![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
But how can we go on looking at pretty pictures and calling them art when the whole process of late nineteenth and twentieth century art has shown us the frailties of the boundaries of 'art'. I am constantly dismayed at the Daily Mail ignorance to move past pretty pictures (I'm not making any comment on your own appreciation). Art is intended to stimulate no matter the medium and most of the repetitive bullshit we have to put up with in the name of aesthetic appreciation is a waste of time. Whatever your parents told you about art IS WRONG.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:49,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
if I had been able to bear listening to their opinion. And I agree that they were wrong.
There are two different things being called art here, though, one of which is a critical process of creating beauty, and the other of which is the act of being provoking in unclear ways.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:52,
archived)
There are two different things being called art here, though, one of which is a critical process of creating beauty, and the other of which is the act of being provoking in unclear ways.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
If everything is art, then art is a synonym for everything, and we don't need another word for everything. We do need a word for the process of carefully making beautiful things.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being provoking in unclear ways, just that one can do it without committing acts of art. I'm doing it right now, see.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:57,
archived)
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being provoking in unclear ways, just that one can do it without committing acts of art. I'm doing it right now, see.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
"Knowing" is often a barrier to experiencing though. I'm clear which I'd rather do :)
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:07,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
an analogy which occurs to me is of young children standing around in a playground, heatedly discussing the definition of fun. I'd rather just play.
That's not to say that I'm anti-intellectual, or non-intellectual, but the idea of categorization, which is really what's being discussed here, is not really that interesting to me personally, particuarly since it all comes down to nothing more than personal opinion, however forcably that opinion is expressed, or however conventionally 'correct' it is currently considered.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:39,
archived)
That's not to say that I'm anti-intellectual, or non-intellectual, but the idea of categorization, which is really what's being discussed here, is not really that interesting to me personally, particuarly since it all comes down to nothing more than personal opinion, however forcably that opinion is expressed, or however conventionally 'correct' it is currently considered.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
but things need explaining. In the case of art I see a dodging of an explanation.
I'm also interested in what fun is, by the way, because that's also difficult to explain -
meaningfully, fruitfully difficult, not just intractable.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Great. That's the point. And when we say that we accept everything with an open mind and don't reject out of hand. That sounds like what you're saying and it sounds like we're arguing from the same precept. But, to return to the point, that's not cubism.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:44,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
I'm a big fan of Eno's music but I'm afraid both he and the author of the piece have misunderstood Duchamp. such is art
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:41,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Thus, all you can possibly be expressing are your own opinions, or someone else's. The fact that you do so in such a condescending way is not particularly endearing.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:43,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
did not publicly explain his work but that does not mean that the consensus is incorrect.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:46,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
I repeat, all you're expressing is your own, or someone else's, opinions.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
I'm sorry if I've sounded condesending in my posts. I've not intended that at all and I'd rather people read my posts with the voice of an interested informed nobody.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:49,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
he'd still only be expressing Duchamp's opinions about what Duchamp thinks. Still prone to errors.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:47,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
You may be a genius. (I'm going to bed. Merry Christmas)
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:51,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
it's nice that an interested informed nobody thinks I'm a possible genius. I think.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:00,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
I merely suggested everything CAN be art. Found Objects have been a part of art for a century and they have opened up the way for us to consider the temporial locus of a transformation between rubbish and art. Can a mere discovery be art? If so then anything Can be art. Whhich prompted my last comment. (see Duchamp)
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:04,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
1) Duchamp's urinal (of which I am very fond) is provoking, but it's not pretty. It's just making a statement via an object. You can call that art if you want, but there are all kinds of other ways to do it, so it would be better if we could give up calling those things art (which is unlikely to happen, oh well).
2) It's a very good point about all kinds of found objects being capable of being made pretty by being framed, or by some other means of the artist suggesting to you a good way in which to look at them. However this ought to be about beauty in order to qualify as art, and being abruptly presented with something jarring is not at all the same.
3) Art goes along with a message, and the art is one thing and the message is another, and they depend on each other somewhat.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
messages expressed vertically one word at a time are very inexpressive.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Figure where you stand and it's all down hill from there.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:12,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
I was in a gallery about a year ago and one of the artists was selling a piece called "dumpster 4" (there was a number 4 in the dumpster where he found the stuff), and it was 20 showerheads painted yellow.
She spent half a fucking hour talking about how he had found abandoned objects and turned them into art by "gathering them together". I had three issues with this:
1. There was no point - what is he trying to provoke/invoke?
2. The dumpster had gathered all those objects before he got there,
3. It was just a bunch of fucking showerheads painted yellow. For $20k.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:16,
archived)
She spent half a fucking hour talking about how he had found abandoned objects and turned them into art by "gathering them together". I had three issues with this:
1. There was no point - what is he trying to provoke/invoke?
2. The dumpster had gathered all those objects before he got there,
3. It was just a bunch of fucking showerheads painted yellow. For $20k.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
and I think I stole the example and used it as part of a letter to The Times.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:19,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
We both love Doc's work. Any artist with
a good portfolio of works, can, and should
be able to do the same. You saw the work
first hand, it sounds to me liek the person
may have failed it. So I would accept your
judgment in the showerhead's case.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:32,
archived)
a good portfolio of works, can, and should
be able to do the same. You saw the work
first hand, it sounds to me liek the person
may have failed it. So I would accept your
judgment in the showerhead's case.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
is because I saw someone run over to it and buy it after the most retarded artspeech I had heard. And it was probably a good investment.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
A mid-line, to low work, by a spectacular
artist can often be more valuable.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:57,
archived)
artist can often be more valuable.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
So any painting is worth the price of the paint plus the price of the canvas?
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:55,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Anything can be awesome, but not everything.
Why do people not stand around talking about why something might be deemed awesome? Because that would make it less awesome.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:19,
archived)
Why do people not stand around talking about why something might be deemed awesome? Because that would make it less awesome.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
We’re having a serious informed debate on Art on B3ta? The electronic generation is not dulled by technology it seems. *ejaculates*
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:38,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Awesome would be if this disccusion spawned a bunch of pictures.
( ,
Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:44,
archived)