Art = Getting reactions from people.

Banksy, picturesonwalls.com, facebook, feminism.

Discuss books, film, tv, music, games and all other arts here.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#61  Postby Nicko » Jul 01, 2014 11:47 pm

kennyc wrote:Meh. You guys gotta weird definition of art. :roll:


Really? What's your definition?

Marcel Duchamp made the argument in 1917 - by submitting a urinal to a sculpture exhibition - that art is just what artists do. The argument has not, AFAIK, been refuted in any real way.

This doesn't mean you have to like a given artwork. You don't have to even justify not liking something; if you don't like it, you don't like it.

It doesn't mean that one cannot critcise a particular artwork on particular grounds. This does require a bit of justification, however.

You have no grounds whatsoever to say that an artwork is "not art". If someone says it's art, it's art.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#62  Postby Nicko » Jul 01, 2014 11:54 pm

OlivierK wrote:I get where you're coming from, I simply don't agree.


With what?

The sentiment expressed in the found image?

Or that Banksy's intent is clearly to start a shitfight, which he has done under his artistic pseudonym?
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#63  Postby kennyc » Jul 02, 2014 12:09 am

Nicko wrote:
kennyc wrote:Meh. You guys gotta weird definition of art. :roll:


Really? What's your definition?

Marcel Duchamp made the argument in 1917 - by submitting a urinal to a sculpture exhibition - that art is just what artists do. The argument has not, AFAIK, been refuted in any real way.

This doesn't mean you have to like a given artwork. You don't have to even justify not liking something; if you don't like it, you don't like it.

It doesn't mean that one cannot critcise a particular artwork on particular grounds. This does require a bit of justification, however.

You have no grounds whatsoever to say that an artwork is "not art". If someone says it's art, it's art.

Of course I do. Every right, particularly when you are attempting to claim that political, linguist, and social interaction is art. That's pure bullshit.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#64  Postby Nicko » Jul 02, 2014 12:22 am

kennyc wrote:
Nicko wrote:You have no grounds whatsoever to say that an artwork is "not art". If someone says it's art, it's art.

Of course I do. Every right, particularly when you are attempting to claim that political, linguist, and social interaction is art. That's pure bullshit.


Why?
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#65  Postby jamest » Jul 02, 2014 12:49 am

Goldenmane wrote:
Nicko wrote:
OlivierK wrote:Sure, it's art. I don't think any of the facebook comments comment on its artistic value, though. (I'm not surprised, because there's not a hell of a lot of art beyond the text there.)


Again, the artwork that Banksy has created consists of reposting an image of some graffiti on his facebook page, thus generating controversy. The shitfight is part of the artwork. This exchange that we are having right now is part of the artwork.


Exactly.

That's bollocks, since it essentially equates anything which has caused heated discussion to be art. That would include science and maths. In other words, it would include everything. And at that juncture, the meaning of art becomes lost and art becomes obsolete as a meaningful concept.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18549
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#66  Postby kennyc » Jul 02, 2014 12:56 am

OMG! Did hell just freeze over.....jamest and I agree on something!!! :o
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#67  Postby jamest » Jul 02, 2014 1:07 am

Nicko wrote:
kennyc wrote:Meh. You guys gotta weird definition of art. :roll:


Really? What's your definition?

Marcel Duchamp made the argument in 1917 - by submitting a urinal to a sculpture exhibition - that art is just what artists do. The argument has not, AFAIK, been refuted in any real way.

It cannot be refuted because it's a meaningless argument. It merely begs the question "What do artists do?", and artists aren't defined as individuals who submit urinals to sculpture exhibitions. Otherwise, all sculpture exhibitions would be of urinals.

This doesn't mean you have to like a given artwork. You don't have to even justify not liking something; if you don't like it, you don't like it.

There are many reasons for not liking a given artwork, but the primary reason in the 21st century is without doubt "That's not fucking art!".

I've seen pictures valued at 4 or 5 figure sums which if my 7 year-old daughter said she'd painted, I'd have believed her. And she's not very good at art. So, let's not pretend that there's nothing wrong with contemporary art, since pretending that there's nothing wrong with contemporary art seems to me to be the reason why anything can now be considered to be art.


You have no grounds whatsoever to say that an artwork is "not art". If someone says it's art, it's art.

Bollocks. Otherwise, every single one of us - those of us capable of uttering those few words - can proclaim each and every event of our lives as a piece of art. At that juncture - the juncture where anything that we do is not art - art loses its meaning, because art can only have meaning wrt something that is not art.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18549
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#68  Postby jamest » Jul 02, 2014 1:08 am

kennyc wrote:OMG! Did hell just freeze over.....jamest and I agree on something!!! :o

Hell freezing over... that's art.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18549
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#69  Postby THWOTH » Jul 02, 2014 1:33 am

jamest wrote:
Goldenmane wrote:
Nicko wrote:
OlivierK wrote:Sure, it's art. I don't think any of the facebook comments comment on its artistic value, though. (I'm not surprised, because there's not a hell of a lot of art beyond the text there.)


Again, the artwork that Banksy has created consists of reposting an image of some graffiti on his facebook page, thus generating controversy. The shitfight is part of the artwork. This exchange that we are having right now is part of the artwork.


Exactly.

That's bollocks, since it essentially equates anything which has caused heated discussion to be art. That would include science and maths. In other words, it would include everything. And at that juncture, the meaning of art becomes lost and art becomes obsolete as a meaningful concept.

Can art not consist in its purpose? If something is generated for artistic purposes, if it is artistically purposed as it were, then isn't that some-thing an art work? There's no reason that thing has to be a made object, and there's no particular reason why we should give the artist laurels, and revere their creation, or like it, or agree with it's purpose, or withhold criticism of its execution, etc.

Of course, we have to have some conception of the purpose of art to do this, but in that we can rely on our ideas about what art is and what does for us, and for society.

There's no grand purpose to Art however, no single, over-arching, put-you-finger-on-it definition of what it is and what it is for. Instead these things can be teased out in terms of our reactions to individual artworks themselves.

Image
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37113
Age: 56

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#70  Postby Shrunk » Jul 02, 2014 1:43 am

I think asking "What is Art?" is like asking "What words make up the English language?" You can't prescribe in advance what constitutes an English word. If English speaking people start using it, then it's part of the language.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#71  Postby jamest » Jul 02, 2014 2:13 am

THWOTH wrote:
jamest wrote:
Goldenmane wrote:
Nicko wrote:

Again, the artwork that Banksy has created consists of reposting an image of some graffiti on his facebook page, thus generating controversy. The shitfight is part of the artwork. This exchange that we are having right now is part of the artwork.


Exactly.

That's bollocks, since it essentially equates anything which has caused heated discussion to be art. That would include science and maths. In other words, it would include everything. And at that juncture, the meaning of art becomes lost and art becomes obsolete as a meaningful concept.

Can art not consist in its purpose? If something is generated for artistic purposes, if it is artistically purposed as it were, then isn't that some-thing an art work?

Also read my previous response to Nicko. We cannot define art as "what artists do", nor then can we define it by their purpose. At what point is an artist defined by his/her purpose? What sort of purpose in particular are you alluding to?

There's no reason that thing has to be a made object, and there's no particular reason why we should give the artist laurels, and revere their creation, or like it, or agree with it's purpose, or withhold criticism of its execution, etc.

All art has to become manifest in the experienced world, even as words on a pc monitor. Otherwise, nobody can observe it to be art. And I agree that the definition of an artwork shouldn't hinge upon whether it's liked. No more than the definition of a religion should hinge upon whether it's liked.

There's no grand purpose to Art however, no single, over-arching, put-you-finger-on-it definition of what it is and what it is for.

There has to be, otherwise it's pointless and indistinct to the purpose of other pursuits. So, for example, if Banksy has no other purpose than to make a political statement, then he's doing politics, not art. Or else, if we go to the extreme whereby everything is defined as art, then we lose the meaning of politics (etc.). In which case, Banksy's political purpose is lost in the fog of art's all-encompassing significance. Whatever that is.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18549
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#72  Postby orpheus » Jul 02, 2014 2:20 am

Image
“A way a lone a last a loved a long the”

—James Joyce
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 56
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#73  Postby kennyc » Jul 02, 2014 2:25 am

jamest wrote:.....
There has to be, otherwise it's pointless and indistinct to the purpose of other pursuits. So, for example, if Banksy has no other purpose than to make a political statement, then he's doing politics, not art. Or else, if we go to the extreme whereby everything is defined as art, then we lose the meaning of politics (etc.). In which case, Banksy's political purpose is lost in the fog of art's all-encompassing significance. Whatever that is.


:this:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#74  Postby orpheus » Jul 02, 2014 3:07 am

We've covered this territory before, so I'm going to paraphrase something I posted elsewhere, because it's one of the best answers I can give to the question of the purpose of art:

Richard Serra has been a tremendous influence and inspiration for me. Here he pretty much says it, as far as I'm concerned, in this video. It's from an interview Serra did with Charlie Rose on the occasion of the big 40-year retrospective of Serra's work at the Museum of Modern Art here in New York. Serra is extremely intelligent, ferociously articulate, and in my opinion the finest sculptor working today. (He's also one of the most important American artists in any medium.) The crucial bit is from 15:15 – 18:45, but watch the whole thing.



By the way, the entire 2-part interview with Charlie Rose is very worthwhile. I haven't been able to find part one, but it's probably out there somewhere.

But here is another important interview with him. Thought-provoking, entirely apropos this thread,and I would think inspiring to any creative person. (Watch through to the end; Serra becomes passionate - almost combative - when discussing the function of art vs. architecture. Good stuff.)

“A way a lone a last a loved a long the”

—James Joyce
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 56
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#75  Postby Thommo » Jul 02, 2014 3:49 am

Nicko wrote:
kennyc wrote:Meh. You guys gotta weird definition of art. :roll:


Really? What's your definition?

Marcel Duchamp made the argument in 1917 - by submitting a urinal to a sculpture exhibition - that art is just what artists do. The argument has not, AFAIK, been refuted in any real way.


Stretching the definition of argument there somewhat, aren't you? Also why does someone need to refute Duchamp's statement of opinion? Things don't stand until refuted just because someone says them, even if they are said in clever or original ways.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#76  Postby Spinozasgalt » Jul 02, 2014 3:59 am

Oh, whatever. You don't know nothin'. 'Bout anythin'.
When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight, roll up the joint.
Or don't. Just follow your arrow wherever it points.

Kacey Musgraves
User avatar
Spinozasgalt
RS Donator
 
Name: Jennifer
Posts: 18770
Age: 34
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#77  Postby Thommo » Jul 02, 2014 4:01 am

Spinozasgalt wrote:Oh, whatever. You don't know nothin'. 'Bout anythin'.


I know. :(
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#78  Postby Spinozasgalt » Jul 02, 2014 4:09 am

Awwwwww.
When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight, roll up the joint.
Or don't. Just follow your arrow wherever it points.

Kacey Musgraves
User avatar
Spinozasgalt
RS Donator
 
Name: Jennifer
Posts: 18770
Age: 34
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#79  Postby Nicko » Jul 02, 2014 4:52 am

jamest wrote:
Goldenmane wrote:
Nicko wrote:
OlivierK wrote:Sure, it's art. I don't think any of the facebook comments comment on its artistic value, though. (I'm not surprised, because there's not a hell of a lot of art beyond the text there.)


Again, the artwork that Banksy has created consists of reposting an image of some graffiti on his facebook page, thus generating controversy. The shitfight is part of the artwork. This exchange that we are having right now is part of the artwork.


Exactly.

That's bollocks, since it essentially equates anything which has caused heated discussion to be art. That would include science and maths. In other words, it would include everything. And at that juncture, the meaning of art becomes lost and art becomes obsolete as a meaningful concept.


True enough. Your point?
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#80  Postby Nicko » Jul 02, 2014 4:58 am

Thommo wrote:Stretching the definition of argument there somewhat, aren't you? Also why does someone need to refute Duchamp's statement of opinion? Things don't stand until refuted just because someone says them, even if they are said in clever or original ways.


Well, to be accurate, the argument was not just his "sculpture".

Duchamp submitted Fountain to an open exhibition and had it rejected as "not art" by a bunch of people who - like some in this thread - found themselves completely unable to justify their position.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to The Arts & Entertainment

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest