View previous topic | View next topic

Gilbert and George (content warning)

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

bobwilson
551753.  Sun May 10, 2009 10:07 pm Reply with quote

I didn't ask whether Coronation Street was art - I asked whether watching Coronation Street was art.

 
Sadurian Mike
551755.  Sun May 10, 2009 10:10 pm Reply with quote

I suppose it could be, if taken out of context and viewed in the abstract. The image or phenomenon of people all watching the same show could possibly be seen as unusual enough to stir emotion.

Art is whatever you make of it. If it is created by man and stimulates your emotions then it can be classified as art.

 
bobwilson
551759.  Sun May 10, 2009 10:15 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Art is whatever you make of it. If it is created by man and stimulates your emotions then it can be classified as art.


So, you weren't taking notes then?

By that definition a dentist conducting root-canal work is art. Being mugged on a Saturday night is art. The Viet Nam war was art.

 
Sadurian Mike
551761.  Sun May 10, 2009 10:21 pm Reply with quote

It depends on whether the viewer finds it aesthetically pleasing or not. If you view root canal work as a metaphor of human fragility against the punsihment meted out in an effort to repair our own bodies, then it can be interpreted as art. If being mugged is a social drama then it is art. The Vietnam War has been seen as an art form in many different ways, from metaphor to music to imagery.

It is not what is present, but how someone reacts to it.

 
bobwilson
551764.  Sun May 10, 2009 10:32 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
It depends on whether the viewer finds it aesthetically pleasing or not. If you view root canal work as a metaphor of human fragility against the punsihment meted out in an effort to repair our own bodies, then it can be interpreted as art. If being mugged is a social drama then it is art. The Vietnam War has been seen as an art form in many different ways, from metaphor to music to imagery.

It is not what is present, but how someone reacts to it.


Any comment by me would be superfluous.

 
Posital
551782.  Mon May 11, 2009 1:14 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
It depends on whether the viewer finds it aesthetically pleasing or not. If you view root canal work as a metaphor of human fragility against the punsihment meted out in an effort to repair our own bodies, then it can be interpreted as art. If being mugged is a social drama then it is art. The Vietnam War has been seen as an art form in many different ways, from metaphor to music to imagery.

It is not what is present, but how someone reacts to it.

I would go further than aesthetically pleasing, and aim more at "gives a personally meaningful experience". Remember we're trying to include dali and the dada-ists are we not?

bob, I think Mike was talking about looking about these from a third party perspective.

I guess only certain highly evolved buddhists could look at their own 'being' in the third person and call it art.

 
Ion Zone
551905.  Mon May 11, 2009 6:45 am Reply with quote

Quote:
When challenged to look at it in isolation, however, it became a landscape of textures and subtle colours that had me examining it (and enjoying it) for ages afterwards.

Now there is no doubt that it was a brick wall and not really intended as an art piece, yet once abstracted from its role as the side of a building it also became an artwork; something created by humans that moved me to study and enjoy it for its own sake.


This is the purpose of photography, to make you notice. It takes a lot of skill to do properly, though.

 
ColinM
552165.  Mon May 11, 2009 1:41 pm Reply with quote

From what I can gather, your definition of art is roughly, "Something some people have an emotional reaction to". Or to rephrase a little, "Anything at all".

I'm not sure I can call this definition wrong, but I'm confident I can call it useless. If everything is art then there's no point calling anything art.

 
Ion Zone
552325.  Mon May 11, 2009 5:45 pm Reply with quote

I, myself, am art.
Pay money for my...

 
Sebastian flyte
552376.  Mon May 11, 2009 6:16 pm Reply with quote

I quite like G&G and the unmade bed lady can bloody well do a smashing watercolour.. everything can be made into art by an artist, nothing can be art by itself, it has to be crafted, formed, visualised someway. 'Aesthetically pleasing' is not art it's design. Although of course art can be ascetically pleasing. Abstract painting is art, abstract painting is 'arguably' art without meaning, or at least without representation of an easily identifiable reality which is something we attach meaning to. Although there is usually meaning there.
I find G&G's back lit large works quite traditional actually as they look to me like church windows with the heavy black lining and the bright colours. they have human themes, urban decay is an obvious one quite traditional I think.

 
Posital
552449.  Tue May 12, 2009 1:56 am Reply with quote

ColinM wrote:
From what I can gather, your definition of art is roughly, "Something some people have an emotional reaction to". Or to rephrase a little, "Anything at all".

Yes - but some people's emotional reactions are more equal than others.

This is why some artists command a premium - whereas you can get a rubber band for less than a penny.

And a rubber fetishist will be eternally puzzled (but pleased) by this.

 
tp
552943.  Tue May 12, 2009 4:01 pm Reply with quote

to my mind anything can be art if it presented as art. A drinking glass is not art because it was produced as a functional item, to drink from. Even if it was decorated then it is still not art. However if that very same glass is taken by an artist and presented as art then it become art. Presumably the artist is trying to say something by presenting the glass and the act of thinking about what this may is part of the process of apreciating art. There does seem to be a fashion in modern recently for peices of art not to say anything but to try and get the veiwer to impose thier own meanings. This I feel is just lazy.

 
Moosh
552954.  Tue May 12, 2009 4:13 pm Reply with quote

What is art? Something done by an artist.
Who is an artist? Someone who does art.

 
Posital
552983.  Tue May 12, 2009 5:00 pm Reply with quote

Moosh wrote:
What is art? Something done by an artist.
Who is an artist? Someone who does art.

Yup - but an artist is someone who specialises in identifying meaning that captures an aspect of the zeitgeist through an artifact.
If they fail - then they are a failed artist.

Sometimes artists predict (or direct) the zeitgeist. Which is kinda interesting in itself.

 
dr.bob
553148.  Wed May 13, 2009 4:38 am Reply with quote

tp wrote:
Presumably the artist is trying to say something by presenting the glass and the act of thinking about what this may is part of the process of apreciating art.


Indeed. Much of the art produced by the dada movement was designed to be "anti-art", such as Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain." The artist was trying to say "isn't the art establishment stupid."

Of course, the irony is that his work was eventually embraced by the art establishment and his Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British art world professionals.

Personally I believe that anything can be art but, just because it is art, doesn't mean that I should necessarily want to spend any time looking at it, let alone any money buying it.

 

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group