Fixed it for you.Ephraim J. Witchwood said:You don't have to be talented, just call it art!
Though it doesn't rhyme anymore.
Fixed it for you.Ephraim J. Witchwood said:You don't have to be talented, just call it art!
Verlander said: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.TWRule said:That's cool, and I'm glad you have that opinion. Work like this, along with numerous others, is generally considered "anti-art", whereby the piece raises questions about the concept of art itself (something this piece certainly has done). While there may be a greater, or hidden meaning to it, that is all an aspect of the piece, which as a whole exists outside of the standard boundaries of "normal art", in order to make a statement (a statement which in my opinion is now close to worthlessness due to the popularity of the work).Verlander said:I'm actually arguing that not everything that the museums call art is actually art, just to clarify.TWRule said:I'd have to disagree with you here. There is a massive amount of precedence that counters this, starting(ish) with Marcel Duchamp, and his "Fountain", followed by thousands of artists since.
Art is a communication between artist and audience, nothing more, nothing less.
So in your definition, in what sense do you use "communication"? Certainly not all types of communication between someone who calls themselves an artist and others qualifies as art.
To me, art is something that, were you to encounter, you'd likely have some sort of immediate engagement (as intended by the artist). You shouldn't need anyone to tell you that it is art, or why it's art. The strength of this experience correlates with the quality of the art, broadly speaking, and something that cannot generate such an experience at all, is not art. Of course, depending on one's state of mind, different people have different experiences, but if only a handful of people exposed to this item are claiming to have such an experience, I think it's healthy to be suspect of it's status as art (they may have just made up their own meaning or accepted what the artist said and filled in the blanks in their mind).
Indeed, it is the popularity of the anti art concepts that make them now the standard art movement, confirmed by their own successes, thus bringing the whole concept to a premature conclusion (in some people's opinions) by, perhaps ironically, causing anti art to be considered as an art movement in itself (confined to other generally by the movement that has grown around it, for example the Dadaists).
Arthur Danto claimed "the status of an artifact as work of art results from the ideas a culture applies to it, rather than its inherent physical or perceptible qualities. Cultural interpretation (an art theory of some kind) is therefore constitutive of an object's arthood"
Ripped off of wikipedia, but it's a pretty good quote, one that I'd back to the hilt.
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.
Art doesn't have to take skill to make, have meaning, or be impressive or unique.Digi7 said:Did it take any skill to make? Fuck no.
Does it subversively mean anything through the visuals or form? Fuck no.
Is it impressive or unique? Again, fuck no.
It holds none of the three prerequisites for art. As an artist I'm ashamed of this shit.
IT IS NOT ART.
I think I see where your coming from. This is just a disagreement over semantics and usage over the word "Art". Wherein your "Art" lends itself more to something rare and difficult to truly achieve: A great and formidable goal that lends itself to the betterment of humanity as a result. While my "Art" is an innate part of the human condition. It's neither specifically special nor largely important when taken as an individual piece.Not everything that someone places in a museum is art by my definition - we are definitely in agreement there.
Call me a romantic if you'd like, but if something isn't triggering human empathy, then any emotion it might trigger is just that: an emotion (about whatever you please). Calling something art simply by virtue of it triggering an emotion is like saying "I love turkey sandwiches," and "I love my children" in same sense of the word "love." There is a profound difference that we need to distinguish here.
So could you call anything that vaguely falls under the category of human expression art? Sure you could - but that's not the sense of the word art I'm talking about, and I think the former is a rather reckless use of a word that is supposed to be reserved for special meaning.
There is no such thing as art that "conveys no message except one given by its audiences" by the definition I've shared - only by a much broader definition of the word.
Let me make a further distinction. I'm not talking about an intellectual message that is being conveyed here. The "message" is in an experience shared between the artist and the audience. The audience is welcome to intellectually interpret that experience differently than the artist or other audience members, but the itself experience is essentially similar.
As I've stated before, the fact that we are arguing about the definition of art is an intellectual conflict which has little to do with the wood sculpture itself.
Pretty much. Thing is, art is subjective. The one thing I require of art is that it makes a person feel emotion. Some people, apparently, look at that pile of wood and feel very strongly...something. I don't know how they manage that. All I got from it was "Bwah?" But hey, some people hear the Jonas Brothers and feel love and sadness and whatever the hell they sing about very strongly. Therefore, they make art. I don't enjoy that art. I don't need to. People do, and that's all that matters.Kagim said:*sigh* yes its art. If one deems it to be art it's art.
Art does not mean good. Art can be a lazy reeking pile of shit. That doesn;t mean it's not art.
I don't know why people think art has to be good, or that by virtue of it being named art if you don't like it it's only because you "don't get it".
It's art. That's all.
Your name is fiction, and life just got weirder then you: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/ns/us_news-weird_news/My name is Fiction said:"Hay my piece of burnt toast looks lie Jesus!"
*sell to pope for a million dollars*
Ok, yeah, you got a point thereGeneric Gamer said:Escapist community on games as art:
Art is subjective and is designed to show emotion, everyone's definition of art is different and no one can say what is and is not art.
Escapist community's reaction to a piece of Dadaist art:
This is not art lololololololol!