What Is Art?

[Crow]

I wasn't trying to diss them but okay.

It is sometimes used in the art/design world as a sly insult to refer to somebody being a bit simple minded.

A person that is looking at a surrealist painting says something along the lines of "I don't get surrealism, what is the point of it", somebody might reply in snide "perhaps something more literalist (not in the sense of minimalism) may me be more to your tastes".

[Nam]

I wasn't trying to diss them but okay.

It is sometimes used in the art/design world as a sly insult to refer to somebody being a bit simple minded.

A person that is looking at a surrealist painting says something along the lines of "I don't get surrealism, what is the point of it", somebody might reply in snide "perhaps something more literalist (not in the sense of minimalism) may me be more to your tastes".

I tried the art world. They called it plagiarism. That was 15 years. Haven't been back since. Though as I moved in 2012 a friend found one of my pieces and bought it off me for $500. I guess he doesn't mind plagiarism.

What I did was was taken an old photograph (citing the photographer if it wasn't anon) and turned it into something else, and deviantart.com called it plagiarism. And removed them from their website.

-Nam

[Magdalena]

I wasn't trying to diss them but okay.

It is sometimes used in the art/design world as a sly insult to refer to somebody being a bit simple minded.

A person that is looking at a surrealist painting says something along the lines of "I don't get surrealism, what is the point of it", somebody might reply in snide "perhaps something more literalist (not in the sense of minimalism) may me be more to your tastes".

Oh! I get it. 

[xSilverPhinx]

I wasn't trying to diss them but okay.

It is sometimes used in the art/design world as a sly insult to refer to somebody being a bit simple minded.

A person that is looking at a surrealist painting says something along the lines of "I don't get surrealism, what is the point of it", somebody might reply in snide "perhaps something more literalist (not in the sense of minimalism) may me be more to your tastes".

While we're on the topic, a rant on modern art, which I agree with:

Bunch of people standing and staring at something and saying vacuous crap like

As spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future.

(Generated using Siz's Arty Bollocks Generator)

[Sandra Craft]

While we're on the topic, a rant on modern art, which I agree with:

I actually quite liked the professor's apron -- it had pretty blues in it!

[Crow]

I tried the art world. They called it plagiarism. That was 15 years. Haven't been back since. Though as I moved in 2012 a friend found one of my pieces and bought it off me for $500. I guess he doesn't mind plagiarism.

What I did was was taken an old photograph (citing the photographer if it wasn't anon) and turned it into something else, and deviantart.com called it plagiarism. And removed them from their website.

Well Deviantart isn't the "art world" that is a bunch of kids and want to be illustrators/photographers doing things for kicks, it is primarily just a place to share images with other people and get their opinions or share resources.

Regardless found art is a method of producing art, Picasso, Koons, Emin and many other all engage in it, it is about seeing an idea in something an presenting it to an audience. If it lacks thought, the found piece are considered to be another work of art, or you failed to get permission from the IP holder then it is plagiarism many big artists get done for this all the time because they failed to dig into the origin of it (Rogers v. Koons for example).

-

The person in the video clearly doesn't understand what art actually is and is one of the thickos who are incapable of understanding it, which just so happen to be the part of the same coin that is the old-fashioned art snobs. If he finds it too confusing or difficult he may want to step away and go do something that doesn't challenge him as he is obviously stuck in the "if I like it then it is art, if I don't then it isn't" which is the exact same opinion of the old fashioned art snob.

What is there to not get about art (and the many different sub categories) it is a form of creative expression with the sole purpose of being such, if it is in a gallery then somebody enjoys it enough to want to share it with others that is pretty much the sum total of it, if that is hard to grasp then wow I don't even know how to reply to that in earnest because that is some simple shit.

Even this sentence is really easy to understand; "As spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future." It is all pretty straight forward though the last bit is a bit more poetic than necessary but why not. Not that you would hear that sort of thing often unless you happened to bump into somebody that speaks like that and most likely they are going to be a critic or somebody who actually knows what they are taking about, if they are bullshitting is pretty easy to spot them as words have meanings and if it doesn't relate to what they are talking about they are full of shit.

[xSilverPhinx]

I tried the art world. They called it plagiarism. That was 15 years. Haven't been back since. Though as I moved in 2012 a friend found one of my pieces and bought it off me for $500. I guess he doesn't mind plagiarism.

What I did was was taken an old photograph (citing the photographer if it wasn't anon) and turned it into something else, and deviantart.com called it plagiarism. And removed them from their website.

Well Deviantart isn't the "art world" that is a bunch of kids and want to be illustrators/photographers doing things for kicks, it is primarily just a place to share images with other people and get their opinions or share resources.

Regardless found art is a method of producing art, Picasso, Koons, Emin and many other all engage in it, it is about seeing an idea in something an presenting it to an audience. If it lacks thought, the found piece are considered to be another work of art, or you failed to get permission from the IP holder then it is plagiarism many big artists get done for this all the time because they failed to dig into the origin of it (Rogers v. Koons for example).

-

The person in the video clearly doesn't understand what art actually is and is one of the thickos who are incapable of understanding it, which just so happen to be the part of the same coin that is the old-fashioned art snobs. If he finds it too confusing or difficult he may want to step away and go do something that doesn't challenge him as he is obviously stuck in the "if I like it then it is art, if I don't then it isn't" which is the exact same opinion of the old fashioned art snob.

What is there to not get about art (and the many different sub categories) it is a form of creative expression with the sole purpose of being such, if it is in a gallery then somebody enjoys it enough to want to share it with others that is pretty much the sum total of it, if that is hard to grasp then wow I don't even know how to reply to that in earnest because that is some simple shit.

Even this sentence is really easy to understand; "As spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future." It is all pretty straight forward though the last bit is a bit more poetic than necessary but why not. Not that you would hear that sort of thing often unless you happened to bump into somebody that speaks like that and most likely they are going to be a critic or somebody who actually knows what they are taking about, if they are bullshitting is pretty easy to spot them as words have meanings and if it doesn't relate to what they are talking about they are full of shit.

I think one funny thing about modern art is that people are looking to attribute all sorts of meanings to things where they probably don't exist or wasn't even the producer's intent, as was shown in the case of the professor's apron in the video. "Evocative". Seriously?  Who are they trying to impress? The packaged artist's shit - sure he produced that, but art? It's creative, as in he probably had a minor eureka moment while on the toilet, sure. It's a statement, but one that I would associate more with criticism towards consumerism than art. It isn't even aesthetically pleasing.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that real talent should be divorced from art.

Are you familiar with chimp paintings? Would you personally call them art?

That's one painting from a chimp called Congo. I like blues, blacks and whites, but I wouldn't think that there was any deeper meaning in there somewhere to challenge the observer.

The Pierre Brassau hoax is particularly funny. Chimp 1, art snobs 0.

[Davin]

The person in the video clearly doesn't understand what art actually is and is one of the thickos who are incapable of understanding it, which just so happen to be the part of the same coin that is the old-fashioned art snobs.

Common vacuous rebuttal from those who can't provide a rational rebuttal. I'm sure there will be something of substance instead of just attacking the man and tu quoque.

If he finds it too confusing or difficult he may want to step away and go do something that doesn't challenge him as he is obviously stuck in the "if I like it then it is art, if I don't then it isn't" which is the exact same opinion of the old fashioned art snob.

Another attack on the guy, plus a bonus straw man? Yep, still a common "defense" like those made by ones who can't rationally support their point.

What is there to not get about art (and the many different sub categories) it is a form of creative expression with the sole purpose of being such, if it is in a gallery then somebody enjoys it enough to want to share it with others that is pretty much the sum total of it, if that is hard to grasp then wow I don't even know how to reply to that in earnest because that is some simple shit.

So art is potentially anything and everything... I think that makes "art" a useless term then. Literally nothing is not art under this definition. If that's what you want to consider art, that's fine for you, but I don't accept it. I think that art should be distinguished from other things. I like a lot of abstract art, and I even dislike a lot of abstract art that I still accept as art, but I think it's also good to speak out against trying to pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art.

If you disagree, then at the very least you must accept my dissent as art.

Even this sentence is really easy to understand; "As spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future."[...]

No one is saying that we should accept the status quo, not the guy in the video nor anyone who doesn't accept that nails randomly hammered into a block of wood is art. Oh noes, now some bullshitter thinks that because I don't like garbage then I don't know what I'm talking about. Whatever will I do?

Unfortunately, I saw no rational rebuttal to what the guy in the video said.

Attacking the guy - check.
Tu quoque - check.
Straw man - check.
Refutation of points - ...

I suppose that last one is forthcoming.

[Crow]

I think one funny thing about modern art is that people are looking to attribute all sorts of meanings to things where they probably don't exist or wasn't even the producer's intent, as was shown in the case of the professor's apron in the video. "Evocative". Seriously?  Who are they trying to impress? The packaged artist's shit - sure he produced that, but art? It's creative, as in he probably had a minor eureka moment while on the toilet, sure. It's a statement, but one that I would associate more with criticism towards consumerism than art. It isn't even aesthetically pleasing.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that real talent should be divorced from art.

Are you familiar with chimp paintings? Would you personally call them art?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Chimpanzee_congo_painting.jpg[/img]

That's one painting from a chimp called Congo. I like blues, blacks and whites, but I wouldn't think that there was any deeper meaning in there somewhere to challenge the observer.

The Pierre Brassau hoax is particularly funny. Chimp 1, art snobs 0.

Once a piece of work is in the public realm the artists intention matters little, how a person perceives that work is ultimately how they feel about it. As people have differing opinions the base assumption is people are going to have opinions that differ from yours and if it is a piece that is intended to confront viewers on a subject than it is going to create strong opinion. You don't have to like it, or even understand the intention but to fail to see it as creative expression says a lot about the viewer more than it does the artist. In the video 99% of the work isn't even modern art.

Art has never had to be aesthetically pleasing, just look at some of the opinions on people who funded renascence works, they often thought it was poor but it was popular or somebody who was more influential was a fan. This is pretty much the same all the way through history whenever you find writings on the subject.

I also find it highly amusing when they say artists lack technical talent as some of the most conceptual or stylised artists are some of the most talented technically, you have to be technically talented to even get recognised in the first place but see it as redundant because it isn't anything new, anybody can learn to pick up a brush and paint to a proficient with enough practice. There is little intellectual skill involved in painting still life and why in contemporary society art that is lead via intellectual skill not a learned skill is more desirable.

I wouldn't call animal art in the traditional sense art as it wasn't intended by the creator to be art and in most cases lead by a another person as was the case with the stuff produced in the 1960's specifically to be abstract. It could be in many other ways one being as a form of primal expression but seeing as you can guide an animal to create recognisable images the input from humans diminishes that.

[Crow]

So art is potentially anything and everything... I think that makes "art" a useless term then. Literally nothing is not art under this definition. If that's what you want to consider art, that's fine for you, but I don't accept it. I think that art should be distinguished from other things. I like a lot of abstract art, and I even dislike a lot of abstract art that I still accept as art, but I think it's also good to speak out against trying to pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art.

Art is art if it is creative expression with the sole intention of being art. There isn't much to get here and yes pretty much anything can be art in the same way a writer has a story to tell then they can write a story about anything, just because an individual dislikes the story or it might not be in the prose they like doesn't stop it being a story. Who are you to say "pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art", do you know what went into the process of the final piece? I assume not. Are you a lazy as developer that copy and pastes everything? maybe you are, maybe you aren't but for the sake of it I'm going to express that you are unskilled and lazy because I didn't like a post you made a while back about programming. I'm not going to even bother with the rest of the post.

[joeactor]

I actually have a problem with everything being called "art", and find much of "modern art" pretentious.
Although, the guy in the video seems really angry about it. Chill, dude! It's not personal - people have different opinions. To me, a one-color canvas is painted... but it ain't art.

Here's my final word on what is the art:
http://www.joesdump.com/2013/09/02/it-arts-so-good/

[Crow]

I actually have a problem with everything being called "art", and find much of "modern art" pretentious.
Although, the guy in the video seems really angry about it. Chill, dude! It's not personal - people have different opinions. To me, a one-color canvas is painted... but it ain't art.

Here's my final word on what is the art:
http://www.joesdump.com/2013/09/02/it-arts-so-good/

You might not like it but it is art, even from a technical point of view it is more than a canvas of colour. Go look at a bit of monochrome painting, the minimalist stuff specifically and look at how they have been painted, they aren't basic painting techniques not by a long way. Even try it yourself, try get the precession of brush strokes (they don't use a roller or foam and don't use paints that are good for painting flat) there are so many that play with different strokes, patterns and textures.

[Siz]

So art is potentially anything and everything... I think that makes "art" a useless term then. Literally nothing is not art under this definition. If that's what you want to consider art, that's fine for you, but I don't accept it. I think that art should be distinguished from other things. I like a lot of abstract art, and I even dislike a lot of abstract art that I still accept as art, but I think it's also good to speak out against trying to pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art.

Art is art if it is creative expression with the sole intention of being art. There isn't much to get here and yes pretty much anything can be art in the same way a writer has a story to tell then they can write a story about anything, just because an individual dislikes the story or it might not be in the prose they like doesn't stop it being a story. Who are you to say "pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art", do you know what went into the process of the final piece? I assume not. Are you a lazy as developer that copy and pastes everything? maybe you are, maybe you aren't but for the sake of it I'm going to express that you are unskilled and lazy because I didn't like a post you made a while back about programming. I'm not going to even bother with the rest of the post.

Does a piece of work have have art as its sole purpose to be art?

[Crow]

Does a piece of work have have art as its sole purpose to be art?

The Guggenheim Bilbao is architecture. Even though it is a museum that is intended to hold art its purpose is to be a building and has been designed with that specifically in mind. It has obvious artistic merit but it is design.

Here is an example of architecture being used as art:

Turning the place over by Richard Wilson

[Siz]

Does a piece of work have have art as its sole purpose to be art?

The Guggenheim Bilbao is architecture. Even though it is a museum that is intended to hold art its purpose is to be a building and has been designed with that specifically in mind. It has obvious artistic merit but it is design.

Yet not art?! Srsly?