art or shit?

[emcarthu]

this has nothing to do with any attachment to a bike, i'm not offended or upset that he destroyed a bike, i just think calling it art is ridiculous.

sorry that was just poor writing, I'm not saying you were offended; just poking a hole in your logic that developing an emotional attachment or response to something inanimate or it, "speaking to you" somehow merits professional counseling.

a lot of the bikes on this site "speak to me" the same way a good piece of art does.

and some "speak to me" the same way a bad piece of art does.

now I have to finish a piece I've been working on.

(no motorcycles were harmed in the making of any of my art)

 

[lockard666]

(no motorcycles were harmed in the making of any of my art)

now ^^that^^ is funny.

 

[t71ford]

But in all of this, can we get a big HELL YEAH that the bike made it through and didn't give up the ship?? Thing frickin held together through it all. That is art!!

 

[emcarthu]

But in all of this, can we get a big HELL YEAH that the bike made it through and didn't give up the ship?? Thing frickin held together through it all. That is art!!

that bike is definitely a fighter and a champion and I support all initiatives to make this funnier. battling it, riding it, whatever. I support humor more than art for sure.

so I'm glad you got a chuckle out of that Lockard. lol

 

[DrJ]

Reading some of the reactions to this piece I've drawn some more conclusions. Gasps of "poor bike" or "that's no way to treat a Honda" means people are feeling empathy for it. The creator has transformed an inanimate machine into something that resembles a living creature. He's anthropomorphised a man-made object. That's pretty cool in my books. Perhaps that was his intentional message? Giving life to something that never lived. That's just my interpretation, like that old art cliche, "it's whatever you want it to be."

The actual motorcycle is not the art piece, it's the film. The set-up was never meant to be bought and displayed.

And relax people, it's not an animal that feels pain. But it's drawn you in and made you feel sorry for it. Suckahs ;D

 

[Hoofhearted]

Reading some of the reactions to this piece I've drawn some more conclusions. Gasps of "poor bike" or "that's no way to treat a Honda" means people are feeling empathy for it. The creator has transformed an inanimate machine into something that resembles a living creature. He's anthropomorphised a man-made object. That's pretty cool in my books. Perhaps that was his intentional message? Giving life to something that never lived. That's just my interpretation, like that old art cliche, "it's whatever you want it to be."

The actual motorcycle is not the art piece, it's the film. The set-up was never meant to be bought and displayed.

And relax people, it's not an animal that feels pain. But it's drawn you in and made you feel sorry for it. Suckahs ;D

Very well written. But it still gets filed under heading of shit and not art.

 

[J.P.]

Man I watched that feeling like I was watching a dog get beat by it owner or something... someone should shoot this guy... it was like watching a snuff film :'(

lol, I felt the same way

 

[Hoofhearted]

When I saw the video I felt for the bike the same way I feel for "stuntas" bikes. Engineers work to make them powerful, fast, stop on a dime (and get a nickel change), handle great. All the things you dream of in a bike and then some dumb shit (that description includes "stuntas") and does that. You can tell me what you like about what he "is trying to say" and I'll say bullshit. I still believe Paul Gaugin went to the south sea Islands to get laid by nubile young ladies. Painting was a cover story.

 

[PHeller]

Several things could have been done to make it art:


- Better quality filming
- Better editing


And if he was going for the anthropomorphism, then a lacing the video with pictures of cages farm animal might have been pretty effective.

 

[Wingspan]

I'd say it's neither. I read though the thread before seeing the video and I have to admit I'm disappointing by what I saw given the reaction it's gotten. My thought at the end of video was, "So what...and?". Simply filming something and getting a reaction does not mean it's art. If that was true then Youtube would be the worlds largest art gallery. I don't see this video being any different than the scores of videos of other random acts posted to the web every day.

I'm not condoning what he did to the bike in the vid but as for wrecking an old bike that can't be replaced...that critiszm is also used in some circles to describe what most of us here (including me) do to our old bikes.

 

[Redbird]

well then i would question whether your intent was to make art or just to be an ass.

I could question the same about Hubie D's work.

someone with a masters degree from The Academy of Fine Art in Vienna probably knows what they are doing. and isn't just trying to piss people off.

The keyword there is "probably" I would venture a guess that even someone such as Michelangelo tanked a few here and there. And are ya sure he wasn't just trying to piss people off? I mean, do we really know?
For the record though, I'm not pissed off at it/him. "Pissed Off" would imply emotion. I'm indifferent. The choices were Art or Shit. I don't see it as Art, so I chose Shit.

And I'm gonna say that you're in the minority on this one.
whether or not this is art is not subjective. however the quality of it may be.

Whether or not it is Art is purely Subjective.
Subjective: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias.
Just because an individual says something is Art does not make it Art infinite. It's only Art to those who see it as such. I'm sure there are people out there who would use a Rodin as a doorstop, while others would worship it.
And I don't mind being in the minority. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or have the same opinions as I do. It's like my Grandpappy used to say:
"If everybody liked the same things... we'd all be bangin' Grandma".

 

[belch_brother]

Does it have to be your grandma?

 

[Hoofhearted]

Does it have to be your grandma?

If we ain't bangin' grandma it ain't art.

 

[belch_brother]

and chain her up on full throttle? lol :-X

 

[scm]

Thank you guys for your illuminative replies!

 

[emcarthu]

i can say anything is subjective. "that's not a motorcycle" motorcycles only say "Harley" on them.
He is an artist. he set out to make a piece of art. therefor, it is art.
like it or not IT IS ART. that was his intent. your narrow point of view of what is and isn't art is irrelevant. you can say it's bad art all you want. And I'll respect anyones opinion that it's shitty art.
but my guess is that no one on this thread is a professional art critic.

 

[Fix]

i can say anything is subjective. "that's not a motorcycle" motorcycles only say "Harley" on them.
He is an artist. he set out to make a piece of art. therefor, it is art.
like it or not IT IS ART. that was his intent. your narrow of view of what is and isn't art is irrelevant. you can say it's bad art all you want. And I'll respect anyones opinion that it's shitty art.
but my guess is that no one on this thread is a professional art critic.

Not arguing, just trying to clarify. Does that mean that anyone who sets out to create art, creates art? The outcome is in the intent? By definition, anyone who creates art is an artist. If you really want to pick nits, everyone here is an artist. I made hand turkeys in grade school. I guess the disconnect for a lot of folks is that they infer art to mean "Something Good" The word "art" carries a lot of baggage.

In light of the information in this thread, I'll amend my answer to say it's art and it's shit. But take my opinion for what it is...not art.

 

[emcarthu]

Not arguing, just trying to clarify. Does that mean that anyone who sets out to create art, creates art? The outcome is in the intent? By definition, anyone who creates art is an artist. If you really want to pick nits, everyone here is an artist. I made hand turkeys in grade school. I guess the disconnect for a lot of folks is that they infer art to mean "Something Good" The word "art" carries a lot of baggage.

In light of the information in this thread, I'll amend my answer to say it's art and it's shit. But take my opinion for what it is...not art.

YES!!! you nailed it. just because something is called art doesn't mean it's inherently worthy of some higher praise. I've seen more crappy art then I've seen good art. I would say however that hand turkey's probably don't fall into the "art" category, just a craft your teacher made you do. but here at dtt we are all artist and our art is judged by our peers. we may not create art that illicites an emotional response but from a design perspective a lot of us are trying to achieve a type of artistic cohesion. If any Joe Shmoe wants to go create art he will and then it will be judged as either good or bad. but creating art isn's some elitist act. everything intended as art IS ART.

 

[RpBet]

Why do I feel like I just witnessed an animal being tortured. Man I spend to much with my bike :

 

[Hoofhearted]

He is an artist. he set out to make a piece of art. therefor, it is art.
like it or not IT IS ART. that was his intent. your narrow point of view of what is and isn't art is irrelevant.

This is where I disagree. I would rewrite those sentences to read. He is not an artist. He didn't set out to make a piece of art. Therefore it is not art. Like it or not it isn't art. That wasn't his intent. Your narrow point of view of what isn't or is art is irrelevant.

We all have different ideas as to what is and isn't art. I do believe that its up to the individual to determine what is or isn't art. To be told something is art and your point of view (narrow or otherwise) is irrelevant borders on arrogance. Not aimed at you EM. Just a statement meaning the viewer should determine what is or isn't art. But from what I've seen of the art world its not what you create but who you can convince (assuming they have pots of money) that your work is art.