I dont even know what it is..

sammij said:

That tends to happen when someone screams in their face "YOU'RE NOT AN ARTIST, GOT DAMN IT!!" lol...

eraclito said:

so that designates it as unskilled art, poor art, etc, but it doesn't take away the assignation of it's being art at all. I just can't see that.

sammij said:

hmm, i don't think curators are. maybe the kind of art critic who thinks he/she is god's gift to the art world is, though

Byron said:

you can stick your face in the internets? who knew!


i don't think anyone can 'scream' on the internet though in all fairness, it was in caps to get attention, and it got attention!


so i say kudos to that.

evenstar3 said:

that's pretty much any curator i've encountered

but that gives curators just as bad a rep as artists get, but seriously, curators need to be nicer these days.

evenstar3 said:

OMG. I just saw the Jeff Koons show at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago. His Made in Heaven series! Awesomely smutty art!


Yeah, art doesn't have to push boundaries, it doesn't have to be original, require talent, or whatever to be 'art'. But to be GOOD art, is something different, which is for a different thread (and I don't have the energy to debate about that).

I don't think scrapbooking is Art (capital 'A' intentional), it's craft. Art, by definition, is not functional, and scrapbooks serve a function/are functional. (Architecture being the gray area I have not yet reconciled of art/non-functional-ness.)




.
[Edited 9/2/08 15:39pm]

sammij said:

Pretty sure I didn't mean what I posted to be taken literally.

And it's the tackiest of ways of 'getting attention', so I rarely give kudos for typing something insulting in ALL CAPS. 12 year olds on YouTube do that in the comments section lol...

DevotedPuppy said:

You don't think furniture can be art (or even Art)?











Scrapbooks:










None of this is Art merely because it's also functional?

You guys REALLY look at this and say "Nope, not art/Art"??...

..
[Edited 9/3/08 3:27am]

Byron said:

Furniture? Nope, definitely not art/Art. That's design. And design is not art. Not saying design can't be artistic, but it's not art.

Any other questions?


.
[Edited 9/3/08 4:49am]

DevotedPuppy said:

ok this is turning into something else, anyways i agree in principle that design is not art, but then if the furniture was handcrafted and what not, wouldn't the furniture maker be an artist..

who started all this what's art and what's not shit anyways...

..
[Edited 9/3/08 5:01am]

Byron said:

A Shame

paintsprayer said:

most definitely art

DevotedPuppy said:

There's an alley full of graphic designers who would like to have a word with you lol...

All Art is design. Or at least all art starts off as design.

Where it crosses the line from design into art/Art is when self-expression is the priority and dictates the outcome. The fact that the design still retain an aspect of functionality during that transition into Art is pretty irrelevant, imo.

Many works we consider classic paintings today were, in reality, nothing more than graphic design in that the rich and powerful were commissioning a lot of these works, as well as dictating what could and could not be included. The finished works were used to "advertise" the rich and powerful's point of view on the subject matter on anything from religion to themselves. We could see a portrait painting of Napoleon, for example, hanging in a museum and almost everyone would consider it Art...even if the actual painter was, when you get right down to it, creating nothing more than a poster for the purposes of Napoleon to advertise himself.

Photography for the longest time wasn't considered Art (and in certain circles still may not be). And it had little to do with things like functionality or design or anything of the sort. It's more of a "class" thing, I think...the "high arts" and the "lower arts" mentality. One was "true art", and the other was some lesser form that the commoners crudely dabbled in. You definitely see that attitude expressed on the previous pages of this thread lol ...

paintsprayer said:

Depends...if there's no self-expression in any of this, then it's more engineering and design than it is art. It is AN art, regardless, and it's definitely artistic in its design.

By the way, from my experience working in an industrial design firm, you'd be surprised at how many times self-expression does indeed play a role in what's being created.


...
[Edited 9/3/08 10:52am]

Good Lord!

Okay, say two people go and buy scrapbooking kits. They each go home and do whatever they're going to do with them. Some time later they get together and compare them. Are they going to be identical? Highly unlikely. Some individual thought, creativity, and expression does come into play. No, it may not be serious art, but it's art nonetheless.

And I don't even care about scrapbooking , but the argument here is flawed.

Last thought: Griping about high gas prices is a bit more understandable then griping about the art/non-art of scrapbooking, but I suppose one always has to find something to complain about.

TMPletz said:

...and I agree

The thing is, from what little I know about "scrapbook kits", all it means is that they give you a bunch of different items (string, a ribbon, velvet cloth, wire, etc, etc), and then leave it up to YOU as to what to do with these things. Yes, you could go hunt down a bunch of items like these yourself, and often times the people who make scrapbooks do just that. But you can do it the easier way and pick a kit that contains the types of "scraps" that you like working with. I think a few on this thread were treating a scrapbook kit as if it were a "paint by numbers" painting, when it's not EVEN close to that.

It would be like buying someone a "painting kit" that comes with 12 different colors of paint, 5 different brushes, and an easel. Whatever is created from it would be art/Art...the fact that it started from a painting kit is completely irrelevant.

Byron said:

No, sorry. Graphic design is not art. Artistic, yes, but not art. Graphic design's primary function is to communicate a message (whether it uses words or not). I disagree that all art starts out as design, it starts out as an idea. (Conceptual art--not designed. Duchamp's Three Standard Stoppages, definitely not designed...he let chance create the stoppages. How does one design 'chance'?)

I do realize that the "art establishment" has made exceptions, but imo, design (e.g. anything with a function) is not art. (And who am I to judge? Well I have a Master's in art history and critical theory--from a school whose professors are reknowned art theorists, I have devoted six years of my life to the academic study of the history of art, as well as five years of giving tours/researching different artists/designers at museums, and eight years of working in (both art & design) museums. So while I know art is subjective, I also think I may be a little more qualified than the average person at being able to speak about what the "establishment" (eg. museums, academia, galleries, etc) commonly accepts as definitions of art, design, craft etc. I'm not trying to sound like a snob, but I would expect someone who has studied 20th Century European History (for example) to know more what they're talking about than the average person.)

RE: Your Napoleon portrait. No, not graphic design. I appreciate your argument that it could be read as propoganda/advertisement, but that was not its main function. It was created to record a person, event, a memory; and (at that time) had to be aesthetically pleasing to show the painter's skill.

RE: Photography. Again, depends on the purpose. Journalistic photography functions as documentation. Artistic photography (Opie, Gursky, Lockhart, Sherman, etc.) primary goal is not to record an actual event. They are essentially creating "painting" using a different medium. (Remember when photography was invented DelaRoche declared the death of painting.) I don't think the "high/low art" argument comes into play much with photography. But I do think it comes into play with decorative arts and craft.


Like I said, I'm not trying to come off as a snob, but I have thought about this quite a lot over the years. My friends from grad school and I have the "is this art" debate constantly; my reasons are not arbitrary, they are based on the history of art and art theory.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, because I'm too tired to have a circular discussion on art. (Sorry, I got some disappointing news this evening and am not feeling much like debating.)



.
[Edited 9/3/08 17:04pm]

eraclito said:

No, I know for 18th, 19th century European furniture, it was commonly made by cabinetmakers or artisans. It was rare that sculptors made furniture. Nowdays, furniture is designed. (I don't know for sure about "non-Western" furniture or earlier periods. I just know 18th/19th century from past museum exhibitions I toured.)

But your choice to use the word, "artist" also brings up an important distinction. Prior to the 20th century, people who created "art" were referred to the type of medium they used: painter, sculptor, printmaker, etc. It was only when Marcel Duchamp (my hero ) chose the a tube of paint and declare it art, that the term shifted to "artist." Technical skill or craftsmenship was no longer *the* most important thing, and one could be an artist by declaration and idea. (That's why there's so much crap contemporary art today.)

And to further prove my art is not functional point, consider Duchamp's "Readymades." He chose a snow shovel, a urinal, a bicycle wheel, etc. and took away their functions (by hanging the shovel from a ceiling, turning the urinal on its side and not connected to plumbing, and mounting the wheel on a stool--also then useless), thereby rendering them useless and making them art. A stroke of brilliance--and since he was the first, if people do it now, it's just not as clever.



That is a question that has intrigued philosophers from antiquity to the present, and as you can see, has still not been definitively resolved.

MoniGram said:

Thats not well said. As everyone has thus far agreed if you scrapbook its cool and if you start from scartch it can be artsy. but i agree with Meow on this one. If you but a scrapbook kit it's not much in the form of art. its a sticker book with photos.
The comparison to someone else's stars being similar to the paint before a painting. that could be if the paint was already dried in the correct shapes and just pasted to a paper. I think a proper comparison would be if all of the materials (materials in this case meaning paint, lace, ribbons (still in streams not pre-bowtied or something), paper, even glitter) were compared to the paint as then you are still doing the majority of work.

Byron said:[quote]

meow85 said:

Thats not creating thats just reorganizing someone elses creation to better highlight your pictures.

DevotedPuppy said:

ur fucking nutz

Daznym17 said:

This was made with a kit. I don't see too many stickers.

Daznym17 said:

You know next to nothing about scrapbooks and scrapbook kits, and it's showing.

Again, I think everyone needs to be careful of using their own personal tastes as a barometer of what is art and what isn't. I'm seriously floored at how narrowminded a number of posters have been on this topic, especially being on this site. (for the record, not you, Joni lol)....

Byron said:

I feel bad that an artist can be declared an artist by buying a kit of bows and stickers with glitter glue. Humanity is becoming so lazy that we can't actually create our own ribbon bows now before becoming an artist. I know what i can do. I'll go get a book of songs, start playing one and add in a note at the end. that makes me the artist of the song right? i mean someone else made the material but i added one difference. so to your rules that makes me the creative one and artistic one now.*sigh* How did we get so stupid.

horatio said:

You're entitled to your opinion. Why don't you enlighten us with your opinion about what does and does not constitute art instead of just rolling your eyes and insulting people?


.
[Edited 9/3/08 17:19pm]

DevotedPuppy said:

there is indeed furniture from the here and now and of the only the past few decades that is certainly art.
i think its likely no ever sees it to appreciate it as art because they are not wealthy enough or know anyone wealthy enough to own such things. Instead they are bombarded with knockoffs and imitations, much like ready to wear clothing lines.
the designer is indeed an artist, the people who execute the design are artist in their own right, but more crafts men.
the same can be said with architects and their builders.
almost all famous architects are painters, furniture designers, sculptors AND curators.
they are artist.
Gio Ponti, Tommi Parzinger, Fornasetti, Jean Michel Frank, Phillip Stark, and many more of this time are more than one of these things if not ALL.

DevotedPuppy said:

its highly likely that your entire home is furnished with items directly knocked off and influenced by these 'non-artist'

Byron said:

Why thank you. Yeah, I think I'm pretty lenient in what I'll let slide as being called "art." Now if we were discussing good art v. bad art, I'd probably be in the narrowminded section as I am very picky when it comes to that.

DevotedPuppy said:

I hope the news isn't too bad ...(yeah, I know you're not into hugs lol )