Modern Art -

Havoc · #31 07-15-2006, 02:17 PM

Using a brush for it suddenly makes it artistic? Thats utter bullcrap.

Rich · #32 07-15-2006, 02:20 PM

haha

A sculpture of the dot... thats where it's at.

Btw, Pop Art is awesome.

Havoc · #33 07-15-2006, 02:22 PM

Does a football count as a piece of art then? It's a 3D dot made of fabric. ART!!!

used:) · #34 07-15-2006, 02:22 PM

It has to be used in am artistic sense though.

Rich · #35 07-15-2006, 02:24 PM

You could make a gigantic football and call it pop art.

Havoc · #36 07-15-2006, 02:55 PM

Anyway, on the topic of crappy art. For those that browse DeviantArt every once in a while, don't you just get sick of all the 'photographers' who put a soda can on a desk, take a picture of it from a strange angle, make it black and white in Photoshop, but a nice white border around it, and DARE to call it ART?! Not to mention that the idiots on DA actualy find these people good photographers... It's sickening.

Mutual Friend · #37 07-15-2006, 02:58 PM

Ah, what is art? That old chestnut.

For me, art is anything that is shaped by conscious hands and labelled as art.

So yes, I can move an object a couple of metres, call it art and it would be. It would also, however, be crap.

Havoc · #38 07-15-2006, 03:03 PM

Well yea everyone has diffrent idea's on what defines art. I define it as this: Art is everything that is handmade by a person with exceptional skill (AKA, not everyone can do it).

Everyone can take a picture of a can, so in my definition thats not art.

used:) · #39 07-15-2006, 03:18 PM

It's not a matter of what you are able do, no, that completely kills the concept of art. Art is presenting new, creative ideas in any kind of form.

I believe that soda can thing could be considered art. Creativity is basically rearranging what you know to discover what you don't know.

Havoc · #40 07-15-2006, 03:30 PM

*W00t, 3000 posts and counting... not that I care or anything... you know...*

Well I guess there is some truth in there. What I just can't take is the guys who do the soda can thing, and pretend to be highly experiences artists. I hate it when people do that.

But by your standards, a few specks of paint by a 2 year old would also be art. And even though I guess that every parent sees it as art, I'd rather call something like that... a spurt of creativity, at most.
Art is the kind of stuff you see in a classic museum. Huge pieces of art that took weeks of one person's concentration and energy.

Dusan · #41 07-15-2006, 03:31 PM

:

Anyway, on the topic of crappy art. For those that browse DeviantArt every once in a while, don't you just get sick of all the 'photographers' who put a soda can on a desk, take a picture of it from a strange angle, make it black and white in Photoshop, but a nice white border around it, and DARE to call it ART?! Not to mention that the idiots on DA actualy find these people good photographers... It's sickening.

...and photographers should have style.

:

Oh so if Picaso would put one single DOT on a 2 x 2 canvas, someone would buy it for 500k? Never mind, don't answer that. Yes there are morons out there who would do that and they need to be shot.

Sorry but I have to. Yes I also mean that all of them have to be shot. For some people good brand is everything (under 'good brand' I mean picasso, van Gogh, Mocart etc). Good artist doesnt need to have a well known name.
He can be an ammater, but if he is good, he will earn that name.

i'll be back in a week or two.... see ya then

Facsimile · #42 07-16-2006, 12:20 AM

I hate modern art. The only thing it's good for is the jokes that can now be made about stupid stuff. You can make anything 'deep' if it's modern art!

Mutual Friend · #43 07-16-2006, 08:19 AM

:

Well, you're British.

You're only saying that cos you're an ignorant American.

used:) · #44 07-16-2006, 08:29 AM

JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BRITISH PEOPLE DOESN'T MEAN I'M IGNORANT! [/AFOS]

Kamille · #45 07-16-2006, 09:33 PM

really some modern art is sooo bad i really like modern sculpture more that takes alot of hard work

sketch · #46 07-16-2006, 11:55 PM

:

JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BRITISH PEOPLE DOESN'T MEAN I'M IGNORANT! [/AFOS]

yes it does.... in your tiny American world of fast cars and luxury.... and stuff....

Bullet Magnet · #47 07-17-2006, 02:53 AM

Granted, some art that people go wild about did not really take much effort to produce at all, and I often find those same "art" pieces lying around my bedroom (eg, the half cow).

But that is not the point. They point is that they actually considered the item at all, and then put it on display in a gallery where it will be appreciated for the first time from an angle that only exists in art galleries. The unmade bed can be taken to mean anything from rest, lazyness, sex or simply mundane life. Or, as you say, to be utter bull crap. Because it is only art or otherwise in our heads, because in reality it is just an object, arranged by human hands but ultimately a collection of semi-useful molecules. Many people take a very left-brained approach to art, in that it has to be a representation of something. But art is creative, meaning it is a right-brained activity, and must be considered in a right-brained way to be appreciated as good art or bad. Now, what impresses the art community is not necessarily skill with classic art mediums, but the ability to do new things that no one has done or thought of before.

Or, you know, I'm just talking out of my arse again.

Kamille · #48 07-17-2006, 05:02 AM

I've seen modern art that looked like the guy took the drop cloth from his room after painting it, but have you ever seen high quality modern art such as kathryn thomas again its just my opinion who I think is quality but her paintings are a bit easy to understand.

SeaRex · #49 07-17-2006, 07:44 AM

It's funny, you know. People like Havoc here are actually helping the modern art "scene" more than they know. You see, a huge component of Modern and Conceptual Art (not the video game kind) is asking "What is art exactly, and how far can we push the borders of art?"

Hell, you could even go as far as to argue that by being able to say that something "isn't art," it truly becomes "art," as it has provoked thought and heated discussion among multiple individuals. In many cases, especially when dealing with Conceptual Art, that kind of thing is the only genuine intent of the piece.

Havoc · #50 07-17-2006, 07:46 AM

Yea but... I mean... it's just... but... EEH!!!!

SeaRex · #51 07-17-2006, 07:53 AM

Of course, I'm not saying that you're wrong. If there were never any people to argue that something "isn't art," then we artists would get pretty lazy, no?

Here's something to help illustrate what I was trying to explain above:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ig206/oak_tree.html

Click on the title "An oak tree" in the first sentence to see this guy's "work," then read the Q & A. It's a good laugh, but it also makes you think; I take it that this was Mr. Craig-Martin's artistic intention all along.

Havoc · #52 07-17-2006, 08:06 AM

That just laughable, and it goes back to my soda can example of someone pretending to be an artist. Come on, a glass of water. Thats bullshit.
It doesn't make me think anything. All it does is make me laugh at the people who actualy bought the mind twisting story and displayed it at a museum.

I will never admit to the fact that you can put a simple glass of water in the same context as some big painting such as the Mona Lisa or Dogs Playing Poker.
Thats because the latter two are in fact works of art. And seriously... if you call a glass of water a work of art, there is something seriously wrong with you...

used:) · #53 07-17-2006, 08:58 AM

Just keep in mind that art isn't all about aesthetics. A big side of it is what the artists sees in his work and is trying to express.

Perhaps the glass full of water being an oak tree is to represent the amount of synthesism in our society today. Or perhaps making a reference to how much water is in all living things sending a bigger message of how at the base of it all, we are all the same components and should disregard the smaller, petty differences. Or perhpas he simply intends for the the viewer to be dumbfounded and find meanings in the work for himself. You have to think outside the box.

Mutual Friend · #54 07-17-2006, 02:22 PM

We're all talking bollocks, aren't we?

"Speak for yourself."

Oh, alright.

SeaRex · #55 07-17-2006, 10:26 PM

:

That just laughable, and it goes back to my soda can example of someone pretending to be an artist. Come on, a glass of water. Thats bullshit.
It doesn't make me think anything. All it does is make me laugh at the people who actualy bought the mind twisting story and displayed it at a museum.

I will never admit to the fact that you can put a simple glass of water in the same context as some big painting such as the Mona Lisa or Dogs Playing Poker.
Thats because the latter two are in fact works of art. And seriously... if you call a glass of water a work of art, there is something seriously wrong with you...

Exactly. The fact that it pisses you off so much is fulfillment of the artist's intent. It's supposed to make people go "WTF. This isn't an oak tree. This isn't even art. It's a glass of water." So obviously, the "work" is successful. Read on.

It's also satirical in nature (I think you missed that fact), which is why you're supposed to read the pamphlet. Like I said, it's good for a laugh, but it also just makes you say "What the heck was this guy thinking?!" which is what Used is trying to discern.

Hell, if you weren't so busy being a stubborn little ninny about it, you could have used it to reinforce your argument, instead of just going "BLAH! THIS ISN'T AN OAK TREE AND YOU'RE STUPID FOR LIKING IT!" or whatnot. After all, in this piece it seems that the artist is giving a mundane object a false label, because practically every physical sense tells us that the artist is incorrect. How is this any different than the "artists" that you despise so much? Just because you label an object as a certain "something," whether it be a glass of water as an "oak tree" or excrement smeared on a canvas as "art," does not necessarily mean that anyone else other than the creator will want, need, or be able to view it as such. That is the message behind this piece.

So it would seem that you and the artist agree on more than you previously thought. Like I said, the piece is largely satirical in nature, and I think you're interpreting it as if this guy was 100%, dead serious about his tree glass thing.

used:) · #56 07-17-2006, 10:30 PM

I wonder what it becomes if all of the water evaporates.