This is not art

Scroll to see replies

I think the kind of art in your OP is Conceptual Art. It is totally up to you how you interpret, as well as the emotions they make you convey. I don't want to sound pretentious, but looking at it, I feel that perhaps the artist was trying to convey sadness and defeat. Mabye that's why he made HUGE space-occupying black canvases. Mabye there's an absence in his life that he has yet to fill.

Reply 61

NJA

Original post by Birkenhead

http://platformthing.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/you-have-been-eaten-by-a-grue-my-wall-art.jpg

There are 3 dots and a Mona-Lisaesque smile, middle right in darker hue.

There is also something top left I can't make out without actually visiting the gallery

Brilliant! - Fools the critics and draws the punters.

Reply 62

Birkenhead

Original post by somethingbeautiful

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).

I suggest reading my posts before deciding for yourself how I have come to my conclusions, particularly post 44. There will be some people who will view this sort of tripe as art. This doesn't mean it is art for the people like myself and others in this thread who don't accept that it is for a variety of different reasons.

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 don't agree that the creator has the power to decide whether it's art or not for everyone else.

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.

This is nonsense. When it rains, it is objectively raining. This doesn't support the idea that the creator of something has the power to decide for me whether it's art or not, because I have my own definition of what qualifies as art. You will have a hard time persuading any sane, intelligent person that a bowl of noodles is a work of art.

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.

Again, this is nonsense. If I step in a dog turd in the street and it makes me feel anger and makes me think about the commonality of litter in our society, this doesn't qualify that dog turd as a work of art. Art is not everything, art is the label given to creations that required a superior level of skill to produce and that directly convey an emotional and intellectual stimulus to the consumer.

The best art is about the work itself. It doesn't need to rely on the consumer to complete it as an artistic experience because it already has so much to offer them. A Beethoven symphony is beautiful in itself, not because it 'makes me think' *shudder*

As a side note, I don't accept photography as an art form.

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.

No, it isn't, not inherently. They can write an epic poem about what it means to them, that doesn't entitle it to be received as art by everyone regardless of their own conclusions about what art is.

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 .

Their body of work and their intelligence is of no relevance to whether the work they produce qualifies as art to me or anyone else.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 63

Birkenhead

Original post by number23

Also, life is art

Balls.

Reply 64

number23

Original post by Birkenhead

Balls.

I mean, there is meaning and beauty and aesthetics to be found all around us

The creation of the universe? Surely this is a form of art

Reply 65

Birkenhead

Original post by number23

I mean, there is meaning and beauty and aesthetics to be found all around us

Yes, but life is life and art is art. They're two distinct things. Ever heard the phrase 'life imitating art'?

The creation of the universe? Surely this is a form of art

Humans didn't create the universe. Art is a human activity.

Reply 66

number23

Original post by Birkenhead

Yes, but life is life and art is art. They're two distinct things. Ever heard the phrase 'life imitating art'?

Humans didn't create the universe. Art is a human activity.

Good points but I think they could be argued both ways

Say a human painted a beautiful painting, this is art
But what about looking at our evolutionary timeline
Could we make a case for cavemen painting being art?
And then the transitionary creatures between us and apes
Can apes produce art?
What about other animals?

What about intelligent alien life forms?

I think life influence art and art inspires, influences and provokes debate among kife forms

Are you interested in art personally?

Reply 67

_Fergo

Original post by Asexual Demigod

Life is full of depravity and disgusting things. It's not a good piece of art.

Well... For you (it's sad really that you feel this way). I personally find life a great piece of art.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 68

Birkenhead

Original post by *Stefan*

Well... For you (it's sad really that you feel this way). I personally find life a great piece of art.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Life isn't a piece of art. Pieces of art are pieces of art. Life is life.

Reply 69

number23

Original post by Birkenhead

Life isn't a piece of art. Pieces of art are pieces of art. Life is life.

Life=A
Piece of art=B

Your logic: B=B. A=A. So A does not equal B.

Reply 70

Octohedral

The problem is that when people first started experimenting with Impressionism, etc, it was a direct reaction against the enclosed and elitist artistic community, and - even though this kind of painting was perhaps more accessible technically - there was quite a lot to be said for it.

However, the idea has been well and truly taken through to absurdity, and if you dare to question it people say you don't understand art and you have no soul.

In order to get anywhere with this, you have to first define 'art', and then (more importantly) define what gives art 'value'. A Rembrandt has value because it is virtually impossible to reproduce, and the originals are relatively rare, and irreplaceable. Modern art seems to confuse the values of art, artist and reproducibility. The say a piece of highly reproducible art has intrinsic value because it is beautiful (which may be true), and for some absurd reason go on to pay the 'artist' millions of pounds.

They want there to be no rules, but if there are no rules, you don't have anything 'meaningful' left at the end.

Reply 71

miser

Original post by Birkenhead

Art is supposed to be enriching, and to plumb emotional and intellectual depths otherwise restricted to us outside of it. For this to happen significantly enough for me to see the creation as art, there is required a greater level of skill than is possessed by the ordinary person.

Even crappy pop singers possess this and I would see their produce as art, if bad art, but painting a canvas black and simply inviting people to create their own artistic experience from it isn't good enough for me on either count.

Thanks for explaining. :smile:

I think I understand where you're coming from but I'm not clear on it 100%.

You say, 'for me to see the creation as art,' the work must meet criteria xyz - do you believe that what is and isn't art is a subjective issue, dependant on the viewer? For example, a blank canvas both is art to one person, yet also not to others (e.g. people who share your view). Or do you think the blank canvas objectively isn't art, and people who perceive it as art are mistaken?

Reply 72

garfeeled

Well if art is the attempt to express creativity and Imagination in a way that conveys beauty and or emotion then yes they both are art.

Do you count children's art work as art or do you not.

What do you define basic motor and cognitive skills as

Reply 73

amberskye

Original post by Birkenhead

You accuse me of arrogance when I have repeatedly engaged in polite and welcoming discussion of alternative viewpoints, while you have only spat hostility and lazily formed insults. Please permanently exit the thread if you have nothing of value to contribute.

Ok, continue in your 'welcoming' discussion. I'm sure in your bubble where everything that is lower than your self-proclaimed talents is worthless, life is worthwhile.

Reply 74

number23

Art ends where explanation begins

Reply 75

_Fergo

Original post by Asexual Demigod

Should I not feel this way? I can't even have a conversation with other people without being constantly criticised and mocked. I don't have any enthusiasm for anything anymore. I just wish I was dead already.

I don't know you personally, and I certainly don't want to make you feel worse, but perhaps you should reconsider and redefine your interpersonal skills.

It can't be that everyone else is wrong. Perhaps you should be a bit more accepting of different opinions and actually make an effort to value and engage with them.

What you do is of course solely based on you and your attitude, but if you make an effort to engage more warmly with others, I am sure you will reconsider the beauty and importance of life.

(And I probably got too philosophical now for my tastes!)

Reply 76

somethingbeautiful

Original post by Birkenhead

I was actually responding to only the original post, but as per your suggestion I have read post 44 and it doesn't change my opinion. Here's why:

Original post by Birkenhead

I don't agree that the creator has the power to decide whether it's art or not for everyone else.

So in my example of Michelangelo, in your opinion, he has the right to tell you that his work in the Sistine Chapel is art but you have the right to refute that? He only has the right to define his work as 'art' for himself is what you seem to be saying. Plus, if you have the right to refute that Michelangelo's work is 'art' you have the right to decide for yourself whether anything is or is not art. Correct? If so then it is completely subjective and you cannot say 'This is not art' and have that be a universally accepted fact . You can only say 'This is not art' and have it be understood as an opinion about your idea of what art should or should not be. Which makes your whole argument akin to a toddler's tantrum because everyone won't agree with you.

Spoiler

Original post by Birkenhead

This is nonsense. When it rains, it is objectively raining.

Well of course it's objectively raining (that was the point of the example). But according to you, no one can call art 'ART' objectively - only you.

Original post by Birkenhead

This doesn't support the idea that the creator of something has the power to decide for me whether it's art or not, because I have my own definition of what qualifies as art.

Precisely, and it doesn't mean you can impose it on everyone else.

Original post by Birkenhead

You will have a hard time persuading any sane, intelligent person that a bowl of noodles is a work of art.

Complete conjecture, you don't know my persuasive abilities.

Original post by Birkenhead

Again, this is nonsense. If I step in a dog turd in the street and it makes me feel anger and makes me think about the commonality of litter in our society, this doesn't qualify that dog turd as a work of art. Art is not everything, art is the label given to creations that required a superior level of skill to produce and that directly convey an emotional and intellectual stimulus to the consumer.

That's just your opinion. Perhaps to some a turd is art. To quote what you said again:

Original post by Birkenhead

I don't agree that the creator has the power to decide whether it's art or not for everyone else.

So since the creator (the dog) has no means of telling us if it isn't art and even if it could you wouldn't listen anyway - it's completely down to the viewer as to whether it's art or not.

Original post by Birkenhead

The best art is about the work itself. It doesn't need to rely on the consumer to complete it as an artistic experience because it already has so much to offer them. A Beethoven symphony is beautiful in itself, not because it 'makes me think' *shudder*

So is their a scale of best to worst art? Who decides that?

Original post by Birkenhead

As a side note, I don't accept photography as an art form.

Why?

Original post by Birkenhead

No, it isn't, not inherently.

Again, that's your opinion, not a fact.

Original post by Birkenhead

They can write an epic poem about what it means to them, that doesn't entitle it to be received as art by everyone regardless of their own conclusions about what art is.

You've said this in other words above and I've responded.

Original post by Birkenhead

Their body of work and their intelligence is of no relevance to whether the work they produce qualifies as art to me or anyone else.

I agree but the whole tone of your original post was that of looking down on those artists and my point was that they are probably more intelligent than you in the first place. People mock what they don't understand.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 77

jakeel1

Original post by miser

Roughly speaking I think art is the expression of human creativity.

So art is an empty phrase? Remember when artists had to train for 20 years to master technique? It's true, it's subjective, and it's true, there is freedom of expression. Under such conditions, I reserve the right to call this garbage and against the civility and progress of Western aesthetic taste.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 78

jakeel1

Original post by HigherMinion

No, Birk- don't stand down from this one. This is objectively *not* art. It's nothing but money laundering.

Here's a fun example:

[video="youtube;I9lmvX00TLY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lmvX00TLY[/video]

Is "performance art" really art? What is this showing? Hell, even the Human Centipede was art, but this is the ultimate pretentiousness. I don't know who I pity more- the jester or her crowd who don't understand a performance should be applauded only if it was good.

Wow did Hitler actually paint that? No wonder he ****ing killed the Jews, he probably thought they were responsible for modern art (which isn't actually entirely wrong oddly enough).

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 79

Birkenhead

Original post by somethingbeautiful

I was actually responding to only the original post, but as per your suggestion I have read post 44 and it doesn't change my opinion. Here's why:

So in my example of Michelangelo, in your opinion, he has the right to tell you that his work in the Sistine Chapel is art but you have the right to refute that? He only has the right to define his work as 'art' for himself is what you seem to be saying. Plus, if you have the right to refute that Michelangelo's work is 'art' you have the right to decide for yourself whether anything is or is not art. Correct? If so then it is completely subjective and you cannot say 'This is not art' and have that be a universally accepted fact . You can only say 'This is not art' and have it be understood as an opinion about your idea of what art should or should not be. Which makes your whole argument akin to a toddler's tantrum because everyone won't agree with you.

Indeed, I can only say 'This is not art' and have it be understood as an opinion...unfortunately, you've failed to do this. You have drastically misinterpreted what I've been saying. I have repeatedly made it clear that this is all my opinion - of course I'm not trying to define what art is for other people. Sometimes we express opinions in matters of fact for emphasis; this is known as 'academic writing'. We do it in everyday life, too - for example: that film was rubbish. Unfortunately, this makes virtually everything else you've splurged here completely redundant.

Well of course it's objectively raining (that was the point of the example). But according to you, no one can call art 'ART' objectively - only you.

Wrong, as above.

Precisely, and it doesn't mean you can impose it on everyone else.

Correct, as above.

Complete conjecture, you don't know my persuasive abilities.

It isn't about you, it's about anyone trying to convince others that a bowl of noodles is a work of art. I think it's reasonable to assume most people will be sensible enough to not see a bowl of noodles as an art form, but rather as a bowl of noodles.

That's just your opinion. Perhaps to some a turd is art. To quote what you said again:

Yes, obviously it is my opinion. You seem to be obsessed with wrongly attacking me for trying to decide other people's opinions.

So since the creator (the dog) has no means of telling us if it isn't art and even if it could you wouldn't listen anyway - it's completely down to the viewer as to whether it's art or not.

Yes, it is. To me, and to the vast majority of people, a dog turd is not a work of art, for obvious and very good reasons, the least of which is that art is by definition human produce. I'm amazed you don't realise how ridiculous your argument has become.

So is their a scale of best to worst art? Who decides that?

Yes, there is. Individuals decide it but overwhelming expert and popular consensuses exist, and they exist for a reason, and that is that some art is better than others - or are you seriously going to suggest that there is not objectively more artistic value in Bach's Brandenburg concertos than there is in Bieber's 'Baby'?

Why?

Because applying pressure to a button on a piece of machinery does not involve enough of the person's skill and talents for me to accept it as their artistic creation.

Again, that's your opinion, not a fact.

Again, this is blindingly obvious. But you will again have a hard time convincing people that someone writing about their 'art' is inherently an art form. Most people are sensible enough to recognise that for something to be reasonably described as an art form it has to meet a certain standard of skill, beauty, stimulation...simply churning out a poorly written, uninsightful essay on something you've created is hardly deserving to be called art simply for having been the product of pen to paper.

You've said this in other words above and I've responded.

No, you haven't. You're contradicting your own maxims by asserting that it is categorically an art form. At least be consistent with your own criticisms, inaccurate as they are.

I agree but the whole tone of your original post was that of looking down on those artists

The tone of my post was ridiculing so-called 'art works' that I and plenty of others in this thread alone don't believe deserve the title. How much these artists have produced and how intelligent they are has no relevance to the value of the 'art' they produce.

and my point was that they are probably more intelligent than you in the first place.

You don't know my intelligence, nor that of the artists in question, so you're in no position to comment. Once again, however, this is completely irrelevant.

People mock what they don't understand.

People can mock what they understand and what they don't understand. In this case I am mocking things I understand, namely a canvas painted black and four minutes and thirty three seconds of expensive silence both being presented as art.