Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

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

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#61  Postby byofrcs » Apr 23, 2011 1:22 am

Perhaps why some don't consider animal-originated art to be art is because we segregate species into human and non-human.

It's not just art but other concepts such as equality, work, justice, satisfaction, enjoyment, entertainment are all seen as relevant for humans but not for animals.

Those that don't see monkey-originated art as art may be a way of measuring speciesism.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 57
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#62  Postby Gallstones » Apr 23, 2011 1:41 am

The prompter is the fucking artist, all right.
The prompter is just using the chimp/elephant/4yo as a tool.
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#63  Postby Nicko » Apr 23, 2011 2:28 am

Gallstones wrote:The prompter is the fucking artist, all right.
The prompter is just using the chimp/elephant/4yo as a tool.


I had assumed that you knew.

Yep. The human being who started the image creation process by giving the chimp some paints, then removing the artwork when s/he deemed it "finished" is the artist.

Is this art?
Image
"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 Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#64  Postby Gallstones » Apr 23, 2011 3:09 am

Nicko wrote:
Gallstones wrote:The prompter is the fucking artist, all right.
The prompter is just using the chimp/elephant/4yo as a tool.


I had assumed that you knew.

Yep. The human being who started the image creation process by giving the chimp some paints, then removing the artwork when s/he deemed it "finished" is the artist.
I wasn't aggravated with you, I was aggravated that the answer hadn't been given yet.


Nicko wrote:Is this art?
Image


The arrangement or the photograph of the arrangement?

Either one, I say yes.
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#65  Postby Tyrannical » Apr 23, 2011 4:12 am

Mmmmmmmh, more art.

Image
Good fences make good neighbors
User avatar
Tyrannical
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6708
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#66  Postby AndreD » Apr 23, 2011 4:27 am

def wrote:
It's really interesting point, but Duchamp is one of those artists that if you look at the whole of his career, the urinal really makes sense. He produced some truly beautiful art. Sure, it requires an explanation, or, in better terms, a context. But it's a lot like the fact that Einstein was bad in school. Just because some kid was bad in school, that doesn't make them an Einstein. And so, a 'simple' art piece sometimes becomes more with intent. It's a fucked up thing, but when you see Duchamp's Woman Descending a Staircase, or Portfolio in a Box, it makes Fountain a lot more interesting.

I love visceral art, particularly in music, but sometimes I love art that doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The original post was about abstract expressionism, which is supposed to be visceral (isn't it?) so maybe this is a digression. Fountain wasn't meant to be visceral.


Sure, I can understand why someone might like it. However, the only art I like is like you said, of a visceral nature and that I deem to be aesthetically pleasing. If someone wants to analyse art academically and explain why it might be important to our greater cultural heritage etc., then that's fine, but I see a difference between that and viewing art to enjoy it.

Gallstones wrote:
You can't say that the need for information so to understand and maybe appreciate--or not appreciate--a thing means the thing has no worth. It just means there is a need for information and education. How can you competently judge a thing if you remain ignorant of it? To reject the opportunity of being educated when it presents is, IMO, intellectual laziness. And quite frankly, opinions formed by ignorance can be disregarded as worthless.

Also, that thing that is pissed in---was designed. It didn't occur naturally. A human thought about purpose, and materials, and construction and made more than just a utilitarian object to collect piss, aesthetics too were applied. Why, why make a urinal look good when people are just going to piss in it?


It's just my subjective opinion of the thing. As I mentioned in my reply to Def, I like art (I really should limit it to photography, paintings and sculpture, as that is what I mean by 'art' in this context) which provides a visceral experience without the need to layer additional external, third party meaning over the top. Likewise, my reply to Def about where I think intellectual analysis of art is appropriate applies here too.
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 32
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#67  Postby Goldenmane » Apr 23, 2011 4:42 am

tuco wrote:Define art ..


Art is hacking the human.

The whole fucking point to art is to fuck with the most complex system we know: the human. To play with it, to manipulate it, messing around with perceptions and concepts. To hack people. It isn't about the actual materials or objects used, as such, it's about the experience invoked in the audience.

That's why there is really no fucking point to anyone saying "that's not art". Sure, a artwork might have no impact, but that doesn't make it not a hack, it just makes it a hack that didn't work.

Piss Christ, for example, had and continues to have fuck-all impact on me... but then, I'm (by default) not the target audience. Same goes for most abstract stuff. I cannot be bothered to give a shit about it. But that doesn't render it not art, in the same way that lock-picking won't help you fix a car radiator. It's still a fucking hack.
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

http://goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com/
User avatar
Goldenmane
 
Posts: 2383

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#68  Postby Gallstones » Apr 23, 2011 5:07 am

AndreD wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
You can't say that the need for information so to understand and maybe appreciate--or not appreciate--a thing means the thing has no worth. It just means there is a need for information and education. How can you competently judge a thing if you remain ignorant of it? To reject the opportunity of being educated when it presents is, IMO, intellectual laziness. And quite frankly, opinions formed by ignorance can be disregarded as worthless.

Also, that thing that is pissed in---was designed. It didn't occur naturally. A human thought about purpose, and materials, and construction and made more than just a utilitarian object to collect piss, aesthetics too were applied. Why, why make a urinal look good when people are just going to piss in it?


It's just my subjective opinion of the thing. As I mentioned in my reply to Def, I like art (I really should limit it to photography, paintings and sculpture, as that is what I mean by 'art' in this context) which provides a visceral experience without the need to layer additional external, third party meaning over the top. Likewise, my reply to Def about where I think intellectual analysis of art is appropriate applies here too.



I am intimately familiar with the visceral sensations that accompanies creative work like art and music.

The difference is that I can get great pleasure just by looking at something. And the something can be a painting that consists of nothing more than shape, color and movement, pattern, texture and there be nothing subjective or representationally recognizable in it. I guess that experience--this wider experience of the visual capacity--you don't get to enjoy. Too bad. I don't have a way to plug you in to those experiences either. Perhaps there are those who simply do not have the ability? Their emotions are not linked so richly to their vision, they experience everything lessor. But of course they wouldn't know any different.


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Gallstones
 
Posts: 11911

Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#69  Postby Tyrannical » Apr 23, 2011 5:21 am

That last one is a little fucked up :lol:
Good fences make good neighbors
User avatar
Tyrannical
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6708
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#70  Postby AndreD » Apr 23, 2011 5:23 am

Gallstones wrote:
AndreD wrote:
Gallstones wrote:
You can't say that the need for information so to understand and maybe appreciate--or not appreciate--a thing means the thing has no worth. It just means there is a need for information and education. How can you competently judge a thing if you remain ignorant of it? To reject the opportunity of being educated when it presents is, IMO, intellectual laziness. And quite frankly, opinions formed by ignorance can be disregarded as worthless.

Also, that thing that is pissed in---was designed. It didn't occur naturally. A human thought about purpose, and materials, and construction and made more than just a utilitarian object to collect piss, aesthetics too were applied. Why, why make a urinal look good when people are just going to piss in it?


It's just my subjective opinion of the thing. As I mentioned in my reply to Def, I like art (I really should limit it to photography, paintings and sculpture, as that is what I mean by 'art' in this context) which provides a visceral experience without the need to layer additional external, third party meaning over the top. Likewise, my reply to Def about where I think intellectual analysis of art is appropriate applies here too.



I am intimately familiar with the visceral sensations that accompanies creative work like art and music.

The difference is that I can get great pleasure just by looking at something. And the something can be a painting that consists of nothing more than shape, color and movement, pattern, texture and there be nothing subjective or representationally recognizable in it. I guess that experience--this wider experience of the visual capacity--you don't get to enjoy. Too bad. I don't have a way to plug you in to those experiences either. Perhaps there are those who simply do not have the ability? Their emotions are not linked so richly to their vision, they experience everything lessor. But of course they wouldn't know any different.

<snip>


I do enjoy the aesthetics of many of the artworks you posted, especially the aboriginal, pottery, and native American-style examples. Hell, early Greek geometric style is amongst my favourite pottery and it's pretty much nothing more than interesting patterns. It's more the Warhols, the Hirsts, and Malevichs which I dislike - those minimalist abstract shapes and items just don't do anything for me.
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 32
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#71  Postby Mr.Samsa » Apr 23, 2011 6:14 am

AndreD wrote:I do enjoy the aesthetics of many of the artworks you posted, especially the aboriginal, pottery, and native American-style examples. Hell, early Greek geometric style is amongst my favourite pottery and it's pretty much nothing more than interesting patterns. It's more the Warhols, the Hirsts, and Malevichs which I dislike - those minimalist abstract shapes and items just don't do anything for me.


Warhol was brilliant! Argh, you're killin' me here, AndreD. It's like saying you like poetry, particularly limericks because they're funny, but you don't think Bukowski or Kerouac were really poets because their stuff doesn't rhyme.. The best part of art is the meaning and ideas behind it, not the splashes of paint or the pretty images.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#72  Postby AndreD » Apr 23, 2011 7:02 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
AndreD wrote:I do enjoy the aesthetics of many of the artworks you posted, especially the aboriginal, pottery, and native American-style examples. Hell, early Greek geometric style is amongst my favourite pottery and it's pretty much nothing more than interesting patterns. It's more the Warhols, the Hirsts, and Malevichs which I dislike - those minimalist abstract shapes and items just don't do anything for me.


Warhol was brilliant! Argh, you're killin' me here, AndreD. It's like saying you like poetry, particularly limericks because they're funny, but you don't think Bukowski or Kerouac were really poets because their stuff doesn't rhyme.. The best part of art is the meaning and ideas behind it, not the splashes of paint or the pretty images.


:grin: I'm not saying these people aren't artists (anyone can be an artist), just that I don't think their work is particularly good so it doesn't appeal to me.
I disagree that all that matters is the meaning behind it. The art should have the potential to evoke significant emotion in the viewer in and of itself and/or be aesthetically pleasing, not merely exist and then have it explained by an associated note, in my opinion.
To follow your analogy, I do think that poetry should follow certain rules, like having a meter - I can't stand that free verse shit. Like striking random keys on a piano might be thought of as music, it isn't pleasant to listen to and as far as I'm concerned, wouldn't be missed if no one ever did it again.

If one wishes to solely express their ideas without incorporating a relatively superior aesthetic quality then I think they should write prose, it's the most suitable format for expressing ideas whilst aesthetics plays a secondary role.
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 32
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#73  Postby def » Apr 23, 2011 8:16 am

AndreD wrote:
It's just my subjective opinion of the thing. As I mentioned in my reply to Def, I like art (I really should limit it to photography, paintings and sculpture, as that is what I mean by 'art' in this context) which provides a visceral experience without the need to layer additional external, third party meaning over the top. Likewise, my reply to Def about where I think intellectual analysis of art is appropriate applies here too.

The thing is, when you know Duchamp, the reaction to the urinal is visceral! The knowledge about it changes its effect. The concept is an aspect of art.
Square Comix on sale! http://gumroad.com/ianm
Square Comix on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SquareComix
User avatar
def
 
Name: LEGO ninja
Posts: 1407
Age: 45
Male

Country: 日本
Japan (jp)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#74  Postby Mike_L » Apr 23, 2011 8:42 am

Monkeys? Bah! I still think that kitties are the better artists....!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwrVcR8MZZI[/youtube]
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 14352
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#75  Postby Tyrannical » Apr 23, 2011 8:47 am

def wrote:
AndreD wrote:
It's just my subjective opinion of the thing. As I mentioned in my reply to Def, I like art (I really should limit it to photography, paintings and sculpture, as that is what I mean by 'art' in this context) which provides a visceral experience without the need to layer additional external, third party meaning over the top. Likewise, my reply to Def about where I think intellectual analysis of art is appropriate applies here too.

The thing is, when you know Duchamp, the reaction to the urinal is visceral! The knowledge about it changes its effect. The concept is an aspect of art.


I could put a picture of Duchamp in the urinal, and then film myself pissing into it :ask:
Perhaps I've underestimated the power of modern art :think:
Good fences make good neighbors
User avatar
Tyrannical
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6708
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#76  Postby def » Apr 23, 2011 9:10 am

Tyrannical wrote:
def wrote:
AndreD wrote:
It's just my subjective opinion of the thing. As I mentioned in my reply to Def, I like art (I really should limit it to photography, paintings and sculpture, as that is what I mean by 'art' in this context) which provides a visceral experience without the need to layer additional external, third party meaning over the top. Likewise, my reply to Def about where I think intellectual analysis of art is appropriate applies here too.

The thing is, when you know Duchamp, the reaction to the urinal is visceral! The knowledge about it changes its effect. The concept is an aspect of art.


I could put a picture of Duchamp in the urinal, and then film myself pissing into it :ask:
Perhaps I've underestimated the power of modern art :think:

You could do that, but it wouldn't mean anything. I don't care to see some anonymous Internet guy piss on a photo.
Learn about Duchamp, learn about who he was and what he did, and then come back and tell us there's no visceral feeling from that piece.

It's not like Duchamp hadn't made technically incredibly beautiful pieces before and after. Those pieces put the urinal in context. That context makes it a tremendous piece.

Your interpretation of the piece is akin to watching a single pivotal scene of a movie, and saying it had no weight because you didn't see the scenes before and after. It's fair for you to have your opinion, everybody's got one, but it's not a particularly enlightening one. You're not even trying to get it. Frankly it's not even one pleasant to engage.

In my first post in the thread, I fully acknowledged that the current gallery/museum system is (I forget the words I used) somewhat of a fraud, but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in your debate style.
Square Comix on sale! http://gumroad.com/ianm
Square Comix on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SquareComix
User avatar
def
 
Name: LEGO ninja
Posts: 1407
Age: 45
Male

Country: 日本
Japan (jp)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#77  Postby NineOneFour » Apr 23, 2011 9:18 am

Honestly, when one gets to the point that one's political stance is so thorough that it extends to what art you find tasteful or distasteful, it's time to take a step back and re-assess your priorities in life, because something is definitely out of whack.
Citizen of the (future) People's Social Democratic Republic of Cascadia.
cascadianow.org

For help managing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), go here. I am able to manage it, and so can you.
User avatar
NineOneFour
 
Name: Yes, I'm an asshole.
Posts: 20906
Age: 51
Male

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

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#78  Postby Tyrannical » Apr 23, 2011 9:27 am

NineOneFour wrote:Honestly, when one gets to the point that one's political stance is so thorough that it extends to what art you find tasteful or distasteful, it's time to take a step back and re-assess your priorities in life, because something is definitely out of whack.


I had no idea you were such a cultured art aficionado :think:
I suppose to a boorish Philistine such as myself it's just where you take a piss :(

Image
Good fences make good neighbors
User avatar
Tyrannical
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6708
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#79  Postby def » Apr 23, 2011 10:12 am

Tyrannical wrote:

I had no idea you were such a cultured art aficionado :think:
I suppose to a boorish Philistine such as myself it's just where you take a piss

I don't know that anyone is throwing around pompous language like that, but you certainly seem to be taking pride in not understanding the concept.
Square Comix on sale! http://gumroad.com/ianm
Square Comix on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SquareComix
User avatar
def
 
Name: LEGO ninja
Posts: 1407
Age: 45
Male

Country: 日本
Japan (jp)
Print view this post

Re: Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

#80  Postby tuco » Apr 23, 2011 10:13 am

So .. what purpose does it have to call something art, pseudo-art and no-art? What is it good for?

I am not sure about others - and I do admit to being a boor, heck I am even damn proud to be one -, but I do not really care how something is labeled, what I care is how I feel when experiencing that something.

So .. is this labeling to tell me how should I feel?
tuco
 
Posts: 15550

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to The Arts & Entertainment

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest