represents the Jews struggle under the pharos rule in Egypt and the blue splatter represents there longing for freedom. Or the artists just tripped and feel while carrying blue pain and splattered it all over the picture and thought it looked cool.........
If handing a monkey a bucket of paint and a canvas produces 'works of art' indistinguishable from those created by 'artists' who sell their 'paintings' for ludicrous sums of money, guess what? It wasn't art to begin with, it was just splattered paint.
See, art isn't subjective - our appreciation for it and whether we personally find it aesthetically pleasing is subjective, but art itself isn't. Art is the application of talent and effort to a medium of expression to create something new. Things don't have to be beautiful to be art, nor do we have to actually like it - garish modern sculptures are hideous, but somebody still had to weld them together which requires talent, thus making them sculptures and therefore art. Your sculpture might look like a random explosion happened in a junkyard, but it's art nonetheless[footnote]If you actually just set off an explosion in a junkyard and label the results 'art', you haven't made any and you're a hack.[/footnote].
Pissing in a jar and suspending a crucifix in it on the other hand is most definitely not a work of art - a monkey can piss in a jar, and the 'artist' didn't create the crucifix or the jar. Painting a jar of piss with a crucifix suspended in it, while still pretty horrible, would actually be art, as that requires the application of talent to the medium of paint to produce the result of a horrible painting of a disgusting jar of piss (with a crucifix in it).
Naturally occurring formations can be beautiful, but they aren't art, because nobody made them. Taking a random jumble of things you didn't make, tossing paint over them and calling it art is not art, because you didn't make those things or change them in a way that creates something new, you've just tossed paint on them (the monkey could have done that). Dismantling your car and using the pieces to weld together a statue of a robot? Hell yes that is art.
Art is not an empty room, or a wall that wax is randomly flung at, or your filthy bed, anymore than art is a used tampon or a soiled handkerchief or a ten-second video loop of somebody jerking off. If you've convinced yourself otherwise, you are a pretentious wanker.
See, art isn't subjective - our appreciation for it and whether we personally find it aesthetically pleasing is subjective, but art itself isn't. Art is the application of talent and effort to a medium of expression to create something new. Things don't have to be beautiful to be art, nor do we have to actually like it - garish modern sculptures are hideous, but somebody still had to weld them together which requires talent, thus making them sculptures and therefore art. Your sculpture might look like a random explosion happened in a junkyard, but it's art nonetheless[footnote]If you actually just set off an explosion in a junkyard and label the results 'art', you haven't made any and you're a hack.[/footnote].
Pissing in a jar and suspending a crucifix in it on the other hand is most definitely not a work of art - a monkey can piss in a jar, and the 'artist' didn't create the crucifix or the jar. Painting a jar of piss with a crucifix suspended in it, while still pretty horrible, would actually be art, as that requires the application of talent to the medium of paint to produce the result of a horrible painting of a disgusting jar of piss (with a crucifix in it).
Naturally occurring formations can be beautiful, but they aren't art, because nobody made them. Taking a random jumble of things you didn't make, tossing paint over them and calling it art is not art, because you didn't make those things or change them in a way that creates something new, you've just tossed paint on them (the monkey could have done that). Dismantling your car and using the pieces to weld together a statue of a robot? Hell yes that is art.
Art is not an empty room, or a wall that wax is randomly flung at, or your filthy bed, anymore than art is a used tampon or a soiled handkerchief or a ten-second video loop of somebody jerking off. If you've convinced yourself otherwise, you are a pretentious wanker.
No, it doesn't blow my mind. What makes something beautiful is how you look at it. That's the thing. Art (one of the oldest definitions, blame me somehow erased this part of my last post) is the seek of the truth and the beautiful by means of any form of creation/representation. A rainbow is at most an artwork of a God if you believe in one. But as for human standards, its not art, its just astonishing beautiful for most people. Beauty/aesthetics are the things that are subjective at the point of everything being possibly considered great by someone. But despite the relative subjectiveness of art, non-human origin (until we find intelligent aliens) is not one of it. Let's not start saying now 2+2=7. If we had been going through that line of radically subjective thinking we would not have discovered how to use fire by now but would still be dreaming how it would be if we could use it.Hiphophippo said:
Fair. I suppose that this thread even exists is proof of humans ability to think and reason for ourselves. It might be the (weekend warrior variant) Buddhist in me, but I try to view everything as art. There's a lot of interesting things out there if you just look at it the right way.Vitor Goncalves said:
For me Art is any product of creativity with an element of skill. A doodle can be art, a painting of a landscape, maybe even some 'modern art' that turns out to be quite clever.
The majority of 'modern art' is just a money making scheme from talentless narcissists who like to be on a higher pedestal than everyone else.
Plaster smeared on a wall isn't anything remotely creative. You could say it represents unfinished work and represents the laziness of society.
I could draw a cock with felt tip and say it represents immaturity and budding creativity but it doesn't stop the fact that a 3 year old could replicate the same drawing. These people shouldn't be making money from this.
The majority of 'modern art' is just a money making scheme from talentless narcissists who like to be on a higher pedestal than everyone else.
Plaster smeared on a wall isn't anything remotely creative. You could say it represents unfinished work and represents the laziness of society.
I could draw a cock with felt tip and say it represents immaturity and budding creativity but it doesn't stop the fact that a 3 year old could replicate the same drawing. These people shouldn't be making money from this.
A rule of thumb for me is that if it's being called "art" in the first place I generally won't like it. The word has some kind of air of douchebag pretense about it, can't stand it.
The whole point of the concept of art is that everything is art, it just depends on your personal perception.
You go to an art gallery and you get spoonfed a person's opinion of what art is, and that's missing the point entirely.
I watch what I want to watch, I listen to what I want to listen to, I look at paintings and read books I see something cool in, and I get on with it without being a pretentious asshole to anybody else.
This is why I don't go to art galleries and this is why I dropped out of my College music course.
Nobody can tell you how to express yourself, and nobody can tell you what self expression you are to enjoy and how to enjoy it and fuck anybody that thinks that's the way things work.
The whole point of the concept of art is that everything is art, it just depends on your personal perception.
You go to an art gallery and you get spoonfed a person's opinion of what art is, and that's missing the point entirely.
I watch what I want to watch, I listen to what I want to listen to, I look at paintings and read books I see something cool in, and I get on with it without being a pretentious asshole to anybody else.
This is why I don't go to art galleries and this is why I dropped out of my College music course.
Nobody can tell you how to express yourself, and nobody can tell you what self expression you are to enjoy and how to enjoy it and fuck anybody that thinks that's the way things work.
I would appreciate a picture. It would help because I'm constantly ragging on how John Cage's professional trolling of the art community and the people who just make a single line aren't artists, but there's a fine line between that and stuff I call art and strangely enough enjoy that is like what Jackson Pollock (did I spell that right?) does.
I actually plan on submitting a swirl of dog shit to the Tate Modern next year.
As many people have said, art is subjective...hence the big ol' argument about whether or not videogames can be considered art.
this debate about whether or not something is 'art' will rage on into infinity.
As many people have said, art is subjective...hence the big ol' argument about whether or not videogames can be considered art.
this debate about whether or not something is 'art' will rage on into infinity.
the blue smear made you ask if it was really art. so it fits in the C category.[/quote]
can i just point out that its not really a question in its favor? a work that i consider art would make me marvel at the skill, wonder about the philosophical designs, or give me an impression of a feeling the creator had. if the work makes me think the artist could make a painting of his fish in big bugs bunny cartoon style and get $1,000,000 for it, its not a good piece.
can i just point out that its not really a question in its favor? a work that i consider art would make me marvel at the skill, wonder about the philosophical designs, or give me an impression of a feeling the creator had. if the work makes me think the artist could make a painting of his fish in big bugs bunny cartoon style and get $1,000,000 for it, its not a good piece.
Art is subjective. And as long as a dissected horse kept in lots of jars, or a turd in a can qualifies as art, I will continue to sneer and give people disdainful looks whenever they talk about art as a serious subject, and like they are some sort of expert on it.