Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
36 comments displayed.
#1
-
gragasvlad (19 hours ago) [-] Man I hate art critics... they are the reason a pile of trash can be recognized as art
#56 to #1
-
crlmsonhazard (1 hour ago) [-] makes me said that half of STEM graduates end up homeless, but people can get a million dollars for a blank canvas
#58 to #56
-
manollette (49 minutes ago) [-]
Just take solace in the fact that for every one person that can do that, there are several thousand who are even worse of than the STEM grads.
#42 to #1
-
destreader ONLINE (2 hours ago) [-] Trash like this?
(Yes this is a re-post, I am just posting here to try to bring more attention to it.)
(Yes this is a re-post, I am just posting here to try to bring more attention to it.)
#44 to #42
-
questionableferret (2 hours ago) [-] To be fair, that post is arguably art. My favourite definition for art is:
"Art is anything created by human hands that sheds meaningful insight into something."
The fact that someone framed that comment is actually an ironic action that shows insight into a lot of things. Into how absurd the definition of art is to some people. Into how much people are willing to pay for crap. It also reflects a lot of our modern sentiments towards rebellion. The poster clearly finds the idea that the comment could be art ludicrous, so treating it like art does ironically demonstrate.
I wouldn't pay that much money for it, but for a fiver I wouldn't mind that hanging up in my house somewhere, and I wouldn't mind seeing it in a modern art museum. It would make more sense than a lot of the freaky junk that ends up in there because you don't have to lean over sideways and squint to sort-of see the outline of a woman crying if you look at the abstract statue from the right angle and oh my god I do not get abstract art at all...
For me that comment on its own is cool, but framing it really speaks to what internet culture is all about. It's like how that picture of Beyonce got everywhere.
"Art is anything created by human hands that sheds meaningful insight into something."
The fact that someone framed that comment is actually an ironic action that shows insight into a lot of things. Into how absurd the definition of art is to some people. Into how much people are willing to pay for crap. It also reflects a lot of our modern sentiments towards rebellion. The poster clearly finds the idea that the comment could be art ludicrous, so treating it like art does ironically demonstrate.
I wouldn't pay that much money for it, but for a fiver I wouldn't mind that hanging up in my house somewhere, and I wouldn't mind seeing it in a modern art museum. It would make more sense than a lot of the freaky junk that ends up in there because you don't have to lean over sideways and squint to sort-of see the outline of a woman crying if you look at the abstract statue from the right angle and oh my god I do not get abstract art at all...
For me that comment on its own is cool, but framing it really speaks to what internet culture is all about. It's like how that picture of Beyonce got everywhere.
#26 to #1
-
belshir (4 hours ago) [-] a woman took a snapshot of her bedroom (built an art piece that was a messy bed and a slice of her bedroom all ****** and covered in trash) mine is the same but you dont see men and women with a stick up their arse coming into my bedroom and giving me cash to stand around and look at it, its bollocks.
#2 to #1
-
anon (17 hours ago) [-]
"Art critics" basicly killed any meaning of the word art.
Such complete trash has been heralded as art that now a days the only criteria for something to be art is if someone considers it art. So everything can be considered art and when everything is art, nothing is.
Such complete trash has been heralded as art that now a days the only criteria for something to be art is if someone considers it art. So everything can be considered art and when everything is art, nothing is.
#3 to #2
-
afaik (16 hours ago) [-] Around 130 years ago, a movement named "Impressionism" was formed. They wanted to expand the spectrum of "art" to allow more diverse creations to be noticed and acknowledged. They basically achieved the idea of neglecting the definition of "art" (which was already vague to begin with), and thus opened way for the various new genres of art that popped up from 1900s to current day.
In other words, nobody could figure out what the **** "Art" was since the times of ancient greeks and long before them, and these twats showed up in 1880 or so and said "ANYTHING CAN BE ART!". Little did they know that "anything" is quite a wide scope. According to the current definitions (look up any dictionary entry), I can justify spreading my ass and spraying **** all over your livingroom by calling it "art", and there's no way anyone could argue against it.
Go figure; Diversity for the sake of diversity is ******* retarded. This is further proven by the immigrant crisis and the moronic idea of workplace gender equality (i.e. "I dont care if she's a ******* moron; our company needs women to receive more funding")
In other words, nobody could figure out what the **** "Art" was since the times of ancient greeks and long before them, and these twats showed up in 1880 or so and said "ANYTHING CAN BE ART!". Little did they know that "anything" is quite a wide scope. According to the current definitions (look up any dictionary entry), I can justify spreading my ass and spraying **** all over your livingroom by calling it "art", and there's no way anyone could argue against it.
Go figure; Diversity for the sake of diversity is ******* retarded. This is further proven by the immigrant crisis and the moronic idea of workplace gender equality (i.e. "I dont care if she's a ******* moron; our company needs women to receive more funding")
#41 to #3
-
kingpongthedon (2 hours ago) [-]
That's not exactly how things went down. It has far more to do with the advent photography than anything else.
Up until the late 1800s, the only way to get a visual record of anything was to paint it. This is why you see so many portraits and landscapes. People weren't painting for pure artistic expression, they were doing it because it was their job. Keep in mind the Mona Lisa, arguably the most iconic painting of all time, was just a portrait commissioned by a husband for his wife. Most of the great works were done just to make a buck. If you wanted a realistic image you had to go to a master who had spent decades practicing his craft. People wanted realistic images and so the state of the art progresses towards greater and greater realism. These are the skills artists develop and even their more creative works strive for lifelike imagery.
Then photography comes along. All of a sudden those portraits that took weeks to make can be done in a matter of seconds. Not only that, the average person can now create something "better" than even the most skilled artists for much less time, money, and effort. Realism is suddenly cheap, it won't pay the bills anymore. The artists still had to make a living so they had to innovate. They had to do something other people weren't doing to earn their pay. Impressionism is the natural starting point, it is rooted in realism but adds some variety. All of a sudden you see different genres of art appearing, whereas before artistic style was almost entirely defined by the period and place. We have variety now, who can say that's a bad thing? Just because you don't like some of these varieties doesn't mean that art as a whole is meaningless.
Point is, it's a lot more than some twats a century ago saying "ANYTHING CAN BE ART!" There are some very good reasons they strayed from the traditional paths. I can't say that every new avenue that's been explored has been aesthetically appealing to me, but I can say I appreciate that they have been explored.
And what's up with that last paragraph? I get that you think contemporary art is different just to be different, hopefully I've persuaded you that this is not entirely the case, but the rest of it just dashes way off topic. It just seems like the rambling of a very bitter man. Don't force issues that aren't even remotely related.
Up until the late 1800s, the only way to get a visual record of anything was to paint it. This is why you see so many portraits and landscapes. People weren't painting for pure artistic expression, they were doing it because it was their job. Keep in mind the Mona Lisa, arguably the most iconic painting of all time, was just a portrait commissioned by a husband for his wife. Most of the great works were done just to make a buck. If you wanted a realistic image you had to go to a master who had spent decades practicing his craft. People wanted realistic images and so the state of the art progresses towards greater and greater realism. These are the skills artists develop and even their more creative works strive for lifelike imagery.
Then photography comes along. All of a sudden those portraits that took weeks to make can be done in a matter of seconds. Not only that, the average person can now create something "better" than even the most skilled artists for much less time, money, and effort. Realism is suddenly cheap, it won't pay the bills anymore. The artists still had to make a living so they had to innovate. They had to do something other people weren't doing to earn their pay. Impressionism is the natural starting point, it is rooted in realism but adds some variety. All of a sudden you see different genres of art appearing, whereas before artistic style was almost entirely defined by the period and place. We have variety now, who can say that's a bad thing? Just because you don't like some of these varieties doesn't mean that art as a whole is meaningless.
Point is, it's a lot more than some twats a century ago saying "ANYTHING CAN BE ART!" There are some very good reasons they strayed from the traditional paths. I can't say that every new avenue that's been explored has been aesthetically appealing to me, but I can say I appreciate that they have been explored.
And what's up with that last paragraph? I get that you think contemporary art is different just to be different, hopefully I've persuaded you that this is not entirely the case, but the rest of it just dashes way off topic. It just seems like the rambling of a very bitter man. Don't force issues that aren't even remotely related.
#14 to #3
-
comicironic (6 hours ago) [-]
And yet Impressionism led to some of the most beloved artworks in history.
The stuff made by Monet, Van Gogh, etc is considered to be of great beauty.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouen_Cathedral_%28Monet_series%29
>, I can justify spreading my ass and spraying **** all over your livingroom by calling it "art", and there's no way anyone could argue against it.
People could argue against it, it's just wholly subjective and therefore pointless. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
What's your objective standard for art?
The stuff made by Monet, Van Gogh, etc is considered to be of great beauty.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouen_Cathedral_%28Monet_series%29
>, I can justify spreading my ass and spraying **** all over your livingroom by calling it "art", and there's no way anyone could argue against it.
People could argue against it, it's just wholly subjective and therefore pointless. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
What's your objective standard for art?
#17 to #14
-
emiyashirou (6 hours ago) [-] Yeah, but there's also a completely blank blue canvas that sold for over $50k
#18 to #17
-
comicironic (6 hours ago) [-]
I don't see your point. Clearly someone valued it highly.
#4 to #3
-
fatsigurd (15 hours ago) [-] I quite like impressionist and expressionist art, actually. At least those still have a meaning and require talent. The real ******* only started with abstract art in the 20th century, when every retard with a brush and some paint could suddenly become a world-famous artist.
But I agree that the ****** up state art culture is in right now is due to post-modernism.
But I agree that the ****** up state art culture is in right now is due to post-modernism.
#15 to #4
-
comicironic (6 hours ago) [-] >when every retard with a brush and some paint could suddenly become a world-famous artist.
#16 to #15
-
comicironic (6 hours ago) [-] Well, I'm disappointed that didn't upload. Let's try again.
#5 to #4
-
afaik (15 hours ago) [-] The thing is, even Picasso's **** and Dadaism fall under the same category as spraying fecal matter across public areas.
There is literally no way you can prove that something isn't art since there are no criteria to be met to match the definition.
To me, art is the products of the perfection of a skill that only appeals to senses.
I can carve an image of a viking onto a door, and it won't improve anything about the door. On the other hand, it will make the person owning the door appreciated it more as it appeals to his senses. Same goes for music, video game development, statue carving, you name it. Besides, carving can be rather difficult to make something truly appealing.
I'm still trying to figure out a decent definition to this day, and quite frankly I like this one.
There is literally no way you can prove that something isn't art since there are no criteria to be met to match the definition.
To me, art is the products of the perfection of a skill that only appeals to senses.
I can carve an image of a viking onto a door, and it won't improve anything about the door. On the other hand, it will make the person owning the door appreciated it more as it appeals to his senses. Same goes for music, video game development, statue carving, you name it. Besides, carving can be rather difficult to make something truly appealing.
I'm still trying to figure out a decent definition to this day, and quite frankly I like this one.
#6 to #5
-
fatsigurd (15 hours ago) [-] personally, I think for something to be recognised as true art, it should require at least 2 of the following things:
-is appealing for the senses, especially seeing and hearing
-takes a lot of skill and/or practice to produce
-has a deeper meaning or message
-is entertaining
-is appealing for the senses, especially seeing and hearing
-takes a lot of skill and/or practice to produce
-has a deeper meaning or message
-is entertaining
#7 to #6
-
afaik (15 hours ago) [-] entertainment is appeal to a sense that is neither seeing nor hearing.
having a deeper meaning seems redundant.
Music doesn't have to have a deeper meaning if the sounds and the patterns are appealing. Neither do videogames, which are also forms of art. They're just pleasing.
All in all, I disagree with your suggestion.
having a deeper meaning seems redundant.
Music doesn't have to have a deeper meaning if the sounds and the patterns are appealing. Neither do videogames, which are also forms of art. They're just pleasing.
All in all, I disagree with your suggestion.
#8 to #7
-
fatsigurd (14 hours ago) [-] I don't think you understand. I said it needs to check at least 2 of the criteria.
Music might be entertaining and pleasing to the ear, but it might not have a deeper meaning.
A painting might require skill to make, have a deeper meaning and look good, but not be very entertaining.
A book might be entertaining and have a deeper meaning but is probably not very pretty to look at.
Music might be entertaining and pleasing to the ear, but it might not have a deeper meaning.
A painting might require skill to make, have a deeper meaning and look good, but not be very entertaining.
A book might be entertaining and have a deeper meaning but is probably not very pretty to look at.
#9 to #8
-
afaik (14 hours ago) [-] I think I used the wrong word. When I said "senses", I didn't only refer to hearing, sight, smell, sound and touch. There's the sense of accomplishment (stimulated by RPGs for example), there's sense of community, stimulation of various emotions etc.
Those are all senses, and that's what I meant.
Art has to appeal to one or more senses, and be the product (of a skill) that doesn't affect the functionality of the object - that's my definition.
All in all, "has a deeper meaning" doesn't seem like a necessary criteria, "is entertaining" and "is appealing to the senses" is the same thing, and "two out of four" I'd wager doesn't exist in any definition of any word in any language besides the given example. On topic of word definitions, this just seems redundant.
Those are all senses, and that's what I meant.
Art has to appeal to one or more senses, and be the product (of a skill) that doesn't affect the functionality of the object - that's my definition.
All in all, "has a deeper meaning" doesn't seem like a necessary criteria, "is entertaining" and "is appealing to the senses" is the same thing, and "two out of four" I'd wager doesn't exist in any definition of any word in any language besides the given example. On topic of word definitions, this just seems redundant.
