Humour or blasphemy

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Please someone define "bad art" and "good art" for me

If it needs an explanation it's bad art.


One of my pet peeves is when artists have to explain their work before it makes any kind of sense. Most modern art falls into this category.
Seriously, a circle on an otherwise blank canvas is just a circle, not art.
A canvas that is just randomly spattered with paint is not art, it's just a mess.

Am I a phillistine? Some would say so, but I think art should invoke an emotional response in the viewer( not disgust or bewilderment) , or should strike them as beautiful.

I always get the image that modern artists are like 3 year olds, running up to the public, holding up their latest drawing and saying "Look what I did!"

"That's nice.....it's a....a...."

"It's a house! Can't you tell?"

[DeepIron]

Am I a phillistine? Some would say so, but I think art should invoke an emotional response in the viewer( not disgust or bewilderment) , or should strike them as beautiful.

Some "art" makes me want to puke... pretty visceral response. Does that count?

[sergbuto]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Please someone define "bad art" and "good art" for me

Good art - when it grabs you, you feel touched and attached
Bad art - when you look at it and do not feel anything

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I think art is about the artist, not about the viewer, it's a form of expression. I'm always wary of people saying "art should be this and not that".

If the artist has to explain his expression is different from a Pre-Schooler, it expresses something alright.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Speaking about art, what the hell was Paul Allen thinking when he built this? He must have been on some good drugs that day.

I think this applies to this thread too. Its an eyesore.

-S

[RickC Sniper]

Originally Posted by Carotio

It reminds me about another "piece of art" once shown in Denmark by an Italian guy living here.
He put ten blenders on ten tables, poured water in them and put a fish in each of them. All the medias called them gold fish, but they were actually red swordtail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_swordtail
The tricky part of the story was that he plugged them to the electrical network, so anyone switching on one of the blenders would instantly kill the fish. And you can guess what happened. Some smart @$$ just had to try...

That sounds more like a social experiment than a piece of art.

[Skybird]

Modern art must not, but often does degenerate in a lkind of simply unimportnat pseudo-intellectualism. For example, Joseph Beuy's Fat Chair is an example for this.

http://www.designboom.com/history/stilllife/08.jpg

what has not been written and said about it! Volumes...! How it expresses this, and how it relates to that, and human nature, and mind, and you know what. Well, every piece of dog dirt you found on the street can be object for such ways of mutated philosophiozing, but fact remains that it is nothing special and no piece of arts at all, and that it has not more and not less buddha-nature than every leaf of grass, every tone, and every enlightened human mind. By this i want to point out that "arts" also include a quality as a criterion to decide wether something is art or not, that would be that not everybody, just somebody can create it. In creating a piece of art, a special skill, artistry, is needed, and this rareness is what adds value to it, like content, expression, message, mood may do as well. If everybody can create a given result of work of craftsmanship, it is nothign special and no art in this meaning. the pictures that kids paint in the kidergarten, are no pieces of art, and that you will find it hard to copy them manually by hand does not chnage that. Last year, we had a project in this city of Münster, were students placed rerally stupoid and often oifnantile papmache-objects somehwere in the city, or scattered some umbrellas around, and called that "ar". this year, they have placed wodden frames around the city in an attempt to make people see, as they put it, and now we have these uglöy wooden frames everyshwere, from 4x4 to 9x9 meters in size, and it really kills the sight iof the given location. This is no art - it is the absence of artistic mindset, and shows that people simply have no idea and relativsed the definition of arts to a degree that finally nothing is left that could be expressed anymore _ and so infantile surrogates get created and are presented as "art". Not everything that somebody creates is automtaically art - just becasue he has created it. That is somehting many artists of today are in desperate need to understand. And even if that shows no soldiarity with every Peter and Paul and may sound elitist: arts require skill. and the skill in "artist's" creation you often seek in vain these days. the frog in that picture is a good example.

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

For someone to define the above piece as good art, I'd suspect they probably live in a trailer park and lack an education.

-S

PS. From the 1963 communist agenda for America:

Seems they are succeeding. This falls under the ugliness and repulsive section.

Yeah the artist must have been a commie, Subman doesn't like it.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Speaking about art, what the hell was Paul Allen thinking when he built this? He must have been on some good drugs that day.

I think this applies to this thread too. Its an eyesore.

-S


<pics snipped for fear of having to look at them again>

I think this is one of those things that Mikhayl called the artists personal expression. Either that or he's dipped into the wrong mushroom bin.

As for art being totally about the "artists" personal expression, I suppose, then, that we are all artists. We are expressing ourselves via language, so we must be language artists

[Stealth Hunter]

:rotfl:

I thought it was funny, lol.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I think art is about the artist, not about the viewer, it's a form of expression. I'm always wary of people saying "art should be this and not that".

Right , there is no bad or good art, just art. Art from artist.

You can dislike it if you want.

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by Fish

Right , there is no bad or good art, just art. Art from artist.

You can dislike it if you want.

How about:

Good Art = art you like

Bad Art = art you don't like

? :hmm:

[jpm1]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Personaly I concider the concept of blasphemy ridiculous, but that being said, that piece seems tasteless to me.

+1 but things like Mahomet in pig personnaly that shocks me . for me it's provocation , i mean you don't agree with someone point of view that's something telling him he's wrong and so how he should rule its life that's two different things

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I think art is about the artist, not about the viewer, it's a form of expression. I'm always wary of people saying "art should be this and not that".

They sure go to a lot of trouble to publicize it if it's not about the viewer.

I agree with skybird on this one. The pseudo-intellectual community around it is like "The Emperor's New Clothes"

Of course, I have no problem with freedom of expression, just hacks who style themselves as artists.

Admittedly, I have a chip on my shoulder anyway since the National Endowment for the Arts funds some of this junk, essentially forcing me to support it with tax money.

Damn, now I put myself in a bad mood.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

....
Admittedly, I have a chip on my shoulder anyway since the National Endowment for the Arts funds some of this junk, essentially forcing me to support it with tax money. ...

Now here is one of my biggest problems with it too! Most of this stuff belongs in the scrap heap waiting to be turned into real art - like a car or something sleek! But where is it? In the middle of our cities paid for by my tax dollars! And what is it? Just a bunch of scrap metal!

-S