Pair of glasses on the floor taken to be a modern art installation: https://goo.gl/wdS2lK
I would argue that those glasses are art. The purpose of modern art is to provoke a reaction, to make people think. These glasses seem to have provoked quite a lot of debate about what is art and are therefore a highly successful art work.
I notice that, in one of the comments, it was claimed that somebody did exactly the same thing with a flip flop a year or ten ago and they are going to sue.
I think the point about 'art' is that it is something that tells a story and evokes emotion. That could be boredom, inquisitiveness, interest, or whatever.
After all, why can/do 'Matiss('s) ... relief sculptures, ... be understood, ... convey power contained within the human frame etc' and why are 'they ... a delight to the eye'? Is it because they deal with issues that you, ippy, have experienced within your life-time? What is meant by 'pleasing to the eye', or 'beauty'? Isn't 'beauty in the eye of the beholder' - a highly unscientific concept?
It looks like you may have missed the loudspeaker in a glass display cabinet that had a small opening of about half an inch by about three and a half inches, the speaker made a muffled bang noise at random times, perhaps you would like to have this displayed in your living room as a conversation piece, especially when you think of the effort the, "artist"? must have put into this creation of theirs?
You had better hurry before I beat you there to buy it.
ippy
I would argue that those glasses are art. The purpose of modern art is to provoke a reaction, to make people think. These glasses seem to have provoked quite a lot of debate about what is art and are therefore a highly successful art work.
I don't understand why your definition of art seem to be "jeremyp would put it in his living room".
I agree. Yes, it was a prank, yes it was amusing, and yes it was art.
As the artist has been quoted as saying:
I can agree that modern art can be a joke sometimes, but art is a way to express our own creativity. Some may interpret it as a joke, some might find great spiritual meaning in it. At the end of the day, I see it as a pleasure for open-minded people and imaginative minds.
Maybe that was a joke too...
I just thought you might be so deeply impressed with the idea of having/owning that speaker that you might want to get it before I beat you to it.
ART is a personal taste matter.
When I was in the Madrid, I saw some of the most wonderful art produced by the now known greats.
But I certainly would never see a pair of spectacles on the floor as a work of art. People making a spectacle of themselves was
probably the reason for them being them. Would have picked them up and handed them in.
My then husband whom I was with was himself an artist and it was thanks to him that we spent the day travelling to Madrid from the family home in Costa del Sol to see the works of art. Some I had only seen in books.
He has had a natural gift for art since childhood. My son is gifted that way too. Has been drawing and painting since infancy.
I guess someone had a sense of humour?
The purpose of modern art is to provoke a reaction, to make people think. These glasses seem to have provoked quite a lot of debate about what is art and are therefore a highly successful art work.But for the vast majority of people the only thing much 'art' provokes is mocking contempt and the only thoughts it creates are ones of astonishment that people with no discernible formal skill or technical accomplishment can palm off complete junk as art to a few credulous suckers.
But for the vast majority of people the only thing much 'art' provokes is mocking contempt and the only thoughts it creates are ones of astonishment that people with no discernible formal skill or technical accomplishment can palm off complete junk as art to a few credulous suckers.
That doesn't strike me as much of an achievement.
Getting away with it is an art Shakes.Yes ipster - the venerable art of fleecing suckers.
ippy
But for the vast majority of people the only thing much 'art' provokes is mocking contempt and the only thoughts it creates are ones of astonishment that people with no discernible formal skill or technical accomplishment can palm off complete junk as art to a few credulous suckers.
And why is that not a valid artistic reaction?I don't consider "Jesus Christ, how do they manage to get away with this shit?" to be the job of art.
I have a rule of thump that works for me.
I am not an artist, and I have no skills in that area, so if i think I could create a reasonable copy of the supposed art, then to me it's not art.
I could play "Stairway To Heaven" when I was 12. Jimmy Page didn't actually write it until he was 22. I think that says quite a lot.
I don't consider "Jesus Christ, how do they manage to get away with this shit?" to be the job of art.Why not?
Why not?Because it's an attitude of contempt - although I suppose you're now going to say that some 'artists' actively seek out/encourage such a feeling and that's OK, it's art because they say it is.
Because it's an attitude of contempt - although I suppose you're now going to say that some 'artists' actively seek out/encourage such a feeling and that's OK, it's art because they say it is.
Not quite the same though.
I look at a pile of bricks, and I could create a copy to the point where no one could spot the difference.
Then I look at for example that Haywain, and I would not know where to start!
So you would define art based on your specific level of skill. Like you I could create a verbatim copy of Equivalent VIII quite easily, but I could also make a copy of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 pretty quickly too. In fact, since I just Googled it, I could do it in seconds. Which do you think is the greater work of art?
In my opinion, the important thing is the act of creativity, the execution is secondary. Modern art shifts the emphasis away from the execution and more towards the idea.
So you would define art based on your specific level of skill. Like you I could create a verbatim copy of Equivalent VIII quite easily, but I could also make a copy of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 pretty quickly too. In fact, since I just Googled it, I could do it in seconds. Which do you think is the greater work of art?That's merely a one-for-one copy of something that already exists as made by someone else - like doing The Haywain but in paint-by-numbers.
I've hardly any artistic tendencies so it looks like I'll have to be taking up conceptual art and have every chance of becoming an artist of note.
ippy
When everything is art, then nothing is.I think in this comment we're now starting to grope ever so slightly toward a working definition, however rough and ready for present purposes, of art and a work of art. It undercuts the idea that a pile of bricks - as found on the building site next to my house - or an unmade bed - something we all have in our homes every morning - can meaningfully be regarded as art just because someone says they are.
When everything is art, then nothing is.
Oddly enough this is Vlad's argument on morality, but you seem to have an issue with it in that context.
This is a subjective measure for me personally, something else may work for you.
Essentially, if I could recreate it, then it's not art, because I am not an artist.
This DOES NOT apply to copying text, as that is a basic skill.
That's merely a one-for-one copy of something that already exists as made by someone else - like doing The Haywain but in paint-by-numbers.Making a pile of bricks is merely a one for one copy.
The better comparison would be to have written an original work of your own - your own sonnet.I could knock you up an original sonnet. With some effort, I might even be able to write one that doesn't have you trying to gnaw your arm off. Does that mean Shakespeare is not an artist?
Piling bricks on top of each other is a basic skill.Perhaps because being able to arrange bricks in a fairly neat pile is mere gross motor skill, open to any physically developed adult without some form of disability, which displays none of the intellect (many, myself included, would say it displays no intellect at all) so obviously at work in Shakespeare.
Why is Shakespeare an artist and Carlos Andre not?
Making a pile of bricks is merely a one for one copy.Not in Carlos Andre's case. Beforehand, people stacked bricks in order to store them pre-use in a space-efficient way. He however tried to fob people off by calling it art.
I could knock you up an original sonnet. With some effort, I might even be able to write one that doesn't have you trying to gnaw your arm off. Does that mean Shakespeare is not an artist?No ... I'm not quite following the link here?
Making a pile of bricks is merely a one for one copy.
I could knock you up an original sonnet. With some effort, I might even be able to write one that doesn't have you trying to gnaw your arm off. Does that mean Shakespeare is not an artist?
I fail to see how.
Morality is subjective and so is art, so I do not see the problem.
So can you paint the Haywain for example. It's all just colour and brush strokes after all.Driving a car requires a level of skil - is it art for you?
The point being that there is a level of skill required for one, that is not required for the other.
If everything is art means nothing is, then if everything is moral, then nothing is.*Scooby Doo noise* Eh? I don't see how you link from one to the other.
*Scooby Doo noise* Eh? I don't see how you link from one to the other.
So then are we talking about art in different ways? There's art that is a status symbol, a wealth generator, a commodity, and then there's art that moves us, speaks to us?
A neatly arranged pile of bricks would work for me as art in a certain context and presented in a certain way. It's not art in and of itself but I can see it being used to say something.
So then are we talking about art in different ways? There's art that is a status symbol, a wealth generator, a commodity, and then there's art that moves us, speaks to us?
I didn't like the pile of bricks, but I accept that it's art. There is no essential quality which makes something art; it's a commodity exchanged in galleries, auction houses, studios, museums.I can accept that others think of it as art (as it happens, so do I) but that doesn't mean that I need to accept it is art beyond that.
Perhaps because being able to arrange bricks in a fairly neat pile is mere gross motor skill, open to any physically developed adult without some form of disability, which displays none of the intellect (many, myself included, would say it displays no intellect at all) so obviously at work in Shakespeare.
I think the thing that makes something art is that spark of creativity, of originality.As far as creativity is concerned I agree completely - which is why I judge a Shakespeare sonnet as art (artifice) and whatshischops's bricks not. For all the difficulties of definition as pointed out by wiggy, art (or at least some kinds, and more so than others) can be said to have certain structures, even strictures, and the degree of skill in handling these structures/strictures can determine how art-full we regard the art to be.
Not in Carlos Andre's case. Beforehand, people stacked bricks in order to store them pre-use in a space-efficient way. He however tried to fob people off by calling it art.Well it is art.
No ... I'm not quite following the link here?
Well it is art.Says who?
The criterion "could I copy it" that you are subscribing to, doesn't work. All it tells us is that the copy is not art.That was Be Rational, not me.
The real point is that the criterion "can it be copied" is absurd. Art is not about "is it hard to make this thing", it's about creativity and original ideas.But there's nothing creative or original much less artistic about a neat stack of bricks, or the building site fifty yards away from where I'm writing would be an open-air gallery - Tate Leicester, rather than Jelson's latest rabbit warren of identical little boxes.
So can you paint the Haywain for example. It's all just colour and brush strokes after all.Actually, I reckon I could. As a child, I had a pretty good ability to paint or draw a picture that was an exact facsimile of another picture that somebody else had done. I admit, it would be easier to do a Picasso or a Mondrian.
The point being that there is a level of skill required for one, that is not required for the other.What you are describing is what makes somebody an artisan, not what makes somebody an artist. Both are worthy of praise but for different reasons.
Says who?Lots of people, the curators of the Tate Gallery and Tate Modern for a start.
That was Be Rational, not me.But there's nothing creative or original much less artistic about a neat stack of bricks, or the building site fifty yards away from where I'm writing would be an open-air gallery - Tate Leicester, rather than Jelson's latest rabbit warren of identical little boxes.I sad you subscribed not that you invented the criterion. Anybody could put a pile of bricks in an art gallery and call it art , but frankly, nobody did before Carlos Andre.
I actually think "Is it hard to make this thing?" may very well be one of the sundry criteria of art, as it happens.I disagree, unless you want to call the flatpack wardrobe I got from Ikea art.
Lots of people, the curators of the Tate Gallery and Tate Modern for a start.There's an argument from authority hovering over this one.
I disagree, unless you want to call the flatpack wardrobe I got from Ikea art.No, because difficulty isn't the only factor ... as I said previously.
There's an argument from authority hovering over this one.What do expect? Appreciation of art is entirely subjective.
I don't mind people saying X is not art, but I think they are really saying they don't like it, aren't they? There is no objective criterion! You can't say that art is inherently skillful, talented, beautiful, or whatever, this is all bollocks. A lot of art was seen as very ugly at first, e.g. Impressionists, Jackson Pollock, our Tracey.
I don't think it says much for so-called art if it's indistinguishable from the contents of my wheelie bin.
So what makes it art for you other than you opinion?Technical skill or accomplishment; some degree of proficiency in form (like the example of the Petrarchan sonnet I used earlier); intelligent management of formal constraints (ditto), for starters.
Technical skill or accomplishment; some degree of proficiency in form (like the example of the Petrarchan sonnet I used earlier); intelligent management of formal constraints (ditto), for starters.So driving well is art?
Arnold Schoenberg is supposed to have said that what he wanted from music more than anything was to walk past a building site and hear workmen whistling his tunes. Perhaps his forbidding reputation as the godfather of musical modernism prevented people from taking him aside and breaking it to him that if he wanted builders to whistle his tunes, he should have written some.
So driving well is art?No - to start talking about art there has to be an aesthetic component, some appeal to the emotions as well as the intellect (and again: no, in artistic terms I don't think that revulsion, boredom or cynical contempt at cynical contempt for the viewer/listener/etc. are emotions worth arousing. There's plenty of other stuff in life - too much by half - to give us those).
No - to start talking about art there has to be an aesthetic component, some appeal to the emotions as well as the intellect (and again: no, in artistic terms I don't think that revulsion, boredom or cynical contempt at cynical contempt for the viewer/listener/etc. are emotions worth arousing. There's plenty of other stuff in life - too much by half - to give us those).Isn't that just circular? Art appeals to the aesthetic sense? And surely trying to define what that is, other than saying this is what appeals to me, is trying to externalise an internal.process?
So driving well is art?Have you seen the film "Senna"? There's an in cockpit sequence of a lap of Monaco. That was definitely art.
no, in artistic terms I don't think that revulsion, boredom or cynical contempt at cynical contempt for the viewer/listener/etc. are emotions worth arousing.
So driving well is art?
Now that's interesting. I've posted before about how I used to be phobic of driving; now I mostly drive country lanes that are stupidly bendy and often undulating to boot. I'm not a great driver but every now and then I'll execute a particularly difficult bend or stretch of road as well as I think it can be done; the sense of satisfaction I get from nailing it is unlike anything else I can think of that I do. But I don't think anyone else would see anything especially balletic in my driving.
As a species we seem adept at transactional definitions, but I think that's Art rather than art. Which makes me want to read Reza's Art.
Surely it's not that everything is art but that everything can be art if it is so designated? It's the designation that is the creation.
Can clouds be art if there is no mind that has created them?
That's very nice. My local group is looking for new koans. We have tried 'how many stars are there in the sky?', but yours is better.
I think designation is not limited to the artist or the institution though. It can be done by any observer who then in a sense becomes the artist. So in answer to Rhiannon, clouds are not art unless an observer somehow designates them as such. The intention is not about the creation but about the designation
Well I suppose where we are now going is whether labels really serve any purpose. Does it matter if something is art to you and not to me?
I dunno, I think 'art' - and 'the arts' - are loaded terms. Thus Picasso is art, a soft focus crying Pierrot print isn't, and the people who like the latter think (or are made to think) that 'art' isn't for them.
Yes, Jack Vettriano gets people hot under the collar, but I sort of like them, well, in moderation. But yes, art is posh. Then again, if you get something that isn't, and I don't think 'My Bed' is posh, then people shout, not art.