This is not art

I disagree. Have you considered the time period/era in which the artist may have painted it? It could be representing all sorts of things, perhaps the problems faced in the society at that time? If something major was going on at the moment this painting was made, then it could be expressing the artist's thoughts on the events. The darkness showing that all hope has possibly been lost in the world or maybe even suggesting that people can't see reality since black isn't a 'true' colour and therefore everything is hidden to your eyes and that s/he possibly believes a façade is being placed before everyone which they're unaware of. The type of paint also makes a difference. Also, I'm sure there was probably a particular way in which the brush and canvas met. It wasn't just all painted vertically with absolutely no texture right? In my opinion, it is anything but "a canvas painted black".


Posted from TSR Mobile

Why? Should the answer to this impact on your opinion of the strength of my arguments?



Did someone say otherwise?



Since when was this an acceptable definition of art? That art should be reduced to mere superficial entertainment...no thanks. That's what 'entertainment' is for.



I counter with Roger Scruton's 'Art: The Real Thing', beginning at 19:00 of this video

aiKMGebepnI&t=19m0s

in yr11 we went to an art gallery with school and i was shocked to see that this atrocity had won a prestigious painting prize:
like srsly?

grrr

Puhleeeease, tell me you're kidding about that painting winning a prize.
My hamster can paint better than that...

Nope, unfortunately it is true

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walker/johnmoores/jm2014/

lol ikr, the resulting effect of my guinea pig chewing my R.E homework in yr9 was more artistic

Why? Should the answer to this impact on your opinion of the strength of my arguments?



Did someone say otherwise?



Since when was this an acceptable definition of art? That art should be reduced to mere superficial entertainment...no thanks. That's what 'entertainment' is for.



I counter with Roger Scruton's 'Art: The Real Thing', beginning at 19:00 of this video

aiKMGebepnI&t=19m0s

It's a very literal and STEM way of thinking that skill equals good art. Art is a form of expression and a way of getting across a message or feeling. I dont think any of that has to do with 'skill' in the sense of physical paint skill for example the skill is in getting the message across as best as possible. The black canvas is like a writer distilling a paragraph of text down to a few words that say the same thing just more to the point. I don't get what's hard to grasp about that

It's a very literal and STEM way of thinking that skill equals good art. Art is a form of expression and a way of getting across a message or feeling. I dont think any of that has to do with 'skill' in the sense of physical paint skill for example the skill is in getting the message across as best as possible. The black canvas is like a writer distilling a paragraph of text down to a few words that say the same thing just more to the point. I don't get what's hard to grasp about that

I disagree with Birkenhead that art is simply about the manual skill of production (see older posts on this thread)

I have not expressed myself well if it seems that that is all I think art is defined by. Obviously my position has been under development but since we are trying to define art and I am only 21 I think that is acceptable but I certainly never meant to convey the view that art is a collective term for excellent craftsmanship and nothing else

Birkenhead's law: Anything that anyone with the most basic cognitive and motor abilities can do on a first attempt cannot reasonably be called 'art'.

You really are a socially conservative jackass.

And you are an intolerant neanderthal who can't voice disagreement with alternative viewpoints without resorting to witless personal attacks



That I think true art requires a superior level of artistic skill and composition does not mean I think that is all it is defined by. A is required for B. A =/= B. That C can achieve A does not mean it can achieve B.



Well, if you really are sure of that then I'll just close the thread now. I really wish you'd turned up ten pages ago. /sarcasm

What I have attempted to do in this thread is reject the idea that there cannot be sensible boundaries to what we call art. I have suggested a superior level of craftsmanship such that the work could not be achieved on a first attempt by anyone (which is far more liberal of a restriction than it seems), as one central principle, which neither of these pieces satisfy, but it obviously goes deeper than that - these pieces are lacking substance in the mysterious area of 'creativity'. I do not intend to deceive people into the idea that I have a watertight argument on this enormous subject - this thread has served as a place of development - but I have done my best to illustrate what I mean by this missing soul, and cited materials which do it better, in post #180.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=59234629&postcount=180

Lol


Triggered.

Thank you for your valuable contributions to this debate.

Scruton's views on aesthetics are in a long western tradition. However I couldn't help thinking that he was using a lot of words to hide his central opinion that if I don't like it, it is not art. I would like to cross examine him on one medium, I would feel most comfortable with architecture of the last 200 years, and I think he would come across as a prejudiced old fogey. I think he embraces everything sufficiently old because it is old and rejects everything new unless it apes the old.

My view is that art requires an outward manifestation of an aesthetic idea. The art is in the object not in the label or the sleeve note.

The Planets Suite is still The Planets Suite irrespective of whether you know what Holst was composing about. Emin's unmade bed or Cage's silence is not.

Moreover a set of rosary beads is not per se art and nor is a black canvas. Inward contemplation on an object doesn't automatically make that object art.

However my definition embraces photography, architecture and the Burghers of Calais as being Rodin's art.

Found this about photography today from 'How to Paint a Portrait':

'What makes a good portrait?...That the painting should look like the person seems pretty unarguable until we think of all the portraits throughout art history we love and revere and realise that, in most cases, we have no idea what these people looked like so cannot judge the veracity of the likeness. To assert that we like the portraits because they really capture the person is thus nonsensical...The slippery terms 'soul' and 'truth' are often used to try to capture the feeling a great portrait has on one...These artists have gone beyond the skin and found a deeper likeness, the very essence of the sitter, and they have done this so well that we feel a deep connection...It is as though the pictorial depiction of another's soul has reacquainted us with out own. One would think that photography would be well suited to do this, and indeed, some photographers are able to communicate this very well too, but I find that when I return to look at a photographic portrait again, I react to it in the same way I did on the first encounter, whereas, in my experience, the painted portrait lends itself to myriad interpretations. As the painter looks up from her palette or from the canvas where she has just made the latest mark, she sees the sitter anew each time; the painted portrait is an accumulation of hundreds or more fresh encounters between sitter and painter in contrast to the 1/8 second or so exposure of one photograph.'

*in your opinion.