So what is art, anyway?

MiniFoo · Post by **MiniFoo** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 5:30 pm

Which is better...

Exploding shit or Dunnboyz's "comic"?

That's fucking hilarious!!!!!!!!!!! Anyway I once saw a picture called "green curve". Over $20,000.

I'd pay for a framed picture of the post above me, tho. Covered with shit.

Sortelli · Post by **Sortelli** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 6:36 pm

I think the reason the afore-mentioned art teacher claims that illustration is not art stems from his own desire to promote what he likes and what he doesn't like. Screw him. He is only, after all, an art teacher.

Axe, by your own definition the arson and urination you describe would be art so long as you were going to do it whether or not you got paid for it. To this, I say, "WTF???"

Getting people to agree on what art is is like getting people to agree on pizza toppings.

Chascraw4d · Post by **Chascraw4d** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 8:51 pm

Ghastly wrote:P.S.

The artist claimed that the exploding nature of the work was exactly what he had intended to happen when he designed it.

Personally I think he didn't realize that would happen and it was a lucky/unlucky co-incidence.

It has always been my contention that regardless of whether what they produce is considered art, anyone who can say 'I meant to do that' with a straight face has every right to consider themselves an artist.

Krazy Krow · Post by **Krazy Krow** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 9:28 pm

I was wondering if the canned feces was an urban legend, so I searched for it and found this:
"From time to time News of the Weird has reported on the fluctuating value of
the late Italian artist Piero Manzoni's personal feces, which he canned in
1961, 30 grams at a time in 90 tins, as art objects (though over the years 45
have reportedly exploded). Their price to collectors has varied from about
$28,000 for a tin in 1998 to $75,000 in 1993. In June 2002, the Tate Gallery
in London excitedly announced it had purchased tin No. 004 for about $38,000.
(The price of 30 grams of gold at press time was a little over $300.)"

Tell you what, I'll cut you a deal. I'll sell my feces for their weight in gold, a savings of a 99% compared to those of Piero Manzoni.

Melancholy Chinese · Post by **Melancholy Chinese** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 7:31 am

Sounds like your art teacher needs to go and get a real job. Art "profs" for the most part are bitter failed artists who spend their days ruining the minds of young art students. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Ghastly · Post by **Ghastly** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 7:48 am

The Canadian National Art Gallery is pretty famous for spending insane amounts of money for pure and utter crap just because someone "famous" (i.e. know to a bunch of elitist snobs but nobody else) made it.

One of the worst I can remember from sometime in the late 80s was when they spent 13 million dollars for a painting that was a blue strip on one side... a red strip in the middle... and another blue strip on the other side.

I'm sorry, it doesn't matter how pretty the blue and red stripes are there's no fricken way that something painted with three strokes of a paint roller is worth 13 fricken million dollars.

That's insane!

But since this piece of crap was painted by someone in with the elitists it was somehow justified.

I can't help but think that the artist is somewhere laughing is fricken ass off and thinking "suckers!"

Sortelli · Post by **Sortelli** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 9:13 am

Ah... patrons of the arts. As they say "A fool and his money are soon parted"

I snickered a bit when I read about some kid at a fancy gallery. All these people are strolling along, oohing and aahing at the fancy exhibits, when they see this kid sitting on the floor re-arranging coins in different patterns. Of course, they all thought this was some sort of performance exhibit or something, so everyone crowded around to watch. The kid, however, was just yanking all of their chains. He laughed at them all and walked away.

Dragonsong12 · Post by **Dragonsong12** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 3:25 pm

Sortelli wrote:I think the reason the afore-mentioned art teacher claims that illustration is not art stems from his own desire to promote what he likes and what he doesn't like. Screw him. He is only, after all, an art teacher.

Good point

Sortelli wrote:Getting people to agree on what art is is like getting people to agree on pizza toppings.

I think I have to agree with that, although it's interesting to get all these different views on what art is. I've been realizing that I don't really have any idea of what art is, and that I never have, I just go by what other people tell me. Some of what you guys have been saying is making a lot of sense. And I think that Dunnboyz up there is some nice art!

Sortelli · Post by **Sortelli** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 3:42 pm

It's good to reflect on "What is art?", and it's good to reflect on what you are doing. But whatever you do, don't doubt yourself or let a teacher dictate everything you think. With any teacher, art teachers doubly so, you have to take the lessons with a grain of salt.

Hey, in fact, the next time you discuss this with your teacher and he tells you something, make a show out of eating a grain of salt. He'd probably think it was brilliant... or else maybe he'd flunk you.

Jamie! · Post by **Jamie!** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 4:28 pm

Krazy Krow wrote:I was wondering if the canned feces was an urban legend, so I searched for it and found this:
"From time to time News of the Weird has reported on the fluctuating value of
the late Italian artist Piero Manzoni's personal feces, which he canned in
1961, 30 grams at a time in 90 tins, as art objects (though over the years 45
have reportedly exploded). Their price to collectors has varied from about
$28,000 for a tin in 1998 to $75,000 in 1993. In June 2002, the Tate Gallery
in London excitedly announced it had purchased tin No. 004 for about $38,000.
(The price of 30 grams of gold at press time was a little over $300.)"

This world is going to hell.

Chascraw4d · Post by **Chascraw4d** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 4:42 pm

Jamie! wrote: This world is going to hell.

It's been there since before the last ice age.

Jamie! · Post by **Jamie!** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 4:55 pm

Stupid ice age.

Sidwood · Post by **Sidwood** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 7:07 pm

Art is in the eye of the beholder. However, I think we all can agree that at least half of all "modern" art is a scam. What kind of artist can splorch paint on a canvas in a random assemblage and sell it for thousands? I'll TELL ya what kind! A SCAM artist!

In the Carnegie Museum here in Pittsburgh, there is a painting (more accurately, two paintings) that can be described thusly: One canvas is painted dark green. The other canvas is painted light green. The canvases are placed next to each other.

This is art? It CAN'T be. I think the definition of art should include something about the artist actually TRYING. Whoever painted this brilliant work probably spent five, ten minutes. TOPS. ...Then take the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Years and years of planning followed by years and years of painting in a very uncomfortable position.

It's a vicious cycle... Artist stops working on his Paint-by-Numbers. Artist gets bored. Artist paints a blue rectangle on his otherwise blank canvas. Artist never gets around to finishing his Paint-by-Numbers, tries to sell his blue rectangle. No one wants to buy a painting of a freaking blue rectangle, until ONE Starbucks-dwelling, poetry-composing, black-turtleneck-and-beret-wearing, artsy-fartsy, iconoclast anti-establishment Bohemian wanna-be buys the painting to for its "kitsch value." Purchase of stupid painting of a blue rectangle is misinterpreted by other artsy-fartsy types as a testament to the painting's high quality. Subsequent purchases of similar, equally crappy paintings give artists incentive to create MORE paintings of blue rectangles. And the cycle begins anew...

Sortelli · Post by **Sortelli** » Tue Sep 10, 2002 7:27 pm

Because of my inability to sell a painting that I made by sitting on a canvas for thousands of dollars, the only guess I can offer as to why some artists get away with producing crap and getting money and babes is that these artists, at some point in their life, were actually producing items of some conceivable artistic value.

Lets say some artist spends years of his life painting or sculpting or whatever. Lets say he eventually produces something fantastic and it gets gobbled up by a gallery and his fame spreads. Suddenly every piece of crap he's ever created is now related to this one great work and everyone's waving dollar bills to get them. Suddenly, as he begins to enjoy eating hot meals every night, he realizes he doesn't need to try anymore. The next day, he's in his basement canning shit. He calls the gallery and says "Look! I wanna sell you canned shit! Isn't that outrageous? OMG I KNOW LOL!" They people at the gallery say "YES! YOU'RE SAYING ART IS CANNED SHIT!" They buy it. People say "WTF? Dude, this gallery's got canned shit! I can't believe it, I have to see for myself." The gallery gets noticed. Other galleries get jealous and buy more canned shit. Canned shit becomes a topic of heated discussion on the internet. *heh*

Everyone else forgets about it and goes home, only to remember it years later and be PISSED OFF that they have to work for a living because they weren't the one COSMIC ACCIDENT who was in the right place and the right time to sell canned shit. Meanwhile, the people with the cans are... well... they paid for cans of shit. Is this not punishment enough? Anyone who goes to a gallery to see shit, or buys it, gets what they deserve.

I'm not sure where I am going with this, other than I think it should be legal for angry mobs to lynch these people.