www.darktwincities.com
https://darktwincities.com/forum/

Art vs. random pile of crap
https://darktwincities.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4590
Page 1 of 1

Author:  JPaganel [ Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:02 am ]
Post subject:  Art vs. random pile of crap

Does the mere application of human labor to a pile of crap make it art? I know. it's the eternal question.

I was prompted to think about it by this:

California Fantasy Van




||MODERATOR NOTE: Changed raw URL to a named hyperlink to avoid horizontal scrollbar.

Author:  alisgray [ Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

art critics is what makes art art.

Author:  Rockula! [ Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:18 am ]
Post subject: 

I always joked that a guy like Trent Reznor could take a shit in 20 vaccum sealed bags and then place them in a typically NIN-like greyish box with a number certifying how much of a limited edition it is
People would pay a shitload (pun intended) for one of those
Oh yeah, and there would be a bonus CD with remixes

Author:  veinsplasher [ Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:53 am ]
Post subject: 

Intent, planning, effort... yeah it's art, to me. My issue is when non-artists start deciding what art is and is not.

Author:  rskm1 [ Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

veinsplasher wrote:
Intent, planning, effort... yeah it's art, to me.

+1.

Nobody said "art" had to be attractive or practical (especially since "attractive" is highly subjective).

So how do you distinguish a pile of brass junk riveted to a van (<- art)
from, say, a bunch of dirty underwear piled in a corner (<- not art)?

- How much it cost to make? No.
- How long it took to put together? No.
- The education and background of the creator? No.
So, what then?

Well, take a close look. Was the brass junk randomly and haphazardly riveted on? If you said "yes", you lose your art-critic's license. Now look again. The brass junk attached to the grille is symmetrical. That doesn't happen by accident. The guy who put it together had some sort of a plan, and even had a "theme" (check out the color-matched wheels!).

You're free to call it tacky, ugly, useless, or a real pain in the ass to wax. But none of that precludes it from being <i>art</i>.

Author:  Rockula! [ Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

veinsplasher wrote:
Intent, planning, effort... yeah it's art, to me. My issue is when non-artists start deciding what art is and is not.


An artist making art for other artists will be about as successful as a musician playing music for other musicians
All you will receive is indifference and a lot of folded arms

My issue is when artists try to force their interpretations on the consumer
The best art means something different to every person
No matter how un-educated they are

Author:  drok [ Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Rockula! wrote:
An artist making art for other artists will be about as successful as a musician playing music for other musicians


jazz?

Author:  frazier345 [ Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:10 am ]
Post subject:  ART?

Art is art.

"A sucker is born every minute" PT Barnum.

Author:  Liighter [ Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

alisgray wrote:
art critics is what makes art art.


I never really liked the terms art, or artist, of for that matter musician. As I thought they were essentially meaningless.

One of the big dadaist claims is that they were all dilettantes; ironically, managing to sink that category in a whole new form of pretentiousness.

I'm not sure what an answer to the original question would be, but a great book on the subject is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Aesthetic-Theory-History-Literature/dp/0816618003/sr=8-1/qid=1167000239/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3558777-8837566?ie=UTF8&s=books">Adorno's Aesthetic Theory</a>.

Author:  devil [ Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:44 am ]
Post subject: 

Actually, Liighter's on the right track. Typically, the people clamoring about "art" and their very own "artistry" are the least likely to display actual "art." They're so eager to justify their own work to others either due to pretentiousness or knowledge of their own shortcomings. The very word "art" should never even be spoken. If I create something and put it out there, it should be up to others to determine its worth, not me. Once I start trying to justify and quantify it, I render the work meaningless. I would never label anything I create as "art." It is my own creation, nothing more.

Author:  JPaganel [ Mon Dec 25, 2006 6:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

Rockula! wrote:
I always joked that a guy like Trent Reznor could take a shit in 20 vaccum sealed bags and then place them in a typically NIN-like greyish box with a number certifying how much of a limited edition it is
People would pay a shitload (pun intended) for one of those
Oh yeah, and there would be a bonus CD with remixes
It's been done, long before Reznor, by Piero Manzoni. See here:

http://www.pieromanzoni.org/SP/obras_mierda.htm

Those little jars are labeled "Artist's crap, net weight 30 grams, naturally preserved, produced and packaged in May of 1961".

I have actually seen one of those jars in a museum.

Author:  alisgray [ Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:27 am ]
Post subject: 

of course it was the surrealists.

nice.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/