Thread: I fail to see how this is art

I'm not too fond of those kinds of things either, but still, one question:

who are you to decide what's real art?

Not that I believe the picture to be anything more than attention-whoring, myself, but calling it "not art" is nothing more than a declaration of a lack of understanding of what art is. (No offense.) For instance: I can't stand a lot of modern art. I find much of it to be minimalist, pretentious, and lacking any real skill in its application (not to mention, just plain ugly, most of the time). However, it is still art.

One person's "David" is another person's "dude with his schlong hanging out."

In that respect, they are both still "art." This concept doesn't change, no matter the medium.

I still do not see how the photo linked to can be considered art. Therefore, it is my personal opinion, that it is not art. I think everyone has a right to decide for themselves what is art and what isn't. Painting a huge red square on canvas is NOT art, and I don't give a shit who says otherwise.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Painting a huge red square on canvas is NOT art, and I don't give a shit who says otherwise.

I'm trying with all my might not to change my avatar to a red box, and use this as a sig.....must maintain....composure!

If you can convince someone " to spend as much money as possible on a huge red square then it is indeed art. There is an art to making someone see something they know isn't really there.

Originally Posted by Akono

I'm trying with all my might not to change my avatar to a red box, and use this as a sig.....must maintain....composure!

Are we going to have a problem, sir?

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Are we going to have a problem, sir?

No dear, everything's fine. The troops are having a blast.

If you define art so that it includes stuff like this, it's art.

If you define art so that it doesn't include stuff like this, it's not art.

End thread, hurpa dur, all hail me.

If you define dolphins as elephants then dolphins are elephants.

It's true, and a pointless argument.

Good, please don't make it in future.

Isn't this the same guy who was complaining that art today is too pretentious? Yeah, way to break the cycle, pal.

I feel awkward just jumping into the conversation like this, but oh well. Good "art" is supposed to be inspired and be creative. Therefore taking a photo of yourself by holding a camera out in front of you does NOT qualify as true art.

Originally Posted by Xei

If you define art so that it includes stuff like this, it's art.

If you define art so that it doesn't include stuff like this, it's not art.

End thread, hurpa dur, all hail me.

hold up. on just what authority do we base our decisions? I really despise all that postmodern, "the truth is what you make it" bullcrap. I think it's reckless and counter-productive. if we allow a thing to be anything anyone claims it to be, as tommo succinctly illustrated, then we rob its term of meaning. if everything is art, then nothing is. but apparently there is such a thing as "art," otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. the lines therefore must be drawn somewhere.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

I still do not see how the photo linked to can be considered art. Therefore, it is my personal opinion, that it is not art. I think everyone has a right to decide for themselves what is art and what isn't. Painting a huge red square on canvas is NOT art, and I don't give a shit who says otherwise.

even me? ;_;

actually I would have completely agreed with you, until recently when I felt moved to paint things similar to works like those that I'd previously trashed. like this:



it's supposed to be something like a diagram of solipsism. that's how I see it in my head, and although its simplicity may give the appearance of apathy to some, it's actually quite sincere and has depth. as for the red square, maybe what the artist had in mind was something like what I did, an illustration of some abstract concept- and maybe they saw that as the best way to express it. the problem with art like this, though, is when artists think that offering it for sale at markedly steep price ranges is acceptable. this is my opinion, anyway. when they do this, it creates the oppurtunity for any slick con artist (lol literally) to cheat people out of loads of money for works that aren't even genuine. but then again, even these "fake" works can move someone just the same as something made by a true artist; the person may see something in it regardless of whether or not the creator did. so if they want to pay the price for it, then oh well. I guess, as they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." still, and again this is opinion, I think when an artist makes especially simplistic works they should price it accordingly. I think ideally prices should be determined strictly by time, effort and detail. for example if I were to offer that painting I did up for sale, I'd probably ask for no more than $40- which is hardly above the cost of the materials. now, if someone comes by and they offer an artist a considerably large sum for a very simplistic work, that's different. but just painting a big red square and asking $400,000 dollars for it is forthrightly offensive.

Originally Posted by nerve

look at this magnificent work of art I just made! it's totally sincere. and totally art. it took a whole 5 seconds of planning. plus I had to change my shirt, and angle the camera (phone).. I might do some more but it took a lot out of me. I'm too exhausted from the mental preparation right now so maybe later.

Yea, but, you actually make it believable.

Originally Posted by nerve

it's supposed to be something like a diagram of solipsism. that's how I see it in my head, and although its simplicity may give the appearance of apathy to some, it's actually quite sincere and has depth. as for the red square, maybe what the artist had in mind was something like what I did, an illustration of some abstract concept- and maybe they saw that as the best way to express it. the problem with art like this, though, is when artists think that offering it for sale with markedly steep price ranges is acceptable. this is my opinion, anyway. when they do this, it creates the oppurtunity for any slick con artist (lol literally) to cheat people out of loads of money for works that aren't even genuine. but then again, even these "fake" works can move someone just the same as something made by a true artist; the person may see something in it regardless of whether or not the creator did. so if they want to pay the price for it, then oh well. I guess, as they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." still, and again this is opinion, I think when an artist makes especially simplistic works they should price it accordingly. I think ideally prices should be determined strictly by time, effort and detail. for example if I were to offer that painting I did up for sale, I'd probably ask for no more than $40- which is hardly above the cost of the materials. now, if someone comes by and they offer an artist a considerably large sum for a very simplistic work, that's different. but just painting a big red square and asking $400,000 dollars for it is forthrightly offensive.

Congratulations. You now understand the concept of "art." (And I mean that in sincerity, not sarcasm.
Calling your creation "art," while calling many other pieces (that you would not have considered art) "not art," would be hypocrisy.

A ridiculous price for a simplistic piece of art does not make it "not art." It just makes people likely to label it as such. Pretentious pricing makes me disgusted too. I actually put a great deal of effort into my artwork, but I still bend over backward to offer honest, reasonable prices. But a price tag has nothing to do with whether or not something is art.

Ok perhaps I need to be more clear about the problem I have with the goddamn red square.

WHY IS IT IN MY ART HISTORY BOOKS!?

That's all I want to know.

I flip through pages and pages of a thousand years of art history and enjoy true masterpieces of creative expression. Until I get to the modern art section. And I want to tear the pages out and rip them up into tiny pieces. In fact...I'm going to do this right now. *rip rip rip*

I mean, I guess the whole point of it being historically and artistically significant is in the preschool like simplicity of it. I get angry when people try to teach me that THIS is modern art...and it's REALLY AMAZING ART. Amazing enough to be side by side with true masterpieces in the pages of history. I'm sorry, but who the hell decided that it was significant enough to even deserve a single page in art history? If you can't tell, sometimes I have a real problem with the shit taught to us in schools.

Art History was without a doubt my favorite subject, until it came to the last 50 or so years. Then it turned into the biggest disappointment ever. nerve what you painted is certainly and without a doubt art. And yeah, someone can paint a red square or a fucking purple square on a canvas and hang it on their wall and I'd say, "hey, nice artwork" ...but that doesn't mean I think it's worth the paper its printed on in the pages of history.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Ok perhaps I need to be more clear about the problem I have with the goddamn red square.

WHY IS IT IN MY ART HISTORY BOOKS!?

That's all I want to know.

I flip through pages and pages of a thousand years of art history and enjoy true masterpieces of creative expression. Until I get to the modern art section. And I want to tear the pages out and rip them up into tiny pieces. In fact...I'm going to do this right now. *rip rip rip*

I mean, I guess the whole point of it being historically and artistically significant is in the preschool like simplicity of it. I get angry when people try to teach me that THIS is modern art...and it's REALLY AMAZING ART. Amazing enough to be side by side with true masterpieces in the pages of history. I'm sorry, but who the hell decided that it was significant enough to even deserve a single page in art history? If you can't tell, sometimes I have a real problem with the shit taught to us in schools.

Art History was without a doubt my favorite subject, until it came to the last 50 or so years. Then it turned into the biggest disappointment ever. nerve what you painted is certainly and without a doubt art. And yeah, someone can paint a red square or a fucking purple square on a canvas and hang it on their wall and I'd say, "hey, nice artwork" ...but that doesn't mean I think it's worth the paper its printed on in the pages of history.

Now we're getting somewhere. Heh.
I completely agree with everything you said, above.
However, nerve was saying that he didn't understand how such simplistic things can be called art. As much as I hate to say it, it is. It seems like we cheapen the word, when we include such effortless works, I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still, basically, art.

With that technicality out of the way, though, I have a great distaste for minimalist art as well.

Indeed.

Bad art is still art I suppose. And just because something is "art" doesn't mean it's good art.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Bad art is still art I suppose. And just because something is "art" doesn't mean it's good art.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Ok perhaps I need to be more clear about the problem I have with the goddamn red square.

WHY IS IT IN MY ART HISTORY BOOKS!?

I want to know why art history books have a conspiracy against all forms of fantasy art and try to tell us something boring and useless like a red square is art Four years of art history and I'm still not convinced!

An art the practice of composing or capturing something while being inspired by creativity. Therefore art is anything and everything inspired by creativity. Anyone can define what art is, but that's it's true meaning. For example, writing is an art, the story is the art. Inventing is an art, the invention is the art, et cetera.

Question.

Is this red square that's being referenced the one I've seen?

I saw a red square in an art gallery once. It was not a very good red square, either; there were blotches of paint inside the square which made the colour uneven.

Now, as a perspective, one of my favourite pieces of art is Kazimir Malevitch's Black Square (if this makes me pretentious so be it) but this red square made me angry. It wasn't even or geometric. It was plain badly done.

Later, I reconsidered my opinion based on what somebody said. Art is meant to make you feel, I would suppose; but nobody says it has to make you feel good. Why do people watch horror movies, otherwise? They may not feel good but they feel strongly, and that's an important feeling. Red is the colour of anger so it accomplished its goal in that I guess

where am I going with this? I don't know. But Nerve, I still need to write you letters.

Originally Posted by Lseadragon

Question.

Is this red square that's being referenced the one I've seen?

I saw a red square in an art gallery once. It was not a very good red square, either

I laughed so fucking hard at this lol
Reminds me of this kid in my art history class who said a similar thing about a dot on a canvas.

Why is the black square your favourite painting? I think if someone declares something art, they should have to justify it. Just as the artists do, mostly I think.

Moving on, maybe it is not visual art per se, but more like the art of deception. These artists usually can draw and paint amazing realistic depictions of things, and they choose to go this way of abstractness. I have no doubt that some of these artists do it because they can expend less effort for more, or the same amount of money. I know I'd do it too if I was famous. If you can get some of the money from these rich bastards, why not?

'
~i-likethis 5 days ago
Cute ass! Reply

~Sexilexi2845 5 days ago
thanks

--
╔══╗
╚╗╔╝
╔╝(¯`v´¯)
╚══`. ¸.YouReply

~i-likethis 5 days ago
You are so welcome!Reply

~Sexilexi2845 5 days ago
um thnx

--
╔══╗
╚╗╔╝
╔╝(¯`v´¯)
╚══`. ¸.YouReply

~i-likethis 5 days ago
'


Lmao,
Yeah, deifnitely not art.
Very funny though

LOL, and:

'Deathraven666 Jan 14, 2011
you look grate. I really think you should keep going with the artistic nudes. But that's just meReply

~Sexilexi2845 6 days ago
Well I'll see what I can do.

--
╔══╗
╚╗╔╝
╔╝(¯`v´¯)
╚══`. ¸.You'