Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 1453166" data-attributes="member: 5100">Probably because I'm an unabashed layman on the issue.&nbsp; I took an art class in high school and was actually not too bad with both 2D (esp. charcoal) and 3D (clay), but I don't have any real formal education in art theory.&nbsp;I'm not sure I've got a real good, solid definition of what art is.&nbsp; I haven't seen one from anyone claiming that a painted iceberg is art, either.&nbsp; Maybe someone who is better versed in art could share what the real definition of art is, and I could tell how I disagree with it.&nbsp;Not accusing anyone on these forums (really, I'm not), but from my perception, a lot of &quot;modern art&quot; and art theory appears (to me) to be a bunch of talentless hacks getting together, patting each other on the back for turning out crap, and generally being egotistical snots.&nbsp; Anyone who thinks people spreading feces on canvas or spray-painting large blobs of ice are no talent hacks are then told &quot;Well, you just don't get it.&quot;&nbsp; It's like we're the uncouth ones because we figure a toilet is a better place for bodily waste than publicly displaying it.&nbsp;On a side note, if painting an iceberg monochromatic red is art, does that mean that I'm an artist if I go erect a big red barn?&nbsp; If not, why not?&nbsp; What I often hear is that it's the &quot;message&quot; that an artist relates that makes it art.&nbsp; If so, what is the message this wandering ecohazard relates?&nbsp; It seems to be &quot;look at me&quot;, which isn't a particular interesting message.&nbsp; If it's a subjective message, then we can go back to &quot;Red Square&quot; and find that it really isn't any different than a 2nd grade sketch because either could be have the same impact on the viewer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 1453166, member: 5100"] Probably because I'm an unabashed layman on the issue. I took an art class in high school and was actually not too bad with both 2D (esp. charcoal) and 3D (clay), but I don't have any real formal education in art theory. I'm not sure I've got a real good, solid definition of what art is. I haven't seen one from anyone claiming that a painted iceberg is art, either. Maybe someone who is better versed in art could share what the real definition of art is, and I could tell how I disagree with it. Not accusing anyone on these forums (really, I'm not), but from my perception, a lot of "modern art" and art theory appears (to me) to be a bunch of talentless hacks getting together, patting each other on the back for turning out crap, and generally being egotistical snots. Anyone who thinks people spreading feces on canvas or spray-painting large blobs of ice are no talent hacks are then told "Well, you just don't get it." It's like we're the uncouth ones because we figure a toilet is a better place for bodily waste than publicly displaying it. On a side note, if painting an iceberg monochromatic red is art, does that mean that I'm an artist if I go erect a big red barn? If not, why not? What I often hear is that it's the "message" that an artist relates that makes it art. If so, what is the message this wandering ecohazard relates? It seems to be "look at me", which isn't a particular interesting message. If it's a subjective message, then we can go back to "Red Square" and find that it really isn't any different than a 2nd grade sketch because either could be have the same impact on the viewer. [/QUOTE]

Verification