"Art" - a One Word Oxymoron

Discussion in 'Art & Culture' started by RenaissanceMan, Nov 16, 2010.

  1. RenaissanceMan RenaissanceMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    193
    I will be happy to.
    On Page 1 you wrote:


    It's "great art" - it isn't, you say.

    How many of the Defenders of Dreck here would begin to pay large sums of money for Crap As Art?

    Nobody.

    In the meantime, public tax dollars in bankrupt America have better uses than purchasing ANY "art" much less crap such as shown, some of which is intended to be offensive.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    I remember some years back having a tutor express the concept of art, he implied that you could hang a picture frame on a wall and call it art. It's not the frame that was the art but the fact that you would have within the frame something of absolute pure clarity, or technically "Nothing" which is what art can be about.

    Some people that are termed Artists have tried to come to terms with various things that most people don't necessarily see, take for instance Damien Hurst's work (although to some that would be the absence of work)

    It can be implied that an artist might sometimes feel a pawn or vessel to other peoples interpretations of art, when they see a feat before them they either complain that it's not complete if it's their own or are astonished at an accomplishment they didn't feel they could complete. It therefore generates the notion that the artist is potentially just fullfilling some role within causality, playing a part and not actually doing what art is truly about having the Freedom of Expression.

    So in Hurst's efforts you could probably apply that dumping rubbish on the ground was an attempt to undermine this causality underpining and regain some freedom of expression through Chaos....

    Did however it work? Well it's still something that is "Observed" and therefore never truly Free from Causality.

    (incidentally this doesn't just befall artists, but writers , poets and musicians alike)
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I rather like it. I tend to like abstract art, even minimalist such as this one. I don't have $60 million to pay for anything, but I suppose some of the more modestly priced hypermodern art my wife and I have on our walls is stuff that you wouldn't like. Ever hear of Mikhail Chemiakin?

    Isn't it wonderful that everybody's different, so we don't all appreciate the same stuff?

    Your reaction to that painting is about the same as my reaction to rap music. Obviously it connects with a lot of people. More power to 'em.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  9. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,532
    I liked most of those.

    But, you know what they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No, you have to hate art, otherwise you are an elitist socialist degenerate. Of course this excludes the work of Thomas Kincaid, Normal Rockwell, and the sculpture of Frederic Remington.
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Uh, NormaL Rockwell?
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    How many of them have that kind of money to spend on discretionary purchases of that magnitude?

    If I had a spare $60 million, I might well decide to invest in the above artwork, especially since it is only likely to increase in value over time. It's like buying land or shares.

    Ah! So here's a glimmer of an argument at last. Earlier I urged you to look into just how much public money is spent purchasing art. Did you do your homework? What percentage of your taxes goes to purchasing art?
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    LOL, Freudian slip.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You are wrong.

    Although the intolerance, widespread degradation and separation from Christian values as well as historical knowledge, and deeply inculcated meanness of spirit it has revealed in the reactions to its existence

    as well as the reverence for their redemption as depicted in its subject

    do exist in the work.

    If Christians actually embodied the teachings and faith they assert, actually believed, that photograph would have been copied into stained glass windows in half the new churches in the US. It would make a beautiful window.
     
  15. Killjoy Propelling The Farce!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,297
    I'd like it on my shower curtain...

    I wonder if there's a way to have one made with that image printed on it.

    LoL

    You never know...


    No.

    Found these while conducting a brief search using his name.

    Funk-O-Delic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    No doubt about it.




    I'd buy a tank.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    $60 million for a tank? Wow, I could do a piece of artwork with a tank in it for FAR less man. . .

    How about something along these lines?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Killjoy Propelling The Farce!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,297
    `
    Those lack "Propulsive Dynamism"... ...or something.

    I'm thinking more like this:
    :mufc:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    Ohhh. . . You're more into performance art I see. . .
     
  19. RenaissanceMan RenaissanceMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    193
    Cows in formaldehyde, crucifixes in urine - they're what inflation is all ABOUT! Jump in now! The water's fine. How about some nice tulip bulbs, eh? Only $100,000 for this beauty. You game?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2010
  20. ejderha Exhausted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Dear people, posts in this thread are pretty embarrassing for a science forum.

    I think the general outlook is a solid evidence on how people percieve human development in history.

    What do you really think? That these people just started to spill paint randomly, suddenly developped an irresistable urge to draw geometric shapes, crap all over, or one morning after breakfast devoted themselves to building sculptures from corpses and to stuffing great whites?

    Art has transcended 'beauty' and all its ideals more than a hundred years ago. It doesn't have to please anyone. It doesn't have to make you relax or emotionally receptive. Or vice versa. It's a form of expression. It is not required to be holy,good,right or about the truth. It's beyond and above every form of communication we know.

    For something to be considered as a work of art, there are so many conditions, it cannot be put in a standart academic definition because the work is not required to cover all of them but only one. As the first condition that it's produced or reproduced and of course put in exhibition, that's enough. That's why the concept art is accepted as a cluster concept and it's considered as 'impossible' to compose. (I still believe we can find a way out, don't worry.) And which ones will be vindicated by history, that depends on the same conditions.

    Isn't there any crap out there pretending to be art? Yes sure, many. As it's the case with everything.

    Most of you are Westerners. And it's so IRONIC that the entire development of Western culture, concerning independent thought and human development is based on artistic development through history; a fight against anything oppressing the individual and critical expression now gets damned by its most citizens who, at every opportunity jump onto a wagon criticising anything Non-Western.

    Tip: Did you know that only decades ago, people who cannot understand contemporary art was called "Palestinian" by the art philosophers in European, Anglo Saxon-American tradition in articles and academic writings.

    I can go further and claim that, the whole artistic development in history is the reason of this never ending cynical -now become meaningless and ignorant- attitude of the 21st century individual.

    Now, the painting that looks like something your kid would do in 3rd grade art class (I didn't even know people still used this pathetic cliché) is made at the begining of 20th Century and a perfect example of modern art. We are living in the hypermodernist era -where&when you need to learn art theory, if you're really interested in art- so it is ancient. It's already belonged to art history, it served its function and long been vindicated.

    Tip: To put it like a 3rd grade child would understand: Contemporary art and modern art are two very different things.

    I am not trying to be a smart ass. I feel responsible. If this was a physics thread, it would get violent soon after the half page.

    To put Malevich in the same place with a 3rd grader is the same thing to post a thread in physics forum and write: "Heisenberg is a jerk! Um, because, I think he is." Or to claim that modern art ruined and rotted the concept of art is the same thing what Stephen Hawking said about blaming Einstein for the atom bomb; it's same as blaming Newton for plane crashes.

    I demand inquisitive minds and historical perspective.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2010
  21. ejderha Exhausted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Yes it is. And obviously, I mean that the posts should have been better.

    It's not 'logic', it's sarcasm. You may find it weak, but it is.

    I'm sure, I make many mistakes while writing and speaking in English. It's my second language and I never visited or lived in an English speaking country.
    But, I think what I am trying to tell is understandable.

    Why would you do that? In what part of the post I suggested anyone to stop enjoying classics?

    What I wrote in that post is not my 'personal' opinion. They are general facts on art and art history. If you knew the first thing about art, it wouldn't sound so alien.

    It's not a declaration. I simply feel responsible, because I am an art historian.


    What does this mean?
     
  22. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
  23. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Wow that's really cutting edge stuff! You maverick!
     

Share This Page