Who the hell decided that this was art?!

[Captain Picard]

Sorry to break it to you but that is your opinion. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. So stop being closed minded and live and let live.

No.

You live up to neither your forum name nor your avatar.

Golly gee, good thing I'm not really Captain Picard, otherwise I'd have to give up that uniform.

 

[rokkolpo]

the most only thing i see as art are human emotions. they,re beautiful,hideous,unpredictable,chaotic etc

but most of all beautiful (in my opinion that is)

 

[Kwaren]

I'm gonna put a bunch of food coloring in my mouth then sneeze on a canvas and make millions! In today's world I think my plan would work, unfortunately.

 

[General Vagueness]

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.

A work like that may do all that, and it should, but it could've just been a guy seeing if he could put a shovel on a pedestal, call it art, and have people agree without explaining it (or putting a gun to their head). You could argue that explaining it detracts from its profundity (and that violence never solved anything) but I'd say I think art shouldn't need to be explained to be appreciated on some level and most people will give up trying before they get it (and refer you World War II).

 

[LeonLethality]

à chacun le sien...
my friend has a picture of bottle caps in his room he calls "an art" but whatever none of it really interests me except photography

 

[DrDeath3191]

I'm gonna put a bunch of food coloring in my mouth then sneeze on a canvas and make millions! In today's world I think my plan would work, unfortunately.

You'd have to sign it first.

 

[lewism247]

Have you heard ofthe twinkie defence?

Can't say I have. Feel free to enlighten me please :]

This guy who worked for the mayor's office in san francisco shot and killed a guy called Harvey Milk.He got of with it because apparently he had been binging on snack foods like twinkies and this led to a chemical imbalance in his brain.

 

[zombi2989]

The best definition I've heard for art is as follows: "If you have to question whether or not it is art, that questioning makes it art.".

 

[Chinchama]

Have you heard ofthe twinkie defence?

Can't say I have. Feel free to enlighten me please :]

This guy who worked for the mayor's office in san francisco shot and killed a guy called Harvey Milk.He got of with it because apparently he had been binging on snack foods like twinkies and this led to a chemical imbalance in his brain.

As an American, I can officially say I am upset with our judicial system. That man should have been jailed. And the lady from McDonalds should have manned up and dealt with the burns like a big girl. And the fat people should not sue fast food. Rawr, America really needs to let Darwinism take effect. Stop rewarding the lowest common denominator for their fallacies and mistakes.

 

[Carboncrown]

Art is absolutely anything, that unaccidentally causes feelings that are percieved as positive at the moment by you.

 

[Credge]

Concept means nothing when the execution is poor.

The only Jim Dine shovel image I can find online is A Black Shovel, Number 2 [http://amica.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=AMICOID=WMAA.67.63%20LIMIT:AMICO~1~1&sort=INITIALSORT_CRN%2COCS%2CAMICOID&search=Search]. The execution looks fine to me.

I can't even begin to imagine what you think bad looks like.

 

[Captain Picard]

Alright, I've got to ask. What is so dreadfully wrong with having STANDARDS with regard to what is and isn't art? Is that because a lot of people would never make the cut if there were standards? You mean to say that not everything people made would be fit to be called art, and might be EXCLUDED?! Wannabe artists might get their feelings HURT?! Oh the injustice! It's not fair at all!

Guess what? Life isn't fair, and having standards ensures that things are actually worthwhile.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

The ULTIMATE example of why this post exists. I bring you...

Spoiler: 4'33"

They assembled a full orchestra to do absolutely nothing... At least they didn't miss a note.

 

[Kasawd]

To me, art is something you can do badly.

I find that alot of people using the label to pidgeon hole themselves is usually code for unemployed or asshat.

Everyone can produce art, so why is it so bloody vaunted?

 

[Kamehapa]

Concept means nothing when the execution is poor.

The only Jim Dine shovel image I can find online is A Black Shovel, Number 2 [http://amica.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=AMICOID=WMAA.67.63%20LIMIT:AMICO~1~1&sort=INITIALSORT_CRN%2COCS%2CAMICOID&search=Search]. The execution looks fine to me.

I can't even begin to imagine what you think bad looks like.

Spoiler: Ooh, I know this one

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

Art can be many things at once, unexplainable, like a hypocritical guy claiming you have no open-mindedness, I prefer old art, but even then, i'm not generally interested.

 

[DarkPanda XIII]

in the end there would be a thousand reasons why he would do something like that. perhaps it was similar to how Warhol produced his work to mock society the way he knows how. Or he believes he can truly get people to think with a shovel on a pedestal. This coming from a comic book artist, but really, put at least some effort into it. Somebody like Pollock tossed a crap-load of paint upon a giant canvas took time in at least knowing where he might want the splatter.

Really? It can mean alot, but really, try harder >.<

 

[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.

Except it is, because look at what it's provoked in you and in this discussion forum. That's rather the point of most post-modern art, to provoke thoughts and questions as to exactly what is art and why is it art? Shovel is both deconstructive and self-referential at the same time. Upon seeing it the thought it provokes is "Why is this here?" Leading to the questions you have raised, "Is this art? What makes it art?" and in doing so, it reveals to us some of our own conceptions and pre-conceptions of art.

I didn't think "Is this art?" I was told it was art, and I said bullshit. It was not the piece itself, but the statement that it is art that led to the creation of this topic. The piece itself is worthless (to me, at least). The claim, however, did incite a sort of emotional response: annoyance. But as I said earlier, just because it incites an emotion, that does not make it art.

 

[Lilani]

snip

I just want to see what people think. As I said, art is hard to define, and I want to know what people think about art and what they don't think about it. I'm not calling for some revolution against Shovel, I'm just stating my opinions on what I believe is art, and what is not.

But what is so important about the need to define what is art and what isn't? Back in the day, when cavemen were charting events on cave walls, they weren't doing it for the sake of fulfilling a definiton. They did it for the sake of defining who they were, where they were, and what they were doing. They were defining their culture and perspectives on things.

What I'm saying is that finding an absolute definition for what is and isn't art is pointless. You'll get much more done by deliberating on how successful the piece is, or the thought process of the artist. Threads like this just sicken me. Asking "is this art?" or "is that art" is like holding up a Bible and asking "is this God?" It's avoiding the question that everyone really wants to ask: "how is God affecting me now," and to localize it "how is this art affecting me now."

"Is this art" is simply the wrong question, in my humble opinion.