GameBanshee Forums

right...here we all are. inspired by the '3 Favourite Bands' thread, and the sad death of Debate mkI, I am here to propose another question. I am intersted in that guy who made a cast of his own head out of his own blood, and one of his baby son out of the placenta. The guys who throw paint on canvass (randomly?) in splotches also come into it.
Here's the question:

IN ART, IS THE OBJECT CREATED MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOW IT WAS CREATED?

Depends on how you define "ART".

In my opinion it's not art to dump some colour randomly on canvas and give it a fancy name...my kids do that all the time...there's even an orang-utan at the Zoo in vienna who "paints" something which is called art by some people...


So in my opinion the way it was created is more important than the object in itself...

No worries ,

Beldin

I couldn't agree more Beldin, I don't like Turner prize art that involves leaving bedrooms dirty and dusty and calling that art. It doesn't seem 'talented' to me.

So in my opinion the way it was created is more important than the object in itself...

so, take the Rothko red squares....are they bad because the object of a red square is not stimulating and interesting like a Bible scene, say, or are they bad because there was no skill involved in making them?

I think this thread might not last because there might not be anyone in here who actually does like 'Turner Prize' art...but I would like to add a further complication:

take Michelangelo (for an example): I believe that Michelangelo is the greatest artist who has ever lived because I think that his art is the most expressive ever created.
Would you like the red squares, or paint splatters more if the artist had spent a long time making them, and had had to study for years to gain the neccesary skill to create them?
Also, would you appreciate classic work more if it had sprung from the artist as easily as paint splatting does? If the artist had never doen any work or study to be able to create their art?

I'm not an artist myself, but I think "art" is something that not EVERYBODY and his granddad could reproduce at will....

I hope I can get my meaning across, I'm literally lost for (english) words here...




No worries,

Beldin

Originally posted by Beldin
I'm not an artist myself, but I think "art" is something that not EVERYBODY and his granddad could reproduce at will....

I hope I can get my meaning across, I'm literally lost for (english) words here...




No worries,

Beldin

Hey, I agree, so you know you got through to one person!

Originally posted by Nippy


Hey, I agree, so you know you got through to one person!

Talking about art....

Do you think SYM has contributed to the artform of ....ahhhhm.... SOMETHING yet ?

No Worries,

Beldin

Originally posted by Beldin


Talking about art....

Do you think SYM has contributed to the artform of ....ahhhhm.... SOMETHING yet ?

No Worries,

Beldin

Hmmm... Depends what you consider art to be...

Well ART is not my kind of thing so I'll pass on this discussion

Originally posted by KidD01
Well ART is not my kind of thing so I'll pass on this discussion

Spammer!

Originally posted by Nippy
I couldn't agree more Beldin, I don't like Turner prize art that involves leaving bedrooms dirty and dusty and calling that art. It doesn't seem 'talented' to me.

It is also a great dis-respect to Turner, who could actually paint with great skill.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


It is also a great dis-respect to Turner, who could actually paint with great skill.

Well, I've never seen any of his work so I wouldn't know, but I know that art is something that takes time, talent and skill. When I see one of the exhibits of this Turner prize (a room which had a light flicking on and off) it fills me with a little bit of anger that that can actually be considered art.

Originally posted by Nippy

it fills me with a little bit of anger that that can actually be considered art.

Correct.

good good..anyway remember, no spam please (you too nips )
I just mean this (@beldin): Isn't it true that a work of art would become no less great if all of a sudden somebdy discovered that it had actually been done by a twelve year old in ten minutes. Would that make it worse? Of course it wouldn't. The only quality which a painting has is in the painting. A painting is created with certain qualities: the red squares for example, are created with qualities of squareness, redness, and expressivity of anger (some claim). These qualities are all inherent in the painting. A painting is nothing but paint on a canvas. Therefore one cannot change the qualities inherent in a painting by any means other than changing the painting itself.

also, to firm the ground up a little bit, let's define art: I think that art is anything which has the qualities of having been created by a human with the purpose of moving other humans emotionally and which can portray the artists ideas directly, but through a medium.

I am not at all sure that this is the whole meaning or even entirely truthful so feel free to correct me at will and add whatever you want.

ps where are you from Bel?

This has been debated before--CE's The Purpose of Art Thread, and the old Art vs. Porn thread. Here's my answer from Art vs Porn:

I guess the real problem here is that in this age, maybe the question, "What is art?" is either impossible to answer or irrelevant. When my husband (who is a sculptor) met Carl Andre (one of the founders of "minimalism") and told him he was working with found objects, Carl Andre replied, "Everything is a found object."

This is from an essay I was reading by Christopher Witcombe:
"Duchamp, as an artist, declared that anything the artist produces is art. For the duration of the 20th century, this position has complicated and undermined how art is perceived but at the same time it has fostered a broader, more inclusive assessment of art.

According to William Rubin, director of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, "there is no single definition of art." The art historian Robert Rosenblum believes that "the idea of defining art is so remote [today]" that he doesn't think "anyone would dare to do it."

Philippe de Montebello, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, states that there is "no consensus about anything today," and the art historian Thomas McEvilley agrees that today "more or less anything can be designated as art."

Arthur Danto, professor of philosophy at Columbia University and art critic of The Nation, believes that today "you can't say something's art or not art anymore. That's all finished." In his book, After the End of Art, Danto argues that after Andy Warhol exhibited simulacra of shipping cartons for Brillo boxes in 1964, anything could be art. Warhol made it no longer possible to distinguish something that is art from something that is not.

What has finished, however, is not artistic production, but a certain way of talking about art. Artists, whoever they are, continue to produce, but the viewers are no longer able to say whether it is art or not. But at the same time, viewers are no longer comfortable with dismissing it as art because it fails to fit what they think art should be (whatever that is).

We struggle with this because we have been taught that art is important and we're unwilling to face up to the recently revealed insight that art in fact has no "essence." When all is said and done, "art" remains significant to human beings and the idea that now anything can be art, and that no form of art is truer than any other, strikes us as unacceptable."

There were also other threads where I remember talking with other SYMers about modernism and post-modernism--an understanding of which is absolutely necessary to really tackle this question.

Originally posted by frogus
also, to firm the ground up a little bit, let's define art

OK. I know I'm being baited, but I just can't resist ...

Originally posted by frogus
art is anything which has the qualities of having been created by a human with the purpose of moving other humans emotionally and which can portray the artists ideas directly, but through a medium.

Ok, just for arguments sake, let's take your definition for granted:
So you could call any act of vandalism or even terrorism ART ? (I know that's a horrible idea, but it gets my point across...)
- it's after all humans trying to get their ideas understood on a very, very emotional level...
Think about it .

Originally posted by frogus
Isn't it true that a work of art would become no less great if all of a sudden somebdy discovered that it had actually been done by a twelve year old in ten minutes. .

Depends on the 12 year old. If ANY 12 y/o could do it anytime - it'S not art, not in MY book...
A 12 year old Michelangelo - that would be another question...

Originally posted by frogus

ps where are you from Bel?

City:Vienna
Country: Austria
Continent: Europe
Planet: Earth
Space Sector: ZZ9 Plural Z alpha
Reality level: This one.


@ Voodoodali: I bow down to your profound knowledge and wisdom. I feel sincerely outclassed here since I'm just a "Joe Normal" kind of guy when it comes to background knowledge on art.

Still - I like to talk about that topic - so :NO WORRIES it's never to late to learn !

Beldin

Originally posted by Beldin
Ok, just for arguments sake, let's take your definition for granted:
So you could call any act of vandalism or even terrorism ART ? (I know that's a horrible idea, but it gets my point across...)
- it's after all humans trying to get their ideas understood on a very, very emotional level...
Think about it .

There is such a thing as street art, they have walls dedicated to Graffiti artists in New York (IIRC) they are designated places for people to graffiti, some of the artwork is amazing and definately better than just "Ernie woz ere" in chalk

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


There is such a thing as street art, they have walls dedicated to Graffiti artists in New York (IIRC) they are designated places for people to graffiti, some of the artwork is amazing and definately better than just "Ernie woz ere" in chalk

I believe I saw a program on this, the New York council bought a disused factory and allowed the grafitist's to spray on it.

It seems to me that art is a form of communication: a medium through which the emotions or ideas of the artist are communicated to an observer who is able to interpret those messages in a way that is meaningful.

If, as an observer, you don't understand the emotion or idea the artist is trying to communicate, it is not art to you. To another person who can see the meaning in it, it is art. Art is not the same thing to all people.