I'm not asking for an absolute definition. I'm asking for a personal one. You don't seem to think it needs one. That's fine for you, but other people have some form of a standard or another. And off-topic, I'd probably argue that those cave drawings were more often than not for documentation over artistic expression.Lilani said:
Who the hell decided that this was art?!
- Thread starter DrDeath3191
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I see trying to communicate with subtly is not going to work with you so I will come out and say it. You and all people like you are jerks. Overbearing egotistical jerks. Being close minded is the sign of a small mind. Because minds are like parachutes, they only really work when open.Captain Picard said:
Well to be fair I never said a painting of some random duke was more profound I just said you can appreciate it for what it's worth, the skill time and effort taken into making it. It's art that you don't have to take time to appreciate, because I don't think enough people have time to muse upon a random bunch of shapes. So this art I feel applies more to the every-man, the one that hangs paintings cause they look nice not because they wish to show off how much the understand about form and colour (not saying everyone with modern art in their house does this but I know enough who do). And its increasingly just becoming a fashion statement; the amount of houses I go into with random splash of colour on a canvas with a signature on the bottom is much too high in my opinion.Alex_P said:
Perhaps the my bed one was a bad choice, but I was just trying to pick something most people had heard of and is stereotypically "modern art".
And it just appears that if your connected enough you can get away with anything with the label of art (I'll be honest this is really just an opinion and would actually quite like it if it was proven wrong)
Disagreeing does not mean he has a small mind. Maybe you're the one wih a closed mind by saying there's nothing that can't be considered art, and that it is dependent on the individual?axia777 said:
To mean that seems to try to avoid a definition altogether rather han address what art really is, and that is quite frankly close minded.
And I think it's preposterous that you make the claim that I don't live up to a fictional character because I have STANDARDS about what I consider to be art. You seem to be so offended by my disinterest in boradening my definition of what art is that I am left puzzled. Would you be so offended by a devout and conservative Muslim, who viewed Western liberalism as evil, for not broadening his definition of what is socially acceptable?axia777 said:
If not, that stinks of hypocrisy to me.
Yet you have art on your avatar.TheNamlessGuy said:
Saying art is crap is the most closed-minded, even idiotic statement there is. Actually, the most idiotic statement is to think that "nothing is art". If nothing is art, how can art be crap? You don't make sense.
On topic: I think art is a piece of work created by one or several people, which needs to fit two requirements:
1) You must set out to make a piece of art. That is, from the get-go, your piece of work must be intended as a work of art.
2) It must evoke some sort of feeling on the audience. Whether it be sorrow, laughter or even marvel at the artist's skill.
Fine artists are funny, I'm taught by a couple for my perspective and figure drawing module at uni... they all think my picture should fit the page...
I hate scribbles that attempt to resemble something, that actually don't but it's still called art and a masterpiece.
I hate scribbles that attempt to resemble something, that actually don't but it's still called art and a masterpiece.
Sounds to me like art that makes fun of the arbitrariness of our notions of art. That alone qualifies it as art; satire is art.DrDeath3191 said:
Anything can be made art, it's all down to how people view the world. The term is applied far too broadly.
I took a Performance Art class in college. (Nothing to do with acting or performing arts, performance art is it's own vague, bizare thing.) It was an interesting experience to say the least. Got to learn about some bizarre things, like Chris Burden's "Trans-Fixed [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Burden-Transfixed.jpg]", Carloee Sherman's "Interior Scroll [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Schneemann-Interior_Scroll.gif]" (links to photos probably not for the faint of heart), and Yoko Ono was into it as well.
And it taught me that "art" can be anything and everything. But mostly, art is an excuse. If you ever are in a situation in which you may get in trouble for something, just claim that you're doing performance art. No one can question you.
And it taught me that "art" can be anything and everything. But mostly, art is an excuse. If you ever are in a situation in which you may get in trouble for something, just claim that you're doing performance art. No one can question you.
I think art should have some measure of talent involved so that its not something anyone can do.
I think that Tracy Emins bed is a useless excuse for art especially considering how scruffy she is. Fountain by Marcel Duchamp is another example of this its a fucking Toilet that he has signed. Does that make half the students in my university artists? No it doesn't because its not art.
I think that Tracy Emins bed is a useless excuse for art especially considering how scruffy she is. Fountain by Marcel Duchamp is another example of this its a fucking Toilet that he has signed. Does that make half the students in my university artists? No it doesn't because its not art.
To answer the OP, art is simply what you make of it. Whether it's good or not, though, is a different matter altogether. It saddens me to see an entry in the art webpage linked by Credge devoted to a picture of a shovel while at least 3 people I know that can draw better than most comic illustrators are having a tough time looking to get published.