Pile of wood = art?

[FallenTraveler]

art is subjective.

/thread

but seriously, as an illustration major this kind of art pisses me off, now, I can understand if an artist is delving into some conceptual thought he/she has. But if they're just doing it to do it I call shenanigans....

I think I maybe should try this sort of art at some point, see if it gets me any $$$

 

[Underground Man]

You know what I blame for this? The industrial revolution. Once photography became an option, realistic art (which actually takes, you know, talent) was no longer the bastion of artists. Now they have all this time and excessive energy, so they start piling wood.

Maybe if we fed them less?

And I don't think it's art just because someone talks about it. This "debate" over "what is le nature of le art" has been had already, over and over again. How about something innovative for once? Or even better, lets use that wood for something useful, like a computer desk for someone with a clue.

 

[Delock]

It's not the thing itself that is art, the artistic part convincing other people it's art.

I think you mean "Pretentiousness." This is why I will never be a good artist, because I realize that my brain farts or screw-ups are just that, rather than some deep personal vision of conflict resonating between two parties using colors and shapes in a symbolic manner while showing off the abstract nature of the world through the absurdity of it all (I had to defend my work in art classes. You learn to BS better than a politician).

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

If at least one person believes it to be art then it is indeed art. If you're looking for consensus as to what is and is not art, I expect you'll be waiting awhile.

Personally, it doesn't strike me as artistic so much as it is a mess, but if someone managed to score a few grand for the effort then I applaud them.

 

[Prince Regent]

It's called dadaism.

Spoiler: This is called influential in The Museum of Modern Art.

Could I make that? Sure. It would be declared art as soon as I declare it as art and that's the point of dadaism.

This is Duchamp right?

The point of a pile of wood being art is that it isn't. One it's points is often to ridiculize art. It's often rather interesting like Fountain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

It's sometimes called anti art art.

 

[TWRule]

I do find it unfortunate for anyone to consider the anti-thesis of something part of the definition of the category, but I suppose it can't be helped.

Not to start a needless argument that won't be resolved here, but I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that art is contingent upon cultural norms. Perhaps a specific cultural interpretation lends itself to how we agree upon an understanding of art (and maybe what we decide to place in a museum), but it seems to me that art itself is something that any human being has the potential to experience equally, regardless of culture. In other words, social (collective) interactions should not be confused with interpersonal (dialogue between two people) interactions as they are fundamentally different in nature. Art, in my view, is interpersonal - not something that merely has to be collectively interpreted and agreed upon. Take that for what you will.

Well, I mean the point is that the anti thesis, as you put it, became the definition of the category, rather than was just considered to be a part of it. I see your point though.

The thing is, while you are uncomfortable with the idea of art being contingent on cultural norms, you have to realise that everything in the world is, and art is just the extreme embodiment of this. Similarly, when you claim that you feel art should be something that people experience equally, again you have to agree that people don't experience anything equally. We have opinions, we read into things differently, and we are culturally conditioned to create opinions that people from other culture will differ from. If we weren't this way, then the superior argument would always win, and there would be no call for political parties because we would all choose a sensible and perfect working order.

I would never demand that you like a piece of art, nor respect or even appreciate it. That is for everyone alone to decide. I still think that this is very much within the definable boundaries of the term art, alongside Painting, Sculpture, Installation, Film, Photography, and Games.

I don't accept that everything is subject to cultural norms at all. If I can become conscious of what the norms are, I can choose whether or not to subscribe to them. At some level, our humanity, rather than the fact that we are in society, comes into play. See: Any existentialist literature. Now, perhaps some art is considered so because it meets that cultural definition, but changing the definition with every culture and period seems to undermine any purpose for a definition.

Let me clarify that I'm not arguing that art isn't open to interpretation. However, I believe people take away a similar intuitive experience (prior to putting it into words or even intelligible thought), and then take different interpretations from it based on their world-view. In other words, an event happened, we both experienced it - and we are just arguing over the style of that event's significant.

 

[Headsprouter]

pile of skilfully carved wood - yes.
pile of logs - no.
games - piles of 1s and 0s put together to form detailed landscapes that you can move around and interact with. yes.

 

[secretshadow90]

I'm willing to call a lot of things art. Stone walls done in a certain way can be art. Lots of things can be art. Piles of wood can be art, but this particular pile of wood is not art. It looks like the very neat pile of wood behind my neighbor's house. However, by this discussion we're sort of validating it as being art.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

So you think that ANY human creation is art?

It can be.

That doesn't mean I think pieces of wood, sliced up cows, or my shit should be worth millions of dollars though. Human expression is unqualifiable, to attempt to qualify it, especially with something like money, is absurd to me.

Art is the most natural, all-encompassing aspect of humanity, because we have the capability to take the world around us, and assign some sort of significance to it. Our brains have evolved to the point where we can see symbols, beauty and meaning in the world around us. And so we isolate, frame and manipulate those things to capture our moments, perspectives, and expression and call it art.

 

[Verlander]

I do find it unfortunate for anyone to consider the anti-thesis of something part of the definition of the category, but I suppose it can't be helped.

Not to start a needless argument that won't be resolved here, but I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that art is contingent upon cultural norms. Perhaps a specific cultural interpretation lends itself to how we agree upon an understanding of art (and maybe what we decide to place in a museum), but it seems to me that art itself is something that any human being has the potential to experience equally, regardless of culture. In other words, social (collective) interactions should not be confused with interpersonal (dialogue between two people) interactions as they are fundamentally different in nature. Art, in my view, is interpersonal - not something that merely has to be collectively interpreted and agreed upon. Take that for what you will.

Well, I mean the point is that the anti thesis, as you put it, became the definition of the category, rather than was just considered to be a part of it. I see your point though.

The thing is, while you are uncomfortable with the idea of art being contingent on cultural norms, you have to realise that everything in the world is, and art is just the extreme embodiment of this. Similarly, when you claim that you feel art should be something that people experience equally, again you have to agree that people don't experience anything equally. We have opinions, we read into things differently, and we are culturally conditioned to create opinions that people from other culture will differ from. If we weren't this way, then the superior argument would always win, and there would be no call for political parties because we would all choose a sensible and perfect working order.

I would never demand that you like a piece of art, nor respect or even appreciate it. That is for everyone alone to decide. I still think that this is very much within the definable boundaries of the term art, alongside Painting, Sculpture, Installation, Film, Photography, and Games.

I don't accept that everything is subject to cultural norms at all. If I can become conscious of what the norms are, I can choose whether or not to subscribe to them. At some level, our humanity, rather than the fact that we are in society, comes into play. See: Any existentialist literature. Now, perhaps some art is considered so because it meets that cultural definition, but changing the definition with every culture and period seems to undermine any purpose for a definition.

Let me clarify that I'm not arguing that art isn't open to interpretation. However, I believe people take away a similar intuitive experience (prior to putting it into words or even intelligible thought), and then take different interpretations from it based on their world-view. In other words, an event happened, we both experienced it - and we are just arguing over the style of that event's significant.

Oh indeed. I don't think we are arguing in particular, just discussing our different viewpoints. I hope I'm not coming off aggressive. And I also agree that it is an option for artists to make something, and define it on the spot. It's easy to do, and the general public could be fooled. None of the really successful ones do this of course, as it's pretty easy to catch out. In fact, as someone who did a Fine Art degree, I could submit some used toilet paper if I wanted. It's not what I do, nor what I approve of, but it's a possibility.

I wouldn't say "everything is subject to cultural norms", or if I did, I didn't mean it that way. I mean the definition and emotional response is - it's a form of conditioning. For example, in some countries a noose may represent punishment, in some it may be a horrific and barbaric relic from our past, and in certain parts of the USA, there is the connotation of lynchings and racism. In every example, the noose is just a tied up rope. Technically the material, and even construction are identical, but it's definition and emotional responses are different. You could argue that it still maintains the same purpose throughout, but then so does art, as a conveyance of an idea or concept. Those pieces of wood can still be used, as can Emin's bed, and Hirst's diamond skull. What makes them art is the context in which they are presented.