Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STEMO]

Whether something can be described as as art, or not, is often down to interpretation. I think these 'critics' got it right. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11956330/Art-installation-in-Italy-ended-up-in-the-bin-by-cleaners-who-thought-it-was-rubbish.html

[Bigron]

What a load of (Jackson) POLLOCKS!

Ron.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Yes some art is just.... rubbish!   

[Diamond Black Geezer]

My issue is that apparently in order to be 'art' it must be declared as such, and that's effectively the only criteria. 'Art is something which has no other purpose other than for itself' If you say it's art, it becomes art.

Which means that if I walk into the Louvre, and slash the Mona Lisa, whilst crying 'art' that's art.

If I walk into the Louvre and slash the Mona Lisa and cry 'Screw the Government' it's revolution

If I walk into the Louvre and slash the Mona Lisa and cry 'Jihad' it's terrorism

If I walk into the Louvre and slash the Mona Lisa and cry 'end apartheid' then I'm a freedom fighter


Personally I see it all as vandalism.  There have to be boundaries in society, called laws. I think it's funny, personally that something intended to look like rubbish was perceived as rubbish, and cleared away like rubbish. I like to do painting that look like the thing that I'm painting. Sadly there's very little demand for that these days. Hence I have very little time for all this installation art ...rubbish. 

[KSR]

LITTER

[aaronjb]

DBG, what does it count as if you fall and punch a hole in the painting?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/25/boy-trips-in-museum-and-punches-hole-through-million-dollar-painting

 

[Nick W]

DBG, what does it count as if you fall and punch a hole in the painting?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/25/boy-trips-in-museum-and-punches-hole-through-million-dollar-painting

 

Artcidental.

[Diamond Black Geezer]

 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I don't think that can be classified as art. In the same way that 'pile of bricks' from a couple of decades ago can't be described as art.

If it can be produced and reproduced by just about  everybody on the planet regardless of intellect or understanding then I find it hard to use the the word 'art'.

[Diamond Black Geezer]

I know what you're saying  Herein lies the issue. In the Tate Modern, there is, on a shelf, high up, a glass of water. It is titled 'A tree' The idea being, that it is no more or less a tree than is a painting of a tree, titled 'a tree'.

Not saying I approve of money being spent in such bucketloads on stuff like this, however, there's plenty of things I don't appreciate or approve of in the world, and I'd lead a pretty miserable life if I lay awake at night wishing they weren't in existence.. like Russel Brand. Russel Brand, you utter &^%&*.

Sorry. I digress. 

Anyway, point being, yes, you or I could reproduce that, same for a Picasso sketch - but someone was the first to do it. Art these days is about the concept or the idea as opposed to the engineering of it proper. I know it's ridiculous, but consider the person who thinks 'oooh, a bridge suspended by wires, somehow. That would be cool. A "suspension bridge" we could call it.' gets installed in history as the 'genius behind the suspension bridge', whereas the 'mere' engineer who makes it gets forgotten because 'all' he did was 'simply' repeat the guy's idea. As I say, that's insane. But then the Art world's system for declaring whether a Monet is genuine is one family. Yes. They are the 'worldwide scholars/experts' and even if the next 20 experts agree is it a Monet, but he says not, then it is not officially recognised as genuine. It's insane, and ridiculous.


Fascinating story....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13785393

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I know what you're saying  Herein lies the issue. In the Tate Modern, there is, on a shelf, high up, a glass of water. It is titled 'A tree' The idea being, that it is no more or less a tree than is a painting of a tree, titled 'a tree'.

Not saying I approve of money being spent in such bucketloads on stuff like this, however, there's plenty of things I don't appreciate or approve of in the world, and I'd lead a pretty miserable life if I lay awake at night wishing they weren't in existence.. like Russel Brand. Russel Brand, you utter &^%&*.

Sorry. I digress. 

Anyway, point being, yes, you or I could reproduce that, same for a Picasso sketch - but someone was the first to do it. Art these days is about the concept or the idea as opposed to the engineering of it proper. I know it's ridiculous, but consider the person who thinks 'oooh, a bridge suspended by wires, somehow. That would be cool. A "suspension bridge" we could call it.' gets installed in history as the 'genius behind the suspension bridge', whereas the 'mere' engineer who makes it gets forgotten because 'all' he did was 'simply' repeat the guy's idea. As I say, that's insane. But then the Art world's system for declaring whether a Monet is genuine is one family. Yes. They are the 'worldwide scholars/experts' and even if the next 20 experts agree is it a Monet, but he says not, then it is not officially recognised as genuine. It's insane, and ridiculous.


Fascinating story....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13785393

Yes and no.

You could certainly scatter a few fag ends and bottles of champagne about, as could I.

But neither of us could reproduce the Mona Lisa.

[Sir Tigger KC]

But neither of us could reproduce the Mona Lisa.

I'd put a smile on her face! 

[Diamond Black Geezer]

No, indeed not, wasn't suggesting you or I could,  but nor would I consider, or put in even the same category, the Mona Lisa and that pile of bricks/glass of water/empty champagne bottles either.

Personally I hate almost all Modern Art. I like Dali, as he had a genuine adoration for the classical artworks, and triede to reproduce, in a very warped, surreal way of course. But his technical skill was stunning, and near-photographic, but of course he was painting dribbling clocks and elephants with insect legs. But that's about it, Picasso, Mondrian, Duchamp, all of them, don't see anything for me. Some Monet, and certain Van Goghs I can appreciate to a point. But if both were undiscovered artists and each wanted £50 for an original oil, I'd probably not pay it. My sort of thing would I'd choose for my wall would be Ralph McQuarrie, Turner, Gerald Coulson, Rembrandt, Constable, and original Issigonis sketch of the Mini. I'm reasonably traditionalist, in that sense, I suppose.

I'm just repeating the 'rules of art', such as they are, shaky as they are. Not saying I even agree with them. As I say, hate pretty much all Modern Art, and especially any and all Installation / Post Modern Art.

[Diamond Black Geezer]

But neither of us could reproduce the Mona Lisa.

I'd put a smile on her face! 

 

I think now Sir Tig's looked at that Guardian article and is thinking of sticking something other than his fist through a painting... 

[Sir Tigger KC]

But neither of us could reproduce the Mona Lisa.

I'd put a smile on her face! 

 

I think now Sir Tig's looked at that Guardian article and is thinking of sticking something other than his fist through a painting... 

Filthy boy!       If I could be bothered to reproduce the Mona Lisa, I'd give her a nice smile.   

Some people always have to lower the tone...........