New topic
Printable | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: Nope, it's not the same thing. Documenting an event is not the same as creating an event in the name of art. Think about recreating an event on video and actually murdering the subject to depict the scene. Would that be an acceptable form of art? If documenting the event was done with the express purpose of creating a work of art, then yes it is the same thing. (I actually took an entire graduate seminar on the very topic of whether documents (e.g. photos) were art or purely documentation.) But if someone just happened to have their video camera on and recorded someone being beat up (e.g. Rodney King, for example) then later tried to pass it off as art, no dice. The difference is in the intent, which like it or not, is a valid justification when discussing contemporary art. If someone were to recreate a murder on video in order to produce a work of art, then I would argue, yes it is art. Would it be good art? I don't know. Would it be ethical? No. Would it be a crime? Yes. Would it be a good idea? I wouldn't think so. Would it stand up at trial? I hope not. Just because one disagrees with something or dislikes it does not mean it can't be art. Granted, I have a very high tolerance for accepting crap as art and don't find many things offensive--art wise, that is. If I did, I'd have a hard time giving tours on half the stuff I have to discuss with visitors.  I am not saying this video is good art, honestly, I can't even really tell if it's Art (I'd need to read more about it), but it could be.
. [Edited 4/1/08 12:11pm] The check. The string he dropped. The Mona Lisa. The musical notes taken out of a hat. The glass. The toy shotgun painting. The things he found. Therefore, everything seen–every object, that is, plus the process of looking at it–is a Duchamp. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jone70 said: JustErin said: Nope, it's not the same thing. Documenting an event is not the same as creating an event in the name of art. Think about recreating an event on video and actually murdering the subject to depict the scene. Would that be an acceptable form of art? If documenting the event was done with the express purpose of creating a work of art, then yes it is the same thing. (I actually took an entire graduate seminar on the very topic of whether documents (e.g. photos) were art or purely documentation.) But if someone just happened to have their video camera on and recorded someone being beat up (e.g. Rodney King, for example) then later tried to pass it off as art, no dice. The difference is in the intent, which like it or not, is a valid justification when discussing contemporary art. If someone were to recreate a murder on video in order to produce a work of art, then yes, it is art. Is it good art? I don't know. Is it ethical art? Probably not. Is it a crime? Yes. Is is a good idea? I wouldn't think so. Would it stand up at trial? I hope not. Just because one disagrees with something or dislikes it does not mean it can't be art. I have a very high tolerance for accepting crap as art and don't find many things offensive--art wise, that is. I am not saying this video is good art, honestly, I can't even really tell if it's Art (I'd need to read more about it), but it could be. Just like I said earlier. Anything and absolutely anything can be called "art" if the artist so wants to call it that. So, why stop at just killing animals? Gotta do what you gotta do...cuz it's all about expression, right? And ya, of course some people can call something art and get into serious shit for it...that's not really what I am saying. And of course the difference is intent. I'm saying that the whole "art" label on anything to do with victimization, abuse and/or murder - not a depiction of it in a painting, animation, acting, etc...but the actual act, the intent of doing such acts - and calling it a form of "expression" is bunk. Anyhoo, I'm done...I think I've said pretty much all I can say on this topic. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
NDRU said: JustErin said: Molest a child and call it 'art'? no, that's a crime. Art is expression, not just any action. Painting a room isn't art, it's the intention of expressing something to an audience through the action of painting that makes it art. So while yes, molesting a child could technically be art (albeit a sick art, like murder), just doing it and then passing it off as art isn't really going to hold water, any more than any house painter could hardly claim he's an artist. [Edited 4/1/08 10:24am]  In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
FuNkeNsteiN said: Sweeny79 said: I agree with you on this. Art is anything you do, say or create with the intention of expressing yourself and/or creating a reaction in other people.
 bs alert!
So if I poop on a canvas and put that shit, pun intended, on exhibition, it's ART?!? Pff... I was recently at a modern art museum and all I can say is... whoa, people consider all kinds of crap art nowadays. You can have a white sheet of paper with one black spot on it, come up with some artsy-fartsy name and voilá, you have a painting. What theee fuck?!? ... 
[Edited 3/31/08 21:28pm] BS? Huh...really.... That's interesting. Just because you don't agree with my point of view.You can discount it as bullshit. Nice. And to answer your question...if someone defecated on a canvas.... and they believed it to be art. Then yes. It would be art. In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sweeny79 said: And to answer your question...if someone defecated on a canvas.... and they believed it to be art. Then yes. It would be art.
... and this is the part I just can not comprehend It is not known why FuNkeNsteiN capitalizes his name as he does, though some speculate sunlight deficiency caused by the most pimpified white guy afro in Nordic history.
- Lammastide | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Freedom of speech, ... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
FuNkeNsteiN said: Sweeny79 said: And to answer your question...if someone defecated on a canvas.... and they believed it to be art. Then yes. It would be art.
... and this is the part I just can not comprehend You have to change your definition of art to understand. Art doesn't have to be good, it only has to be an expression of the artist My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: Just like I said earlier. Anything and absolutely anything can be called "art" if the artist so wants to call it that. exactly... taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion... the word loses all meaning. can someone give an example of something that is not art? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: It's not gross! It's beautiful!!!
I'm all about art, but some people truly have nothing to say and have to resort to shock. I don't quite get that exhibit of the dead humans either. It's interesting, I suppose, but I definitely don't want to see it and wouldn't take my kids, as the commercial suggests I do. The Bodies Exhibit? Yeah, definitely something not to take the kids to. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
coolcat said: JustErin said: Just like I said earlier. Anything and absolutely anything can be called "art" if the artist so wants to call it that. exactly... taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion... the word loses all meaning. can someone give an example of something that is not art? Art is in the perception, not the object itself. So not everything is art to the same people. It's when it's being perceived or intended as art that it is art. I have seen fire hydrants as art, but only in a certain frame of mind. But as I've said many times, being art does not make something worthwhile or good. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2Jay said: NDRU said: It's not gross! It's beautiful!!!
I'm all about art, but some people truly have nothing to say and have to resort to shock. I don't quite get that exhibit of the dead humans either. It's interesting, I suppose, but I definitely don't want to see it and wouldn't take my kids, as the commercial suggests I do. The Bodies Exhibit? Yeah, definitely something not to take the kids to. the commercial shows a little girl gazing in wonder at this disgusting thing. I would never bring a young kid (and I wouldn't go myself!). My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: 2Jay said: The Bodies Exhibit? Yeah, definitely something not to take the kids to. the commercial shows a little girl gazing in wonder at this disgusting thing. I would never bring a young kid (and I wouldn't go myself!). me neither. my stepdad said that several halls where it was showed now have a paranormal aura about them.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |