I think Warhol did have skill and talent despite what he says. For crap's sake, Pete Townshend still reckons he can't play the guitar; you can't trust these people.BonsaiK said:
Poll: Is the term "Art" overused?
- Thread starter Blazing Steel
- Start date
Recommended Videos
How is calling anything that counts as art art overuse?
Art is anything that has been created for no purpose other than to be itself. As such, calling something artistic isn't the same as calling something a piece of art.Woem said:
You're confusing "good vs bad art" with "art vs not art". "Art" is often used by people as some kind of critical acclaim as in "oh that's so artistic" but this is an incorrect usage and this is why people get confused about what art is and isn't.Archemetis said:
Andy had no talent or skill and knew it - he didn't even MAKE his own art! He just ran a production studio and got other people to mass-produce it. A Britney Spears CD has more input from Britney Spears than any Andy Warhol painting has from Andy Warhol. This is a known fact. At least Britney's voice (however enhanced) is on the Britney CD. If you buy a Warhol painting, Andy didn't put a drop of paint on it.Superior Mind said:
Maybe 'cause he was mainly a printmaker and an illustrator rather than a painter. These things still require skill, I mean take a comic book - it's been illustrated and then replicated, does it mean it's not art? It's pop-art and that's what Warhol was famous for.BonsaiK said:
Warhol's an interesting one though, he almost treads the line between visionary and hack; he's certainly not an artist in the traditional sense. I think too many people look at his work and rate it on it's artistic merits, (of which there are few.) Your comparison between Warhol and Britney Spears is rather fitting, they're both artists in the same kind of way.
The point being that it's still art, even if he had no input in it at all and all he did was hire the studio (which was about the sum total of his input in a lot of the stuff he churned out). Sure, skill and talent gives you a much greater chance of your art being good and worthwhile, but you don't NEED it to create art. You might (arguably) need it to create good art, but shitty worthless art is still art.
I lol'd when i heard a student used his old room as art, such as old socks, posters etc
Then a claner came along and binned it all not knowing it was "art", she got sued for millions.
Then a claner came along and binned it all not knowing it was "art", she got sued for millions.
Anything can be art. I mean who decides if something isn't art? If one guy thinks the mona lisa is a pile of crap does it suddenly become not art? How many people have to think something is art before it becomes art?Lego Man said:
I think if the creator intended something to be art, then it's art. You can disagree with them, but it's not like you have some kind of ultra art authority to override their statement of their work as being art.
PS. One things for sure, I overused the word art in that last
I think you don't give what input Warhol had enough credit. Still, for the very reasons you've given is why Warhol's art is generally labeled "pop art" rather than "art". The very fact that there is this distinction suggests more that art can not just be applied to any old thing that is meant to be art, it suggess that there are certain conditions that need to be met before something can be called art.BonsaiK said:
Take my rubbish bag example from earlier. It was intended as art. Does that make it art? I say it doesn't - not even shitty worthless art. The empty Red Bull can on my desk right now isn't art and it doesn't come any closer to being art if I declare "This empty can of Red Bull on my desk is art".
Damn, you're right Taerdin, there is a major overuse of the word "art" in ths thread.
That doesn't really disprove that any piece is art.conmag9 said:
However a supposed "artist" whose motivations is to belong to an elitist society of artists is clearly a hack. You don't create art with the motivation to gain recognition by any peers, you create art for the sake of creating art...
A turd in a jar could win the Turner Prize. Is it art? Perhaps if the person behind it is clever enough to convince the judges in their 30,000 word essay that it is. Never understand that one, art doesn't really need any explanation or justification on that scale. As long as it's aesthetically pleasing.
Well... some people might find a turd in a jar aesthetically pleasing.
Well... some people might find a turd in a jar aesthetically pleasing.
Well what I ment by rubbish was that someone sticks some stuff they just picked up out of the trash and glued it to something else and it instanly becomes art. I didn't mean Art = Rubbish since alot isn't, I was just asking what most people thought was.Erana said:
The term, "Art" Is underused, except when people try to convince everyone else that something is not art. The term, "Art" needs to not have a value judgement attached to it, or else conversations about art will consist of a bunch of elitists bitching at each other. Movies, music, video games, theater, painting and sculpture, even the absolutely most innane, ugly, talentless piece of dretch is art. You can argue that a lot of it is not good art, sure. But it is still art.