Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Art, all a load of crap really?

245

Comments

  • #32
    boring_job_guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 89 ✭✭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 :D!

    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.


  • #33
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭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!!!!!!


  • #34
    cornbb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭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 :)


  • #35
    boring_job_guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 89 ✭✭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?


  • #36
    Kold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭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 :D!

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    SpookyDoll
    Closed Accounts Posts: 533 ✭✭✭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


  • #38
    Burning Eclipse
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭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?


  • #39
    cornbb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    Phototoxin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭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..


  • #41
    Smart Bug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,368 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    boring_job_guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 89 ✭✭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?


  • #43
    cornbb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    Kold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    cornbb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #48
    cornbb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,369 ✭✭✭✭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 :(.


  • #50
    Phototoxin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭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.


  • #51
    boring_job_guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 89 ✭✭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 :confused:. 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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    cornbb wrote: »
    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* :)

    Yea, the amount of branches of music there are, take rock for example, you have: Heavy metal, death metal, soft rock, alternative rock, punk rock, classic rock... The list is huge...
    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.

    Sorry, I got to explain a bit better. I know that what I am looking at is art, it's labled as art, but in my opinion, I just don't view it as being art. Does that make any sense?


    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.
    The cow standing in a field would be a form of art that I wouldn't view as being an art. Get me? Sorry, I am crap at explainging this.
    ejmaztec wrote: »
    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 :(.

    Communism FTW...


  • #53
    Wagon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,119 ✭✭✭Wagon


    Art isn't a load of crap. anyone who "teaches" it is.


  • #54
    Kold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    Phototoxin wrote: »
    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.

    When you go to view some art, it's not a question of whether what you are looking at is art or not. It's whether it's good art or bad art. That's the right we reserve.


  • #55
    boring_job_guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 89 ✭✭boring_job_guy


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    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 :(.

    no we wouldn't. People like being different from others and we all try to have our posessions reflect our personalities in small ways.

    Very few people want to be the exact same as each other.

    btw,
    Smart Bug wrote: »
    I don't see why, if Andy Warhol crushed a coke can it's art, but if I do it it's just recycling?

    great to see some rational thought creeping into this thread at last.


  • #56
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    boring_job_guy wrote: »
    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.

    Why not? Personally i would love to create something that would have someone stop and star the way nature has done to mankind one hundred million times over.

    There is beauty in nature, and beauty in the creations of man. It is up to the "viewer" as you have described them, to decide what it is that moves them.

    Does the fact that the stone in your story was made by wind and earth and rain make it any less interesting that it was, in fact, made?


  • #57
    cornbb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    Phototoxin wrote: »
    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.

    I'll be honest with you, if I saw that in a gallery or something I would think it was a big pile of bullshít too. *Unless* maybe I heard from somewhere what the artist was actually trying to represent, and his/her ideas behind it. Sometimes that can have some redeeming merit, but maybe not in this case.

    As I see it there are 2 possibilities here:
    1) Me, the viewer of the art, is not open minded enough - there are art aficionados out there who really understand what those dildos represent, the work really appeals to them, it provokes genuine thought and emotion.
    2) The artist has just set out to shock people because he knows shocking people will make them talk about his art. He realises its all bollocks really but he knows that the arty-farty crowd will love it, or will pretend to love it.

    But who really knows which scenario is actually true??


  • #58
    Kold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    boring_job_guy wrote: »
    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 :confused:. seems like art is some pretty sick shít.

    Rage. That is possibly the least sense you've made yet. So Austrian Actionism means that Cezanne is a pervert.


  • #59
    cornbb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    boring_job_guy wrote: »
    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.

    Because nature has no intent: there is no creative brain behind the eroding power of the wind, or gravity, or evolution, or any of the infinite chaotic acts of nature that happen everyday. Unless you believe in God, you don't believe in chaos and you believe God's mission is to wow us with his art. In which case we're into a whole other debate.


  • #60
    boring_job_guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 89 ✭✭boring_job_guy


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

    again, no!

    people write music because music makes us feel good (i'm not going to go into the sciene of it right now).

    people write books/ films because humans are interested in other people/other ways of thinking and enjoy hearing they're stories (even if they are made up).

    Also people will always draw/paint things because people have a desire to leave their mark on the world.

    none of these things are "art".

    Rationality tells me that if the end result is the same, who or what (or for what reason) something is created is irrelvant if the finished product is the same (i guess that means i dissagree with you art-folks.....who woulda guessed).


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Kold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    boring_job_guy wrote: »
    again, no!

    people write music because music makes us feel good (i'm not going to go into the sciene of it right now).

    people write books/ films because humans are interested in other people/other ways of thinking and enjoy hearing they're stories (even if they are made up).

    Also people will always draw/paint things because people have a desire to leave their mark on the world.

    none of these things are "art".

    Um. Yes they are.


Advertisement
Advertisement