?

Log in

No account? Create an account
What is art? - Chronarchy

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Chronarchy.com

Links
Ár nDraíocht Féin
Three Cranes
MySpace
Chaos Matrix
OSU PSA

October 5th, 2004


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
12:39 pm - What is art?
I do not believe that this is art.

I believe that this is.

I do not believe that this is art.

I believe that this is.

I do not believe that this is art

I believe that this is.

I do not believe that this is art.

I believe that this is.

I do not believe that this is art.

I believe that this is.

I do not believe that this is art.

I believe that this is.

I know exactly what is art, and what is not.
Current Mood: annoyedannoyed
Current Music: "Last Mango in Paris", -JB
Tags: ,

(50 comments Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:tlachtga
Date:October 5th, 2004 10:12 am (UTC)
(Link)
Art is opinion.

Art is artifice--a fake, something invented. Something created. It's only opinion which decides if it is art in big, flowing letters and expensive glossy books.

Of course, I think you're wrong about those glass doors. And Warhol. But that's opinion again.
From:ravenlaughing
Date:October 5th, 2004 10:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
No see, perfect example of each to their own. I personally don't think a picture of a soup can is art. But you have every right to think so. But I'm willing to bet it took more talent to make the stained glass than the soup can.
[User Picture]
From:tlachtga
Date:October 5th, 2004 10:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
See, there's a question--how do we quantify talent? How do we measure the amount of talent it took to make those glass doors (did the glasscutter come up with them, or was there a designer who directed him?) or to come up with the soup can? To decide to turn the soup can into "art"? (And to realize that it's satirizing art?)
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:October 5th, 2004 10:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
Art is not based on the amount of "talent" something takes.

If that were the case, then playing the piano would also be art. It is not.
[User Picture]
From:tlachtga
Date:October 5th, 2004 10:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
Isn't it? It's a type of art--the art of music. It depends on how you want to define "art." What is your definition of "art"?
[User Picture]
From:anivair
Date:October 5th, 2004 11:19 am (UTC)
(Link)
Playing the piano is art. it's not graphic art, but it's art.
[User Picture]
From:smithing_chick
Date:October 5th, 2004 11:44 am (UTC)
(Link)
Techically speaking, music in any form is also an art. It's not a visual art, obviously, but it is an art (hence my musician friend with an Masters of Fine Arts in Tuba). Theater & writing are also forms of art.
[User Picture]
From:smithing_chick
Date:October 5th, 2004 11:36 am (UTC)
(Link)
I would have thought so, too, until I started printmaking. In fact, I generally considered Warhol to be a master of marketing & promotion & not a graphic artist until I took printmaking.
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:October 5th, 2004 10:29 am (UTC)
(Link)
Art is not necessarily created.

Were the soup can being used in a compromising manner, I might be inclined to agree.
[User Picture]
From:tlachtga
Date:October 5th, 2004 10:32 am (UTC)
(Link)
That's not art. It's beautiful, but it's not art. That's the difference people seem to forget. For something to be art, it must be somehow created by people, it can't be a natural phenomenon. This doesn't detract from the beauty of nature, but the very word "art" means that which is created--artifice, artificial, artifact.
From:ravenlaughing
Date:October 5th, 2004 11:16 am (UTC)
(Link)
I agree. the dictionary even states in the first few words it must be created by a human.
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:October 5th, 2004 02:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The dictionary is the last word on art?
[User Picture]
From:anivair
Date:October 5th, 2004 11:18 am (UTC)
(Link)
Actually, there are very few things that he linked to that are not, technically, art. Now he and you and I may or may not feel specific ways about the quality of the art or the meaning of the art. it may make us made or it may be dumb, but that doesn't mean it's not art. If I blow two notes, that was a song. It was just probably a crappy song.
People get very caught up in hte notion that art has to be beautiful, or good, or evoke strong positive emotions. I direct those people to the Piss Christ, possibly one of hte most important pieces of art of the last decade, but doubtlessly not pretty or positive and it made most people downright angry. Still art.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:October 5th, 2004 02:12 pm (UTC)

Re: Picking nits for fun and profit

(Link)
A devil's advocate. Always welome :)

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com