[PharmACT]

awesome

but this shows the truth, art is in the minds of the beholder..

Jon Miller

[Theateetetuig]

[indianstory]

This is great.


However, if it proves anything, it's that some people look for any excuse to denounce art.

[Peptobismol]

"Given their separate submission, the two parts were judged independently," it said in a statement. "The head was rejected. The base was thought to have merit and accepted. I think that sums up a lot of this sort of stuff, really...

[NickGrass]

Originally posted by General Ludd
This is great.


However, if it proves anything, it's that some people look for any excuse to denounce art. Uhh...no

[MariaBeautys]

There is no denying the artistic merit of the classics, but modern art proves that relativism is feeble.

[Afigenatjola]

Well yeah, you can't get much more pretentious than taking something ludicrously simple and acting like it's better than "The School of Athens," based on the poststructuralist paradigms of exploded dichotomies of spatial perception or what-have-you.

For similar fun, look up "The Sokal Affair" in Wikipedia, in which a frustrated physicist submits complete gibberish to a respected PoMo journal, gets it published, and then draws attention to the ludicrousness of what he said...

[Marat]

Always pleasing to see that the people who've got no clue about human culture either control nuclear arsenals or couchsupport them as armchair generals.

[HondasMenFox]

If you accept the idea that art does not have to be artefactual and can be natural, then why would you reject an object on the basis it wasn't intended as art?

[maxsobq]

a) I think that when extending the definition of art beyond deliberate creative works intended to communicate with other human beings one must be extremely careful.

b) The people who accepted this work were obviously under the impression that it was "artifactual", as you put it. The message they received from it was therefore most definitely not the same message they would have received if they had known the origin of the "work". The fact that the product of random chance can so easily approximate deliberate art is a sad statement about the state of the artistic world today.

[chuecalovers]

What they said about Turner:

Academic painters continues to complained that Turner had lost all form in a haze of light. Although his paintings became more abstract in expression he was able to maintain a delicate balance in the structure of elements within his paintings...something that was hotly debated as time went on. http://ellensplace.net/turner4.html

Turner does interior decorating:

[LongaDonga]

There is some sense to a, but I don't agree at all with b. The fact is that artifactuality is a significant chunk of today's discourse about art. Art critics are well aware that a lot of what they consider art can be found in the forest or made by a 5 year old.
I'm quite willing to bet that the guy who did the 'mistake' does not feel ashamed. After all, this incident is a striking, pragmatic instance of contemporary art: self-reference, metadiscourse, etc. It's an avatar of an abstract problem, and thus is interesting in itself.

[SarSerceSaice]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
There is some sense to a, but I don't agree at all with b. The fact is that artifactuality is a significant chunk of today's discourse about art. Art critics are well aware that a lot of what they consider art can be found in the forest or made by a 5 year old.
I'm quite willing to bet that the guy who did the 'mistake' does not feel ashamed. After all, this incident is a striking, pragmatic instance of contemporary art: self-reference, metadiscourse, etc. It's an avatar of an abstract problem, and thus is interesting in itself. What a mass of semi-sensical propositions.

[Uzezqelj]

Perhaps, but you're assuming that gallery selectors take all works as being artifactual, which is simply false. You may not care about the rest (it's not like your reaction surprises me), but you're wrong on this basic issue.

[Acalsenunse]

Quite the opposite actually... probably didn't know, and probably don't give a **** either because absurdities are not uncommon in the field of contemporary art.

[casinochniks]

Take Warhol's Brillo boxes for instance. He piled some of them in a gallery... and it was art. But why aren't those you see piled up in a supermarket? Questions like this are super-basic and everyone in the field knows about them. That's why Siro's thread title is completely out of touch with reality. There is no crap involved in this because the problem of the perception of art is a preferred topic of today's artists, just like 3D projection was in the 15th century.

edit: xpost

[tropicana]

Seriously, your contention here is pretty stupid. If a significant percentage of what you define as "art" is indistinguishable from random ****ing collections of objects then I'm going to have to go ahead and say that "art" as you define it is valueless.

Art is communication. When meaningless coincidence is as likely to produce art as is deliberate effort then something has gone terribly wrong.

[koebforfrn]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Take Warhol's Brillo boxes for instance. He piled some of them in a gallery... and it was art. But why aren't those you see piled up in a supermarket? The question is meaningless, because I don't necessarily accept the predicate assumption that Warhol's Brillo boxes were art.

[Mr_White]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Monet and Turner created paintings which to all intents and purposes (that is, if you didn't know their titles) would appear to be abstract art. Errr....no (at least not the Turner paintings you posted).

The railroad bridge to the left in Rain, Steam, Speed (or whatever) is obvious, and its existence makes the locomotive visible. I don't even know the title of the second Turner painting, but the archway and some details of the room are quite apparent.

[Anneskobsen]

Originally posted by molly bloom
No, you said 'most' people. What the **** are you on, son? I said "most people" and I still say "most people". You said that you'd seen people quite moved by abstract works (which are actually not completely abstract), and I said that while I do know some people who are, I also know more people who aren't. Which means that "most people" I know aren't.

A > B
A + B = 1
=> A > 0.5