What is art to you?
Discussion
Mont Blanc said:
StevieBee said:
Nighthawks by Edward Hopper.
That scene didn't exist in anything other than the mind of Hopper. Inspired by a similar looking café but beyond that, it's just an idea. It's a painting that asks questions and allows you to make up the answers. Who's the couple? Should they be together? Are they together? Who's the bloke on his own?
The scary thing is I Googled when the exhibition was and was shocked to discover it was 20 years back
Some years back I was in a London gallery (may have been the RA) and there was an artwork that consisted of a rectangular array of what looked like floor tiles, laid out on the ground, about room size. On one side was a little stand, with the name of the work and the artist, on the other side it was close to one of the doors of the room.
I noticed that people coming in the door were largely unaware that this was an exhibit and were sauntering across it, reading their catalogues, gazing around the room - until they suddenly saw the exhibition label some distance away, and realised they were walking over the work. Lots of embarrassed hopping around ensued while they got off it. People coming in from the other direction, who could see the label, were not doing this.
This is fun, I thought, and stood there for a while watching how people reacted to it all. It eventually struck me that the work might be a deliberate ploy to confuse people about what actually constituted art and make them think about their reaction to it. Or not.
In the end, an artwork is something that is defined by its context, an object in a certain place (a gallery or publicly on a plinth) and displayed in such a way that is has to be considered a statement worthy of contemplation and carrying meaning. A waxwork in Madame Tussaud’s is not thought of as a work of art because Madame Tussaud’s is not an art gallery. A statue in the British Museum is.
This has been a matter of debate for a long time. In 1917 Marcel DuChamps exhibited a porcelain urinal, calling it ‘Fountain’ and under a false name. There was a scandal. It is now considered to be a landmark event in the history of art.
The urinal is exactly the same piece of plumbing that you can find in a public toilet, but DuChamps insisted that in a gallery it was a work of art. I tend to agree with him. It’s worth a read on the subject.
I noticed that people coming in the door were largely unaware that this was an exhibit and were sauntering across it, reading their catalogues, gazing around the room - until they suddenly saw the exhibition label some distance away, and realised they were walking over the work. Lots of embarrassed hopping around ensued while they got off it. People coming in from the other direction, who could see the label, were not doing this.
This is fun, I thought, and stood there for a while watching how people reacted to it all. It eventually struck me that the work might be a deliberate ploy to confuse people about what actually constituted art and make them think about their reaction to it. Or not.
In the end, an artwork is something that is defined by its context, an object in a certain place (a gallery or publicly on a plinth) and displayed in such a way that is has to be considered a statement worthy of contemplation and carrying meaning. A waxwork in Madame Tussaud’s is not thought of as a work of art because Madame Tussaud’s is not an art gallery. A statue in the British Museum is.
This has been a matter of debate for a long time. In 1917 Marcel DuChamps exhibited a porcelain urinal, calling it ‘Fountain’ and under a false name. There was a scandal. It is now considered to be a landmark event in the history of art.
The urinal is exactly the same piece of plumbing that you can find in a public toilet, but DuChamps insisted that in a gallery it was a work of art. I tend to agree with him. It’s worth a read on the subject.
Roofless Toothless said:
Some years back I was in a London gallery (may have been the RA) and there was an artwork that consisted of a rectangular array of what looked like floor tiles, laid out on the ground, about room size. On one side was a little stand, with the name of the work and the artist, on the other side it was close to one of the doors of the room.
I noticed that people coming in the door were largely unaware that this was an exhibit and were sauntering across it, reading their catalogues, gazing around the room - until they suddenly saw the exhibition label some distance away, and realised they were walking over the work. Lots of embarrassed hopping around ensued while they got off it. People coming in from the other direction, who could see the label, were not doing this.
This is fun, I thought, and stood there for a while watching how people reacted to it all. It eventually struck me that the work might be a deliberate ploy to confuse people about what actually constituted art and make them think about their reaction to it. Or not.
In the end, an artwork is something that is defined by its context, an object in a certain place (a gallery or publicly on a plinth) and displayed in such a way that is has to be considered a statement worthy of contemplation and carrying meaning. A waxwork in Madame Tussaud’s is not thought of as a work of art because Madame Tussaud’s is not an art gallery. A statue in the British Museum is.
This has been a matter of debate for a long time. In 1917 Marcel DuChamps exhibited a porcelain urinal, calling it ‘Fountain’ and under a false name. There was a scandal. It is now considered to be a landmark event in the history of art.
The urinal is exactly the same piece of plumbing that you can find in a public toilet, but DuChamps insisted that in a gallery it was a work of art. I tend to agree with him. It’s worth a read on the subject.
I once went around a gallery where there were Coke cans signed by Andy Warhol, the price was £10 but I didn't buy, they now sell for thousands. Unlike the Duchamps piece the coke cans were not quite the same as you could buyI noticed that people coming in the door were largely unaware that this was an exhibit and were sauntering across it, reading their catalogues, gazing around the room - until they suddenly saw the exhibition label some distance away, and realised they were walking over the work. Lots of embarrassed hopping around ensued while they got off it. People coming in from the other direction, who could see the label, were not doing this.
This is fun, I thought, and stood there for a while watching how people reacted to it all. It eventually struck me that the work might be a deliberate ploy to confuse people about what actually constituted art and make them think about their reaction to it. Or not.
In the end, an artwork is something that is defined by its context, an object in a certain place (a gallery or publicly on a plinth) and displayed in such a way that is has to be considered a statement worthy of contemplation and carrying meaning. A waxwork in Madame Tussaud’s is not thought of as a work of art because Madame Tussaud’s is not an art gallery. A statue in the British Museum is.
This has been a matter of debate for a long time. In 1917 Marcel DuChamps exhibited a porcelain urinal, calling it ‘Fountain’ and under a false name. There was a scandal. It is now considered to be a landmark event in the history of art.
The urinal is exactly the same piece of plumbing that you can find in a public toilet, but DuChamps insisted that in a gallery it was a work of art. I tend to agree with him. It’s worth a read on the subject.
I must admit to being a bit of an art fan. If ever I'm in a town or city and there's a gallery, I'll almost always go in and have mooch round. I started out as a Graphic Designer and the creative arts is still a space I operate in so I guess it's a baked-in thing.
I'll also robustly defend 'modern art'. But sometimes modern art doesn't make it easy to do so.
Stumbled across this at the De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill a few years back. A stick painted green stuck to the wall. I was on my own and actually laughed out loud - much to the annoyance of (I assume) the artist or curator nearby giving a talk. It's the little rope that I like.
I'll also robustly defend 'modern art'. But sometimes modern art doesn't make it easy to do so.
Stumbled across this at the De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill a few years back. A stick painted green stuck to the wall. I was on my own and actually laughed out loud - much to the annoyance of (I assume) the artist or curator nearby giving a talk. It's the little rope that I like.
I went to the Guggenheim in Bilbao on a lads weekend with a group of friends from Manchester. The art wasn’t up my street but their reactions were priceless.
I think a problem is that learning to draw and paint (if you have some talent) is not that hard and so very average people can create paintings that are very realistic or technically accomplished. So artists who want to differentiate themselves end up doing bizarre things.
I took my daughter to the main art museum in Copenhagen. It was a good mix of art from different periods (personally my favourite type is Impressionism/expressionism) but the modern stuff was generally too weird and basic for me. One of the exhibits was a room full of chairs. Every time we sat down after that we were worried we were sitting on some art.
I think a problem is that learning to draw and paint (if you have some talent) is not that hard and so very average people can create paintings that are very realistic or technically accomplished. So artists who want to differentiate themselves end up doing bizarre things.
I took my daughter to the main art museum in Copenhagen. It was a good mix of art from different periods (personally my favourite type is Impressionism/expressionism) but the modern stuff was generally too weird and basic for me. One of the exhibits was a room full of chairs. Every time we sat down after that we were worried we were sitting on some art.
Its something created visual, tactile or auditory to stimulate the mind, not purely functional.
A car can be both functional and also a pice of art, but not all cars are art.
It’s all subjective.
A piece of music can be art. I like abstract art but others may not.
Overall the art should contribute to human well being.
This is why I find it annoying when people look down on those studying the arts. Certain politicians saying only subjects that have a purely commercial ideal should be taught.
The Arts should always be very well funded.
A car can be both functional and also a pice of art, but not all cars are art.
It’s all subjective.
A piece of music can be art. I like abstract art but others may not.
Overall the art should contribute to human well being.
This is why I find it annoying when people look down on those studying the arts. Certain politicians saying only subjects that have a purely commercial ideal should be taught.
The Arts should always be very well funded.
Its something created visual, tactile or auditory to stimulate the mind, not purely functional.
A car can be both functional and also a pice of art, but not all cars are art.
It’s all subjective.
A piece of music can be art. I like abstract art but others may not.
Overall the art should contribute to human well being.
This is why I find it annoying when people look down on those studying the arts. Certain politicians saying only subjects that have a purely commercial ideal should be taught.
The Arts should always be very well funded.
A car can be both functional and also a pice of art, but not all cars are art.
It’s all subjective.
A piece of music can be art. I like abstract art but others may not.
Overall the art should contribute to human well being.
This is why I find it annoying when people look down on those studying the arts. Certain politicians saying only subjects that have a purely commercial ideal should be taught.
The Arts should always be very well funded.
conkerman said:
Anything that makes the world a richer place but has no specific function.
I like that definition.Trouble is it applies to anything creative, not just art.
Beauty is often connected with art, but beauty in the main has a very strong relationship with a mathematic equation, beauty within art often stands away from that mathematical equation (1:45 or something like that) and is unquantifiable…you dont know why its beautiful, that i find fascinating.
There are some cars i find beautiful because they're so ugly / ungainly.
obvious / surface beauty is boring to me, i’m drawn by it but not fascinated in the same way, Alfa SV vs Ferrari 250 GTO, Sigourney weaver vs jane seymour etc etc draws me much further..
Personal experiences, hang ups, call it what you will but how we individually see beauty / art is probably the single most individual thing a human can have once away from the mathematical / generic beauty, the more intelligent & learned the human being, the more complexed the art / beauty becomes i think, it makes you ask questions of yourself and why you find something beautiful when the majority cant see it.
Good will hunting, fisherman at sea, one experienced doctors view vs intelligent but naive young guys view, always made me smile
Edited by Kerniki on Thursday 11th July 07:15
Shermanator said:
I've been to a couple of museums today, and visiting a couple more and it got me thinking. A lot of the paintings in them, I don't consider to be art, so what do you consider to be art?
Personally, landscapes, animals and buildings can all be art. As can cars, planes and trains. However humans can't. A person (or painting of a person) cannot be art. They can be beautiful, but not art. I'm not sure why I think this, can only imagine it is is because there is no such thing as a perfect person.
Controversial topic, I know!
What do you think about the work of Ron Mueck?Personally, landscapes, animals and buildings can all be art. As can cars, planes and trains. However humans can't. A person (or painting of a person) cannot be art. They can be beautiful, but not art. I'm not sure why I think this, can only imagine it is is because there is no such thing as a perfect person.
Controversial topic, I know!
https://artsology.com/ron-mueck-sculpture.php
Edited by Cotty on Thursday 11th July 08:53
k doesn’t like trees?Personally, I would agree with the view that art is the creation of things that are beautiful and/or makes you feel an emotion. Emotions other than ridicule and disgust that the taxpayer spent money on it 
But if the artist has to be there to explain it or you need to read a plaque to understand it; it's not good art.
Great art is universal. Everyone from a factory worker in China to a British Lord to a goat herder in Timbuktu would know a masterpiece of painting or sculpture when they see one.
But if the artist has to be there to explain it or you need to read a plaque to understand it; it's not good art.
Great art is universal. Everyone from a factory worker in China to a British Lord to a goat herder in Timbuktu would know a masterpiece of painting or sculpture when they see one.
Mr Peel said:
I don't have a pithy definition of art for you. But it can be useful to think about craft - defined as "an activity involving skill in making things by hand" - and ponder what a craft item needs to be raised to the status of art.
Genuinely? As I understand it, take a multi-coloured cushion with pleats and change it in some way so that it generates the emotion of grief through the loss of your first child at 8 years old. Hope that makes sense. (And I hope you haven't lost your first born at a young age. That's purely a random example!)Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff