is this art? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Kimbell175113

04-18-2007, 09:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
pollack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.

Anyway, my answer is the same as Sephus's, but the question only becomes interesting if you say no, because then you have to come up with a definition of art that includes and excludes exactly what you want, then look back and see if your definition makes any sense.

andyfox

04-18-2007, 10:54 PM

We had a debate about this, I believe last year, perhaps in The Lounge, maybe OOT.

yukoncpa

04-18-2007, 11:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I bid $300,000

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, now it’s art. It is art as long as a person looks at it and decides it’s art. If an elephant painted the above picture and nobody was interested, then it wouldn’t be art. ( except maybe to the elephant )

vhawk01

04-18-2007, 11:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bid $300,000

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, now it’s art. It is art as long as a person looks at it and decides it’s art. If an elephant painted the above picture and nobody was interested, then it wouldn’t be art. ( except maybe to the elephant )

[/ QUOTE ]

Then can I save everyone the trouble and just admit that I find everything to be art? Do I have to look at it, or can I just make it known that my default position is yes, its art, so when anyone asks, "Is this art?" the answer is always "Vhawk thinks its art, so yep." It would save time, and thwart philistines, so I'm willing.

samsonite2100

04-19-2007, 02:58 AM

Of course it's art. It's paint on a canvas, put there by a guy who called himself an artist, right? It's art. If an elephant knocked over some paint cans and accidentally created this (although that wouldn't happen because there's actually a lot of technique and composition going on here), it might get recognized as beautiful and get sold for $300,000, but I don't think it would really be art since there'd be no intent on the elephant's part.

Shouldn't the question be "is this good art?"

arahant

04-19-2007, 03:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bid $300,000

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, now it’s art. It is art as long as a person looks at it and decides it’s art. If an elephant painted the above picture and nobody was interested, then it wouldn’t be art. ( except maybe to the elephant )

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness to Pollack, I think a lot of this stuff isn't really intended for mass likeability. Some of the stuff that gets made in the art community is so self-referential and/or academic that it's more like a little inside joke for a few hundred people. Makes me think of Finnegans Wake. Then a bunch of rich folks buy in to the world...

People say things like 'it's only art because it's pollack', which is true, but isn't that different from 'she's only famous because she's anna nicole'. Just one of those freaky little things in our society that amplify themselves...

PairTheBoard

04-19-2007, 04:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it's art. It's paint on a canvas, put there by a guy who called himself an artist, right? It's art. If an elephant knocked over some paint cans and accidentally created this (although that wouldn't happen because there's actually a lot of technique and composition going on here), it might get recognized as beautiful and get sold for $300,000, but I don't think it would really be art since there'd be no intent on the elephant's part.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Art requires an Artist? In that case, however much it appears so to me, I cannot say that the Universe is a work of Art unless I am a Theist?

PairTheBoard

latefordinner

04-19-2007, 04:41 AM

They just made a robot here that supposedly paints like Pollock -- though I think you could make the case that even if a robot painted stunningly amazing works of art, it is the programmers that are artists.

http://www.primidi.com/2007/03/23.html

--

PTB: I think you could say the Universe is stunningly beautiful or whatever other descriptive you want to use, but not "art" - meh. semantics.

jogger08152

04-19-2007, 08:55 AM

Of course not.

jogger08152

04-19-2007, 08:56 AM

How did the "pro" side argue their case?

pokerbobo

04-19-2007, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
http://2modern.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/jackson_pollock_2.jpg

what do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

My 6 year old made something similar....when she was 2

DLKeeper1

04-19-2007, 03:16 PM

it's art if it's used as a metaphor for ejaculation in Entourage

Hoi Polloi

04-19-2007, 03:18 PM

I like Pollack's work. Photographs rarely do any individual work of art justice. In their presence, many of the drip paintings are sublime. Though, of the so-called abstract expressionists, I prefer Motherwell and Rothko.

If you are looking for a set of criteria whereby any object and performance can definitely be said to be art or non-art, I think you are going to be disappointed.

samsonite2100

04-19-2007, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course it's art. It's paint on a canvas, put there by a guy who called himself an artist, right? It's art. If an elephant knocked over some paint cans and accidentally created this (although that wouldn't happen because there's actually a lot of technique and composition going on here), it might get recognized as beautiful and get sold for $300,000, but I don't think it would really be art since there'd be no intent on the elephant's part.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Art requires an Artist? In that case, however much it appears so to me, I cannot say that the Universe is a work of Art unless I am a Theist?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'd say calling something art implies that there's an artist. And yes, an atheist can call a sunset a "work of art," but in that case, they'd typically be using the phrase to just mean "something beautiful."

samsonite2100

04-19-2007, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://2modern.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/jackson_pollock_2.jpg

what do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

My 6 year old made something similar....when she was 2

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, is there any more tired, cliched expression of artistic philistinism than "my two year old could do that?" Second, your two year old could not do that. If they did, your two year old is an artistic genius. One of my best friends is an accomplished and somewhat successful abstract painter--he has spent his entire life honing an ability to create paintings like this (although using different techniques). Having spent hours watching him work, I can assure you that more time and thought go into these works than you could possibly imagine, contrary to the ignorant popular notion that toddlers could do the same thing.

samsonite2100

04-19-2007, 05:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How did the "pro" side argue their case?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's there to argue? What do you think it is, a bologna sandwich?

PairTheBoard

04-19-2007, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How did the "pro" side argue their case?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's there to argue? What do you think it is, a bologna sandwich?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a bologna sandwich could be a work of art, but it would be a matter of taste.

PairTheBoard

samsonite2100

04-19-2007, 05:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How did the "pro" side argue their case?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's there to argue? What do you think it is, a bologna sandwich?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a bologna sandwich could be a work of art, but it would be a matter of taste.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's fried, with pickles, then yes.

Dominic

04-19-2007, 05:53 PM

of course it is

Hoi Polloi

04-19-2007, 06:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't the question be "is this good art?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer "what is art good for?" I mean really, what is at stake in calling this work "art"? Who cares? Are we at another "this is the end of civilization" moment? I thought you guys were young turks; you sound like a flock of snobby blue-hairs at the country club luncheon, for pete's sake.

Woolygimp

04-19-2007, 06:36 PM

I've heard this crap explained as a sick inside joke, and I personally feel that to be true. If you want to look at something abstract go outside and look at some damn clouds, at least they are beautiful which I cannot say for this abomination.

It hurts my eyes even looking at it.

FortunaMaximus

04-19-2007, 06:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
http://2modern.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/jackson_pollock_2.jpg

what do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

That lady might wanna bend her knees. Looks like her back's giving way.

Touch too much yellow, not enough ochre.

It was the Lounge, late fall-early winterish.

It's a fascinating picture. And I have about as much sophistication when it comes to art as, well, the prodigal 2 year old...

As for whether it's art. Some people don't get it. Some people don't get 500-yard upper deck shots. But hit it sweet, it's an artistic moment.

It is literally in how you look at it.

PairTheBoard

04-19-2007, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't the question be "is this good art?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer "what is art good for?" I mean really, what is at stake in calling this work "art"? Who cares? Are we at another "this is the end of civilization" moment? I thought you guys were young turks; you sound like a flock of snobby blue-hairs at the country club luncheon, for pete's sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Young turks are so early last century.

PairTheBoard

tisthefire

04-19-2007, 08:58 PM

i don't particularly like the "if someone thinks it's art, then it's art" position, i'm not saying it's wrong or anything, especially with something as vague as art, but what someone thinks doesnt' strike me as enough

Sephus

04-19-2007, 09:19 PM

Woolygimp

04-19-2007, 10:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't particularly like the "if someone thinks it's art, then it's art" position, i'm not saying it's wrong or anything, especially with something as vague as art, but what someone thinks doesnt' strike me as enough

[/ QUOTE ]

the intent of the creator is more important than the opinion of the audience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case I think the intent of the creator was to show just how gullible and dumb people could be, and make a fortune in the process.

FortunaMaximus

04-19-2007, 10:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't particularly like the "if someone thinks it's art, then it's art" position, i'm not saying it's wrong or anything, especially with something as vague as art, but what someone thinks doesnt' strike me as enough

[/ QUOTE ]

the intent of the creator is more important than the opinion of the audience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case I think the intent of the creator was to show just how gullible and dumb people could be, and make a fortune in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pollock? Probably not. Adverse reaction to fame, alcoholism which worsened and killed him eventually? Yeah, dude was worried about this...

[ QUOTE ]
When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well.

[/ QUOTE ]

having monetary value? 9-figure monetary value? Doubtful.

Robin Donks

04-19-2007, 10:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard this crap explained as a sick inside joke, and I personally feel that to be true. If you want to look at something abstract go outside and look at some damn clouds, at least they are beautiful which I cannot say for this abomination.

It hurts my eyes even looking at it.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT

A monkey could paint better so the artists mind was operating 1 level below monkey, maybe on level with a goldfish or an amoeba

PuppyFridayYall

04-20-2007, 01:36 AM

Hehe this is something anyone can do. Why doesnt someone just splatter paint on their walls and everywhere with no regard for how it looks-and then call it...art. This is not art.

Jake

samsonite2100

04-20-2007, 02:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i don't particularly like the "if someone thinks it's art, then it's art" position, i'm not saying it's wrong or anything, especially with something as vague as art, but what someone thinks doesnt' strike me as enough

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what other measuring stick is there? If someone creates something with an artistic intent, it's art--whether you like it or not. We can argue whether it's good art, but I don't see any argument about whether it's actually art.

samsonite2100

04-20-2007, 02:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hehe this is something anyone can do. Why doesnt someone just splatter paint on their walls and everywhere with no regard for how it looks-and then call it...art. This is not art.

Jake

[/ QUOTE ]

I challenge you to try to make a series of abstract art pieces that even your provincial neighborhood gallery would hang on the wall. I guarantee you, you wouldn't be able to do it. A lot of you are talking about something you really know nothing about.

oe39

04-20-2007, 02:45 AM

yukoncpa

04-20-2007, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
no

[/ QUOTE ]This looks a thousand times better than my drab white walls. I’m sort of a sucker for the Spanish look, so I think I would like burnt, orange painted walls, but if I had a room with this stuff painted on the walls, I would like it.

Seriously, how can you possibly define art? If a painter paints something and proclaims it is art, then, it is art. If a consumer likes it so much that he purchases it, then it is art. If a young child squirts a two foot load in the toilet and gets all excited, then it is art. What other metric can you possibly go by?

Hoi Polloi

04-20-2007, 07:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard this crap explained as a sick inside joke, and I personally feel that to be true. If you want to look at something abstract go outside and look at some damn clouds, at least they are beautiful which I cannot say for this abomination.

It hurts my eyes even looking at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, art is "that which doesn't hurt my eyes"?

Have you actually seen these works or only photos of them?

oe39

04-20-2007, 08:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no

[/ QUOTE ]This looks a thousand times better than my drab white walls. I’m sort of a sucker for the Spanish look, so I think I would like burnt, orange painted walls, but if I had a room with this stuff painted on the walls, I would like it.

Seriously, how can you possibly define art? If a painter paints something and proclaims it is art, then, it is art. If a consumer likes it so much that he purchases it, then it is art. If a young child squirts a two foot load in the toilet and gets all excited, then it is art. What other metric can you possibly go by?

[/ QUOTE ]

what is the point? that you'd let someone trash your walls.

other people are free to see this as art. i'm free to see it as junk, and to laugh at those people.

yukoncpa

04-20-2007, 09:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
what is the point? that you'd let someone trash your walls

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I would want someone to paint my walls to my specifications

[ QUOTE ]
other people are free to see this as art. I’m free to see it as junk

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
and to laugh at those people

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I understand your right to laugh, but where is the humor?