This is not art

I don't think we can express something without expressing anything at all - that's logically contradictory. I think you can have an artistic expression where the subject is an absence of expression.

For punk rock musicians, I don't think it matters if a person is actively attempting to exercise their creativity, so long as they are intentionally producing something that required that creativity.

Well yeah, what I meant is "is it possible for someone to express something without meaning to express anything". Which is similar to the case of the punk rockers.

The problem there is that if there is no need for intention then accidents could be interpreted as art which doesn't seem very intuitive because you're meant to do/experience art not create it/observe it.

This argument seems to be along the lines of, "x is so simplistic that it can't be considered art." But simplistic art is still art, and bad art is still art. There's no established complexity threshold to qualify for 'art'.

Simplicity and complexity have nothing to do with it. What I have argued is that so-called art works like black canvases and minutes of silence in an auditorium do not deserve to be viewed as art because:

i) Art, to me, requires a superior level of skill to what any functioning human is capable of, and

ii) Art, to me, should be a creation which very directly conveys emotional/intellectual stimulus to the consumer. The examples I have given are both empty vessels into which the consumer is expected to fabricate their own experience, which is all very well but to me a work of art is something which very directly 'gives' stimulus to the consumer. This is what separates true art from the everyday experiences which we are already free to experience individually - instead of a black canvas in an art gallery, we have the night sky, and instead of four expensive minutes of listening to white noise silence in an auditorium we have park benches. I even have an empty frame currently on my wall for goodness sake. That these things are intended as art and placed in artistic environments is neither here nor there.



I do not buy this at all for the reasons given above.

they make you think

Okay that's fair enough. Could you elaborate then on why you believe art should meet that first criterion you give?

Obviously. This didn't need to be explicitly stated but I did so anyway in the first sentence of the OP.

Do you have any specific challenges to what I've said or the examples I've used?

Do you think musical improvisation can be called music?

Certainly.

It all depends on peoples perceptions and opinions of the world. I wouldn't compare this art to the works of Da Vinci or Mozart obviously.
A black canvas could be considered as art to some depending on how they interpret it.
The silence could be considered as music to some depending on how they interpret it.
It all depends on the person.

they make you think

*in your opinion.

Obviously. This didn't need to be explicitly stated but I did so anyway in the first sentence of the OP.

Do you have any specific challenges to what I've said or the examples I've used?

I love some of those canvasses in art galleries with just one colour

I was in a museum of contemporary art and there was one which was completely yellow

Art or not, it was refreshingly satisyfying to look at, and is a nice complement to more skilled obvious paintings

Art4lyfe

They sure do. Usually something along the lines of, "Why did I pay money to see this crap?" Or if it's a public gallery, "I can't believe my tax money is funding this crap".

What was the piece called? Jaundice?

It's still art. It's just that you think it's bad art so you want to strip it of it's association with the word 'art'. Whether someone makes a bowl of noodles or paints the Sistine Chapel - it's art to somebody (either to the artist or to a viewer).

If Michelangelo had told you that his work was 'not art' would you argue with him and tell him it was? If yes, why? Who has the right to define it as such?
If you would concede with him, why? Would you let him strip his work of the association with art because that's his prerogative? Why?

I personally wouldn't place a high creative or skill value on the bowl of noodles but I can't deny that it's art if the creator tells me it's their art. It's their art, likewise, just because I don't like when it rains doesn't mean that it's not raining. You can't deny the existence of something being the case just because it offends you or you would rather it wasn't the case.

I personally believe everything is art and we all have different preferences. Just as everything we see has colour but we all see things in slightly different hues. For example, two people embracing on a platform at a train station - just a regular event? To a photographer that is art. I think the way you dress is art, the way you talk, your handwriting, the way you walk, your gestures etc. It's all about perspective and what you value highly. It's never about the work itself. The work itself is just a means to make you think, to make you feel something - and in those two cases it's obviously worked on you. It is art. You just don't like it.

If you asked those artists of the pieces you've posted what each of those pieces represents or means to them, I'm almost certain that they have already written an essay on it (either on paper or mentally). To even have your work displayed in one of those settings you have to explain you work and your inspiration - that itself is an art form.

I think it's very easy to be completely dismissive of those types of works that seems as if 'anyone could do that' but a lot of the people who created those works have a huge body of work and are highly intelligent people .