(Art) They do it deliberately....

Spunj99 said:
When my mates Dad was forced to visit the Tate he stood staring at a radiator and making generic comments to his wife. After about 5 minutes there was a crowd of 10 people or more looking at the radiator.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

LOL.That is the sort of thing I do, but when I do it it is a social commentary and as such should be considered art. :D
 
Spunj99 said:
When my mates Dad was forced to visit the Tate he stood staring at a radiator and making generic comments to his wife. After about 5 minutes there was a crowd of 10 people or more looking at the radiator.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They were probably thinking why that nutter was looking at a radiator! I think his nominative piece of art is quite good. Hey, it's a middle class pursuit and practically everyone's middle class these days!
 
penski said:
What are the 'right' reasons?

*n
Click to expand...

Universal acclaim? That's just one

One More Solo said:
Exactly. I think people totally miss the obvious when it comes to contemporary art, sitting at their computer screens talking about what a load of crap it is; you've reacted to it therefore it achieves its aim.
Click to expand...

If artists want people talking about how crap their work is then that's rather worrying.
 
None at all? I'd suggest a fair few do.

If I produced a piece of art would I want

a) Everyone to like it
or
b) A few people to like it and the majority think it rubbish contesting whether in fact it is "art" at all

I'd probably choose A.
 
when did something become art because someone commented on it? i've been hearing that for years, and frankly, its a really poor attempt to put a label on what makes art.

lets see, oh look the tissue i threw at the bin missed and hit the floor....l i thought about it, therefore its art? get the **** out of here.

art is supposed to be, i don't know, its hard to describe, its one of those things that we loosely describe best by saying, we know it when we see it. 99% of people look at this, and don't see art, therefore its not art.

the point of the mona lisa is NOT that its a substitute for a photograph. the photograph would either need to be set up in the same creative way infront of the same background, foreground, dress, and smile. there is creativity there, photography is a perfectly valid art form. however, not every photo is art. something that makes one photo "art" over another, would be intent i guess. but more over, that intent is specific aswell, if its to capture a specific emotion, look, style, something, theres a specific intent by the "artist" to make something unique. a bear, is not unique, he's not intending to do anything with it. merely fooling a panel into giving him money, ok some level you might call the con, an artform itself, but that isn't the bear.

99.9% of stuff people considerer art these days isn't. its just more and more people wanting to fit in with intellectuals and creative people and so fawning over everything people do.
 
weringo said:
None at all? I'd suggest a fair few do.

If I produced a piece of art would I want

a) Everyone to like it
or
b) A few people to like it and the majority think it rubbish contesting whether in fact it is "art" at all

I'd probably choose A.
Click to expand...

I presume that's why you're not an artist then.
 
drunkenmaster said:
a bear, is not unique, he's not intending to do anything with it. merely fooling a panel into giving him money, ok some level you might call the con, an artform itself, but that isn't the bear.
Click to expand...

Read the thread, noob ;)

Weringo - Universal Acclaim is impossible.

*n
 
Just thought I'd point out that a large number of artists we now consider to be unanimously acclaimed were ridiculed and scorned by both the art establishment and the public in their own lifetimes.
 
Modern art is one of those rather dividing things.

The guy back in the day who first put up a urinal, signed it, called it "Fountain" and proclaimed it to be art - was clever. Very clever. It provoked a reaction and got people thinking. What is art anyway?

People who do similar now, aren't as clever as him, I don't think. That's the thing though, that's my interpretation, and art is all in the interpretation. What do you think looks good, what sounds good, what makes you think, what disgusts you, what makes you uncomfortable, what intrigues you.

The way I see it, art is there for you to react to. It could be a pleasing recognition and admiration for the artist as you see a painting or sculpture which is very realistic, it could be just a general "mmm, nice" as the colours and shapes look good to you.

Is someone who purely copies real life as well as they possibly can an artist? Or just someone with good observational skills and motor control? If they start capturing unusual angles, or taking real life and abstracting it to look better, or worse, or just different - are they more of an artist now? How does that compare with a photographer? How about a photographer who does extensive post-processing?

As a kid I always sneered at modern art - I was always proud of my drawing, and didn't see merit in anything that I reckoned I could do - how come they got money and acclaim, and I didn't?

Sometimes I still do think like that, if I see something easy AND unoriginal. But real creative thinking is interesting. If someone puts real thought (not just "huurr, I'll wee on the loo seat and call it 'puddle', that's art, right") into something, and it's original, and it makes me react, then for all I care it's art.

Even if I hate it, that probably means it's taken me somewhere uncomfortable, which is likely to be exactly the intention of the artist anyway - so he or she is therefore successful.
 
The thing i don't like is most modern art is just assembled by a bunch of removal men/stage hands , from some pictures when the artist made it the first time. To me art is something that can only be made once by one person.
 
weringo said:
If you genuinely believe artists don't want people to appeciate their work I've got no idea what to say.
Click to expand...

"I'm wrong"? :p

But seriously, of course artists want people to like their work, but that's not the be-all and end-all. It's not even the reason they create art. If you're producing music or creating a piece of visual art you're doing it out of self-expression - not for other people. If your pieces end up in the Tate rather than some dime-a-dozen art college - all the better. Why? Because artists want to get paid to do what they love. Doesn't everyone?

Has any musician ever had universal acclaim? No. Same with artists.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom