What isn't art?
- Started
- Last post
- 147 Responses
- iCanHazQBN0
Only modern abstract paintings on canvas are art. Everything else is not art and should not be acknowledged.
- Yes yes don't let anyone tell you otherwise.pango
- I won't. Or will I? Maybe. BLACK PIGEON JUNK YARD COUPE!!!!!!!!!iCanHazQBN
- lvl_130
Who do you know? And how much wealth do they(or the artist) possess (both in monetary and influential measures)?
The above will be 90% of the art world. The remaining 10% will be those with insane talent/thought or dead.
- ORAZAL1
- hehehehe lolpango
- If you're serious though: http://yalepress.yal…ORAZAL
- Sep2
- CyBrainX0
I'm willing to say everything posted so far is art. A lot of it sucks though.
- doesnotexist0
this thread is art, but mono isn't
- isnt this thread saying why isnt it true?yurimon
- is that what it's doing?doesnotexist
- no, yuri's just still butthurt over one of his stupid threadsscarabin
- nb0
- ORAZAL1
- #notartORAZAL
- This definitely is. Surely?Ianbolton
- Shirley?Knuckleberry
- Jackie Chan beat Shirley's ass and now he's fucking it.moldero
- Ianbolton0
Haha. I've just read all this post and so far seem more confused about what IS art, rather than what is not.
What about taking photos of sub atomic particles? Is that art? It's only a photo. Maybe eventually we'll all be able to do that at some point? What makes that art or not?
- I mean, where does the art/science crossover take place?Ianbolton
- Eduardo KacORAZAL
- Taking photos of sub atomic particles is not art.ORAZAL
- is it a skill? At what point does a skill not become an art?Ianbolton
- A skil is not an art [sic] by definition, so there is no point at which it doesn't become one.ORAZAL
- Fair point. So when people say the art of science what do they mean? I'm sitting on the fence here.Ianbolton
- A word can have several meanings. I think it's clear to all what kind of art pango was refering to. I hate the expression but he meant "Art with a capital A".ORAZAL
- He is not talking about martial arts or the art of science.ORAZAL
- Fair enough. I think people still tend to get confused with all that, but I know what you mean.Ianbolton
- you don't prove something by proving what it's notdoesnotexist
- i_was1
I thought Pango was portuguese.
- reanimate-1
You and me, all things, we are all art created by God
- 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
- MrAbominable1
You would have to define art in order to define what isn't it. Classically, you might have been able to narrow that definition down to perhaps a handful of tropes, however the 20th century spent a good deal of time and energy breaking those models and building 100s of new ones to stand along side them.
What is Not Art to an academic is a completely different question than say What is Not Art to the henge fund wank that spent 95k on one of Richard Prince's "repurposed" Instagram canvasses.
The original question is good philosophical and intellectual wankery but definitively only that.
- the art that the wanker bought is a commoditydoesnotexist