I go to an Art Gallery with my wife and look at paintings of times gone by (Constable and Turner are good examples) or paintings of people long gone and wonder if they really looked like that - we all know paintings were altered to reflect the desires of the subject, especailly in kings etc. I then pass into the more 'modern section' and my eyes are assaulted by the most complete load of garbage since the fist caveman drew a line on a wall. Modern art is pathetic and people pay money, big money, for this crap? On my wall at home I have a painting by my then infant son of a pot of daffodils which he did in primary. I also have on my wall a painting of animals done by a daughter in kindergarten. THESE are ART. They cost a couple of pence to produce and yet they are priceless to me. My son's son is now well on his way to producing art of his own because it comes from his heart, to someone he loves. I already have a birthday card made by him, (he is 2); with a bit of help from his mum! A buyer was once conned into buying a very expensive 'work of art' on the pretext it was done by a human, it was in fact done, by a chimpanzee!!! So, what is art? Images of the past, yes. Some very good too, but the value put on these is akin to the biggest work of art on the planet - human greed? But modern art is not work a light ....................
honestly? if you like to look at an object\work etc then it is art. the fact the this needs to communicated is kind of bizarre. yes, i am referring to visual representations. art: visual audible written word= debateable
Communicate? Any picture is a visual communication. It matters not who, or what, painted it. Why do people in here have to find a meaning behind, art = communicate, universe = meaning? Art is a visual concept I am asking a simple question. What do you think? I also ask why do people put such obscene prices on so called art? A serious deebate was what I hoped would emaniate from this thread, but the first reply questions my senility. It was not art to the chimp by the way, it was to the buyer.
sorry John, I see what you mean. Communication was disrupted by my reading your post rather too fast. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Are you talking about contemporary art? Modern art is used for 70 years ago. Do you know the difference? Anyway, there is not an agreed academic definition on 'art' or an art object. The basic reason for this is that there are so many dynamics/variable in play at a given society in reproduction of art works. In a relatively closer past, Wittgenstein claimed that art cannot be defined. For some time, there wasn't any specific study on the subject. Then I could talk about Danto, he must be close to 90 now, he and his generation beat back the subject in a debatable level. Today, to understand 'art', you have to be involved in it. You have to know 'art theory' to enjoy it. Art theory and art history is so young, but 'art' is so old. It's easy to say 'crap', but I am afraid it's not. It's vendetta! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Buying art work is a whole different subject, of course. May be you should be introduced to Damien Hirst. LOL.
Vendetta? I could not care less if the Mona Lisa was toen from its mountings and eaten, nor do I care if it stays qwhere it is - I am completely indifferent. But, if you say modern art is 70 years old then that includes deco. So I will amend that to since 1960. Who the hell thinks a pile of tyres on the embankment in London is 'art'? Or a piece of welded metal, of no recognisable shape being called Peace or whatever? Its not its a pile of junk.
RedDevil, this is my job, but I am just loving your posts. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Mona Lisa is just an ordinary painting happened to be picked up by a Louvre curator and then combined with the Leonardo legend and so got overrated out of porportions. If you are the first person to put a pile of tyres at the right time at the right place, most of the people watching and expecting for something unusual, would think it's art. As happened quite a few times in history. It's interesting that you chose the year 1960, is there a specific reason for that?
I define as art any interpretation of reality that provokes a visceral reaction, good or bad. If it makes you want to stop and look or stop and listen or just stop, period, its art. Thats admittedly a bit broad, but I haven't found a way to confine it to specifics yet
Why not simply define it as something hand-made to express or show beauty using form and/or color? This is also pretty broad since, obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It could also just be the beauty in ability. Something can be art even if it doesn't provoke a visceral reaction with the public if it does so for the creator.
Your definition is based on instant or any kind of reaction. You can use the above definition to something completely different than an art work. The reason academics can not agree on a one final definition has also lot to do with the art historical canon and how art history's become a discipline. Think about this question. "What kind of an evidence art works do/can provide?" Donald Preziosi.
I hope thats a compliment Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! no matter, its all about opinions. 1960 was specific because it was the beginning, to my mind, of the tin can art as I call it. Tin of soup etc, all in the name of art!!! Enmos has made a point for something my mind, in the grip of a bugger of a cold, could not grasp last night - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I must be blind then. I do like art - but art that tells a story, like a constable. But throw a tin of paint at a board - not a chance!
You must have replied as I was hitting the button, see above ^ Yes art is creating, my point is that creation of art is sometimes not art at all but complete rubbish.
i was mainly responding to this: a soup label can definitely be 'art'. someone drawing stick figures and crating a mess? not art. toddler scribling in paper? not art to me but to the parent it is art. SEE?
