The concept of 'art'

[HBK-aholic]

Looking through winners of the Turner Prize in recent years, it honestly astounds me what is considered art. In 2001, Martin Creed won the award for having a room where the lights turned on and off. You can go to an Art museum and see everything from a Urinal to lines on a page, or some swirls, to some bricks on the floor and have it considered art. I really don't see this. I see a urinal. I see a room with a dodgy light switch, I see something my daughter could have done when she was younger given some pens, and I see some bricks on the floor.

It's very middle class to 'enjoy' these things. I use the word enjoy lightly, as I have a suspicion many of the people viewing these do so to look good, or smart in front of 'intellectual' friends. But even so, people DO go and view these things in the name of art. Why? What do you see from them? Do you enjoy this, or see it as pointless and not art like I do?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Oooooohhhh!!! I love the Philosophy Of Art! Good topic!

For art like the kind you mentioned, I think it helps when the artist herself is there to explain the intent behind the piece. I went to NYC's Museum Of Modern Art about eight or so years ago, and I saw some pieces of art very similar to the ones that you mention. Maybe I didn't have the "imaginative capacities" necessary to appreciate them, but, like you, I just saw trash glued together, toilets, etc.

However, I think it's important for people to recognize that not all art has to be as detailed and intricate as the paintings produced by such artists as Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Dali, etc. My favorite artist is Roy Liechtenstein, and his work could be seen by some as nothing more than blown-up cartoon strips.

 

[Blue Chipper]

The thing about art is that it is straightforwardly vague. Art is so subjective. The saying "Another man's trash is another man's treasure" applies here. I don't think you understand that. A said art piece may not appeal to you, but that doesn't make it any less of an art piece. You see so many art pieces that you deem weird because they likely are weird, because art has no boundaries and can be interpreted differently.

The people that like to view these are probably upper-class and have a fairly good amount of money. I think they just genuinely enjoy viewing art; I don't believe they want to appear any more snobbish.

 

[X]

The thing about art is that it is straightforwardly vague. Art is so subjective. The saying "Another man's trash is another man's treasure" applies here. I don't think you understand that. A said art piece may not appeal to you, but that doesn't make it any less of an art piece. You see so many art pieces that you deem weird because they likely are weird, because art has no boundaries and can be interpreted differently.

You've basically summed up what I was going to say perfectly here BC. Art is the single most subjective thing on this planet in my opinion, but I'm of the belief that absolutely anything and everything can and is art really. There's artistry in everything from painting to software design to even professional wrestling.

I'm your typical pseudo-beatnik transcendentalist fellow though who hangs off the every word of Kerouac and Whitman. I've had arguments on this forum several time with people in particular over the written word and what is and isn't "art", specifically the lyrics of Kurt Cobain and Bob Dylan among others. A few people on here are really dismissive of freeform poetry and frankly it pisses me off. If they can't stand Cobain's lyrics I can only imagine what they'd think of e.e. cummings or Allen Ginsberg.

I've found artistry in everything from a muffin to a meme though so I suppose you'll have to take my opinion with a grain of salt. I am after all this forum's resident pinko hippie (and proud of it).

 

[Barbedwire Ropes]

What can I say here that hasn't already been said by BC and Eko? To which they both summed things up so elegantly.....

Well, for me, art can be anything. I've been known to stand in front of the trees blowing in the wind and watch them dance for hours. For some reason, I am absolutely drawn in to that. To me, its a wonder of nature, its beautiful and to me that in itself is art.

Personally, I think art is naturally occuring. The human brain creates art a million times a day. Would daydreaming not be considered to be some form of art?

Art is all in how it impacts the person viewing it. Some art is purposely created to make the viewer say "Why is there a urinal inside a clean, well-kept art gallery". All art has purpose. I bet the person who ceated that peice was hoping someone would walk upto it and actually use it, to "complete" the peice. It wouldnt suprise me, and even though I wouldnt want to watch a man urinate inside a public art gallery, the concept of it has artistic merit.

Art's purpose is to create thought. If Art has you thinking about it, asking question, posting topics on forums, then Art has done its job.

 

[Tastycles]

If it wasn't spam, I'd literally just post this video:



But, alas, I'll have to vocalise my opinion. The thing is with modern art etc is that its all contextual. Most of it is highly pretentious, and the vast majority of it is completely shit, but in some of it there is a certain beauty. Art is about what the person who made it wants to express, and basically modern art is an extreme manifestation of that. There are all sorts of pretentious reasons you can extrapolate, but that's what it is. If you see a bedroom, that's all it is, but you have to think about why the artist has made that their art. Unless you see that, its just a urinal in an empty room and nobody but the most pretentious cockend would say that they "get" every piece of art.

I like a lot of art because I find it aesthetically appealing, such as Liechtenstein and Van Gogh. But at the end of the day, that is just blown up comic books and a shit picture of some flowers respectively when taken at face value.

 

[CardiffCam]

In my eyes, art should be either something that looks pretty, or when you look at it, instantly conveys an emotion or a message of some sort. If you show 10 people a work of art, and they cant unaminously see the message, its not art.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Do you enjoy this, or see it as pointless and not art like I do?

I've often struggled to understand stuff like this myself. For something to be considered a work of "art" it needs to appeal to one of the senses in a rather positive way. Paintings are art. Good music is art. However if something does not look or sound pleasant, then how is it art? A crushed can is not art, it's a crushed can. A car window full of dead bugs is not art, it's a car window full of dead bugs. It's weird when such random things can be thought of as "art" because they art should be restricted to things that appeal to one's senses, mainly sight and sound.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Anything can be considered art. From an epic symphony to some douchebacg who splatters paint on a canvas to express the angst of the forgotten generation. The thing about it though, is that most art is shit. Everyone is an artist. Every expresses themselves in a unique way. You could call speaking Barack Obama's art or seduction, Bill Clinton's. But, any way you slice it, for the most part, only the exceptional artists (or the well marketed get noticed). That, is simply because, most art is shit.

 

[antfarm612]

My art teacher said art has to be intentional. So I would only consider a work 'art' if there is some intention behind it.

 

[BladeRunner]

Art is about Aesthetics.

Aesthetics is about beauty.

Art is about seeing the beauty in something. Anything.

Sometimes, when we watch a sad movie, it may make us cry. Why do we cry? Because we identify with the situation. But we're not truly unhappy. In fact, we're appreciating the beauty of the movie.

If we experience suffering through a perspective, it can give us beauty. You can draw a beautiful skeleton for instance.

Sure there are the normal things many find beautiful. And beauty is about whatever you love in something. You can find wrestling beautiful in it's movements.

What I'm saying is that you happened to have not found beauty in that paritcular art, but someone else did. Art is just when somebody sees something that has real meaning to them and trys to display that. But it doesn't have to be beautiful in the literal sense as my example shows.

 

[Father:_Polley]

Art by nature is completely conceptual. Gather together 10 artists and set them in a room with different props, they will all produce different pieces working with what is given to them.

Personally, I'm not an art lover. My fiancee studied art and I've been round a gallery or two. What I like is different to what she liked, and while I got see the beauty in it, I didn't like it. (I'd say skill, but there was a video of a camera left in water by the shore... there's no skill there, it's just a video of water!). Everyone's going to have their preference.

I may (and do) hate Picasso's work, and love an 'unknown' painter's still life work. Modern sculpture is in my view, for the most part crap - a broken oven isn't art, it's something you threw out for a reason and decided to pretend it's art - whilest the sculptures of Rodin are fascinating due to the energy, time and dedication they took.

Basically, to use the cliche... I believe art to me is a case of 'I don't know art, but I know what I like'