I swear, I could totally get into this and make millions.
If someone can get their hairy cheese put on display, who's to say I can't superglue two dildos together, put a wig on one of them and stick it to a toaster and call it art.
Imagine, walking into an art gallery and seeing my beautiful Hairy Dildoaster sculpture sitting there, with several people gathered around it trying to figure out the deep and profound meaning behind it.
It's to show your deep love for being a faggot and eating toast. The hair is a symbolism for all the butt and ball hair that gets stuck on your platic cocks every day.
tl;dr I'm gonna be a pretentious **** right back at this guy.
This is Picasso's "Bull head". Were it created two years ago by Joe Schmo it might have ended up on this comp. It is a bicycle seat attached to handle bars.
It is also a "found object" art piece, meaning it's literally random stuff that an artist decided should have meaning. If we hugged this guy's ideas then this piece would be trash, and Picasso would be considered a lazy, worthless artist since virtually none of his other works did ANYTHING to improve upon "the works of previous masters". And he certainly falls short of the highest quality attainable. Really, he just misses every point on the penultimate METHODS OF MASTERS. Dude doesn't know how a face works, or what colors people are. But we still know Picasso's a good artist; hell, some people would scoff at me for only saying "good".
As well, I know you people can see the artistic value in graffiti done for expression; but regardless of how much planning and paint This guys does know that, right? He realizes graffiti is only different from the Mona Lisa in terms subject and canvas; they're both still paintings. might go into a piece he's completely willing to ignore it's value.
Or the value of any work not done by a master for that matter. And I wonder what his panel of master's looks like; there isn't a single one that could be argued?
And HOLY **** did this guy just say art has been reduced to expression!? If art didn't start off as an outlet of expression then what the hell did it used to be? That, and if you want to ignore expression and imagination so that you may maintain a "standard of excellence" which focuses only on skill then you're boring. There I said it. Remember kids; even if you create a really interesting and genuinely profound work of art, if you don't put all of your effort into it, it'll be worth less than the hairy cheese if we assume the artist did put in all of his effort.
That, and there's only so many ways the concept of "The Thinker" (for example) can be visually represented. After a while, I won't care how much effort was put into it if you're just creating the same thing each time in order to maintain a standard. I know how a man looks sitting on a rock; make it mean something if you're going to do it again.
Plus, dis ***** mentioned "beauty" as being one of the things lost to modern art and that **** is straight-up "left to the eye of the beholder"; you can't have a standard in that respect!
I think I could go on, but i've likely extended beyond most FJer's interests and patience anyway.
There's nothing wrong with Picasso's "bull head" It's alright, in fact he said nothing about this kind of art, which is defined in the video as "personal expression".
He's just against the quality of art under the category of "personal expression", he says it is lacking and is too focused on rebellion and "shock factor/edginess".
Perhaps Picasso's "bull head" is not the best work of art, and it mostly deserves its spot in a museum because of the artists' previous success, but there's nothing wrong with that, in fact if it makes its spot on well known museums, it would be mostly because of controversy or to interest critics, which is really just marketing.
Oh, I know there's nothing wrong with it, I brought it up for that fact. If we followed these standards then it would be bad art, but as you can see, that's not necessarily true.
And I agree with him; a lot of art is lazy in both imagination and skill. But I was more concerned with his point about standards. Namely the fact that there's a "universal standard", and one as high as his. The point of art, if there is one, is expression; saying something interesting and having it heard if you please. But this guy acts like it should take second place to skill alone. Making a computer takes more skill and effort than singing but it's clear when one is art and the other is not.
Yeah, I agree that he put a lot of emphasis on the skill and practice behind art, but I mean. It's sort of true, you can't just get your average person making art for the world to see.
I agree that personal expression and feelings should come in first, but not to the extent where people can just crunch out **** out of their asses and pretend it's the best thing the art world has ever seen.
Don't worry, we're all on the same page; we want artists with skill. I just think he's too strict is all. I just wonder where he draws the line between graffiti and other paintings.
Well the fact that the video shows images of ghetto typical graffiti (where it's just someone's street name) instead of not to ride on bansky's dick or anything stuff like bansky's probably goes to show that he doesn't really value it much.
Plus it's just an abuse of someone else's property, or at least I see it that way, before I see it as art.
Well to be honest, if you work in the field of the arts you probably would get bored of seeing the same thing everywhere and start to crave something different. But to this extent, **** that.
Well yes, since they are actually drawings and some are probably really well made with unique styles... Everything is more art than a ******* empty frame >,<... Damn moderm/pop-art, and the retards that say its art.
Look I'm not racist but I think art should take some sort of effort and involve some skill. If we keep trying to push the boundaries of what art is conceptually we are gonna end up with stick figures worth billions of dollars just because its being "bold and brash" or "going against the main stream".
The hairy cheese is better than the vacuum though I guess.
I was listening to Gary Jule's "mad world" and thought to myself "yea, its a mad world, but its also kinda beautiful." and then i just got up and made this.
constructive criticism ahead : If youre looking to make it seem more realistic, just practice more with shading on smaller levels. If youre going for a more fantastic look, draw everything as you would realistically, just, think of the essence of everything you draw, and turn that **** up to 11 before you put in on the page, yo
Yea, shading is definitely something i need to work on. As for the realistic/fantastic thing, i usually try to stand on the line between them and doing things in a fantastic way, but in a way that it feels like it could actually happen.
I could see some of these being a statement on the idea of what is art.
I mean you're clearly suggesting many of these aren't art, but who are you to say? Who is anyone to say? What defines art? And those blank ones definitely kind of bring up that question and there's some merit to be had there.
The cheese with hair thing just looks gross to me, but I'm sure there's something there.
Art major anon here. The blank art, that is squares of solid color, are representative of minimalism and are supposed to convey a sort of emotion. Originally though, it was just pushing boundaries. Link to first artis to do this. Granted I personally am not a fan of contemporary art. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich
I'm aware of the minimalism stuff, but I guess I'm trying to make the point that because I could draw something from it, it can be safely respected as art.
I use the word art very very loosely, but that's because I don't think calling something art says anything about it's worth or quality. Being art is just a state of being, not a statement of it's quality or worth.
If those are from the Vancouver Art Gallery I've seen them. They do actually have something painted on them, but it's very faint and kinda open to interpretation. Quite cool actually.
i guess i should have directly thanked you directly for providing some actual information instead of moan about the average comment to these types of pictures.
Once again, I will point out that the Tate Modern has a grey ******* rectangle hanging up on their wall. Modern art can be interesting but as inspired as it purports to be most of it can easily be considered trash.