So, because paintings require hangers, wires, hooks and such to be displayed, it isn't art?

That's an even weaker argument than what I said, though. The manner in which art is displayed determines if it's art? Makes no sense.

So why should site-=specific installations be given a pass, and not haute couture?

DevotedPuppy said:

It could easily be argued that haute couture is not design as well. Would body painting be considered functional simply because it requires a human body for it to be displayed?



So, does this become classified as "functional" because it uses the human body for its display? Does it fail the "art" test because it can't literally stand on it's own?



[Edited 10/8/08 13:49pm]

DevotedPuppy said:

And she wouldn't be alone...there are a number of influential modern art historians and critical art theorists who argue that functionality does not disqualify something as art. (I attended an art college as well lol )
[Edited 10/8/08 13:54pm]

Paintings don't need that stuff. You can lean them against a wall, or paint them directly on the wall/ceiling (a la fresco), or put them on an easel. The first paintings were done on cave walls sans all that stuff.

That's you're argument. You said the manner in which haute couture is displayed (on the body) is what could make it art. So are you retracting your previous position?

Because site specific installations are not functional.

Byron said:

Not art or design. Craft.

Byron said:

I didn't attend art college, I went to two different universities. I have a BA in Art History and a Master's in Modern Art & Critical Theory. I studied with Clement Greenberg's protege, Rosalind Krauss (one the people most responsible for post-modernist/deconstructivist theory). I did, however, take 5 studio courses as an undergrad, so I do know how hard it is to create art. I sucked at it.

ZombieKitten said:

well it isn't, and if you read more on warhol you'll see that...

i'm not getting into the discussion because i don't know enough about art yet to claim i do (like so many have before here )

so...

DevotedPuppy said:

And haute couture doesn't need a human body for display...you can use hangers and wires to approximate how it would look if placed on a body. So it IS art afterall lol





No, I said that the supposed "functionality" can be explained by realizing that it's art that uses the body for display...I never said that the fact that it uses the body for display purposes means it's art. I was using your criteria to show the flaws in your logic.





And neither is haute couture. I could use a painting as an umbrella if I wanted to lol...just because it CAN be used in a funcitonal manner doesn't mean it was created for that purpose. And I think that's the biggest issue in my eyes: was this art created for functionality, or was it created for its own purpose.

For example:




This body painting can, if desired, be used in a functional manner. It can, if desired, serve the same purpose as a shirt. So it, by definition, is indeed functional. But that doesn't mean that functionality was the goal behind its creation.




A toilet, obviously, is functional lol...however, this is considered art. The artist uses something functional to create something that really isn't functional, although you COULD still hook it up to the pipes and use it. Art? No? Yes?
[Edited 10/8/08 14:09pm]

Art? Or mere craft?

If this were a "living" display within an art museum, would it still be considered craft, and not art? If the artist's goal was to convey some convoluted philosophy about man's place within nature (lol), and decided the best way to convey this was to use an actual "man" in front of his painting to get this across instead of painting a man into the canvas, is it an installation piece or is it craft?





What about video art?...It obviously uses the VERY functional monitor to create a work of art. Or is the fact that the monitors ARE functional reduce it to design, and not art?

DevotedPuppy said:

I think you mean how hard it is to create GOOD art lol...Anyone can create art.

Byron said:

Well, I suppose you could, but I think that's a weak argument. Art should be able to stand alone (literally and figuratively). If you need a body to display it, I don't think it really works as art. Paintings, sculptures (except site-specific installations), prints, do not need special display to be successful as art.

Well, then I guess you disagree with some of the most influential modern art historians and critical theorists. (Not including myself, just my graduate school professors.)

DevotedPuppy said:

who would these people be, by the way?

DevotedPuppy said:

ok now you're just sounding pretentious that's my

where does performance art lay in your spectrum of "how it all works" ?
Marina Ambromovich? Ulay? Chris Burden? Janine Antoni? All renowned artists, known for their art.
They all use their bodies exclusively in their work.
All successful (and even crazy)
Ok maybe Chris Burden is a bad example because I hate his work - he is nevertheless considered a contemporary artist working out of the 60s.

i feel like your theory is falling apart here.

sammij said:

And now you're sounding like a bitter artist.

Performance art is not functional! Art is not functional! I am trying to make this as simple as possible. Performance artists use their body as a tool (like a painter uses a paintbrush), but the actual ART is the concept, the performance. Would you say Monet's paintbrush or Rodin's clay tools were art? Doubtful.

N.B. Jasper John's taking paintbrushes and putting them in the can, and rendering them non-functional is not the same. Key concept: functionality.

Even some site specific installations are not successful despite their display: Smithson's Spiral Jetty was underwater for many years.

BTW, it seems that everytime I post commonly accepted theories about art (history)--which is my career, my profession, what I have dedicated my studies and 12 years of my life to--the same argument comes up and my knowledge and creditials are questioned.


Do you all question how valid everyone else is at their jobs, or their credentials? Would you ask a nurse with 12 years experience if they were giving you their opinion on infant vaccinations? An IT person whether you really need virus protection? Doubtful.

Alright DevotedPuppy YOU KNOW THE TRUTH. BECAUSE YOU SPEAK IT.




better?

DevotedPuppy said:

i wasn't questioning anything
i was trying to see if i recognized any of the names, for my own personal knowledge.

easy.

sammij said:

Very mature.

BTW, it seems that everytime I post commonly accepted theories about art (history)--which is my career, my profession, what I have dedicated my studies and 12 years of my life to--the same argument comes up and my knowledge and creditials are questioned.


Do you all question how valid everyone else is at their jobs, or their credentials? Would you ask a nurse with 12 years experience if they were giving you their opinion on infant vaccinations? An IT person whether you really need virus protection? Doubtful.

I would wear this

do you teach?

BTW, it seems that everytime I post commonly accepted theories about art (history)--which is my career, my profession, what I have dedicated my studies and 12 years of my life to--the same argument comes up and my knowledge and creditials are questioned.


Do you all question how valid everyone else is at their jobs, or their credentials? Would you ask a nurse with 12 years experience if they were giving you their opinion on infant vaccinations? An IT person whether you really need virus protection? Doubtful.