Art, all a load of crap really?

boring_job_guy

I was talking to one of those arty-farty types yesterday and he didn't like what i had to say.


As far as I'm aware everything and anything can be considered art. From a 17th century painting, to the music on your mp3, to a guy throwing dog faeces at a canvas, or some weirdo running up and down grafton street.

In fact every object and action in existance can be considered art. But if absolutely everything is art, then the whole concept is meaningless.

Now i like a good song as much as the next person, but i listen to music because it makes me feel good not because it is "art".

Also i can look at a really good painting and be awe-struck by the skill that was required in creating it, such as this. But admiring someone's skill is completely different from some false notion of "art".

Imo anyone who says they understand "art", is actually buying into the biggest game of "emporers new clothes" this world has ever seen.

what ya think?

Thanks for reading my rant, and please don't move this from AH, I want to hear normal peoples opinions.

thelordofcheese

Art, like taste, is subjective.

Thread over.

IvySlayer

I appreciate art although I'm not a big fan of it. I mean what the hell are those things on O'Connell Street?

Most artistic people, I know one in college, are stuck up when it comes to art. 'Your opinion is irrelevent, I have an artistic mind'

MizzLolly

Double dare ya to post it in Art and Architecture! :P

boring_job_guy

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Art, like taste, is subjective.

Thread over.

But we know that taste exists. Art on the other hand is a completely meaningless concept.

tell me, what is art?

brianthebard

Your concept of art is meaningless. Using the entire make up of society to negate art is pointless.

seamus

Where the interpretation of a piece is left entirely up to the person viewing it, yes that's a complete pile of ****.

"You have to listen to the notes she's *not* playing!"

"Pfft, I can do that at home".

I've seen a tonne of modern art that looks like just junk, but when explained is actually quite clever.

MagicMarker

boring_job_guy wrote: »

tell me, what is art?

ART
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

drunkmonkey

I went to the modern art museum latley and found it to be utter rubbish, I can appreciate good art work but what was on dispaly was dismal, The whole building is a complete waste of space, I'm not happy about my tax dollars being used to fund it...

6th

Art is bollix but alot of the people involved in it are. I studied Fine Art in college, seemed some of the staff would only listen if you cried while talking about your work.

That said I majored in sculpture and some of those guys knew their trade, woodcraft, welding, stone work etc. The guy that thought me to weld did the palmtreet seat in Temple Bar - guy is a legend and a genius.

ScumLord

Art should be pushing boundaries which just can't be done anymore. All art these days is just slight variation on established ideas. Even music has run it's course and we'll soon have used up every possible combination of notes.

Now it's just a matter of choosing the product you like, the creativity and innovation are long gone.

I like engineering as an art form.

Zaph

When you have the sort of rubbish that gets nominated for the Turner Prize being classed as art it really doesn't help the cause of those advocating that "there is art in everything". Tracy Emin's unmade bed is a perfect example. My 15 year-old nephew's bedroom looks like a bomb hit it, but his is just a mess while her's is worth a load of money? Similarly the guy who had the empty room with the light switching on and off. I had that here recently but I didn't call it art. I called it a lightswitch in need or replacing. It's pretentious b*ll*cks like that, and the people who try to "explain" it to me, that really bug me.

thelordofcheese

boring_job_guy wrote: »

But we know that taste exists. Art on the other hand is a completely meaningless concept.

tell me, what is art?

Art is the creative arrangement of elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. Or something like that.
It's hard to categorically defined it because it's a nebulous concept and of course "OLOL OPINIONS". Basically if the creator is using a medium, be it music, comics, film, painting, sculpting etc etc to say something (and it can be as grand as "war is wrong" to simple like "Im in love") then it's art.

That doesn't mean that it's any good though.

BroomBurner

Art = H. Bosch

Not art = P. Picasso

boring_job_guy

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Art is the creative arrangement of elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. Or something like that.
It's hard to categorically defined it because it's a nebulous concept and of course "OLOL OPINIONS". Basically if the creator is using a medium, be it music, comics, film, painting, sculpting etc etc to say something (and it can be as grand as "war is wrong" to simple like "Im in love") then it's art.

That doesn't mean that it's any good though.

If you want to say something, say it. You don't need to vaguely use any irrelevant mediums to say it.

People can interperet anything from everything.

I could point to a dog shít on the street and say "look, it symbolises humanity's inability to fully conquer nature".

What i'm trying to say is you cannot put something up on a pedestal and say "this is art" while at the same time look at something else and say "this is not art".

to me that makes the whole concept kinda meaningless.

Dave!

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Art, like taste, is subjective.

Thread over.

I agree! I've been thinking about this a bit recently. Art is just totally subjective. There isn't really any objective criteria by which you can judge art, is there?

I mean, what can you judge it by?

*Beauty is subjective
*Complexity? eg. in music if you go between different keys and modes, does that make it better? No -- Pachelbel's Canon is in D major for most/all of the song and is not complex at all. Still sounds gorgeous though.
*Difficulty to make/perform/do? Not really. I'd again point to the canon in D major, it's a piece of p*ss to play (certainly compared to most other classical pieces). That song 'I'm Yours' by the Script is rather nice, I find it more appealing than -- say -- some songs by the Eagles that are alot more difficult.
Is the Sistine Chapel 'better' than the Mona Lisa because it took longer to do, or was more difficult?

It's pretty ridiculous to try and judge them objectively. I think most Britney Spears songs are a load of me bollix, but they appeal to some people. I'm not too keen on most of the stuff that passes for 'modern art' these days (the one time I was in the modern art museum in Dublin, one of the pieces was simply a load of rocks on the ground. Dunno if they were arranged in a particular way, but it just looked like a load of rocks ), but evidently some people are.

Even in the likes of poetry... how do you judge that? Emily Dickinson is considered one of the greatest poets ever even though she used weird hyphens all over the place, and stuck with the same basic rhyme schemes for most of her stuff... Does that mean her poems are 'worse' than Seamus Heaney's? Cos I prefer her work to his, even though he mixes it up a bit.

Same with film...


There's just no objective way to say what's art and what is not! Saying something like "that isn't art" when you see a load of rocks is as meaningless as saying "that is definitely art" when you see a car crash.

6th

I made the art I did for my own reasons. All I wanted was for people to appreciate the effort it took and hopefully they would enjoy looking at or touching the pieces.

I'll throw up 2 pieces I did.

brianthebard

Zaph wrote: »

When you have the sort of rubbish that gets nominated for the Turner Prize being classed as art it really doesn't help the cause of those advocating that "there is art in everything". Tracy Emin's unmade bed is a perfect example. My 15 year-old nephew's bedroom looks like a bomb hit it, but his is just a mess while her's is worth a load of money? Similarly the guy who had the empty room with the light switching on and off. I had that here recently but I didn't call it art. I called it a lightswitch in need or replacing. It's pretentious b*ll*cks like that, and the people who try to "explain" it to me, that really bug me.

That just means we need a better definition of art, not an all inclusive one like the OP suggested. Postmodernism is to me a wrong turn, its slock in the vast majority of cases. People will look back in the future and look at it in shame. But it is necessary for a variety of reasons; there must be decay for regeneration. It reflects the high capitalist period's obsession with itself. It reminds us that current trends are becoming more and more obsolete, and a new movement will come about in time that will radically reject what has come before. That isn't much consolation when you have to look at someone's rehashing of an idea that was radical when Duchamp did it, but has become cliched since the sixties.

thelordofcheese

boring_job_guy wrote: »

What i'm trying to say is you cannot put something up on a pedestal and say "this is art" while at the same time look at something else and say "this is not art".

to me that makes the whole concept kinda meaningless.

It's subjective. Anything who's merit is judged on your reaction to it is subjective by definition.

boring_job_guy

Dave! wrote: »

I agree! I've been thinking about this a bit recently. Art is just totally subjective. There isn't really any objective criteria by which you can judge art, is there?

I mean, what can you judge it by?

*Beauty is subjective

no, it's about good genes, usually a symetrical face/body with certain desireable traits is what lends beauty to a person. People will vary in how beatiful they think a person is as we all have different genes and thus, are all looking for different traits in our partners.Beauty is a real concept, with real factors behind it.

*Complexity? eg. in music if you go between different keys and modes, does that make it better? No -- Pachelbel's Canon is in D major for most/all of the song and is not complex at all. Still sounds gorgeous though.
*Difficulty to make/perform/do? Not really. I'd again point to the canon in D major, it's a piece of p*ss to play (certainly compared to most other classical pieces). That song 'I'm Yours' by the Script is rather nice, I find it more appealing than -- say -- some songs by the Eagles that are alot more difficult.
Is the Sistine Chapel 'better' than the Mona Lisa because it took longer to do, or was more difficult?

It's pretty ridiculous to try and judge them objectively. I think most Britney Spears songs are a load of me bollix, but they appeal to some people.

People listen to music because it makes them feel good. This has been demonstated by science on countless occasions. It does by several methods, one of which is that in many songs the rythm mimics the sound of footsteps of someone walking fast/running.This tricks the brain into thinking you're walking fast/running and the brain then releases certain chemicals (dopamine norepinephrine) to motivate you to keep moving (which also feels good).

Complexity also plays a small part. Sometimes people don't allow themselves to enjoy a song if they feel not enough effort went into writing it. This is about appreciating skill, not about art.

btw, britney spears' old songs actually were good. I'd never listen to them myself as they're to girly for me, but they were good. Her new stuff isn't that great, but it's probably better than a lot of "indie" shíte some people listen to.

Same with film...

People watch films because humans are naturally interested in other peoples storys. Also, watching action/drama scenes on a screen can suck us in and make us half believe we're actually there, leading to us feeling emotions while watching it (ever try watching a film when you're drunk? you get way more emotionally engaged because your brain cannot regulate itself as well).

There's just no objective way to say what's art and what is not! Saying something like "that isn't art" when you see a load of rocks is as meaningless as saying "that is definitely art" when you see a car crash.

agreed. And that's why you can never describe anything as "art".

drunkmonkey

The Man above is an Artist
=-==-=-=-=
The Man in the middle is dancing to himself
=-==-=-=-=
The Man below wishes he was the man above
=-==-=-=-=

From Memoirs of a dead thread
by DrunkMonkey
16/12/2008

======================================================
Ctrl+P lads this will be worth big money in years to come:)

ejmaztec

boring_job_guy wrote: »

I could point to a dog shít on the street and say "look, it symbolises humanity's inability to fully conquer nature".

I like where you're coming from there....

I suppose it would depend on whether or not a dog can be artistic.

If it was Damian Hirst's turd, it probably would be regarded as art, and as a consequence would be worth a sh1t-load.

Kold

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I know a lot more about this than most of you... What with dedicating my life to it and everything.


The simple problem here is that what you are doing is elevating the word 'art' to something you want it to mean when 'art' is simply the work of an 'artist'.

There are books upon books of theory if you're really interested but it never really seemed that difficult to me. Don't put a capital A in art in an attempt to try and make it the zenith of human endeavor, it's a product of labour, thought and feeling and even when you pour all of that into it, it might still be sh*t. Doesn't mean that it isn't art to you, however you're probably best off not trying to make a living off it.


So OP, instead of trying to knock art off it's pedestal, trying to get it to prove it's worth to you. How about you just try to appreciate why so many people might put so much worth in something. It's not a case of 'I get art now, it's f*cking brilliant' it's more of a case of 'Wow, I can actually get something off this, well isn't that nice?'

boring_job_guy

ejmaztec wrote: »

I like where you're coming from there....

I suppose it would depend on whether or not a dog can be artistic.

If it was Damian Hirst's turd, it probably would be regarded as art, and as a consequence would be worth a sh1t-load.

consider this (i read this in a philosophy book).

The random forces of nature sculpt perfectly out of rock a statue of a human. At first people thought it was belong to an ancient civilisation, and people flocked to see this magnificant piece of art.

Then after rigourous scientific tests, they realised that the statue was actually randomly created by the forces of nature.

Does this mean this beautiful staute is no longer art, even though it was once considered so?

does it really matter who made it?

Dragan

boring_job_guy wrote: »

And that's why you can never describe anything as "art".

You are forgetting about the factor of intent.

boring_job_guy

Kold wrote: »

The simple problem here is that what you are doing is elevating the word 'art' to something you want it to mean when 'art' is simply the work of an 'artist'.'

ahhhh, but if there's no universal concept of "art", then there can also be no universal concept of an "artist" .

Dragan wrote: »

You are forgetting about the factor of intent.

see the post above yours.

ejmaztec

Kold wrote: »

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I know a lot more about this than most of you... What with dedicating my life to it and everything.


The simple problem here is that what you are doing is elevating the word 'art' to something you want it to mean when 'art' is simply the work of an 'artist'.

There are books upon books of theory if you're really interested but it never really seemed that difficult to me. Don't put a capital A in art in an attempt to try and make it the zenith of human endeavor, it's a product of labour, thought and feeling and even when you pour all of that into it, it might still be sh*t. Doesn't mean that it isn't art to you, however you're probably best off not trying to make a living off it.


So OP, instead of trying to knock art off it's pedestal, trying to get it to prove it's worth to you. How about you just try to appreciate why so many people might put so much worth in something. It's not a case of 'I get art now, it's f*cking brilliant' it's more of a case of 'Wow, I can actually get something off this, well isn't that nice?'

Anyway, as my daughter said to me after she graduated from Crawford "Do you want fries with that?"

Kold

boring_job_guy wrote: »

ahhhh, but if there's no universal concept of "art", then there can also be no universal concept of an "artist".

My universal concept is that art is the work of an artist/artists. One defines the other.

Kold

ejmaztec wrote: »

Anyway, as my daughter said to me after she graduated from Crawford "Do you want fries with that?"

Crawford could do with a slightly more business-friendly approach. Then again, the more an art college tries to direct their students, the more some are bound to rebel. It's the problem with going straight to art college from school imo. Especially one as loose as the Crawford.

AnonoBoy

I don't know art but I know what I like.

And I don't like El Topo.

There are a lot of 'artists' out there who are full of sh*t and basically going to bull**** their way through their lives and perhaps even be successful at it.

On the other hand there are lots of artists who are dedicated professionals with a true purpose and logic behind their work.

Now if only there was some way to tell the difference from the outset........

GirlInterrupted

boring_job_guy wrote: »

In fact every object and action in existance can be considered art. But if absolutely everything is art, then the whole concept is meaningless.

Now i like a good song as much as the next person, but i listen to music because it makes me feel good not because it is "art".

Also i can look at a really good painting and be awe-struck by the skill that was required in creating it, such as this. But admiring someone's skill is completely different from some false notion of "art".

Imo anyone who says they understand "art", is actually buying into the biggest game of "emporers new clothes" this world has ever seen.

what ya think?

Thanks for reading my rant, and please don't move this from AH, I want to hear normal peoples opinions.

Mmm, I suscribe to the view that the 'value' of art, is the response it evokes in the viewer/listener etc. What leaves the OP cold could be an almost spiritual experience to some. To negate art as a concept is to deny others their individual responses.

If you enjoy listening to music, you enjoy art. If a painting leaves you in awe of the skill of the painter, you are appreciating art. If you've ever even wondered what motivated an artist to come up with a painting, a sculpture, a song, you are involved in art.

boring_job_guy

Kold wrote: »

My universal concept is that art is the work of an artist/artists. One defines the other.

cop out. consider this conversation between 2 children;


what's a grobsheet?

it's what groblet's make.

well what's a groblet then?

they make grobsheets.

grrr, what's a grobsheet?

it's what groblets make !

grrrrrrr! child runs off and refuses to put up with such nonsense talk.



As demonstrated above, your definition is meaningless, beacues it keeps reffering back to itself ad infinitum without giving out any information.

AnonoBoy

boring_job_guy wrote: »

beacues it keeps reffering back to itself ad infinitum without giving out any information.

.....the circle of life art!!!! It's the circle of life art!!!!!!

cornbb

The definition of "Art" covers a huge range of human activities but not "everything and anything" can be considered art. To have some value, art must have some sort of creative or aesthetic merit. If you don't like looking at it or listening to it, maybe it still has some sort of value because it makes you think. Whether or not a person likes a piece of art is up to themselves, each to their own and all that, but sometimes the ideas explored by a work of art are far more interesting than the what the finished product actually looks like.

Not that the likes of Damien Hirst etc should be allowed to get away with what they get away with what they do, what a chancer

boring_job_guy

cornbb wrote: »

The definition of "Art" covers a huge range of human activities but not "everything and anything" can be considered art.

why not?

what can not be considered art?

Kold

boring_job_guy wrote: »

cop out. consider this conversation between 2 children;


what's a grobsheet?

it's what groblet's make.

well what's a groblet then?

they make grobsheets?

grrr, what's a grobsheet?

it's what groblets make !

grrrrrrr! child runs off and refuses to put up with such nonsense talk.



As demonstrated above, your definition is meaningless, beacues it keeps reffering back to itself ad infinitum without giving out any information.

You're banging your head off a brick wall if you're looking for a definition that'll suit so. I'm not going to be baited though so think what you like. My definition works if you let it.

SpookyDoll

I went to Art College, Jazuz there were some gobsh!tes there!

Being able to fashion a rudimentary hole in a lump of granite over 14 weeks with a chisel is considered art.....

Yet someone who can draw beautifully is considered one up from a monkey.....

Feckin arty farty twits :P

Burning Eclipse

Sabotage wrote: »

I made the art I did for my own reasons. All I wanted was for people to appreciate the effort it took and hopefully they would enjoy looking at or touching the pieces.

I'll throw up 2 pieces I did.

They're both beautiful, where can they be seen in the flesh?

My sister is in LSAD, major is painting. She says that most of the sculpture students are useless 'expletives' who pose for photos from strange angles or break eggs over egg cartons to symbolise lost life. There are very few who focus on 'traditional' sculpture so to speak. What are your experiences with this?

cornbb

boring_job_guy wrote: »

why not?

what can not be considered art?

Well, I dunno, a cow standing in a field for example. The cow just happens to be standing there, it was not put there by anyone with any artistic intent. Nor is a beautiful sunset a piece of art - it may be beautiful but it was not a human creation.

Art needs to be deliberate, I think, it can be a huge range of things (music, painting, poetry, sculpture, literature, theatre, plus a million other things that maybe haven't even been defined) but you can't just take a random object or an accident of nature and call it art.

Phototoxin

My only beef with 'art' that isn't entirely functional* is that public money spent on it takes away from science. science has given us insulin, refined painkillers, open heart surgery, kehole surgery, treatment for cancers... art has given us dog poop ?

* by functional I mean I like a picutre.. its an interpretation of a visulaised image. non functional... cut up cows in perspex blocks or whatever..

Smart Bug

I don't see why, if Andy Warhol crushed a coke can it's art, but if I do it it's just recycling?

Art is a cunts game.

boring_job_guy

cornbb wrote: »

Well, I dunno, a cow standing in a field for example. The cow just happens to be standing there, it was not put there by anyone with any artistic intent. Nor is a beautiful sunset a piece of art - it may be beautiful but it was not a human creation.

Art needs to be deliberate, I think, it can be a huge range of things (music, painting, poetry, sculpture, literature, theatre, plus a million other things that maybe haven't even been defined) but you can't just take a random object or an accident of nature and call it art.

If you haven't already, read my previous post.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58286949&postcount=24


does it really matter who made it if the impact on the viewer is the same?

cornbb

Phototoxin wrote: »

My only beef with 'art' that isn't entirely functional* is that public money spent on it takes away from science. science has given us insulin, refined painkillers, open heart surgery, kehole surgery, treatment for cancers... art has given us dog poop ?

I agree that more money should go to science, but art is a worthy thing too. People have been creating art since the beginning of history - its in our nature to do so. Art is functional too, in its own way.

Not all art costs money either. Only a tiny proportion of artists can even make a living from art, not to mind getting rich from it.

* by functional I mean I like a picutre.. its an interpretation of a visulaised image. non functional... cut up cows in perspex blocks or whatever..

I don't really get this comparison - pictures/paintings can represent real or abstract things, the same goes for sculptures.

Dragan

boring_job_guy wrote: »

see the post above yours.

Thats what i meant. People seem to be very happy to dismiss the idea that art is open to interpretation but the simple fact is that....it is!

There is no point in talking about a stone that just so happened to end up looking like a person thanks to the forces of nature, if we want to consider Nature art then we need look no further than a tree, a flower, an insect.

Nature is a creator, but is Creation in and of itself art?

I would say no, that for art to be art you need to be expressing something, to be feeling something during the making of said art, be it a song, a picture etc etc.

When i paint, draw, take a picture, write a new song etc i do it simply for me, because i want to, because something inside me like a memory, or my interpretation of an outside influence etc gets under my skin and inspires me to represent that in some way.

As far as i am concerned, once something is done by a mind capable of complex thought, that thing is art.

And here is the but....but only if it is done with the specific intention of expressing a feeling, emotion, memory. Walking along the street and throwing away your rubbish is not art. Collecting the rubbish and making it into something else? Maybe.

I would also maintain their is no Art. Unless you put it at the start of a sentence.

There is only what you create, for your own reason, once you put it out into the world people will attach their own reasoning, their own experiences or simply dismiss it altogether.

Art is not fickle. People are.

Also, the simple joy of art is that it leads to conversations like this.

Kold

Phototoxin wrote: »

My only beef with 'art' that isn't entirely functional* is that public money spent on it takes away from science. science has given us insulin, refined painkillers, open heart surgery, kehole surgery, treatment for cancers... art has given us dog poop ?

* by functional I mean I like a picutre.. its an interpretation of a visulaised image. non functional... cut up cows in perspex blocks or whatever..

Art has given us all the literature and music and visual things that basically makes life worth living to me.

cornbb

boring_job_guy wrote: »

If you haven't already, read my previous post.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58286949&postcount=24



does it really matter who made it if the impact on the viewer is the same?

The scenario you describe there isn't very likely first of all, the chances of such a thing happening are so infinitesimal as to say its pretty much impossible!

I do think it matters, as I said before art isn't only about the finished product, its about the ideas that went into it too. It can also be about admiration for the skills and creativity that went into something. I mean look at this for example: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=uuGaqLT-gO4 none of it is necessary pretty, but you've gotta wonder about the mind of the guy that made it and admire his creativity.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

ScumLord wrote: »

Art should be pushing boundaries which just can't be done anymore. All art these days is just slight variation on established ideas.

A bit like the film industry then?

Even music has run it's course and we'll soon have used up every possible combination of notes.

I think that's impossible considering the amount of notes there are. We still have a lot of good music being produced, I don't see it slowing down.


A lot of art is amazing, but it is what you percieve art to be. I wouldn't consider most modern art to be art as it doesn't apeal to me, it does seem like a crock of sh!t to me. Art can be both very complex and very simple. We have two pictures that we love, one is a yellow back ground with two large orange squares on it, and the other is an oiled painting of the Eiffle tower. Other arts such as dancing and martial arts amazes me, while the running around naked on stage stuff makes me think "WTF?"

As for a cow standing in a field being art, it would depend on the picture. You could have a really good photograph depicting the monotomous every day life of a cow with an amazing backdrop. Red sun set, green grass, contrasting colours etc etc. The cow, the sun and the grass may not be created by humans, but the photo is captured in such a way that it would be considered art.

It's how the picture is captured that defines it as being art, get me?

cornbb

Annie Rhythmic Hash wrote: »

I think that's impossible considering the amount of notes there are. We still have a lot of good music being produced, I don't see it slowing down.

On the contrary, I think the amount of music as art we see is constantly expanding, and there's plenty of good stuff to come. Conventional ideas such as notes, "real" instruments and so on are also breaking down slowly. *cough*visit the Experimental Music forum*cough*

A lot of art is amazing, but it is what you percieve art to be. I wouldn't consider most modern art to be art as it doesn't apeal to me

but surely its unfair to label something as "not art" just because you don't like it? I don't like a lot of art either, but I'll acknowledge its art, even if I think its shíte art.

As for a cow standing in a field being art, it would depend on the picture. You could have a really good photograph depicting the monotomous every day life of a cow with an amazing backdrop. Red sun set, green grass, contrasting colours etc etc. The cow, the sun and the grass may not be created by humans, but the photo is captured in such a way that it would be considered art.

It's how the picture is captured that defines it as being art, get me?

I wasn't actually talking about a picture of a cow, I was talking about an actual cow standing in a field Photography is a great form of art, I wholly agree that a photo of a cow in a field could be art, but I was just talking about considering a cow who happens to be standing in a field being considered art.

ejmaztec

If there was no art, we would all be living in identical boxes, wearing identical clothes, driving identical box-shaped cars etc etc - and all our faces would look like .

Phototoxin

cornbb wrote: »

I agree that more money should go to science, but art is a worthy thing too. People have been creating art since the beginning of history - its in our nature to do so. Art is functional too, in its own way.

Not all art costs money either. Only a tiny proportion of artists can even make a living from art, not to mind getting rich from it.



I don't really get this comparison - pictures/paintings can represent real or abstract things, the same goes for sculptures.

yes but we know to look at them. when you have 17 sex toys taped to a basket ball balanced on a can of soup what do you do with it ? look at it for some meaning ? with a picture we know that it is supposed to show something even if we dont know what it is. whereas the ball of dildos could just be someone in a nasty accident at anne summers.

boring_job_guy

cornbb wrote: »

The scenario you describe there isn't very likely first of all, the chances of such a thing happening are so infinitesimal as to say its pretty much impossible!

that's irrelevant.

Some good points have been made. But I'm talking about from the point of view of the non-creator. I could splash dog shít on a wall, or vandalise a post box, in fact the act murder itself could be a great work of art:eek: could it not? watching all that blood splatter everywhere whil you can feel the resistance of the body-tissue as you try and cut it up, hearing the moans of the victim as they cry out in agony . seems like art is some pretty sick shít.

If nature produces something that has the exact same effect on the viewer as man made art, i honestly cannot see how it can be viewed as any different.