"interweaving, diverse, not to say conflictive emphases and a broad spectrum of items to form a dynamic exchange of parallel and self-eclipsing spatial and temporal zones"
Ok. Now what does this actually mean? I'd bet 10 dollars the person who said this doesn't actually know. I hate people who sit around and talk about art like this. It fills me with the urge to start a new thread and discuss such things.
Well I think it's art. It's part of an exhibition designed to depict various aspects of a garden, and the artist appears to be both literally and figuratively disrupting the sanctity and harmoniousness of a beautiful garden with something that does the same thing in real life.
If it's created by a human being* and is designed to convey some sort of message, no matter how mundane or seemingly trivial, then it's art. "Artistic ability" has little to do with it. Art is just storytelling, and anyone can tell a story.
I understand what you say to an extent Mario. But at times I feel like there are too many douchebags who are just abusing the system, and art nuts with too much money gobble it all up and throw millions of dollars at them in the process.
I was in an art museum in Osaka once that had an entirely white room as an art exhibit. It had nothing in it. It was labeled as art. I had to check the sign at the front of the room and confirm with my host family that it wasn't just being cleared out. It was the actual exhibit.
In other places around the world, shit smeared on canvas has been considered art. A gigantic canvas painted solid black has been considered art. I've also heard of an art exhibit composed entirely of trash. The janitor apparently didn't see it as "art," because he cleaned all that shit up without knowing it was the exhibit.
That's not art. That's a cop out. There's a difference.
I think the difference here is in effort. True, someone could just dump a black paint bucket on a canvas, but they could also meticulously paint it black, stroke by stroke, trying to represent some deeper meaning. A black painting could stand for literal darkness, or sadness, or emptiness. White can represent a stark, sterile cleanliness. I've seen artwork using blood for paint, which (while extremely creepy) can still evoke powerful emotions and deliver a message.
As for the rich art nuts, well, they can do whatever they want with their money. It's possible they see a meaning in these so-called copouts that you do not. Neither of you are necessarily wrong, but I think you might be confusing "bad art" for "not art". Art can suck hard or be amazingly half-assed (or no-assed) or unsuccessfully tell its story, but it's still art.
I guess that's it. I assume bad art is nonart. And I still do believe that. Because when I think of art, I think of stuff that is emotionally or spiritually moving. I like that picture of the lonely diner on a street corner in the evening (forget what it's called). I like American Gothic. I like all of the old and famous art, Mona Lisa, Statue of David, etc. Japanese art has woodblock prints, which are made by carefully hand decorated pieces of wood pressing against paper with a myriad of ink colors. Here in China you can find beautifully decorated pieces of jade ranging in age from a couple hundred to five fucking thousand years. This is all art that has transcended time and culture.
To group real art, the art that has survived through history, with people who loosely decorate rooms with trash and stick their hands up their asses and wipe it on canvasses, is beyond disgusting to me. Oh, and don't forget that article someone posted a month or so back about some douchebag who chained a starving dog up to an exhibit as art. I understand what you are saying, but to me that will never be art. It's insulting and demeaning to real art to even think of them in the same genre.
Well think about it this way. If you go to the theater and watch a movie that was absolutely terrible and irredeemable (Freddy Got Fingered comes to mind), even if the jokes are bad and the plot is confusing and the acting is terrible... it's still a movie. It's not a matter of grouping garbage art with the Mona Lisa, except insofar as they are both art.
I went to SFMOMA awhile back, and one of the pieces on display was a giant stack of folded clothing that filled most of a room (pants, I think). In front of the clothes was a small wooden table and chair, and upon the table was what appeared to be a diary or ledger. At a scheduled time each day, an actor would sit down in the chair and proceed to write entries into the book for an hour or so. Perhaps this arrangement was a little bit gimmicky, and I didn't look into it enough to ascertain the artist's intended meaning behind the piece, but I'd still call it art. Sure, anyone can make a stack of clothes, but it is the intent of the thing that makes it art.
I consider art anything that is the outcome of some one's work in an art form. A badly drawn house is art, a doodle is art, a piece of clay made to look like something that kind of looks like something s/he tried to make the clay look like is art. In that sense a pure black canvas is art. (For that though try looking at it from an angle, depending on the kind of paint, brushstroke, or brush they used it could reflect light differently from different angles, even in multiple ways to make an image.)
I'll agree with Serephel in some cases, a pile of trash isn't art unless they make something out of it, like a sculpture of some kind.
While many view the contentious border fence as a government fiasco, an animal rights group sees a rare opportunity.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans today to announce an unusual marketing pitch to the U.S. government: Rent us space on the fence for billboards warning illegal border crossers there is more to fear than the Border Patrol.
The billboards, in English and Spanish, would offer the caution: "If the Border Patrol Doesn't Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will — Go Vegan."
"We think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the U.S. they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables," said Lindsay Rajt, assistant manager of PETA's vegan campaigns.
The Department of Homeland Security is working to meet a deadline to complete 670 miles of fencing and other barriers on the Southwest border by Dec. 31. The fencing operation has run into stiff opposition by landowners fighting government efforts to obtain their land through condemnation.
PETA says its billboards would picture "fit and trim" Mexicans in their own country, where their diet is more in line with the group's mission. Another image on the sign would portray obese American children and adults "gorging on meaty, fat- and cholesterol-packed American food."
PETA'S offer to the feds is expected to arrive in a letter to Border Patrol officials today.
But a government spokesman in Washington said the request will be rejected because it would limit visibility through the fence. And Border Patrol does not allow advertising on its property or installations, the officials added.
"The fencing being put in place is, in many cases, mesh fencing to allow our officers to see what's happening on the other side and to better secure the border," said Michael Friel, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
One property owner on the Texas-Mexico border laughed at PETA's proposal.
"I think it's ridiculous," said Noel Benavides, who is contesting the construction of a fence dividing his family's 145-acre ranch in Roma on the Rio Grande. "I can't see the point of something like that."
But Rajt said the rent money they'd pay would help offset the huge costs of the fencing — and the advertising message "might even be frightening enough to deter people from crossing into the U.S."
PETA has often been criticized for its aggressive animal rights crusades. It's used billboards to push many of its controversial positions such as "Buck Cruelty: Say NO to horse-drawn carriage rides" or "Feeding Kids Meat Is Child Abuse."
Mexicans eat fattier foods than Americans. They just don't eat as much. I remember working with 2 Mexicans one day, we stopped for lunch and I started eating a chicken cutlet wrap I bought earlier. I decided I couldn't finish it because the chicken was deep-fried and just too fatty (made me feel a little sick), one guy asked me what was wrong, I said it was too fatty and he said, "Noooo. That's all Americans eat is fat, that's why they're so fat. What's really wrong with it?" Meanwhile, they were both eating cheeseburgers dripping with grease like they did every day. In most parts of the world, people go for the fatty cuts. They only eat lean meat if they're out of money.
Well think about it this way. If you go to the theater and watch a movie that was absolutely terrible and irredeemable (Freddy Got Fingered comes to mind), even if the jokes are bad and the plot is confusing and the acting is terrible... it's still a movie. It's not a matter of grouping garbage art with the Mona Lisa, except insofar as they are both art.
I went to SFMOMA awhile back, and one of the pieces on display was a giant stack of folded clothing that filled most of a room (pants, I think). In front of the clothes was a small wooden table and chair, and upon the table was what appeared to be a diary or ledger. At a scheduled time each day, an actor would sit down in the chair and proceed to write entries into the book for an hour or so. Perhaps this arrangement was a little bit gimmicky, and I didn't look into it enough to ascertain the artist's intended meaning behind the piece, but I'd still call it art. Sure, anyone can make a stack of clothes, but it is the intent of the thing that makes it art.
I disagree. Just think about your example, even. A movie is a communication format. A movie could be considered art, just as any other performance. If it's a crappy movie, it's not art, just a crappy movie that may have been an attempt at art. a drawing or a painting is just a drawing or a painting. It may or may not be art. People performing mundane activities in a public place could be art. If it sucks or is just really stupid, then it's just a performance. Not all performances are art. Art can take many forms, but just because someone creates something in a form that is commonly art, does not mean that what they created is also art.
Well I still disagree; art is art if it was created with the intent of its being art. But it looks like we won't be able to come to any consensus, so...
Facebook claims it cracks down on fraudulent profiles and approves every name change that users make -- so why are they letting Barack Obama supporters to change their middle name to "Hussein"?
Barack Hussein Obama's middle name is constant fodder for Obama opponents who wish to draw attention to the Muslim portions of his background. The Facebook name change is an attempt by Obama supporters to show solidarity with their candidate...
As far as art, I think looking at 'modern art' is an acquired taste; that doesn't mean I'm going to appreciate the trash exhibit or the starving dog exhibit, but I do appreciate art where nothing concrete is actually depicted. Some painting with blobs of paint on it are actually beautiful, whether or not they're technically challenging or not. Going to the Tate Modern Museum in London last summer was a great experience, I got to see a lot of the GOOD modern and contemporary artwork, especially the sculptures there. I found that most of the sculptures I would NOT be able to do, haha, so I think those might be easier to appreciate, no matter how... weird... they might appear. Oh, also, when I first heard jazz I thought it was really weird, too drawn out, and I didn't like it at all. After going to an arts school and knowing a whole bunch of kids who want to play in jazz groups for the rest of their lives, I have a huge appreciation about what goes into it all, and how awesome the performances are. I think art is the same way. I had a better appreciation for the sculpture part in the Tate Modern since my boyfriend wants to do ceramics for the rest of HIS life. Maybe not so modern though, haha. I figure the jazz and ceramics first-hand experience makes me way more likely to like the artwork that a lot of people look down on.
Now, for the PETA article... is everyone in PETA crazy? As in, obsessive crazy? Also, I've had a chorizo quesadilla before, it was really bad
And good ol' facebook, I don't really have anything to say about that. I'm surprised I haven't personally seen any of my friends make change their facebook middle name to Hussein, I have some pretty devoted friends who want Obama to win the election.
Well think about it this way. If you go to the theater and watch a movie that was absolutely terrible and irredeemable (Freddy Got Fingered comes to mind), even if the jokes are bad and the plot is confusing and the acting is terrible... it's still a movie. It's not a matter of grouping garbage art with the Mona Lisa, except insofar as they are both art.
Well there are our differences. We have different definitions of the term "art". I understand your definition, because I know that's the standard definition of art. I'm just saying that I don't agree with it. I personally reserve the term "art" for what I deem to be more deserving pieces of work. What I consider art requires a good deal of effort, mixed with either innate talent or varying amounts of acquired skill.
Comments
But is it news if it's not true?
Ok. Now what does this actually mean? I'd bet 10 dollars the person who said this doesn't actually know. I hate people who sit around and talk about art like this. It fills me with the urge to start a new thread and discuss such things.
EDIT: It just makes it funny.
I understand what you say to an extent Mario. But at times I feel like there are too many douchebags who are just abusing the system, and art nuts with too much money gobble it all up and throw millions of dollars at them in the process.
I was in an art museum in Osaka once that had an entirely white room as an art exhibit. It had nothing in it. It was labeled as art. I had to check the sign at the front of the room and confirm with my host family that it wasn't just being cleared out. It was the actual exhibit.
In other places around the world, shit smeared on canvas has been considered art. A gigantic canvas painted solid black has been considered art. I've also heard of an art exhibit composed entirely of trash. The janitor apparently didn't see it as "art," because he cleaned all that shit up without knowing it was the exhibit.
That's not art. That's a cop out. There's a difference.
As for the rich art nuts, well, they can do whatever they want with their money. It's possible they see a meaning in these so-called copouts that you do not. Neither of you are necessarily wrong, but I think you might be confusing "bad art" for "not art". Art can suck hard or be amazingly half-assed (or no-assed) or unsuccessfully tell its story, but it's still art.
To group real art, the art that has survived through history, with people who loosely decorate rooms with trash and stick their hands up their asses and wipe it on canvasses, is beyond disgusting to me. Oh, and don't forget that article someone posted a month or so back about some douchebag who chained a starving dog up to an exhibit as art. I understand what you are saying, but to me that will never be art. It's insulting and demeaning to real art to even think of them in the same genre.
I went to SFMOMA awhile back, and one of the pieces on display was a giant stack of folded clothing that filled most of a room (pants, I think). In front of the clothes was a small wooden table and chair, and upon the table was what appeared to be a diary or ledger. At a scheduled time each day, an actor would sit down in the chair and proceed to write entries into the book for an hour or so. Perhaps this arrangement was a little bit gimmicky, and I didn't look into it enough to ascertain the artist's intended meaning behind the piece, but I'd still call it art. Sure, anyone can make a stack of clothes, but it is the intent of the thing that makes it art.
I'll agree with Serephel in some cases, a pile of trash isn't art unless they make something out of it, like a sculpture of some kind.
Facebook users change middle names to Hussein in Obama solidarity protest
As far as art, I think looking at 'modern art' is an acquired taste; that doesn't mean I'm going to appreciate the trash exhibit or the starving dog exhibit, but I do appreciate art where nothing concrete is actually depicted. Some painting with blobs of paint on it are actually beautiful, whether or not they're technically challenging or not. Going to the Tate Modern Museum in London last summer was a great experience, I got to see a lot of the GOOD modern and contemporary artwork, especially the sculptures there. I found that most of the sculptures I would NOT be able to do, haha, so I think those might be easier to appreciate, no matter how... weird... they might appear. Oh, also, when I first heard jazz I thought it was really weird, too drawn out, and I didn't like it at all. After going to an arts school and knowing a whole bunch of kids who want to play in jazz groups for the rest of their lives, I have a huge appreciation about what goes into it all, and how awesome the performances are. I think art is the same way. I had a better appreciation for the sculpture part in the Tate Modern since my boyfriend wants to do ceramics for the rest of HIS life. Maybe not so modern though, haha. I figure the jazz and ceramics first-hand experience makes me way more likely to like the artwork that a lot of people look down on.
Now, for the PETA article... is everyone in PETA crazy? As in, obsessive crazy? Also, I've had a chorizo quesadilla before, it was really bad
And good ol' facebook, I don't really have anything to say about that. I'm surprised I haven't personally seen any of my friends make change their facebook middle name to Hussein, I have some pretty devoted friends who want Obama to win the election.
Well there are our differences. We have different definitions of the term "art". I understand your definition, because I know that's the standard definition of art. I'm just saying that I don't agree with it. I personally reserve the term "art" for what I deem to be more deserving pieces of work. What I consider art requires a good deal of effort, mixed with either innate talent or varying amounts of acquired skill.