"Art" - a One Word Oxymoron

RenaissanceMan said:
Why don't we defund your city, and your children's and grandchildren's schools, and your parks, and your streets and bridges maintenance, and your sanitation departments, and give that money to...
Click to expand...

Too late, Republicans are already doing that:
A 21 percent cut across-the-board would take about $15 billion from education. A 21 percent cut in Pell Grants would subtract almost $5 billion from the program.​
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2010/db20101027_024098.htm
 
3127154653_d5927b828d.jpg


73aa8ec432ff8941_IMG_8724.xxlarge.JPG
 
How they probably looked in real life. Which is funny when you see our stark White Marble monuments in Washington. Irony?

ph2008050200970-copy.jpg
 
Last edited:
What's your point, Michael? That only traditional representative art is real art? Those are nice, but this kind of art is only a limited part of the spectrum of creativity.
 
RenaissanceMan said:
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?
Click to expand...
You think the art market is going to collapse like the tulip market? When do you imagine that will happen? And why? Do you think people will wake up to the Emperor's new clothes the same way you have, with your wide appreciation and understanding of art?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
spidergoat said:
What's your point, Michael? That only traditional representative art is real art? Those are nice, but this kind of art is only a limited part of the spectrum of creativity.
Click to expand...
Actually, I had to go do some work so I didn't get to finish :eek: I was going to show how classical Greek sculpture (often considered "art") started in one way and evolved to ... and I got to the Edgar Degas, Little 14 year-old Dancer (which was hated when it first was presented - she seemed too "dumb looking") .... when I had to leave. Anyway, the last picture was going to be this (which I happen to really like)


Walking+Man+I.jpg





You know, a sort of evolution of sculptor - which helps make sense WHY you have some funny looking "art" - as it's being built upon 1000s of years of work.
 
Micheal, they are more historical artefacts than work of arts. Including the Giacometti. That doesn't mean they are not art. They are lovely...zzzz.

Actually the Degas you posted is probably his best...zzzzz.
 
RenaissanceMan said:
"Art" is now a one-word oxymoron, thanks to crap such as can be seen here.

whencrapisart.blogspot.com
Click to expand...

Art appreciation is entirely subjective.
The amount of money paid for items of art is generally the business of private buyers. If governments choose to spend public money on works they consider of national importance, whatever their content, then that can be and is a matter of public debate.
 
RenaissanceMan said:
http://www.museumofbadart.org/

Since so many of you are so intent on defending Crap, here's another website for you. Enjoy! It's SO you.
Click to expand...

There, there. I see, it's heart breaking for you to imagine the great romantic and beautiful notion of art hyped by 19th century scholars is also a good bull'shit'.

Oh yes, the great Renaissance! Il Divino's marble flesh! The most praised of all mortals crowning the man in his rightful throne. It's so mesmerising and monumental isn't it? Oh and the Baroque! Takes yourself from you and in that god sent light, adds you to the divine... Can you feel the music, yet?

Slap!

Surprise! "Renaissance" has nothing to do with all that.

If you really 'love' art and if you really are interested in it as you claim, it's better the soon you realise, i.e. Mona Lisa is just a painting and the whole crap that's been attributed to it has nothing to do with it's real artistic qualifications or place in history. That doesn't mean you should stop enjoying the painting or stop 'admiring' Leonardo.

May be you should stop reading Janson's history of art and the coffe table books selling soft porn angelic themes and turn off televangelistic 'documentaries' pumped in brains everywhere under the name of cultural development. Then you will enjoy art. Fully. I promise. Fully back to the The Agony and the Ecstasy,lol.
 
wsionynw said:
Art appreciation is entirely subjective.
The amount of money paid for items of art is generally the business of private buyers. If governments choose to spend public money on works they consider of national importance, whatever their content, then that can be and is a matter of public debate.
Click to expand...

It's also a part of any possible performance. If I remember correctly, Damien Hirst bought one of his own works back for a huge amount of money. It's considered as a performance.

'Subjectiveness' is an important condition, but in this case most importantly, art is institutional. Exhibiting, curating, buying art works are closely related with this issue. Even 'teaching' it.

'Appreciation' is personal. Here the pont is 'Evaluation' of art. Which goes back to the subject and question of "What's the required set of conditions that would make a work, work of art?"
 
ejderha said:
It's also a part of any possible performance. If I remember correctly, Damien Hirst bought one of his own works back for a huge amount of money. It's considered as a performance.

'Subjectiveness' is an important condition, but in this case most importantly, art is institutional. Exhibiting, curating, buying art works are closely related with this issue. Even 'teaching' it.

'Appreciation' is personal. Here the pont is 'Evaluation' of art. Which goes back to the subject and question of "What's the required set of conditions that would make a work, work of art?"
Click to expand...

Well the market for art is driven by many things I'm sure, only history can decide on what art becomes important and of continued interest.

I love Magritte but hate Warhol...but I wouldn't argue one is art and one isn't.

Hirst and many others like him are simply making hay while the sun shines. As long as it keeps artists off the bread line I really don't care what pieces change hands for.
The market for contemporary art is fascinating, and perhaps a little silly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_Through_The_Gift_Shop
 
wsionynw said:
I love Magritte but hate Warhol...but I wouldn't argue one is art and one isn't.
Click to expand...

Oh, Warhol is hated by the many. With different reasons. Mostly people think he is a hoax, disgusting, repulsive, cheap...mainly created garbage and nothing.

But none of it changes the fact that that freaky son of a bitch changed how we percieve art and art history in an irrversible way only a few did among thousands.

Art philosophical interpretation of the Brillo Box opens questions goes beyond the limit of what's art and what's not and messing up with some definitions of fundemantal concepts. Like knowledge and its conditions. Like, we cannot define art, because we still can't define knowledge within its full set of conditions.

I find this fascinating, because it doesn't look like just a fissure in a structure long dead, becoming a crack to fire back to it's very own object. It has nothing to do with art in an angle. Besides, art's autonomy is still intact and who cares if art history is dead.

It's also scary, because it means we need a fundemental change; a revolution in social sciences regarding artistic productions of any kind.

Well, I don't know. It's already the turn of the century. And nothing yet. :bawl:
 
James R said:
You think the art market is going to collapse like the tulip market? When do you imagine that will happen? And why? Do you think people will wake up to the Emperor's new clothes the same way you have, with your wide appreciation and understanding of art?
Click to expand...

I have not the slightest doubt that human stupidity will continue, as it has, for thousands of years. It is the nature of the beast. You are welcome to enjoy *art* as you see it. I will do likewise.
One question, however. As you know, the architecture of the Baroque period correlates to the paintings as well as to the music of that time. The same is true of classical art, architecture, and music. These artistic eras were so powerful, so masterful that they virtually define the standard of excellence.
What symphony written in the past decade can possibly compare with Beethoven's 5th, 6th, or 7th? What concerto written in the last decade is remotely as beautiful as Vivaldi's Four Seasons? For that matter, can YOU or anyone else here even NAME a symphony or concerto written in the last 10 years?

Now what would music sould like that was patterned after ink splattered on a canvas? Or squares and triangles drawn on a white background? Music written as amateurishly as such "art" would have the sound of people screaming in their death throes, and a traffic accident followed by a huge conflagration. There is no parallel for music to the dreck presented on WhenCrapIsArt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top