Is this really art? - Page 3

empther · #31 Jun 9, '12, 7:25 pm

The product of trash minds is trash, not art.

Let me say something that isn't politically correct there days.

Some people are inferior.

The "artist" who made that junk is inferior.

clark_kent · #32 Jun 9, '12, 8:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Edgy means it's going to offend someone, usually people with strong moral principles, like Christians.

I think we're on the same page.

Hokomai · #33 Jun 9, '12, 11:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

That is simply your point of view.

Whose point of view were you expecting?

Midwest88 · #34 Jun 10, '12, 7:47 pm

In a way yes, but in another way no. It's creative but it does nothing for me. There is little to no skill that was involved (besides getting the ice pop on the stick) and I attribute such creativeness to modern art which I think is mostly cr*p.

Midwest88 · #35 Jun 12, '12, 1:42 am

Just got back from IMDb and picked up this thing of beauty:

Quote:

De gustibus non disputandum est

Translated: "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes." Meaning: There must not be debate concerning taste.

Subjectivism. It's like nails on a chalk board to my ears.

styrgwillidar · #36 Jun 12, '12, 8:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Ed, when you enter into a media debate (mass or social media), you incur risk. The risks include drawing further attention to the thing you oppose. Your view of these things is a minority one, even in the US. Most people do not feel strongly enough about religion to respond to such offenses. When you respond you have to win more people to your minority point of view that you lose by your statements leading those in the majority to support the offenses. This is an uphill battle, especially where you are talking about intrinsically trivial things, like Popsicles. Much 'offensive' art comes from juxtaposing the sacred and the profane. The more sacred, and more profane, the better. The cartoons of the Prophet, the 'virgin in a condom', the Popsicles are all examples. When you enter the debate, you increase he perceived value of the work by heightening the sacredness of the object portrayed, and the sense of contrast. You in effect become a part of the art. This is intended by the artist. In my view those offended by such things would be better to adopt a tactic of ignoring both the art and the artist, and if you must say something, claim not that the artist has done what is intended: offended; say instead that the artist has misunderstood the nature of the sacred thing, and that the art work therefore fails as an artwork. Now that will hurt.

Good points. However, I disagree in calling this or anything like it 'art'. But than we have to get into semantics and define what 'art' is. I define it as some sort of human expression (music/poetry/performance/sculpture/painting/writing) that communicates an idea/message/truth as the artists sees it. Great art, to me, sparks contemplation of that truth with the emotion the artist is attempting to associate it with. Great art doesn't require an explanation because it is evident in the work itself- we see the artists expression or feeling of the truth as he sees it.

I used to have a reprint of a Vargas drawing. (Pinup artist) Normally not my thing, but there was something about the drawing. It was of a woman sideways pulling on her stockings. Somehow it wasn't prurient at all but communicated a fascination, respect bordering on reverence for the woman, her femininity and uniqueness. I found out years later that it was a drawing of his wife. Somehow that feeling came through.

All this piece says is "I'm a talentless hack".