Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerakSpielman" data-source="post: 1453747" data-attributes="member: 7464">Yeah, me neither. I'm reduced to trying to argue my father-in-law's perspective. He could do it better.You don't need somebody well-versed in art. I should have done this earlier: art (ärt)n. <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. <LI type=a>The study of these activities.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Artful contrivance; cunning.</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Printing. Illustrative material.</li> </ol>I think most of the arguments are between people using definition 1 verses people using definitions 2 and 3.  I'm sure there's a lot of that going on. Thing is, it might be possible to make an interesting artistic statement using human bodily excretions, but it would have to be very deliberately thought out, and I doubt it would be taken seriously more than once or twice. There's one fellow who made a name for himself climbing on a ladder, splattering paint on a big piece of paper, and then sending photos of separate sections of the paper to art auction houses. When they accepted a piece, he sat down and re-painted it on canvas. There was one early modern artist - I forget his name, somebody might remind me - who got so fed up with people accepting whatever he did as fine art that one day he signed his name on a urinal and declared it art. The urinal sold for thousands of dollars. Now, I don't remember if it was the urinal that he did this stunt on, it could have been some other random object, but after it was sold he got irritated and said that he would sign any urinal (or whatever object it was) that people brought to him, as though it were the "original." The person who spent the thousands of dollars on the urinal was not pleased. Of course, this artist was creating trivial and weird art as a part of a deliberate protest against idiots who think just anything is art, and considered it to be the highest irony that people bought it.  Most people, when their instinctive impulse is that something isn't art, are expecting art to be something meaningful, something that the artist has invested time and creative energy in, to create something special that they wanted to share with the world. Crapping on a canvas, throwing paint randomly, and signing urinals do not fit this concept. Again, compare the different definitions of art I posted above. Yes. Yes it does. You might have trouble finding an appreciative audience, though. Of course, not having an appreciative audience might be part of the artistic statement you're making.I don't actually see a lot of people arguing that this is "good" art. Is bad art still art? And he's using the same paint the meat-packing industry puts on your steaks, so it can't be TOO dangerous. Of course, he used an awful lot of the stuff.I remember a single-frame comic. I think it was in Playboy. There's an art gallery with modern art displayed of the "white background with geometric colored shapes" style. A man is holding up a tape measure to one of the larger paintings, apparently judging how far a square is from the side. His wife stands behind him and is explaining to a guard, "Oh, we liked it so much we're taking measurements and we're going to make one of our own!" The problem is, every new phase of art is declared "unartistic" by the creators and fans of the current trends. Even now-famous people like Monet, Van Gogh, and Picasso were ridiculed for their style and technique. I have a feeling that weird art projects like putting a skirt on an island, a concert written for 12 radios tuned at random, blending goldfish, and painting icebergs will be considered little more than an interesting - and brief - artistic phase a few hundred years from now.</blockquote>

Verification