What is art to you?
Discussion
DodgyGeezer said:
here's the thing about art...
this is a 'masterpiece':
I dealt with fine art claims for about sixteen years and your picture just reminded me of one. It appeared to be a landscape with a white splash of paint in the middle, I showed a photo of the damage to someone and they said its a shame someone has thrown paint at it.this is a 'masterpiece':
No no thats the artwork, the damage is a tear in the canvas in the right hand corner.
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
Went to the Guggenheim in New York a few years ago, what a load of old emporers new clothes crap.
I dealt with a claim in that location years back. Because its a spiral they don't allow push chairs as they don't trust people to apply the brakes. They provide you with a baby carrier to wear, unfortunately someone hooked a scuplture off a plinth with it. The sculpture was damaged when it hit the floor, meaning it should have been more securely mounted..DodgyGeezer said:
here's the thing about art...
this is a 'masterpiece':
this is 'just a drawing':
and this is just childish and simplistic:
whereas I'd far rather look at the 2nd and 3rd than the first - let alone pay for the first...
But all three are art, it is only the viewer's perception as to their ranking within the art world.this is a 'masterpiece':
this is 'just a drawing':
and this is just childish and simplistic:
whereas I'd far rather look at the 2nd and 3rd than the first - let alone pay for the first...
You preferring 2 or 3 doesn't mean that No 1 is any less worthy of being classed as art.
miniman said:
It’s whatever you want it to be, right?
For instance, my wife did not appreciate my idea of “art” in this case:
I, however, love it.
I used to eat my lunch up there. Great views.For instance, my wife did not appreciate my idea of “art” in this case:
I, however, love it.
https://www.lancs.live/news/local-news/nostalgia/m...
boyse7en said:
DodgyGeezer said:
here's the thing about art...
this is a 'masterpiece':
this is 'just a drawing':
and this is just childish and simplistic:
whereas I'd far rather look at the 2nd and 3rd than the first - let alone pay for the first...
But all three are art, it is only the viewer's perception as to their ranking within the art world.this is a 'masterpiece':
this is 'just a drawing':
and this is just childish and simplistic:
whereas I'd far rather look at the 2nd and 3rd than the first - let alone pay for the first...
You preferring 2 or 3 doesn't mean that No 1 is any less worthy of being classed as art.
DodgyGeezer said:
I take the simplistic viewpoint that if I can recreate it it isn't art - I appreciate that others can a do see things differently
The issue is that the 'cognoscenti' would look down on my choices of art as being 'not worthy'/'childish'/'not nuanced' or somesuch. toasty said:
This is art. Interchange by Willem de Kooning. It looks like a haphazard mess of a scrawl to me and I find it amazing that anyone would value it. But someone did, to the tune of £300000000. Why? Buggered if I know but it’s art.
That is definitely art. I quite like it and would be happy to have it on one of my walls. I think you are addressing a different issue, which is why something like this is valued at £30 million when it is hard to distinguish it from innumerable other such paintings and I would argue doesn’t require any real skills to make.
That for me is the key difference. Skill and uniqueness. A proper Japanese Katana is art to me. It takes a lifetime to learn the skills to make them and each one takes a year.
Skeptisk said:
toasty said:
This is art. Interchange by Willem de Kooning. It looks like a haphazard mess of a scrawl to me and I find it amazing that anyone would value it. But someone did, to the tune of £300000000. Why? Buggered if I know but it’s art.
That is definitely art. I quite like it and would be happy to have it on one of my walls. I think you are addressing a different issue, which is why something like this is valued at £30 million when it is hard to distinguish it from innumerable other such paintings and I would argue doesn’t require any real skills to make.
The value that's accrued on top of that simply comes down to how much someone wants to own it more than the next buyer.
Art is an ambiguous thing, just because you make some art, it doesn't mean that you're an artist.. but, also, it does mean you're an artist. But does it mean that that art is good art? Is art good just because the right people say it's good? Yes, yes. That's how it works. But keep in mind, y'know, a lot of modern art is.. trash, I mean, it's shiitty, it's not good. It's terrible. And yet, it's a fine line between Van Gogh and Van Damme, y'know.. between Depp and Grieco, between Banksy and, well.. and that makes it very difficult to determine what's good art. I mean, what is high art? What has meaning..?
Of course, another wierd thing about the value of a piece of art is provenance. A painting may be of little value, but as soon as someone digs up a few documents suggesting it is the work if a trendy artist, it becomes a valuable masterpiece.
The thing itself has not changed, so what justifies the price hike? It seems to be just the way the market works, but does that high price mean the piece is more significant? Or just more expensive?
The thing itself has not changed, so what justifies the price hike? It seems to be just the way the market works, but does that high price mean the piece is more significant? Or just more expensive?
Nurburgsingh said:
Something that involves talent and effort to create which makes people feel something when they look at it.
which means very little in the Tate modern passes my litmus test.
If you've put more effort into the BS that's on the plaque next to the creation then its not art.
But you said ‘makes people feel something not ‘makes me feel something’which means very little in the Tate modern passes my litmus test.
If you've put more effort into the BS that's on the plaque next to the creation then its not art.
And in any case I suspect the work in the Tate modern does make you feel something! Otherwise you would be unable to dislike it.
StevieBee said:
Shermanator said:
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.!
If you look back at some of the masters of landscape and portraiture, you will find plenty of astoundingly gifted painters. Canaletto, for example. It is impossible to fault their technical ability. However, if they were alive today, they'd be photographers, not painters (though photography is also an art form).
I think at a purely technical level, you are right. They are not art or even artistic. They are simply paintings of a scene or a person. There is no interpretation of the artist's imagination other than the basic composition. They have simply taken a photo with a brush and paint.
Wheres this, is art:
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?
This too:
Don't know who painted this but there is something else going on here beyond the obvious. The artist is inviting us to interpret his imagination.
Edited by StevieBee on Wednesday 10th July 13:23
Cotty said:
What do you think about the work of Ron Mueck?
https://artsology.com/ron-mueck-sculpture.php
I personally think they are absolutely horrid, something I find ugly can't be art (in my opinion). I knew this topic would raise the old "art is subjective" point, which is 100% true. Exactly why I used the "to you" in the title.https://artsology.com/ron-mueck-sculpture.php
Edited by Cotty on Thursday 11th July 08:53
So I short, Ron Mueck horrible. The below however, gorgeous and art I would buy if I had the money:
https://www.brokenliquid.com/available-works
Shermanator said:
Cotty said:
What do you think about the work of Ron Mueck?
https://artsology.com/ron-mueck-sculpture.php
I personally think they are absolutely horrid, something I find ugly can't be art (in my opinion). I knew this topic would raise the old "art is subjective" point, which is 100% true. Exactly why I used the "to you" in the title.https://artsology.com/ron-mueck-sculpture.php
Edited by Cotty on Thursday 11th July 08:53
So I short, Ron Mueck horrible. The below however, gorgeous and art I would buy if I had the money:
https://www.brokenliquid.com/available-works
Shermanator said:
something I find ugly can't be art (in my opinion).
I get that this is your opinion, but I still find it baffling. Why can't you accept that it's art, but you just don't like? What negates it as art just because you don't like it? At the risk going all reductio ad absurdum, an ugly house is still a house - should art be any different?That which I like, which serves no purpose - other than the provision of pleasure - to me, is art. It could be a painting, a poem, a sculpture, a garden, a song, a photograph.
Different people find pleasure in different ways and so their experience of what is art may differ in actuality but is defined in the same way.
Different people find pleasure in different ways and so their experience of what is art may differ in actuality but is defined in the same way.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff