art or shit?

I agree there's Good Art and Bad Art. But along the lines of Hoofs arguement, I believe there has to be some kind of skill/talent involved. For example, I see "custom" cars and bikes at Shows/Cruise Nights all the time. Some I like, some I don't. But I can appreciate the work that went into them. At these same shows/cruise nights I see bone stock, late model cars (let's say, a new Camaro) being shown, and I think to myself "Yea... and?"
There's no creativity in writing a check and driving it off the lot.

I see this video in the same vein.
 
I'm in late on this one, but I'll join in because it seems like an interesting topic.

To me, this is not art. You cannot make me believe it is art simply because that was the creator's intent nor can you make me believe it is art because a group of "educated" people deem it so. The definition of art I prefer is "the creation of beautiful or significant things". As beauty is in the eye of the beholder; then so to is art. The other half of the definition, significance, needs to be judged by our culture as a whole and that takes time. Until then, chuck this one in the shit category.
 
Redbird, I would agree with that.
I guess the skill in these is just lost in translation


It doesn't take a much skill to write down words but we praise, Aristotle, Plato, Locke, Aquinas for their writing.
their ideas are what we see as superb.
I've had several philosophy courses and my brain can't even work like that.


So while everybody back in 1917 was busy doing whatever they did in 1917 (trying to fly wonky airplanes... or was that later lol)
Duchampe said "wait, stop!" look at this in a new context, how do we conceive of the things we see"? instead of writing a book about it
he simply wrote "r. mutt" on the side of a urinal. and to sum up an entire complex idea with such simplicity adds to the piece's effect.
I guess it says so much more than it is.
and it's documented that this was his intent.
which is important because without that it would be shit.
I'm sure the same way a builder struggles with his hands Duchampe struggled with how to express his ideas.
that is where the skill lies.
 
I'm concerned that many artists today have just taken this to the next level in an effort to be the next Duchampe. "What has no one else done before? I know, lets chain up a bike and let it thrash about! I know, lets leave our bed unmade! I know, lets pickle a sheep!".

All these things are not art simply because that is the artist's intent. These pieces do not become culturally relevant just because they came first. While they perhaps provoke thought and emotion, it is of my opinion that art should be relevant to the way we live. It should enlighten. It should represent the very best of what it is to be human. It should not merely represent a race to the be the first to do something.

The creation of art should imply, if not explicate design. There's no design in chaining a bike up and letting it thrash around if for no other reason than because the thrashings are random.
 
there's a definite concern with art created purely for shock value. there's been way more shocking stuff put out there than this.
in the 60's Burden crucified himself to a VW beetle. YIKES!!!
the original video i feel was more of a statement, and really, a tired one at that (no pun intended)
the actual bike flailing around was what i like it's just surreal to me to see something like that.


art being only representative of the very best is extremely boring.
why not make all art and then decide you only want to look at stuff that makes you happy


i don't know about you but feel good movies usually make me want to puke
art should evoke some type of response doesn't always have to be good.


in the days of Duchampe there wasn't really the race to be innovative there is now.
since everythings been done before. artist do try to be intentionally innovative.


the original video was not incredibly innovative however.
probably every other thing in the world has been chained to the ceiling.
 
Hoofhearted said:
A urinal designed by someone, manufactured by someone else, spotted by someone else, signed and declared art is total bullshit. I would equate it to David Hockney walking through an IKEA store with a pen, signing everything and declaring it to be his new art gallery. You and your friends have been sucked up into that great vacumn of idiocy that declares any old shit signed by the fashionable artist of the day to be art.

Picasso had considerable skill but in his later years it, to me, looks like he found that great vacumn. Threw shit into it and conned them into declaring him a major artist of the 20th century. Speaking for me and me alone art should require a level of skill the same as craftsmen. Picasso's bicycle seat and handlebars? Clever and nothing more. You can look in souvenier shops around the world and see that kind of clever use of mundane items. In real terms the guy that can see a formula one car in some old tin cans should be elevated to the same level as Picasso or Duchamp. But he isn't because he isn't a con artist.
Click to expand...

^^that^^ is EXACTLY what i wanted to say, but just couldn't seem to word it right.

i'll give it a shot: if geddy lee, or angus young, or eddie van halen belched or farted into a microphone & called it music, would it really be music?... the sad thing is, mtv would call it brilliant & the masses would blindly follow... there's a fine line between an artist & a con-artist.

it sure would make karoke night interesting though.
 
all of these artist were classically trained and chose to work this way to be more expressive
instead of replicating life on canvas, they chose to be more conceptual


but they sure as shit could paint a perfect landscape.


con-artist? no.


Duchampe was not rich and the urinal entitled "fountain" was destroyed


btw.


Damian Hirst
Pickled Shark


SOLD- 17 million dollars


pickled-shark-damien-hirst.jpg
 
Sonreir said:
I'm in late on this one, but I'll join in because it seems like an interesting topic.

To me, this is not art. You cannot make me believe it is art simply because that was the creator's intent nor can you make me believe it is art because a group of "educated" people deem it so. The definition of art I prefer is "the creation of beautiful or significant things". As beauty is in the eye of the beholder; then so to is art. The other half of the definition, significance, needs to be judged by our culture as a whole and that takes time. Until then, chuck this one in the shit category.
Click to expand...

Okay, I might be wrong but I think you are contradicting yourself here. You say, "art is in the eye of the beholder" and you also say "that this is not art", or "to me this is not art." Be very careful here. I do agree that time is a great judge of what is and isn't important. I think this piece is art, Most of us just don't like it very much.

I do agree that Picasso put out some crap at the end of his career, but there is no doubt that he was a great master, who changed the course of modern art. It is very important when you look at Picasso's abstract figures to be sure to go back and look at his early work. He had mastered the figure and therefore had the "right" to do with it what he saw fit to do with it. and in doing so he showed people a new way to look at the figure in art and therefore in ourselves.

lastly - I absolutely agree that the art world gets all caught up in itself. Perfect example; when I was in college in the late 80's I was in D.C. and was checking out galleries. One of them had a bunch of work by Andy Warhol. I was looking at them and having a conversation with the gallery employee who was looking down her nose at me because she knew I couldn't afford to buy one. minutes later with the woman hovering around us as I was talking with my girlfriend about something in a painting and how it related to something that I was doing in my own work and this woman interjected into our private conversation, "Yeah, but you're no Andy Warhol. " with the snidest look on her face that you can imagine. I looked right at her and said, "That's true, but Andy is no Me either. You have no fucking idea who I am." The attitude of this woman exemplifies to me everything wrong with the art world.

Oh, she kicked me out for swearing.
 
I think my high school drawing teacher instilled my hatred of andy warhol.
aside from being totally misogynistic and a total douche.
he had an army of assistance working around the clock creating "his work"
but again, he did it first i guess.
innovative at the time
now, very mild, luke warm water at best.


it's art.
tons of people think it's great, but I'm not into it.


has anyone seen Banksy's film "exit through the gift shop"?
documents one of the best jokes played on the art world ever.
it's on netflix.
 
Damien Hurst is a great example of "is it art or isn't it", he's definitely a prick, throwing a fit and pressing charges cause a 17 year old kid took a box of pencils from an installation,claiming they were worth $750 grand.
So is graffiti art? Many graffiti writers are classically trained.
 
I used to dislike Andy Warhol myself until I learned a bit about him, most of his behavior was an act, he was actually a very driven artist whose "assistants" would party while he stayed sober and worked all night. I went from thinking he was talentless to thinking he'll be remembered as the defining artist of his generation.
 
there is so much douchery in the art world...
of course graffiti is art! some graffiti artist even present their work in galleries.
just recently here in detroit, while banksy was promoting his movie.
he did this piece at the old abandoned packard plant
images.jpg



a local gallery removed it from the abandoned factory and estimated it's worth at $1,000,000


they're now being sued by the company that owns the decrepit property for the return of the piece
so they can sell it i assume


and everyone hates the gallery for removing it from where the artist intended it to be
totally taking it out of context.


what a shame.
 
Skuzzrat said:
I used to dislike Andy Warhol myself until I learned a bit about him, most of his behavior was an act, he was actually a very driven artist whose "assistants" would party while he stayed sober and worked all night. I went from thinking he was talentless to thinking he'll be remembered as the defining artist of his generation.
Click to expand...

yeah i really don't know much about him
my drawing teacher in high school was feminist from the 60's and didn't have a lot of good things to say about him. lol

i can appreciate what he did for sure.
and he'll always be considered a defining artist.
 
most artists are egotistical douchebags, and further I think the greater the artist the bigger the douche. I'm not a huge fan of all of Warhol's work but again its hard to argue against his impact on the direction of the art world at his time. He paved the way for a lot of people you probably do like. It's like Bob Dylan, People love him or hate him but if not for him there's a lot of music you would never have heard.
 
diesel450 said:
most artists are egotistical douchebags, and further I think the greater the artist the bigger the douche. I'm not a huge fan of all of Warhol's work but again its hard to argue against his impact on the direction of the art world at his time. He paved the way for a lot of people you probably do like. It's like Bob Dylan, People love him or hate him but if not for him there's a lot of music you would never have heard.
Click to expand...

YES.
 
There is an Andy Warhol piece at the MoMA in San Francisco, the same face painted three times, in repetition. But as you look closer you realize each face is painted in a completely differently way, hard to explain but it's one of the few pieces I saw there that really impressed me. Where he shined was in his ability to "foresee" where culture was heading and beating it there.
Its funny, I asked about graffiti cause usually people tend to have hardened attitudes towards it, either it's art or it's crap. Having participated in it for almost 2 decades now I am convinced it's not an art, it is a craft.
 
Skuzzrat said:
There is an Andy Warhol piece at the MoMA in San Francisco, the same face painted three times, in repetition. But as you look closer you realize each face is painted in a completely differently way, hard to explain but it's one of the few pieces I saw there that really impressed me.
Click to expand...

Maybe because it was painted by 3 different people? In his later career, Warhol didn't actually do the work himself. Members of The Factory which he formed, did the actual painting or silkscreening.
 
DrJ said:
Maybe because it was painted by 3 different people? In his later career, Warhol didn't actually do the work himself. Members of The Factory which he formed, did the actual painting or silkscreening.
Click to expand...

Yup. And that was his point. whether or not it was his genius is still being debated.
 
emcarthu said:
Redbird, I would agree with that.
I guess the skill in these is just lost in translation
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that. It's apparently lost on me. But then that brings us back to my arguement that Art is in the eye of the beholder. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DTT Light or Dark

  • DTT Light
    • www.jadusmotorcycleparts.com
    www.lostapostle.ca/
    www.sparckmoto.com

    Spread the Love

    Back
    Top Bottom