Who the hell decided that this was art?!

[ZombieNinja]

Many pieces of art are supposed to be impressionist aren't they, making a point or a statement without using actual words. Like art (whatever it is that you may call it.) is a lot of the time trying to make a point about something and yes, I do know I've already said that but, for example if you were handing out drinks to people at a party in a glass and there was nothing in the glass, you could be making a statement about how 'empty' the experience is.

I myself prefer 'graffiti' above all other types of 'art' but only the good type, when people really put loads of effort into it, but when yobs just effortlessly scrawl their name or initials in black spray paint, that's pathetic.

If you like 'graffiti' if that is what it may so be called, look up Banksy. My favourite ever artist.

 

[Chinchama]

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.

Completely understandable. However, I do think we can define things as definitely not art i.e. starving dogs and public acts of gay masochism.

 

[Chinchama]

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.

Two words:

Rape tunnel.Yep.

Do I really want to know what that is?

http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2009/09/the_rape_tunnel.html

Seriously? The next logical step after breaking a models nose and going through 2 years of court hearings that still aren't settled, and the next logical step is to freaking rape people? Why is this man not in a padded cell?

However I do understand that art is to have an impact on peoples lives, and props to him for leaving such a strong impact. BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD car accidents, murders, every awful crime imaginable leaves an impact, some stronger than others, but there is no way you can go into a court of law and say, "I was making art" for an excuse as to why you committed an awful crime.

Let me push it to the extreme here and mildly ironic. Hitler was indeed an artist, he went to art school and actually made some decent work. Now according to our rape tunnel guy here, Hitler should be perhaps the greatest artist of the 20th century, since what he did in WW2 will have everlasting effects that affected the majority of the worlds population. It's something the human society will never forget, yet, I would not call the Holocaust art.

 

[Alex_P]

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.

My Bed requires a degree to understand it? Hardly. Look at it. Just, like, really look at it. Look at it like you would if that was a bed in someone's room and you were just standing there for a minute with nothing to do but stare at all the crap in their space. Think about what that bed tells you about its owner, about her life and how she feels. That's really it. That's all there is to understanding My Bed.

I don't like Emin's work, but the ideas behind it are hardly obscure. I think just about anyone can look at My Bed and come away with something about how our living space reflects our emotions and shapes them in turn. You might not consider that a novel or interesting or valuable revelation -- I myself think it's pretty pedestrian, -- but I don't think a Renaissance master's picture of some random duke or a bunch of nymphs of some saints and angels communicates anything more profound than My Bed.

-- Alex

 

[Bagaloo]

Richard Whitehouse...what the fuck? A rape tunnel? A punch-you-in-the-face tunnel?
How its violently attacking people art?

The whole "what is art" debate gets on my nerves. Seems to me a great deal of modern stuff is extremely elitist, with those of us who think that a shovel on a pedestool is just stupid being labeled as idiots ourselves who just don't 'get' the piece.

But whatever. There is no real way to win the debate. If somebody claims something is art, then it is. Like an earlier poster mentioned, it just means that its bad art (in your particular view if you don't like it).

 

[lewism247]

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.

Two words:

Rape tunnel.Yep.

Do I really want to know what that is?

http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2009/09/the_rape_tunnel.html

Seriously? The next logical step after breaking a models nose and going through 2 years of court hearings that still aren't settled, and the next logical step is to freaking rape people? Why is this man not in a padded cell?

However I do understand that art is to have an impact on peoples lives, and props to him for leaving such a strong impact. BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD car accidents, murders, every awful crime imaginable leaves an impact, some stronger than others, but there is no way you can go into a court of law and say, "I was making art" for an excuse as to why you committed an awful crime.

Let me push it to the extreme here and mildly ironic. Hitler was indeed an artist, he went to art school and actually made some decent work. Now according to our rape tunnel guy here, Hitler should be perhaps the greatest artist of the 20th century, since what he did in WW2 will have everlasting effects that affected the majority of the worlds population. It's something the human society will never forget, yet, I would not call the Holocaust art.

Have you heard ofthe twinkie defence?

 

[ShakyFiend]

Art is nearly always defined somewhat paradoxically as
1. something that is impossible to define
2. something that has no practical purpose whatsoever

 

[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.

 

[Kamehapa]

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.

Well, I think I would rather be in the dark ages of art conception, because making a statement is not the same as making a piece of art. Art is either meant to be a depiction of one's idea of reality or an idea in general. Hell, art can be abstract, but takin a random item and claiming that it is art simply because it exists is stupid. These pieces of 'art' try to make a statement, yes that can be understood, but in no way is that art than is my partially used bottle of shampoo. And if you should consider the Shovel an artistic piece for some reason, then you must accept that anything manmade is infact a piece of art, and that by this very typing I an creating a wonderful piece of artwork in a method to express myself. What exactly I'm expressing you can go and figure out, I mean critics love to add depth to anything, and it should really not be all that challenging.

 

[Cyberius]

There are people who think they make art just by splattering the paintbrush everywhere. Many people paint utterly incoherent shit and call it art as well (I guess that's what "modern" art is).

If it's not coherent to autistic people (like me), it's very hard to call it art.

I disagree. Even incoherent paint splattering can be art. Personally I think art is art if there was a lot of time and effort were put into making it (there a some exceptions to this). I only disagree with the view in this post because I'm a fan of Jackson Pollock.

 

[Alex_P]

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. It's very simple but I feel like that black square is just the right shape, aesthetically, to frame that shovel. For me, the black brings out the idea of hard, sooty labor that's implicit in the image of the shovel. I like it in ways that I wouldn't like that shovel on a red background, or a shovel with a pointier head or a wooden handle on that background, or a shovel on a pedestal without a background. Overall, it's nothing to write home about, but pictures of dukes and saints and nymph-bewbs usually aren't, either, so I'm okay with this being accorded a similar status in a gallery somewhere.

-- Alex

 

[Chinchama]

Have you heard ofthe twinkie defence?

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

 

[Locque]

A lot of people doing ridiculously lame things in the name of art are actually making a veiled statement against the art world and how up its own arse it's gotten. The thing is, I do believe that one can make a valid artistic statement with a shovel, or a pile of garbage or whatever. But just because someone's doing something like that doesn't automatically make it clever, or avant-garde, or anything else except a shovel on a pedestal.

 

[axia777]

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.

 

[metalmmaniac]

I just wanted to bring up a somewhat local artist (from Columus,OH, i believe) His previous work was a tunnel that gets smaller and smaller and finally leads to a small room (if you can squeeze thru the final bit of the tunnel). he was sitting in the room and promised to punch anyone who came thru in the face. he ended up breaking a model's nose. His next project is the same concept but is called the 'Rape Tunnel', where he promises to at least attempt to rape anyone who comes into his room. so go ahead and ponder that piece of 'art'

I would try to find a link to the story, but i really don't wanna see the results for 'Rape Tunnel' from Google.

 

[Cylem]

It's one thing if the artist can actually explain what exactly makes their piece "art".

There was that painting over at the Seattle Art Museum... A white canvas with a yellow and a black border. Just a yellow line, and a black line. Even the most open-minded art critic would have a hard time justifying that one.

 

[henrebotha]

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.

Half the point of conceptual art is to get you thinking and/or talking. Shovel did just that.

Gossip can also get people talking. Gossip is not art.

Simply because it is not submitted and codified as such, yes.

You must also understand that art always builds on tradition and context. No exceptions. It is utterly impossible to create art free of tradition and context. It would be possible to create a series of progressively off-beat artworks until one arrives at the point where gossip is art.

Really, the proper definition of "art" should be "the practice of defining art".

The significance of the Mona Lisa is an absolute mystery to me.

It is partly technical - brushes were fucking hard back then.

 

[slipknot4]

Would you consider this art?

http://jesuschristtheindieband.muxtape.com/

Yes, humours art of 2 things that does not exist.