Art, all a load of crap really?

cornbb · 16-12-2008 05:09PM

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.

You said earlier that everything is art. Now you claim that music, literature and painting (possibly the 3 most widely-acknowleged art forms) are not art. Would you care to explain?

Dragan · 16-12-2008 05:09PM

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".

Boring guy, i have to say this is an interesting thread but i think you will have a lot less people posting if you continue to tell them what their opinion should be?

If i look at something and i want to consider it art then i will, if you want to tell me it's not i will ask you why and have a debate about that.

If you continue to tell me it's not i will just tell you to **** yourself.

You cannot possible tell someone what their opinion or interpretation of art should be, it's a ludicrous idea.

For me, music, photography, painting, sketching, drawing, sculpting etc are all art.

I have to be honest and say that i find the idea that story telling is not an art form to be a ludicrous.

ScumLord · 16-12-2008 05:15PM

Annie Rhythmic Hash wrote: »

A bit like the film industry then?

Ya the film industry is foooked. Good films are few and far between.

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.

I'm not sure where I read that but they reckoned it was something like 50 years away or less. It makes sense, if you think about it all that's changed over the last few decades is the instruments used and a mixing of styles. A tune played in two different styles is essentially the same notes even though it sounds different. But then I suppose DNA is only made up of 4 proteins so anythings possible I guess.

You also see bands unintentionally writing the same tunes and riffs and getting in a bit of bother with copyrights more and more these days.

cornbb · 16-12-2008 05:15PM

Dragan wrote: »

For me, music, photography, painting, sketching, drawing, sculpting etc are all art.

I have to be honest and say that i find the idea that story telling is not an art form to be a ludicrous.

I would agree in general, but I think sometimes if these things are produced with the wrong intent (e.g. purely to make money) then they are not necessarily art.

E.g. is a radio jingle which was composed just for an advertisement a piece of art? Is the crazy frog ringtone art? I don't think so, necessarily.

brianthebard · 16-12-2008 07:53PM

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?

Art is a cunts game.

Because art involves an element of originality, and an ability to cause people to consider something in a different light. You weren't capable of thinking of that can as anything more than a can when you tossed it in the recycling bin, whereas Warhol tried to make others think about the can, what its purpose was, where it was going after it had been crushed, what is happening to all the other cans in the world as this one stands on a pedestal, etc, etc. The coke can can become a sign of our culture of high capitalism, seen as simultaneously celebrating and parodying the act of mass production, and reifying the process of empty consumerism.

Art offers me the opportunity to think about our world in a different light, through the eyes of another, and at the same time through my own. It is a communal process, that brings people together. It is a dialectical process, that encourages discourse. It expands ones horizons in a real, emotionally and sometimes physically felt way, in a way that the OP's example of a dog turd cannot. That's what makes art Art. If that's not good enough for you or the op so be it, but that's my experience of art.

JC 2K3 · 16-12-2008 08:03PM

boring_job_guy wrote: »

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.

This is art.

boring_job_guy · 16-12-2008 08:09PM

cornbb wrote: »

You said earlier that everything is art. Now you claim that music, literature and painting (possibly the 3 most widely-acknowleged art forms) are not art. Would you care to explain?

What i'm saying is that if the word "art" describes everything, then it is meaningless. If that's true, then there's really no such thing as art.

I know you art-folk dissagree but from a rational and scientific basis i cannot see how a statue made by a man is any different from one made by nature if they are both the exact same. Rationality would tell me they are indeed the same.The same goes for the intentions of the creator. If one person writes a song for money and another writes the exact same song for the fun of it, they both give the exact same amount of listening plasure to the listener.

Following on from my original post (where i proposed that there is no such thing as "art") i conclude that storytelling is storytelling, nothing more.

@brianthebard. I think one could come up with several meanings for the dog turd and had andy warhol put one on a stand it would have been considered "art".

JC 2K3 · 16-12-2008 08:13PM

It's all about duality, man.

Everything is art, but it's also something else too.

A statue is art in that it evokes something in an observer. It's a piece of rock in that it's a piece of rock.

brianthebard · 16-12-2008 08:17PM

boring_job_guy wrote: »

What i'm saying is that if the word "art" describes everything, then it is meaningless. If that's true, then there's really no such thing as art.

If and if and if-none of those if's are true though.

I know you art-folk dissagree but from a rational and scientific basis i cannot see how a statue made by a man is any different from one made by nature if they are both the exact same. Rationality would tell me they are indeed the same.The same goes for the intentions of the creator. If one person writes a song for money and another writes the exact same song for the fun of it, they both give the exact same amount of listening plasure to the listener.

Rationality is about comprehension. How can you comprehend one man's statue to be the same as a naturally formed rock-one is the product of very different forces to another. Your example of the creator's intentions are....what are you trying to prove by it??

Following on from my original post (where i proposed that there is no such thing as "art") i conclude that storytelling is storytelling, nothing more.

@brianthebard. I think one could come up with several meanings for the dog turd and had andy warhol put one on a stand it would have been considered "art".

That's a p!ssweak attempt to consider my post. Your problem is in your search for all encompassing "scientific rationalism" you are discounting meaning, purpose, emotion, etc. You aren't allowing much to exist. And why do you insist on asking the question if everything is considered art-who is proposing that situation other than you? The question you are posing is a deliberate strawman that you wish to knock over, and you are not giving any regard to what other's opinions on art are. Even John Carey, who is famously anti-intellectual and anti-elitist cannot discredit art as meaningless-what hope have you? I'm guessing you study science from the emphasis you put on it, but I doubt many of your teachers/lecturers would discredit art as meaningless in the way you want to, have you considered why that might be?

MooseJam · 16-12-2008 08:58PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Art, like taste, is subjective.

Thread over.

Nothing worse than someone who's head is so far up their own arse that they think their word is final.

Terry · 16-12-2008 09:23PM

I've done a few things with mosaic tiles that have been called works of art by others.
I just saw it as a complete pain in the hole.

If anyone is familiar with the Loft in Leixlip they may have seen some of the tile mosaics there. I'd consider them to be works of art, even if I think the guy who did them is a complete wanker.
The wall to the left of the back door is some fantasitc work.

My opinion of art is that art is something that takes a lot of effort.
A photo of a can of soup is just a photo of a can of soup.
That's not to take away from photographers though. I've seen some photos that are absolutely fantastic and would have taken the eye of an artist to see something and find beauty in it and then capture it on film.

johnnyskeleton · 16-12-2008 09:55PM

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.

There's a certain vaginal quality to the second one.

Reminds you of naked laides = art.

rhapsody! · 16-12-2008 09:57PM

Like everything else in the world, everyone has their own opinion on the subect.
end of.

cornbb · 16-12-2008 09:58PM

Smart Bug wrote: »

Art is a cunts game.

Thats a bit weak. Just because you dislike other people's taste or their views on art doesn't mean you should dismissive art. Isn't there a single piece of music, book, movie or painting that appeals to you in some way? These can all be forms of art too. Is everyone who likes them c*nts?

RDM_83 · 16-12-2008 10:00PM

Terry wrote: »

My opinion of art is that art is something that takes a lot of effort..

Anybody know the shooting gallery in Temple Bar, its genius* all somebody did was cut a hole in the hoarding around the wee patch of waste ground beside the Czech Inn (a junkie died there last year) in fact it probably is back to be being used as a shooting gallery making it a perfect example of art in the community

*meaning got to love that sort of opportunism
.

Terry · 16-12-2008 10:07PM

RDM_83 wrote: »

Anybody know the shooting gallery in Temple Bar, its genius* all somebody did was coat a hole in the hoarding around the wee patch of waste ground beside the Czech Inn (a junkie died there last year) in fact it probably is back to be being used as a shooting gallery making it a perfect example of art in the community

*meaning got to love that sort of oppurtunism.

I should have added that talent is also needed.
Warhol's can of soup is still a can of soup though.

There are an awful lot of chancers out there too, as you pointed out above.

Fair play to them if they can get away with fooling some pretentious people, but I just don't buy into it.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Trang · 16-12-2008 10:39PM

i have a degree in fine art....and i can honestly say i never spoke more bu***hit during those four years ...it seems the more crap you talk the more succesful you are. in the end my art actually ment something to me and ended up being something very personal to me. but in general yeah most artists talk crap and make crap and get away with it....

i LOVE art and appreciate GOOD work, i just hate how pretentious it can make folk.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 16-12-2008 10:43PM

Domo230 wrote: »

As snobby as it sounds you need to understand the context, the painting styles of the time and the background of the painter in order to appreciate it fully.

Waaay too much effort for phillistines like the OP, who find more meaning at the bottom of a beerglass.

Trang wrote: »

i have a degree in fine art....and i can honestly say i never spoke more bu***hit during those four years ...it seems the more crap you talk the more succesful you are. in the end my art actually ment something to me and ended up being something very personal to me. but in general yeah most artists talk crap and make crap and get away with it....

i LOVE art and appreciate GOOD work, i just hate how pretentious it can make folk.

I'd argue that these people aren't artists, but then talking **** and getting people to pay you for it is an artform in itself. It's one of the pillars of modern democracy.

Dave! · 16-12-2008 10:49PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There's a certain vaginal quality to the second one.

Reminds you of naked laides = art.

Hah, when I looked at them originally I only glanced at the first one, but noticed that the second one looks like a "vadge", so checked the first one again in case it was a c*ck and he was taking the p*ss

MizzLolly · 16-12-2008 11:06PM

Look at Damien Hirst's “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.” This piece has caused all sorts of crazy controversy. There was even a piece called, ''A Dead Shark isn't Art'' exhibited in the Stuckism International Gallery in retaliation to the piece.

The Artwork still sold for over $12 million. Some people love it, other's think his work is just lumps of dead animal.

It really is subjective at the end of the day. I don't think generalising as was done in the OP when a certain 'type' was mentioned (or saying he wanted 'normal' opinions) is particularily fair. If you look at what Dragan said, his photography obviously is Art to him. The OP probably wouldn't agree. Likewise for Sabotage's work. (which is v. cool, may I add

) There's no way of actually settling this discussion. It's just one of those things. Headwrecking!! :eek:

Modern Art has mixed everything up a little bit and art has become very much concerned with the concept or meaning behind a piece rather than painting techniques and methods. Very confusing altogether!

Now.. I'm off to write an essay on Caravaggio (there's a ''REAL'' artist for ya

) :P

ejmaztec · 16-12-2008 11:25PM

Annie Rhythmic Hash wrote: »

Communism FTW...

In addition to the big boxes into which they shoved the proles, even they managed to come up with their impression of art e.g. gigantic statues of one form or another.

boring_job_guy wrote: »

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.

Surely when people strive to be different, their art is what makes the difference, when they add the "personal touch" to themselves and their possessions.

6th · 16-12-2008 11:25PM

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

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

Thanks. I smashed the first one up and dumped it - way to heavy to transport seeing as it was just painted plaster on a metal frame. And the wooden one is in need of much attention in my mothers front garden. They were done 8 years ago mind you.

2Scoops · 17-12-2008 12:39AM

Today, I would like to present my PhD dissertation entitled All Art is Shit. I will be drawing on such sources as Roy 'Chubby' Brown, Gary Bushell from The Sun and TV's Peter Kaye.

:rolleyes:

brianthebard · 17-12-2008 02:13AM

MizzLolly wrote: »

Look at Damien Hirst's “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.” This piece has caused all sorts of crazy controversy. There was even a piece called, ''A Dead Shark isn't Art'' exhibited in the Stuckism International Gallery in retaliation to the piece.

The Artwork still sold for over $12 million. Some people love it, other's think his work is just lumps of dead animal.

Selling something makes it a commodity, not necessarily an artpiece.

It really is subjective at the end of the day. I don't think generalising as was done in the OP when a certain 'type' was mentioned (or saying he wanted 'normal' opinions) is particularily fair.

Modern Art has mixed everything up a little bit and art has become very much concerned with the concept or meaning behind a piece rather than painting techniques and methods. Very confusing altogether!

It might be subjective, but not that subjective. When was art about techniques and methods? That suggests that Goya or Carravaggio would have been equally as good no matter what the subject matter or intent, but that is obviously not the case. It also suggests that if both painters were both equally proficient technically then that would be all that would be necessary, and there would be no need for individuality or originality.

Jazzy · 17-12-2008 05:51AM

must have one hell of a closed off mind to think art is useless

spinandscribble · 17-12-2008 06:08AM

art is in everything man made. for me, the best art is whatever can move you in some way, good or bad. nothings better then going to a gallery and looking at art you've never seen before, artists you might never hear about again. the money side of art sickens me.
take Damien Hirst and Banksy for example. both claim they want people to think but i only really believe Banksy. Hirst is rehashing old styles which would be fine except the amount of money being generated is sickening and in my unimportant opinion, such a waste. then again i'd say the same about music/film personalities.

some look at art and unless its life like its "crap". with enough work anyone can do that. with enough lessons its achieveable. but while i admire skill it doesn't MAKE a artist. dismissing modern art as too out there, pointless or void of skill can be a easy way out.

jimbling · 17-12-2008 11:28AM

Jazzy wrote: »

must have one hell of a closed off mind to think art is useless

Surely you realise by now that the OP is talking about the philosophy of ART rather than the pleasure different forms give us.

A persons who writes a beautiful song that can move you and stir emotions is a great musician, not an Artist.
A person who writes a fantastic noval that can grip you from cover to cover is a author/storyteller.... not an Artist.
A person who sculpts an amazing statue from a piece of rock is a sculptor, not an Artist.
etc etc.... none of these things are Art.

Basically, OP is trying to state that Art/Artist is a worthless label.
He's not saying all forms of art as you see it are pointless, just that the label is useless/meaningless. And due to the meaningless of the label, it can be attached to pretty much anything on earth. Hence; his thoughts on dog turds etc.

BTW, I don't really agree with the OP, but it's certainly an interesting topic. And the differing views goes to show a lot of people are not sure how / when one decides to slap on the Art label.

Just had to say something as some people are jumping on him as if he's saying music/books/paintings/photographs etc are all a load of crap and the world would be better off without it. :rolleyes:

Pauleeeeeeee · 17-12-2008 12:40PM

I think this quote from the mission statement of the Florence Academy of Art
is quite good and sums up my feelings on the topic of painting and sculpture:

"It is the view of this Academy that throughout the 20th century the prominent movements of art have steadily drawn attention (and teaching) away from close observation of the material world and the acquisition of strong technical skills, to a position where cohesive artistic thought is inexorably fragmented by the urge towards greater individual expression. The result is a creative environment in which the visual arts are adrift, with few tangible points of reference and little to say that is of continuing importance or depth."

Personall, If I could find the will suffer my way through BA degree then MA masters from the likes of NCAD, talk utter crap for 6 years, lie to myself and to others then I would. If I could produce pointless "art" that gets a story or meaning attached to once they have been completed I would. But I can't. I've left two art related courses in Ireland to date. The students are being deluded and the staff for the most part are deluding themselves.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 17-12-2008 02:07PM

jimbling wrote: »

A persons who writes a beautiful song that can move you and stir emotions is a great musician, not an Artist.
A person who writes a fantastic noval that can grip you from cover to cover is a author/storyteller.... not an Artist.
A person who sculpts an amazing statue from a piece of rock is a sculptor, not an Artist.
etc etc.... none of these things are Art.

Eh... yes they are, they are all forms of art...

brianthebard · 17-12-2008 02:10PM

jimbling wrote: »

Basically, OP is trying to state that Art/Artist is a worthless label.
He's not saying all forms of art as you see it are pointless, just that the label is useless/meaningless. And due to the meaningless of the label, it can be attached to pretty much anything on earth. Hence; his thoughts on dog turds etc.

The problem isn't just that the op is saying art is meaningless, the problem is the op is saying "I think art is meaningless. Hence art is meaningless" with nothing in between the two statements that explains why.

Art, all a load of crap really?

Comments