After listening to a friend talking about how some people consider certain things being as great works of 'ART' , especially when the majority of people thought the exact opposite, it got me thinking to ask this question.
One artists insisted that an art exhibition of a single white chair was a work of art, whilst he insisted that it was just an ordinary white chair and couldn't appreciate the artist's creativity.
After watching an art show last night, I see that a lot of attention go to a photograph of a crucifix submerged in the artist's urine 'Piss Christ'. Now, I can see how that would draw attention just because of the usage of urine but I didn't think that the piece was that great. It was just a photograph of a cross under fluid.
We each see and appreciate art differently and 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
What do you consider NOT to be art?
For me a lot of conceptual art that i have seen has made me go ' what a load of bullshit and how can that be art'. But on the other hand i have seen some interesting conceptual art which i understood.
So to answer your question i believe anything which doesn't have an intention to be a piece of art isn't art. It is not up to me to say if it is art or not if its intention (given by the artist) was for it to be art. All it means is that i don't have to like it or appreciate it but it is still art, even if only to the artist.
Gary good point... lack of understanding can create closed minds eg a typical response..."my kid can do that" ..."yeah saw an elephant do better on You tube" blah blah ...
I had a light bulb moment when I 'experienced' my first installation ..(80's) whilst viewing 12 ...1ft diam rocks in a circle ..12 feet diameter..that was part of an artist exchange programe...(the artist sent designs that aussie art students recreated ...I though what a lot of crap .....then i though Geez cheryl u call ur self a conceptual artist wannabe ...IF u cant appreciate it ?????!!!!!than what hope has conceptual art got with its place in History... so I jumped into the middle of the exhibit and mediated with in it for at least 5 secs ..lol and got it ...I felt the rocks ....a new performance installation artist was born ..;)
For ME to my sensibilities ,it was the experience of the the piece that made it 'art'..
however IF the piece can NOT invoke a response from me ....the converse does NOT apply ..I maybe just dont just get it .....
Now what is GOOD art ....WELL Maybe dear Hamlet THAT is the question .......maybe:)
hmmmm I for one Diana have no idea who u r talking about ....however going on the the image u have posted my first thought .... was..... did the dog do it ? lol
Could u share a link introducing me to their work .... Carl Andre I mean not the dog ...lol ...Then again it would be a very clever pooch that could place it so precisely don't u think:) Well executed /crafted:)
btw ...on second thoughts .... IF the dog did do it I doubt I wanna jump into the middle of it to "experience" it ..lol
This website gives you an idea of real art
Well, that is an age old question? For me it comes down to creativity and intent. I can apprecitate many of the "out there" styles that are either simplistic or pandering to shock value. But what I don't get is gratuious "art" that seems to unwittingly, or perhaps intentionaly, bastardise the thought and motion of art making. Like the artist that purposefully starved a dog.Please don't google that. The idea of true art has always been a fine line. But who are we to judge( animal cruelty aside). So many great artists have come before us who were unapprecitated and unaccepted by their peers and the public at large. Let your Freak Flag Fly! Can you imagine a world where we didn't have the freedome to express ourselves?!
Good points Wendy I totally agree with you. Anyone who mistreats animals for the sake of art needs to be locked up. That is crossing the line.
'The idea of true art has always been a fine line. But who are we to judge'. I think we all judge art and artists that we come across and your right, who are we to say whether it is art or not.
I mean elephants and monkeys which create 'art' Is that art? I don't believe it is because does the elephant or monkey have the intention to create a piece of art? No, it is just handed a brush and a selection of colours and let lose!
For me, intention is the only thing which says an object or act of creating something for the specific purpose of being art is art, does that sound confusing lol.
yay wendy:) .... I am 'flapping'... but apparently I am approaching ecccentric..its an age_ist thing :)
re the starving dog ( no I DONT google it) ...imagine having to critique it .....any way would it have been better he starved himself ? would we the public have been as outraged ? as a Vegitarian the work can invoke a very strong response from me in regards to mass slaughter of animals for meat ...As a humanitarian ...what is happening in Somalia gets a little press ..lots of starving children footage tho....is my ignornce and apathy part of the problem ? and hence by default part of its creation? Pardon my intensity ..it is becuse the subject pushes my buttons and inspires my creative side .... to perform/write/sing /paint /deconstruct/whatever...my emotive response...I feel better now:) But wot of the "starving dog"???? :(