Who the hell decided that this was art?!

[Agema]

According to some quick reading up I've just done...

Jim Dine was part of a movement opposed to abstract impressionism, the dominant artistic form at the time, which they perceived as culturally elitist. Their reaction to abstract impressionism was to take something mundane and common, and present it devoid of context, thus creating an ironic view of modern culture by representing the culture in terms of the everyday, popular and and kitsch. Hence also Andy Warhol's stuff, paintings of bananas and so on.

So, yeah, it might not be an oil painting, but there are reasons why such art exists. Now we just need to find out what abstract impressionism was about...

 

[BlueInkAlchemist]

The shovel is obviously a postmodernist piece along the same vain as The Fountain. Its form- the simple shovel, purposely violates the sense of reverence society gives works of art. It also, then, puts the meaning of a shovel into the connotation of being on a pedestal?
Think of what a shovel means to you, and how your perception changes because of its placement.

If you think its "bad art" because it doesn't show artistic prowess, then you're stuck in the conceptual dark ages.
Its like the people who insist that classical is the only good, or right music.

This is an argument I understand. Art that doesn't challenge the mind isn't really art - it's more of the same to cash in on a trend. True artists take what's conventional and try to start something new, rather than copying whatever they see.

On the other hand, there's nothing new under the sun, so it's more in how one can innovate an idea and make it fresh, putting a new spin or look onto a classic idea, rather than just spouting the classic idea and claiming it as your own.

 

[Erana]

Art is hard to define. The best definition of art that many can come up with is "it's something an artist makes". But even then, I scratch my head at some things that entitle themselves as some sort of 'artistic statement'. What thing that is classified as 'art' do you think has no right to be declared as such?

Jim Dine, I'm calling your ass out. What the hell were you thinking with Shovel? You just bought a shovel, put it on a pedestal and then suddenly it was art?! I think that's a tad ridiculous.

The shovel is obviously a postmodernist piece along the same vain as The Fountain. Its form- the simple shovel, purposely violates the sense of reverence society gives works of art. It also, then, puts the meaning of a shovel into the connotation of being on a pedestal?
Think of what a shovel means to you, and how your perception changes because of its placement.

If you think its "bad art" because it doesn't show artistic prowess, then you're stuck in the conceptual dark ages.
Its like the people who insist that classical is the only good, or right music.

I agree with you. However, I feel that hard should have some sort of emotion, thought or depth behind it. The Fountain was just a toilet someone purchased and put on display, then thought up of something to say about it. There was also a guy, in California I think? not too sure, who participated in gay sodomy with a blind folded volunteer in public. (I'm not saying I have anything against gays, but publicly displaying anal/oral sex and performing scat activities is a good bit too far) Stuff like that IS NOT art its a bizarre perversion where the thought behind the idea is an after excuse to get away with it. Another example is the guy who was starving dogs as an instillation.

Ugh... I've always wanted to try tying him up like that, and watch him wimper and plead for help. I had to write about that one for my professor... *shutters*

Still, no one can define what art is; even society doesn't want to admit that half the stuff made these days is art. Personally, I think we should eschew art as a whole in favor of identifying with types of art. (personally, I take a lot of postmodernism as being kinda like an internet troll; forever making the proverbial landscape more hostile, but nonetheless being an undeniable part of the whole's evolution)
If someone doesn't like art past the impressionists, fine. I respect if they say that they don't care for it.
I just find it unfathomable to think that someone believes they are qualified to say that some things are or are not art. Not just for how disrespectful it is, but...
Well, its like someone truly believing that racing games are not video games, with the only incentive to do so being that they don't "get" them.

 

[DrDeath3191]

Art is hard to define. The best definition of art that many can come up with is "it's something an artist makes". But even then, I scratch my head at some things that entitle themselves as some sort of 'artistic statement'. What thing that is classified as 'art' do you think has no right to be declared as such?

Jim Dine, I'm calling your ass out. What the hell were you thinking with Shovel? You just bought a shovel, put it on a pedestal and then suddenly it was art?! I think that's a tad ridiculous.

The shovel is obviously a postmodernist piece along the same vain as The Fountain. Its form- the simple shovel, purposely violates the sense of reverence society gives works of art. It also, then, puts the meaning of a shovel into the connotation of being on a pedestal?
Think of what a shovel means to you, and how your perception changes because of its placement.

If you think its "bad art" because it doesn't show artistic prowess, then you're stuck in the conceptual dark ages.
Its like the people who insist that classical is the only good, or right music.

I'm glad you found merit in this piece. I didn't, thus it was my choice. I'm not against post-modern art, but putting a store-bought shovel on display seems lazy to me.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Art is hard to define. The best definition of art that many can come up with is "it's something an artist makes". But even then, I scratch my head at some things that entitle themselves as some sort of 'artistic statement'. What thing that is classified as 'art' do you think has no right to be declared as such?

Jim Dine, I'm calling your ass out. What the hell were you thinking with Shovel? You just bought a shovel, put it on a pedestal and then suddenly it was art?! I think that's a tad ridiculous.

The shovel is obviously a postmodernist piece along the same vain as The Fountain. Its form- the simple shovel, purposely violates the sense of reverence society gives works of art. It also, then, puts the meaning of a shovel into the connotation of being on a pedestal?
Think of what a shovel means to you, and how your perception changes because of its placement.

If you think its "bad art" because it doesn't show artistic prowess, then you're stuck in the conceptual dark ages.
Its like the people who insist that classical is the only good, or right music.

You mean like Theodor Adorno? He was a jackass. He was half right in terms of his views on the "culture industry" and had some good ideas, but anyone who thinks that classical music and fine art is the only good music while the rest is garbage, and can "save" the mass populace is a jackass, not to mention he likes to contradict himself.

...And now I've gone on a tangent. Erm, I want to understand the difference between art, and "artistic value" within a piece of work. As it stands what is art and what is an object that holds artistic merit? Because otherwise everything is art, and I don't want to say it should all be in a gallery but...

I (and my friends) used to write of the works in the Tate Modern gallery as trash, but now as I've gotten older I am a bit more knowledgeable about it all, and can appreciate some of it (but not all).

It might be thread time actually.

 

[messy]

I think you should be able to appreciate art even if you don't fully understand it, for example the Mona Lisa; I can't tell you why da Vinci used those colours but I cant tell that's it well painted and took skill, time and effort.

An unmade bed on the other hand seems to requires a degree to truly understand it which just seems wrong. To me "modern art" is just a form of elitism where as long as you have the right connections and a bit of blag you can make anything art.

 

[mrx19869]

Art is in the eye of the beholder. a while back this guy to a jar of pee and stuck a crucifix into it... called it art.. the best part was that he did it all with a government grant...

 

[theSovietConnection]

*SNIP*

If you don't mind, I may take a stab at this with how I feel about it.

To me, art is a massive shifting behemoth, whose very composition changes more then you wish to think. Much like the Force, its abilities and understanding varies greatly from person to person. There is not, and I believe never shall be a single definition for art. It shall always be a mixed composition of what everyone individually thinks is art. To me, art is the pieces from classical greats such as Gerome, Michelangelo, and Da Vinci, or compositions by great composers like Beethoven and Bach, or hell, even the modern day music I greatly appreciate. I don't, however, consider post-Modernist pieces to be art to me. And that's just it, art will always be defined from person to person. Does it mean my definition of art is any less valid then your definition of art, or the OPs definition? Of course not. It is simply variations on how art is defined among the three of us. My art, your art, his art. Really, in the greater scheme of things, we're all right. And that's really what counts, isn't it?

 

[Erana]

Art is hard to define. The best definition of art that many can come up with is "it's something an artist makes". But even then, I scratch my head at some things that entitle themselves as some sort of 'artistic statement'. What thing that is classified as 'art' do you think has no right to be declared as such?

Jim Dine, I'm calling your ass out. What the hell were you thinking with Shovel? You just bought a shovel, put it on a pedestal and then suddenly it was art?! I think that's a tad ridiculous.

The shovel is obviously a postmodernist piece along the same vain as The Fountain. Its form- the simple shovel, purposely violates the sense of reverence society gives works of art. It also, then, puts the meaning of a shovel into the connotation of being on a pedestal?
Think of what a shovel means to you, and how your perception changes because of its placement.

If you think its "bad art" because it doesn't show artistic prowess, then you're stuck in the conceptual dark ages.
Its like the people who insist that classical is the only good, or right music.

I'm glad you found merit in this piece. I didn't, thus it was my choice. I'm not against post-modern art, but putting a store-bought shovel on display seems lazy to me.

I never said I find much merit in the piece. I said I understand where the artist is coming from, and the generally accepted meaning to be found in these sorts of work. To say its "lazy" proves that you don't understand the current idea of art itself.
You don't have to like it, but saying something isn't art is an insult to the international world of art.
As an artist, I would appreciate if you would just say that something doesn't appeal to you, and leave it at that.
I don't see any real point to your OP, other than going, "This is so bad."
If someone said, "Who decided that Halo 3 qualifies as a video game," it would be locked on the spot.
Is there any real, discussable point to this thread?

*SNIP*

If you don't mind, I may take a stab at this with how I feel about it.

To me, art is a massive shifting behemoth, whose very composition changes more then you wish to think. Much like the Force, its abilities and understanding varies greatly from person to person. There is not, and I believe never shall be a single definition for art. It shall always be a mixed composition of what everyone individually thinks is art. To me, art is the pieces from classical greats such as Gerome, Michelangelo, and Da Vinci, or compositions by great composers like Beethoven and Bach, or hell, even the modern day music I greatly appreciate. I don't, however, consider post-Modernist pieces to be art to me. And that's just it, art will always be defined from person to person. Does it mean my definition of art is any less valid then your definition of art, or the OPs definition? Of course not. It is simply variations on how art is defined among the three of us. My art, your art, his art. Really, in the greater scheme of things, we're all right. And that's really what counts, isn't it?

I just don't get why you wouldn't consider something art. It is socially accepted as art; the art world as a whole has evolved to this point. I can understand people having different definitions of art, but so often, I see people disqualifying movements like postmodernism on the basis that they didn't like it. What do you consider postmodernism to be?
I guess I have had a bit of a kneejerk reaction to the OP...

 

[matnatz]

I think the art world needs a line in the sand.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Art means you can look at it with perspectives that have narratives to it. Just because a man just puts a shovel on a pedestal doesn't disqualify it from being art so long as people look at it and think to themselves what it may represent.

Personally, I'm one to think that art these days is found a lot in video game worlds. A good example would probably be Silent Hill.

 

[Overlord2702]

You know what i can do.
I can go to my local hardware store, buy a shovel, mount it on a pedestal.... and....
My very own Jim Dine masterpiece (that be 250K if you want to buy it)

If the handle of the shovel was bent or twisted i would call it art but it just a shovel. Hell i got a bunch of "Art" in my garden shed maybe i should sell it...

 

[DrDeath3191]

Art is hard to define. The best definition of art that many can come up with is "it's something an artist makes". But even then, I scratch my head at some things that entitle themselves as some sort of 'artistic statement'. What thing that is classified as 'art' do you think has no right to be declared as such?

Jim Dine, I'm calling your ass out. What the hell were you thinking with Shovel? You just bought a shovel, put it on a pedestal and then suddenly it was art?! I think that's a tad ridiculous.

The shovel is obviously a postmodernist piece along the same vain as The Fountain. Its form- the simple shovel, purposely violates the sense of reverence society gives works of art. It also, then, puts the meaning of a shovel into the connotation of being on a pedestal?
Think of what a shovel means to you, and how your perception changes because of its placement.

If you think its "bad art" because it doesn't show artistic prowess, then you're stuck in the conceptual dark ages.
Its like the people who insist that classical is the only good, or right music.

I'm glad you found merit in this piece. I didn't, thus it was my choice. I'm not against post-modern art, but putting a store-bought shovel on display seems lazy to me.

I never said I find much merit in the piece. I said I understand where the artist is coming from, and the generally accepted meaning to be found in these sorts of work. To say its "lazy" proves that you don't understand the current idea of art itself.
You don't have to like it, but saying something isn't art is an insult to the international world of art.
As an artist, I would appreciate if you would just say that something doesn't appeal to you, and leave it at that.
I don't see any real point to your OP, other than going, "This is so bad."
If someone said, "Who decided that Halo 3 qualifies as a video game," it would be locked on the spot.
Is there any real, discussable point to this thread?

Maybe I don't understand the current ideas of art. But it seems to me that art is on the decline, rather than an increase in provoking thought and excellence in execution if such pieces are to be defended. The piece is creative, in a sense, I'll give it that. But if the point of art is to reveal something (as many people seem to believe it is), then this piece fails utterly. This does not provoke thought. It's just there.

The point of this discussion is to talk about art: what it is and what it is not. My initial post may have been a touch insensitive. I apologize. My opinion, however, remains that Shovel is not an art piece.

 

[Erana]

Art is hard to define. The best definition of art that many can come up with is "it's something an artist makes". But even then, I scratch my head at some things that entitle themselves as some sort of 'artistic statement'. What thing that is classified as 'art' do you think has no right to be declared as such?

Jim Dine, I'm calling your ass out. What the hell were you thinking with Shovel? You just bought a shovel, put it on a pedestal and then suddenly it was art?! I think that's a tad ridiculous.

The shovel is obviously a postmodernist piece along the same vain as The Fountain. Its form- the simple shovel, purposely violates the sense of reverence society gives works of art. It also, then, puts the meaning of a shovel into the connotation of being on a pedestal?
Think of what a shovel means to you, and how your perception changes because of its placement.

If you think its "bad art" because it doesn't show artistic prowess, then you're stuck in the conceptual dark ages.
Its like the people who insist that classical is the only good, or right music.

I'm glad you found merit in this piece. I didn't, thus it was my choice. I'm not against post-modern art, but putting a store-bought shovel on display seems lazy to me.

I never said I find much merit in the piece. I said I understand where the artist is coming from, and the generally accepted meaning to be found in these sorts of work. To say its "lazy" proves that you don't understand the current idea of art itself.
You don't have to like it, but saying something isn't art is an insult to the international world of art.
As an artist, I would appreciate if you would just say that something doesn't appeal to you, and leave it at that.
I don't see any real point to your OP, other than going, "This is so bad."
If someone said, "Who decided that Halo 3 qualifies as a video game," it would be locked on the spot.
Is there any real, discussable point to this thread?

Maybe I don't understand the current ideas of art. But it seems to me that art is on the decline, rather than an increase in provoking thought and excellence in execution if such pieces are to be defended. The piece is creative, in a sense, I'll give it that. But if the point of art is to reveal something (as many people seem to believe it is), then this piece fails utterly. This does not provoke thought. It's just there.

The point of this discussion is to talk about art: what it is and what it is not. My initial post may have been a touch insensitive. I apologize. My opinion, however, remains that Shovel is not an art piece.

What do you consider it, then? (I say this not in an indignant tone, but one of curiosity) The art object has been given a new purpose being on a pedestal, and has obviously made everyone in this thread feel something.

 

[TelHybrid]

It seems a lot of people are under the illusion that AMVs are art... I'm not kidding.

w..t..f..

 

[DrDeath3191]

SNIP

I consider it to be what I think it is: a shovel trying to be passed off as art. 'Feeling' is not indicative of art. If I punch you in the gut, you 'feel' rightly pissed off. That does not make my uppercut a work of artistic genius. However, if the piece reveals something, then I think it fits more in the description. But as many have said, art is complicated. What I consider as art, you may not, and vice versa. And that's fine: art is supposed to be about personal interpretation.

 

[DemonicVixen]

I have seen lots of things declared art when actually they are pure idiotic crap. Cats brushing their tales on paper or dog paw prints selling for hunderds if not thousands of pounds... My pets can do that! But i bet if i tried i would get laughed at and humiliated.

I have seen a strange sculpture not far from where i live. Its battered and destroyed but still considered art even now!

 

[Lilani]

Why do you find it so important to find an absolute "yes" or absolute "no" when it comes to deciding what is art? What will be accomplished even if a concrete list of criteria is contrived so that whatever fulfills it is art, and whatever doesn't is not? And while we're at it, what do you hope to accomplish? Getting these people kicked out of galleries or something?

The only thing that will be accomplished is inhibiting people from creating what they believe is art. So what if you don't think it's art? Who cares. Back in the day, people didn't think what Picasso did was art, either. I'm not saying that anyone who digs some random piece of shit out of a dump and puts it on a podium has made art, but if that piece of shit has some interesting aesthetic value to it, or it clearly has some sort of history that brought it there, then why not. If the artist is unsuccessful, then that's his money lost. But if even one person enjoys the piece enough to buy it or place it in their museum, then they have been successful.

Who knows. Maybe the shit piling is just a phase. Maybe they'll decide dumpster diving is below them and take up painting instead, and in the process discovering they might just be the next Michelangelo. You never know.

 

[ntw3001]

The term 'art' doesn't really have any meaning. What it does mean is that someone, or a collection of people, with sufficient influence in the sphere of deciding-whether-a-thing-should-be-called-art have decided that it should be called art. Aside from that, there's nothing to separate an art object from a non-art object. So something is art if someone who (for whatever reason) gets to decide thinks the word 'art' should apply to it.

So yeah, you're fully justified in debating whether an item has value as art, but it's not a useful argument because you're discussing a term whose only concrete meaning is 'this term has been applied'.