What isn't art?

Out of context: Reply #38

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 137 Responses
  • nb4

    Intent is the magic key that converts non-art into art. You intend to produce something as art, rather than producing it for it's typical use or for a non-typical but still functional use. Of course, you don't need to produce the object or piece yourself.

    Examples:

    You build a fence around your yard - not art.

    You paint your fence - not art.

    You paint a picture of a fence - art.

    You paint an image of another fence on your fence - art.

    You take a photo of your fence so you'll always remember what a swell job you did and what a fun day that was. - not art.

    You take the same photo of your fence but instead claim the image represents all the freedom we have lost by buying into this suburban idea of a home and a yard while we borrow a little more money or sell our soul to an evil employer to build a nice colourful fence around us to imprison ourselves in our silly ideals. - art

    Years later your fence falls apart and someone takes a piece of it and puts it on display and claims that it represents something else. - art

    You build a fence inside an art gallery and claim it represents something else. - art

    You build a fence inside an art gallery to keep people from going into the bathroom that is currently under construction - not art.

    You build a fence inside an art gallery to keep people from going into the bathroom that is currently under construction but actually it was never under construction, you're just making a point about behaviour in humans and assumptions of reality - art.

    It's all about intent. The intent may happen before the piece is produced, or you may take an object and convert it into art simply by calling it art.

    • Haha "making a point about behaviour in humans and assumptions of reality" That would be interesting 'art'Ianbolton
    • The idea that intent matters goes against a lot of modern artistic interpretationreanimate
    • I thought the idea of Pollocks work was to find the unintentional?Ianbolton
    • Good points & great examples. I would add that intent is not enough, what you produce would also have to be accepted as art by the art institutions.ORAZAL
    • I am not 100% behing the insitutional theory of art but we are all going to talk about it we need a common base that can be easily defined.ORAZAL
    • lanbolton you are confusing intention in the process and intention of the outcome.ORAZAL
    • true. He intended to make the outcome look unintentional,Ianbolton
    • @Orazal: If your have intent but are not accept by institutions, you have still made art. It's just shitty art, probably.nb
    • ... or you're deeply misunderstood and ahead of your time. But, more likely you're just making shit art.nb
    • wouldn't it classify art as construct?yurimon
    • There is such thing as bad art, art isn't intrinsically good. I think I'll make a post about this.ORAZAL
    • Shitty art can't be art if it doesn't participate in the art discussion. If it's ahead of its time it will become art when it's brought into the discussion.ORAZAL
    • Shitty art, or rather mediocre art, is art. It's art by definition. You can't say "mediocre art isn't art." It would be like saying "cold soup isn't soup."nb
    • What I think you're talking about is relevant art vs irrelevant art. The bulk of art is irrelevant and forgotten.nb
    • But sometimes irrelevant art can become relevant over time. And it can move in the other direction, too.nb
    • Yes, shitty art is still art.ORAZAL
    • My point was about the idea of art existing as an isolated object vs being part of the art world and participating in the discussion which is how I define art.ORAZAL

View thread