Is this art?
- Started
- Last post
- 97 Responses
- jox
Ever heard of Thomas Ruff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho…His latest creations basically consists of random JPGs he found online, stretched them out, printed them and then sells them quite expensively.
Here's some of his "art"
http://www.johnen-schoettle.de/K…
http://www.johnen-schoettle.de/K…Personally, I think this is absurd. I can see the point in a "watched from a distance you can see the motive" sort of way but seriously - this is a new low-ball in art.
I should warn you, some of his art on the site is blurry but somewhat NSFW.
Thoughts on this?
- Drno0
yes
appart that it sux,
but yes it is
- Cornelius0
I guess if you call it “art” it is art. You can always consider the price-tag or concept absurd but I don’t think you can question whether it is art or not. Even if it is crap.
- Mishga0
U should have post NSFW at the top of the tread..not at the end...
Damn!:/
- Baskerville0
someone else took those photos so no it's not art, just ammending someone else's photo which may or may not be undercopyright.
If he took the photos and then blew them up fine, but he didn't.I don't buy any of this art Trouvé stuff, especially when nothing much has been done to the image found and it was pretty easy to find.
For me art has to involve an idea or emotion and then be coupled with kind of skill, be it manual or otherwise.
The best art has either a great idea or great skill, or where possible both.This exhibits neither.
- brtman0
I saw the NY jpg hanging in a museum recently (SMCS, Amsterdam) and it makes even less sense there. if the point is making me feel this is rubbish so the artist can laugh about the joke he pulled, i recon he's a very bad comedian.
i'm getting tired of art trying to distance itself more and more from any meaning whatsoever.
damn you postmodernists!!!!!
- Nairn0
I was at a commercial art fair in London recently where one of the works on display was simply a framed photo of/through a lace curtain. Not a particularly startling effect and upon closer inspection crappy jpeg artefaction was evident with loose pink and green pixels jostling for their own inappropriate attention.
The thing was going for £1400, or thereabouts, if I remember correctly.
Despite my initial gut reaction and subsequent hours of bemoaning and criticism I came to realise that I should indeed consider this piece as art, for nothing else recently had made me so angry and quick rise to discuss the qualitative differences between competent producers of work and shyster motherfuckers who are patently taking rich idiots for a ride.
- jamble0
I think it's very much art.
I don't really like it personally and I can't imagine I'd pay for it but I the art is the concept not the execution.
It's a rather subjective thing though, someone is bound to like it much as someone might like a shark suspended in a tank of formaldahyde or a painting of a tin of soup.
- Baskerville0
I disagree jamble, whether this particular piece is art or not. If you look at most definitions of art, they almost always mention skill, ie the execution as well as the concept:
http://dictionary.reference.com/…
my problem with a lot of art is that it is just the concept with no execution. Or someone else's skill is used for the execution. Surely these artists can't be so busy coming up with these amazing ideas that they can't learn the skills involved to make the piece themselves.
That's the way I'd want to have it, if not just for complete ownership of the piece.
- jox0
my problem with a lot of art is that it is just the concept with no execution. Or someone else's skill is used for the execution. Surely these artists can't be so busy coming up with these amazing ideas that they can't learn the skills involved to make the piece themselves.
That's the way I'd want to have it, if not just for complete ownership of the piece.Baskerville
(Feb 27 07, 02:18)Very well put!
Bottomline for me when I define art is that I want it to have some meaning and effort behind it. Anyone, and I mean anyone with a computer, can stretch someone elses photo out.
- clerk0
as long as he put it in a context.
- ********0
that is quite possibly the best art i've seen in the last 6 months, if not year.
Bravo.
- ********0
tho the "Nudes" stuff is a pile of shit.
- de4k0
art used to mean that a high degree of skill and craft was involved, but the term 'high art' is now somewhat defunct, deemed so with the rise of outsider and conceptual art.
I agree with baskerville in what he would want from a piece of art, but that doesn't mean this isn't art. Art isn't going to invite you in offer you a brew and tell you all about itself, and will often only strike a chord with a minority.
The argument that 'anyone could do it' doesn't carry any weight either, the fact is you didn't and he did, and he's the one getting published.
- jox0
The argument that 'anyone could do it' doesn't carry any weight either...
Agreed - but, in the same context as effort it *does* carry weight because without any effort OR skill, you have nothing.
- ********0
I disagree with jox.
- de4k0
so all the years of work he's put into his art mean nothing?
this is just a series of work he's done recently.
he didn't just get home from his job at the factory knock those out and turn up at a gallery and they went 'love it, you exhibit next week'
- ribit0
even if it qualifies as 'art', its still 'crappy art' so maybe its not a big deal?..
- de4k0
even if it qualifies as 'art', its still 'crappy art' so maybe its not a big deal?..
ribit
(Feb 27 07, 02:51)iyho
- jox0
"so all the years of work he's put into his art mean nothing?"
I'm not commenting on his other pieces that, while not great, are probably what got him exhibited in the first place ...making him live off the rep. Or he's just an excellent marketer.
Suppose I photographed all lightbulbs in my office, loaded them into my computer and put them up for sale online. And we were having this discussion about me instead - would you be defending my art as well?
- emecks0
I may not agree with your art but I will defend to the death your right to shart it.