Pile of wood = art?

[Caligulust]

You don't have to be talented, just call it art!

Fixed it for you.

Though it doesn't rhyme anymore.

 

[Riptide1]

art is something that each person has a different view on so the fact that people say that a pile of wood is art i accept and even go so far as to say in a sense yes it is art, but that doesn't make the person who made it, and the people who bought it, any less deserving of being shot for selling/buying a pile of wood for $5000...

 

[TWRule]

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.

I'm actually arguing that not everything that the museums call art is actually art, just to clarify.

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).

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).

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.

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.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

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.

Art doesn't have to take skill to make, have meaning, or be impressive or unique.

In fact, there is some art there where the art of it is in their opposition to those exact prerequisites. And why not?

Art doesn't have to good, or nice, or appealing. It can be complete shit, and that can even be the entire point of it sometimes, turning poor quality and meaninglessness into an aesthetic all itself.

It can be thrown together in a few seconds. It's expression on a medium that affects the senses. And look at how our senses are being affected! We're all here bickering and getting angry over it. Some of us even think it's beautiful. If that's not art I don't know what is.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Abstract "art" is always a bit of an odd thing for me. While I have to admit that piling up some wood and calling it art is a little silly (not to mention the fact that most people could do the same), at the same time if the "artist" actually put some thought into it then it isn't just some random pile. Look at Pollock's work. Some people say that its just a bunch of paint randomly dribbled on a canvas while others (include Pollock himself) claim that theres meaning to "chaos" and that it isn't just some random splashing of paint. Whether or not this stuff is art gets even harder to tell when you have genres like dadaism which is a deconstruction of art itself.

Although ultimatly it shouldn't matter if its classified as "art" or not. If the artist or someone viewing it feels something by looking at the work, then its meaningful. Maybe its a very realistic painting of a landscape, maybe its a surreal picture of man in pain, maybe its bunch of metal welded together in a chaotic fashion. If you enjoy, then really, that's all that matters.

 

[WolfEdge]

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.

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.

If I was an evil twister of words, I'd make the claim that the only reason you view art as such is to give your own meager contributions a special meaning. I had an Art History professor pull that move on a friend of mine.

He was a real dick. The professor, I mean.

 

[Marble Dragon]

*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.

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.

Again, I don't look at that pile of wood and think, "Hey, what a wonderful artistic statement!" But someone does. You can make art out of everything, just like anything can be a metaphor for life. Try it. A flying toaster can be a metaphor for life if you let it.

 

[FollowUp]

I daresay if it sparks an arguement, it's art.

 

[One of Many]

Its a pile of logs for the love of all things sane.

 

[londelen]

OK guys, I'm going to tell you the DEFINITIVE GUIDE to determining weather something is art or not.
Here's the chart
1)Does it look good to anyone at all on the planet?
If no, then it is not art. if Yes, then it is art.

 

[Kermi]

It it can be mistaken as garbage because you're a fucking retard who left a bunch of logs lying around in a forest, it's not art.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

"Hay my piece of burnt toast looks lie Jesus!"
*sell to pope for a million dollars*

Your name is fiction, and life just got weirder then you: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/ns/us_news-weird_news/

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Art doesn't have to be good art to be art.

Or make sense.

Or have any effort put into it.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

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!

Ok, yeah, you got a point there

I don't define art by quality, but more on the lines of "something that is meant to be emotionally/intellectually proking or pleasing in some fashion."

That doesn't mean it actually IS proking or pleasing or makes sense.

Bad art is still art in my opinion.

 

[iblis666]

reminds me of the pile of shit san jose payed 1 mil for
http://photos.igougo.com/images/p43515-San_Jose-Statue_of_Quetzalcoatl.jpg

 

[Tdc2182]

Phht... Clearly you don't understand. (sarcasm)