Who the hell decided that this was art?!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

To answer the OP, art is simply what you make of it. Whether it's good or not, though, is a different matter altogether. It saddens me to see an entry in the art webpage linked by Credge devoted to a picture of a shovel while at least 3 people I know that can draw better than most comic illustrators are having a tough time looking to get published.

DrDeath3191:
Jim Dine, I'm calling your ass out. What the hell were you thinking with Shovel? You just bought a shovel, put it on a pedestal and then suddenly it was art?! I think that's a tad ridiculous.

My guess is that he was doing it as joke on the art world. One might recall Marcel Duchamp's Fountain which was just a joke on the art world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

Pretty much the whole goal of grabbing a shovel and calling it art is to bring to light and question what really is art. I would have to believe that Dine's purpose is to make fun of the art critics who think it is art.

It's all just opinions. Some people may think it's art you obviously don't. It does sound pretty cheap but oh well. Maybe the shovel is at a very artistic angle or some other bull like that.

DrDeath3191:
Art is hard to define. The best definition of art that many can come up with is "it's something an artist makes". But even then, I scratch my head at some things that entitle themselves as some sort of 'artistic statement'. What thing that is classified as 'art' do you think has no right to be declared as such?

Jim Dine, I'm calling your ass out. What the hell were you thinking with Shovel? You just bought a shovel, put it on a pedestal and then suddenly it was art?! I think that's a tad ridiculous.

Aristocrats, and even then, no one really values it, its like Jackson Pollock, its only considered art if HE does it and its only because HE was the first one to do it. In reality, it is no one's opinion that these are art men, or that their pieces are art, its just the manner in which they made them, and their circumstances.

Something Andrew Wyeth makes. What can I say, I'm partial to American Gothic. These are similar because they are from a particular period of his.

http://www.whataboutclients.com/archives/Wyeth,-Weatherside.jpg

http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/r/images/wyeth.christina.lg.jpg

TheNamlessGuy:

Clashero:
-snip-

Maybe I don't want to make sense, did you think of that?

TheNamlessGuy:

GrinningManiac:

TheNamlessGuy:

DrDeath3191:
-snip-

Oh, sorry, misunderstood you.

OT: Well, I don't think anything is art.
Because art is crap
In my opinion

says the man with an anime or drawing of some sort as an avatar

Making sense is for pussies!

No, making sense is for normal people. If you are writing with the purpose of not making sense, expect a negative response. Specially if you're saying art is crap. You have an anime avatar, so that's art right there. The web design on this site? Art. Movies, music? Art, art.

I care about the amount of effort an artist puts into a piece of work. If he put a toilet on display then thats not art to me, because there are carbon copies of that everywhere, making his unoriginal. But if he say, painted it gold and silver, to show our life in America, then I would like it a little more because he did something more to it thats unique.

As for paintings I'm a realism nut, if it looks like what its supposed to, then you are an artist in my books. If its not something in real life (abstract) then I will probably think its shit and say something like 'I did that in kindergarten once and got a time out".

My science experiment for this year will probably be how humans like an art piece based on the artist himself. Basically it's gonna be the same 4 pieces in different parts of the city (to minimize people coming to see 2) with a 'mad artist', a fat guy trying to make a buck, a college art major who's supposed to be 'really good', and a young child following his dream. The results should be interesting if I go through with it.

If Jim Dine wants to display a shovel as art then more power to him, however the credit for the "artwork" really should be given to the person/machine that made it.

I think if it inspires someone it could be called art. But if a shovel on a pedestal inspires you, something might be wrong.

Waste of a perfectly good shovel.

I agree with the OP.

How the hell did someone like Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin or any of the Turner Prize winners earn the title of 'Artist' by cobbling together something ludicrous. giving it a pompous name, and hoping some twat with high self-esteem will find some metaphysical meaning to it.

Now, even the artists themselves are stating about how Art is not valued on its merit, but on its value. The trouble is that as soon as they say that, something in their arrogant heads just goes 'Ka-ching!' and they go rushing back to their studios to fling shit at a wall, stick a price tag of 2 million on it, and say that the entire thing is representative of the materialistic nature of art.

What happened to all the Da Vincis, Rembrants, Van Goughs & Michaelangelos of the world? Has it really become a point where painstakingly crafting a masterpiece on canvas is not worth the effort, when all you need to do is to sign a shovel, or a urinal, or stick paperclips into a plaster cast of a dog's scrotum...?

As a "pretend" (as I can't call myself professional in any way) artist, I feel pretty ashamed of this "modern" art aka crap.

What I ask is for a piece of art is for the very least to look like someone broke a sweat over it.If it looks like something a 3 year old could draw, it's not art, it's doodling.

Secondly, I'd like for it to do something interesting with it. That's why I love symbolism- it's the perfect combination of what I love-good art and good ideas.

Like this:

http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~thurston/fish/images/pipe.jpg
(translation: "this is not a pipe". why? because it's a drawing of a pipe, it's not a real one :))
http://www.bestofpps.com/img/diverse/art-salvador-dali.jpg

or even

http://www.viitor.3x.ro/nr01/02_coloana_infinitului.gif
(it's supposed to represent an infinite tower)

Thirdly, just for me, I like photo-realism:I like for an artist to be able to reproduce reality as it is (like the Renaissance artists) . Nothing says effort like doing something as perfectly as possible

However, people like Picasso (who is actually a good artist, but decided to use a specific "style" reminiscent of an ADD school-kid) got the fad of shitty art "in" , and while I don't mind Picasso so much, his success sparked a wave of shitty doodlers who wanted to cash in and used "artistic licence" as an excuse to promote their bad work to real galleries, and the elite ate it up.

This led to more and more trends that went from bad to worse, till now everything can be called "art" with a straight face (hence the urinal thing)

No, I don't approve of these things, since these people aren't real artists.
If you are expressing your "feelings" in a bloody colored mess, then keep it to yourself, trying to scam people out of money for it only makes you a jackass.

To quote Yahtzee "if i make a joke and nobody laughs, i can spend the next half hour explaining the joke and getting a few "oohs" and nods but i still failed since nobody laughed!"

I actually like Jim Dine. And before I get hated on he has done much more than just putting things on pedestals. And Duchamp was a Dadaist and Surrealist, and he did much more than just getting a urinal, and like some people have said this was kinda a joke on the art world at the time.

While I agree that a lot of post modern abstract pieces are silly, I'm not going to say "That's not art, I can do it". I can easily replicate better versions of a ton of folk art. But I don't, I also don't declassify folk art saying it's not art. And while performance/ exhibitionist art is a bit on the weirder side it still has merit. I've seen several comment on the Yellow Christ and say "lololol pee on a crucifix on government funding" but in actuallity that piece has a very heavy and thought out meaning.
Reading these comments it seems that not a lot of people have backgrounds in artistic knowledge or art.

Yes the art world is pretentious and silly sometimes, but discrediting something as not being art when all it is that you don't like it is silly and makes you just as pretentious as the art world.

DrDeath3191:
Art is hard to define. The best definition of art that many can come up with is "it's something an artist makes". But even then, I scratch my head at some things that entitle themselves as some sort of 'artistic statement'. What thing that is classified as 'art' do you think has no right to be declared as such?

Jim Dine, I'm calling your ass out. What the hell were you thinking with Shovel? You just bought a shovel, put it on a pedestal and then suddenly it was art?! I think that's a tad ridiculous.

ridiculous it may be, but it makes you silly money, if all other careers fail i may hae to resort to it as well... 360 controller on a seat in the tate modern here i come.

Kamehapa:

Credge:

Alex_P:

Credge:
Concept means nothing when the execution is poor.

The only Jim Dine shovel image I can find online is A Black Shovel, Number 2. The execution looks fine to me.

I can't even begin to imagine what you think bad looks like.

Close, but no. That one is good. This one is bad.

...
If you care...

Here's bad:
Damien Hirst - Virgin Mother
Joe Machine - Diana Dors with An Axe
Salvador Dali - The Andalusian Dog (you'll just have to watch it)

Here's okay/mediocre:
Goya - Truth, History, and Time
Ilya Repin - Portrait of Modest Mussorgsky
Umberto Boccioni - Unique Forms of Continuity in Space
Tracy Emin - My Bed

Here's good:
Herbert Draper - Lamia
Goya - The Third of May
Georgia O'Keeffe - Deer's Skull with Pedernal

Here's amazing:
Ilya Repin - Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on November 16th, 1581
Picasso - Guernica (the real thing; that picture of it rather sucks)
Salvador Dali - The Persistence of Memory

-- Alex

So, umm, has anyone yet pointed out the irony of using Duchamp's The Fountain as the prototypical example of What's Wrong With Modern Art, when the *whole point* of Duchamp's surrealist sculptures, of which The Fountain was the flagship, was basically to shit on the idea of art itself, by saying "Look at me, I took a random piece of junk and hung it in a gallery! ALL OF YOUR 'ART' IS MEANINGLESS!" It was always intended to be a rebellion against art, in the same way that grunge was a rebellion against music.

It's, of course, a very different sentiment than that behind concept art, which does premise itself on the postmodern idea that the important relationship in art is not that of the artist to his work, but of that between the work and the audience. Concept art generally attempts (and in some cases, succeeds) in obliquely invoking emotional states in its audience, while letting the audience figure out what the meaning of their pieces is on their own.

Now, this isn't to say that there aren't terrible pieces of concept art, or that concept art doesn't lend itself to turning into a masturbatory, self-congratulatory process where the "artist's" main credential is his own fame, rather than any aesthetic appeal of his work, and where the big-name artists effectively manage to crowd out newcomers despite basically producing crap, but it does seem worth pointing out that a few people are lumping some very different movements of modern art together here.

I recall seeing a segment on topgear that defined art as something "that exists for the soul purpose of making an artisic statement", which was why no car could be considered art (as the soul purpose is to move, often on top gear it's to move very quickly).

I rather like the definition so I'll go with it.

It's more a matter of opinion. But yes, I do find the simplest things can sometimes be overrated.

Agema:
According to some quick reading up I've just done...

Jim Dine was part of a movement opposed to abstract impressionism, the dominant artistic form at the time, which they perceived as culturally elitist. Their reaction to abstract impressionism was to take something mundane and common, and present it devoid of context, thus creating an ironic view of modern culture by representing the culture in terms of the everyday, popular and and kitsch. Hence also Andy Warhol's stuff, paintings of bananas and so on.

So, yeah, it might not be an oil painting, but there are reasons why such art exists. Now we just need to find out what abstract impressionism was about...

In other words...He's taking the piss out of these fugly looking things? The idea that he's some kind of art world Weird Al amuses me.

I can understand it, and still think it's lazy. I understand what the Piss-Christ is supposed to represent, but I think that the guy could have done something to better encapsulate his frustration than, say, pissing on a crucifix and putting it in a gallery.

Just saying, I understand it, but that doesn't mean you should DO it and then expect to sell it to me.

Erana:

Its like the people who insist that classical is the only good, or right music.

I love being one of those people. I know it's very narrow minded of me, and I can appreciate that a lot of modern music does take quite a lot of talent to produce. But compared to classical? It just doesn't stand up to complexity or depth.

EClaris:
I actually like Jim Dine. And before I get hated on he has done much more than just putting things on pedestals. And Duchamp was a Dadaist and Surrealist, and he did much more than just getting a urinal, and like some people have said this was kinda a joke on the art world at the time.

While I agree that a lot of post modern abstract pieces are silly, I'm not going to say "That's not art, I can do it". I can easily replicate better versions of a ton of folk art. But I don't, I also don't declassify folk art saying it's not art. And while performance/ exhibitionist art is a bit on the weirder side it still has merit. I've seen several comment on the Yellow Christ and say "lololol pee on a crucifix on government funding" but in actuallity that piece has a very heavy and thought out meaning.
Reading these comments it seems that not a lot of people have backgrounds in artistic knowledge or art.

Yes the art world is pretentious and silly sometimes, but discrediting something as not being art when all it is that you don't like it is silly and makes you just as pretentious as the art world.

As per "Knowledge of art," I'm gonna have to throw down the bullsh*t card on that. We are inundated with art all of the time,it is fundamental to our development in society. It takes a really pretentious person to give a person issues about their opinion of art. All "eye of the beholder" aside, if I don't feel it is art, then there is probably some major stretching involved, and if I need a background profile on the artist to understand his vision, then he isn't really trying to communicate his meaning well, is he? If the job of the artist is not to communicate his ideals to us, then what is he doing? Is it art, or a man's diary?

I'm like Deidara, art is a bang

Art is usually the best when crazy people (When I speak crazy I mean those with Autisms and schitzophrenia[spelling]) are doing it as their minds are more abstract and have a better way of using symbolism. Kind of like how the good poets are manic depressants.

Some "modern art" is just a pile of trash that they call art. I mean, I could take any random household object and make up a ridiculous backstory for it and call it art. Real art is this, not a lawnmower.

Every now and then I hear about artists trying to sell the dumbest thing. I've heard about a artist who trying to sell a used pair of shoes for $6000, there was a artist who took an empty box, stripped the tape off of it, and trying to sell it for $30000, and finally there were some parents who tried selling their 9 year old daughter's painting for $10000. It was just a bunch of random paint all over a canvas.

I do remember my aunt telling me about when she entered an art contest. She painted a huge picture where it showed several scenes from the Bible. It took two weeks to make. She entered it in a contest and she didn't win. The winner, took one piece of white paper, painted one green line across it and called it "My painting"

People have really weird tastes in art.

I could slap some sheep's dingleberry's covered with strawberry jam on a canvas and people would call it art.

blackadder246:
People have really weird tastes in art.

I could slap some sheep's dingleberry's covered with strawberry jam on a canvas and people would call it art.

I'd call it lunch.

Xanian:

As per "Knowledge of art," I'm gonna have to throw down the bullsh*t card on that. We are inundated with art all of the time,it is fundamental to our development in society.

this is true, just because it's fundamental to society doesn't mean everyone inherently understands it. And yes you can have varying degrees of knowledge and appreciation of art.
Politics and Government are fundamental to our development, yet not everyone understands those.

It takes a really pretentious person to give a person issues about their opinion of art.

I don't see how my saying that this is art (not *good* or even *okay* art) is any more pretentious than you saying it isn't.

All "eye of the beholder" aside, if I don't feel it is art, then there is probably some major stretching involved, and if I need a background profile on the artist to understand his vision, then he isn't really trying to communicate his meaning well, is he?

Oh right! Because an understanding of cultural/personal situations is totally irrelevant to fully understanding something? That idea is ridiculous. It's called context. Does a Shakespearean play fail because in order to fully understand whats going on you have to know background knowledge? Is Citizen Kane a bad movie because it doesn't spell it out "This is a representation of Welles and Hurst". Is To Kill a Mockingbird not literature because it employs elements from specific cultural climate and the personal life of the author that you would have to know beforehand to recognize? I'm not saying all art should be so clouded and obscure that you'd need a users guide to understand, but saying it's failed because of using subtleties and metaphors that you don't understand is just ignorant. You may not need to read an autobiography, but often times visual art, plays, films and literature make more sense if they are placed within a context.

If the job of the artist is not to communicate his ideals to us, then what is he doing? Is it art, or a man's diary?

This is awkwardly worded so if I don't address your point directly I'm sorry.
Since when did art have a "job"? Art doesn't *have* to communicate anything. They can communicate something if they want, however vague or obvious it's up to the artist to decide. Many people say the Mona Lisa is beautiful, but what "message" does it have? It doesn't. It's a portrait. Nothing more.
L.H.O.O.Q. isn't very ascetically pleasing, and took much less effort than Mona Lisa. but as being a readymade (one of the more extreme readymades has been mentioned, Duchamp's urinal) it is making a very specific statement quite clearly.
Art can be whatever the artist wants it to be, a statement or something beautiful

EClaris:
[quote="Xanian" post="18.153872.3717967"]

I don't see how my saying that this is art (not *good* or even *okay* art) is
Oh right! Because an understanding of cultural/personal situations is totally irrelevant to fully understanding something? That idea is ridiculous. It's called context. Does a Shakespearean play fail because in order to fully understand whats going on you have to know background knowledge? Is Citizen Kane a bad movie because it doesn't spell it out "This is a representation of Welles and Hurst". Is To Kill a Mockingbird not literature because it employs elements from specific cultural climate and the personal life of the author that you would have to know beforehand to recognize? I'm not saying all art should be so clouded and obscure that you'd need a users guide to understand, but saying it's failed because of using subtleties and metaphors that you don't understand is just ignorant. You may not need to read an autobiography, but often times visual art, plays, films and literature make more sense if they are placed within a context.

This is awkwardly worded so if I don't address your point directly I'm sorry.
Since when did art have a "job"? Art doesn't *have* to communicate anything. They can communicate something if they want, however vague or obvious it's up to the artist to decide. Many people say the Mona Lisa is beautiful, but what "message" does it have? It doesn't. It's a portrait. Nothing more.
L.H.O.O.Q. isn't very ascetically pleasing, and took much less effort than Mona Lisa. but as being a readymade (one of the more extreme readymades has been mentioned, Duchamp's urinal) it is making a very specific statement quite clearly.
Art can be whatever the artist wants it to be, a statement or something beautiful

Alright then, let's change the direction of the debate, how do we define art? At this point if art is whatever we want it to be, then my diary tucked under my bed is art. A child's drawing is art...blah blah blah and so on. Art isn't just anything, so what is it. And I don't want to hear about the "levels" or art or defining "high art" and "low art" and such. What makes us regard it as art? When so we look at the Piss Christ and decide that its meaning transcends the original representation of a plastic cross in piss? The thing about Shakespeare, Duchamp [In which I would choose his Bicycle Wheel over his Fountain as a representation of the Dadaist movement], and Hieronymus Bosch is that, even without context, part of their message gets through. It transcends something. You can feel the bleak nature of society in the Bicycle Wheel. I can understand the tragedy as Hamlet stands over the praying body of Claudius and finds himself unable to act. I can discern the confusion, fear, and madness of the human condition displayed in Bosch's Temptation of Saint Anthony.

I argue that art should have, at least, a clear desire towards conveying a message. A door in and of itself is a door. A door carved with the story of the life and times of Buddha is art. While I don't LIKE the Piss Christ and I feel you need too much context to understand it, I understand that it's trying to convey our current respect and relationship with sacrifice, if not God. We shouldn't have to study and contextualize everything in our lives to understand and appreciate it.

While not all of us appreciate all aspects of art, that doesn't mean we shouldn't occasionally, as the "under educated class" stop and ask the art elite what the Hell they are doing. At some point it becomes a matter of "us" and "them" where "them" represents almost everyone and "us" represents a tiny minority who is supposed to tell us what to think. Why is it that an unconnected man is unable to be an artist and a person with social ties and connections is? Why is there more validity in Duchamp's Fountain than Texas Dan's whittled wood design?

I have a fairly broad base for which I accept art, I give Texas Dan equal merit with Michelangelo most of the time, because he is trying to show us the beauty and simplicity of his life in a hand-held curio. A Navajo lapidary is illustrating and communicating the organic nature of his life and the Earth, not just making a turquoise bracelet. And the Mona Lisa isn't simply a
"portrait." It's a fluid, moving painting that goes beyond the woman herself and to the figures and landscape in the background. The way it turns our focus by giving sharper definition in the face coupled blurred sfumato that increases as we move towards the periphery of the piece, convincing us that we are in the room with the woman. The painting is a careful study in beauty. It is not the most complicated of messages, but it is something that the artist can share with us, ALL of us.

It is not just his, it's ours. And that's what I think art should be. It should be something we all can share with a burdensome need to "understand" the individual. Harper Lee exquisitely displays her childlike innocence and wonder with the subtle wrongness of her era so we can understand her plight. That makes her a master of her work. We don't need to know her, we don't need to know the time, we don't need to have experienced racism and social oppression to get a good idea of the plight and injustice faced by both Tom and Boo Radley.

Blah, I'm ranting, I'll stop indulging myself.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked