@Alan Clark2 in Liverpool Well, in my humble opinion, if an artist has what I see as genuine talent - by that I mean they can paint a recognisable portrait or landscape - then they are being "serious". If they as adults are painting random coloured blobs that don't look like anything, the sort of thing a young child would paint, then they are having us all on. If somebody "sees" something in the random coloured blobs then ..well it's beyond me. Likewise with piles of bricks etc - if they are arranged in such a way that there's a definable and recognisable shape then maybe that's art. If they are just placed in a straight line then that's talentless. In my opinion.
Leaving a bed unmade is talentless - in my opinion. Thus Tracy Emin's unmade bed is not art. But it was declared as art!! Either we have been duped, or we are fools.
If anything, literally ANYTHING, can be art, if the creator wishes to define it as such, then maybe we are looking at the issue from the wrong perspective.
Perhaps EVERYTHING ought to be defined as art from the outset. Then, and only then, different aspects of this world could be undefined as art.
God made this world for his pleasure, and art is precisely that - something created for the creator's pleasure (even those things created by the original creator's creations).
Thus that makes us all, works of art. Even that piece of pottery, or scribble, becomes art. Of course, that still leaves us with the problem of what and how do we undefine as art.
But you deciding something is art is limited to you. You decide what chicken tastes like don't you? You may think it tastes like coriander - but that doesn't mean others do. BUT because we have an object that is definable (the chicken) at least the opinions can be proven to refer to the same thing. Define art. Most definitions I've seen (including Dove's linked doc on the Definition of Art) uses aesthetics as part of the definition. Who decides on aesthetic properties of something? An expert?....
@Alan Clark2 in Liverpool Well, in my humble opinion, if an artist has what I see as genuine talent - by that I mean they can paint a recognisable portrait or landscape - then they are being "serious". If they as adults are painting random coloured blobs that don't look like anything, the sort of thing a young child would paint, then they are having us all on. If somebody "sees" something in the random coloured blobs then ..well it's beyond me. Likewise with piles of bricks etc - if they are arranged in such a way that there's a definable and recognisable shape then maybe that's art. If they are just placed in a straight line then that's talentless. In my opinion.
Why does a painting have to be of a recognisable object? What is wrong with abstract art, where the picture is the actual object and not merely a representation of an object? Why can't abstract art be beautiful or interesting? How do you know if a blob is random or not?
Isn't there an element of 'The King's New Clothes' to some of the stuff classed as art? As has been said about the unmade bed, it's only classed as art because it was created by a well known artist and therefore it must be art? How a massive canvas painted in a single colour can be classed as art is totally beyond my understanding. The artist may have an explanation for the reason they painted it but does that make it art?
@Alan Clark2 in Liverpool a painting can look like anything at all but if it's just blobs, random or not, it isn't difficult to do. I suppose that's my definition of art - if, to the general public, it's not easy to achieve, then it's art. If anybody can do it, whether it's nice to look at or not, then it's not art
Who decides if it's '...beautiful or interesting...'? An expert or you?
It is not me who said that all things are art - it was mooted by Dove I think within the comment she made. The initial issue was that I said (to me) that Emin's bed wasn't art. Dove said I couldn't decide that. But somebody did - a consensus of experts. So 'somebody' can decide what is and what isn't art. Based on what criteria? A whim? Fashion, trend, monetary gain...? My argument is that I decide what is art FOR ME - but Dove (I think) contends others decide that for me.
When we moved from classical art to modern art isn't there a vested interest involved?
What I mean is that we all know people look, buy, like/dislike folr a variety of reasons. Some people will use art as an investment (so may even buy punkdoc's novel as a gamble for the future), some because they collect a certain style - whatever - a myriad of reasons. Isn't it also then a vested interest for galleries etc to have artworks to exhibit and don't 'off the wall' works of art (to some) draw attention? Do then works of 'art' exist because somebody needs it to and is now promoted as art when it would never have been seen as art in the past when there wasn't a market for it? Hence my TARDIS comment - what do you think Vermeer (and I pick him as didn't he use pinhole cameras (camera obscura) to get images correct?) would make of Emin's bed?
If anything, literally ANYTHING, can be art, if the creator wishes to define it as such, then maybe we are looking at the issue from the wrong perspective.
Perhaps EVERYTHING ought to be defined as art from the outset. Then, and only then, different aspects of this world could be undefined as art.
God made this world for his pleasure, and art is precisely that - something created for the creator's pleasure (even those things created by the original creator's creations).
Thus that makes us all, works of art. Even that piece of pottery, or scribble, becomes art. Of course, that still leaves us with the problem of what and how do we undefine as art.
But you deciding something is art is limited to you. You decide what chicken tastes like don't you? You may think it tastes like coriander - but that doesn't mean others do. BUT because we have an object that is definable (the chicken) at least the opinions can be proven to refer to the same thing. Define art. Most definitions I've seen (including Dove's linked doc on the Definition of Art) uses aesthetics as part of the definition. Who decides on aesthetic properties of something? An expert?....
But if we define everything as art, then the decision is taken out of our hands. If there cannot be a consensus that a certain item is not art, then it remains art.
I'm happy with that. An item does not have to be aesthetically pleasing, to be art, I agree. And if everything is defined as art, then there cannot be an expert on everything - except the Creator of everything.
One could become well versed in one or more areas, but not everything, since no-one can be God. They might like to think they are, but . . . . .
Posts
But it was declared as art!!
Either we have been duped, or we are fools.
I'm happy with that. An item does not have to be aesthetically pleasing, to be art, I agree. And if everything is defined as art, then there cannot be an expert on everything - except the Creator of everything.
One could become well versed in one or more areas, but not everything, since no-one can be God. They might like to think they are, but . . . . .