Is It Art?

[cattyfan]

Originally posted by PureX

The problem is in assuming that the function of art is to be good. Yet art is itself very often an exploration of what we deem "good" and "bad" and why. That's why looking at a work of art and immediately asking ourself if it's "good" or not is missing the point of the art endeavor. Most artworks aren't created to be "good". They were created to enable us to see and understand things in a new way - and hopefully that experience will be valuable to us - valuable even when it isn't necessarily "good". Complaining that "Piss/Christ" is "bad" art is stupid. A work of art is "bad" the way it's red or blue. It's color and it's "badness" are both just aspects of the whole that serve the artist's purpose. Rejecting an artwork because it's "bad" is the same as rejecting it because it's red. You can do it if you want to, but it's a pretty silly criteria to use, and it's missing the whole point of the art endeavor.

the article doesn't go into "good and bad art." The article is about things which contain not one whit of creativity and that anyone can do being passed off as "art".

The is no creativity in throwing poop at a picture. If a toddler did it he would be told a firm NO. If a child did it, he would be reprimanded. If a teen did it he would be ent for therapy. Some self-important :artiste does it, and you claim it's art.

Please. It's still just poop on a picture. There is no deep meaning or purpose, except for the artist to raise himself to the next level of "edgy" or "avant garde."

But your defense of it certainly says a lot about you...

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by cattyfan

the article doesn't go into "good and bad art." The article is about things which contain not one whit of creativity and that anyone can do being passed off as "art".

The is no creativity in throwing poop at a picture. If a toddler did it he would be told a firm NO. If a child did it, he would be reprimanded. If a teen did it he would be ent for therapy. Some self-important :artiste does it, and you claim it's art.

Please. It's still just poop on a picture. There is no deep meaning or purpose, except for the artist to raise himself to the next level of "edgy" or "avant garde."

But your defense of it certainly says a lot about you...

Art isn't necessarily about "creativity". What is "creativity", anyway? Human beings don't really create anything, do we? All we can do is make new combinations of the things that already exist. Or maybe we can look at the things that already exist in new ways.

Perhaps that artist that smeared excrement on the painting of the "virgin" was more interested in the effect such an action could have on supposedly intelligent and open-minded people, rather then the physical effect it would have on the painting. Maybe the artistic exploration was in the social reaction, and not in excrement or oil paintings. Maybe the artist wanted us to see people close their minds in outrage and anger right before our eyes as we stood next to his artwork in the gallery.

I personally find it both fascinating and somewhat frightening watching people close themselves off from light and life through their anger and indignation (I really think it's just fear) toward anything that dares to really challenge their concepts of truth and reality. It's actually amazing how quickly and thoroughly we humans can slam our minds shut when we feel threatened by some new idea.

I have not experienced that particular artwork, but I could easily imagine that it would be a very interesting thing to stand next to for a while, just to watch the reactions of others. But then images are not "sacred" to me. I wouldn't care who smeared what on what image because I know that images are just images. We see millions of them every day, and almost everyone one of them has been designed to tell us a lie. If all those millions of lying images I see every day don't upset me, why would someone smearing excrement on a painted image of the "virgin Mary" upset me?

answer: It doesn't.

 

[Lucky]

He guys, check out my "art." :freak:

 

[cattyfan]

Originally posted by PureX

Art isn't necessarily about "creativity". What is "creativity", anyway? Human beings don't really create anything, do we? All we can do is make new combinations of the things that already exist. Or maybe we can look at the things that already exist in new ways.

Perhaps that artist that smeared excrement on the painting of the "virgin" was more interested in the effect such an action could have on supposedly intelligent and open-minded people, rather then the physical effect it would have on the painting. Maybe the artistic exploration was in the social reaction, and not in excrement or oil paintings. Maybe the artist wanted us to see people close their minds in outrage and anger right before our eyes as we stood next to his artwork in the gallery.

I personally find it both fascinating and somewhat frightening watching people close themselves off from light and life through their anger and indignation (I really think it's just fear) toward anything that dares to really challenge their concepts of truth and reality. It's actually amazing how quickly and thoroughly we humans can slam our minds shut when we feel threatened by some new idea.

I have not experienced that particular artwork, but I could easily imagine that it would be a very interesting thing to stand next to for a while, just to watch the reactions of others. But then images are not "sacred" to me. I wouldn't care who smeared what on what image because I know that images are just images. We see millions of them every day, and almost everyone one of them has been designed to tell us a lie. If all those millions of lying images I see every day don't upset me, why would someone smearing excrement on a painted image of the "virgin Mary" upset me?

answer: It doesn't.

Someone once said, "It's important to keep an open mind...just not so open your brain falls out."

As for doing things "just to see the reactions of others," that's an excuse many misbehaving teens and even some killers have used. It's a way to excuse following a person's worst impulses or doing something for which there is no real point or reason.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by cattyfan

Someone once said, "It's important to keep an open mind...just not so open your brain falls out."

As for doing things "just to see the reactions of others," that's an excuse many misbehaving teens and even some killers have used. It's a way to excuse following a person's worst impulses or doing something for which there is no real point or reason.

That's one of the best things about art ... it's harmless.

 

[PureX]

There have been many artworks that I've encountered that I thought were very unsuccessful. They either did not do what they presumably were attempting to do, or they were so confused that I couldn't figure out even what they were intended to do, or they did what they intended to do but they just didn't intend to do anything interesting or useful to anyone. And I confess I'm guilty of calling this sort of artwork "bad" art. But really it's not bad art so much as it's simply an unsuccessful attempt at doing art, and if the artist had understood this, he/she should have thrown the prodict into the trash instead of wasting everyone's time and energy displaying it. But then sometimes displaying unseccessful art is the only way the artist and the public can come to recognize it for what it is.

I personally think the excrement on the painting was "successful" in that it did what it set out to do. But I do think that what it set out to do was very predictable. On the other hand, people who took offense to it are just being foolish, and need to seriously reconsider the meaning of idol worship. The only reason that artwork ever got any press was because those fools made a stink about it. The art world itself would have dismissed it instantly for the shallow and silly art object that it was (as it deserved).

So actually, if people like Berta, there, didn't keep raking up the muck to make herself and her readers feel all wise and superior and whatnot, no one would have ever even heard of most of those artworks that she so objects to. It's really their own stupid reactions that made those artworks "imfamous"... not their monetary value or who paid to have them made.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Lucky

He guys, check out my "art." :freak:

Did you get a government grant for it?

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by PureX

I have very first hand experience with how difficult it is to be an artist in a culture that worships money above all else. It's a miracle that we have any art at all in this country, anymore, where everyone and everything has become a product to be exploited for money. It's the height of hypocracy that these conservative blowhards would be complaining about how art is all about money when in reality it's the conservatives themselves that have been supporting commercialism and greed as if it were the divine miracle cure for all the world's ills.

Art helps teach us how to see through our own bull___, and it gets virtually no support from anyone, in this country. We should be grateful that people are still willing to engage in the artistic endeavor and share it with us considering that they get very little monetary compensation and even less respect.

You don't have to make a living as an artist to be an artist. What the heck is wrong with having art as a hoby and having a job.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by PureX

This is especially pertinant today, when everyone is so desperately trying to ignore the existence of any aspect of reality that they don't like.

Speak for yourself.

We were SUPPOSED to be offended by an artwork like "Piss/Christ". That why it was made. But it's not JUST about causing offence, it's also offering you an opportunity to really study that which you find so offensive. And to learn something about about yourself and about the world as a result.

Why should the government have the right to take people's money and give it to this "artist" whose goal is to irritate those people while stealing their money?

 

[Nineveh]

: fingers on chin ... vacant stare :







LUCKY!

That is jus so faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah- bulous! Your use of color annnn liiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! You are BRILLiant! A Mah-stah of da arrrt!

 

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by cattyfan

the article isn't about repressing art or eliminating culture...it's about being able to discern what is something of quality and what is a piece of garbage which someone is trying to pass off as an important statement.

Just because someone wants to pretend pee in a jar is "art" doesn't mean that it is.

Yeah, and I would think that Purex with his art school education would be able to discern what real art is.

 

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Lucky

He guys, check out my "art." :freak:

:darwinsm: That's great, :lucky:! That definitely takes more skill than peeing in a jar and dropping something in it!

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by PureX

Money has nothing to do with art, really.

For hundreds [if not thousands] of years it has been quite common for artists to have patrons who would commission specific peices of work. Without these 'commissions', many of the great peices we recognize today would not exist.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Nineveh

: fingers on chin ... vacant stare :
LUCKY!

That is jus so faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah- bulous! Your use of color annnn liiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! You are BRILLiant! A Mah-stah of da arrrt!

Ok that sounds so gay.... but it is funny:Nineveh:

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by deardelmar You don't have to make a living as an artist to be an artist. What the heck is wrong with having art as a hoby and having a job.

Art almost always demands far more time, energy, and resources then any hobby would. And art done as a hobby will look like art done as a hobby - you know - that kind of kitch stuff you see at flea markets. Art is very hard to do the way it demands to be done if you want to do it well .... effectively.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Turbo Why should the government have the right to take people's money and give it to this "artist" whose goal is to irritate those people while stealing their money?

He didn't steal anyone's money. It was given to him. And the government took your money and gave it to him to do art with because it's good for you and you're too dumb to understand this for yourself. And by the way, the government only took a fraction of one penny from you to support this art, so you can see why I'm not really impressed with the righteous indignation being expressed in this argument. Of all the things that the government takes your money and then wastes it on, this would be WAY, WAY, WAY down the list of the outrageous.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by PureX

Art almost always demands far more time, energy, and resources then any hobby would. And art done as a hobby will look like art done as a hobby - you know - that kind of kitch stuff you see at flea markets. Art is very hard to do the way it demands to be done if you want to do it well .... effectively.

Which inspires me to say SO WHAT! lots of people have 2 jobs.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by PureX

He didn't steal anyone's money.

Yes he did. The government stole money from people and gave it to him at his request. And he knowingly accepted stolen money.

And the government took your money and gave it to him to do art with

And they should not have done that. They should have let this guy pee in jars on his own dime.

because it's good for you

No it isn't.

and you're too dumb to understand this for yourself.

Maybe you can explain to me how it is "good for me" to have my money stolen from me to support this garbage. (Try to keep it under five paragraphs.)

And by the way, the government only took a fraction of one penny from you to support this art

I don't care how small the amount is, I don't want my money being taken from me to support this stuff. If you want to give your money to someone who pees in jars, you are free to do so on your own.

so you can see why I'm not really impressed with the righteous indignation being expressed in this argument.

That's no surprise, since you don't even believe in right and wrong or that truth can be known.

Of all the things that the government takes your money and then wastes it on, this would be WAY, WAY, WAY down the list of the outrageous.

That's right. I get much more outraged that the government uses my money to slaughter the innocent and comfort and protect the guilty. But those things don't bug you either.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by PureX

And art done as a hobby will look like art done as a hobby - you know - that kind of kitch stuff you see at flea markets. Art is very hard to do the way it demands to be done if you want to do it well .... effectively.

Yeah, I can never seem to find really good jars of urine at flea markets. Good thing the government is stepping in.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by deardelmar Which inspires me to say SO WHAT! lots of people have 2 jobs.

You can pretty much say "so what!" about anything, though, can't you? Not caring about other people is the easiest thing in the world. It askes nothing of you at all. Once you decide not to care, you don't even have to think about anything. You can just be safely oblivious.

But then if you're inspired not to care, why should we care that you're inspired not to care? Why should anyone care about what you think if you don't care about them, either?