New topic
PrintableCarrieMpls said: sammij said: Got a point there
Not to mention, just because someone doesn't have a degree doesn't mean they aren't learned/studied on a subject. If a medical doctor or attorney said something that I didn't agree with, I absolutely would challenge them on it, especially if we're just talking about a healthy debate/conversation. I don't have a medical or law degree, but that doesn't mean I don't know ANYthing about either subject. I'm not saying that people who don't have degrees in Art History don't know ANYthing about art; just that I continually see people who do being dismissed as though their degree doesn't make them more knowledgable about art history and I think this is wrong. Would people agree that having a JD or MD generally makes a person more knowledgable in law or medicine? If so then why isn't it the same for people who study the Humanities? If not, then why go to a doctor with an MD, why not just read a book and operate on oneself? 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 |
Imago said: I didn't know Art couldn't be functional.
  Well, it's not a law, ( ) but if were to be functional, then what would you say would be it's function? To be aesthetically pleasing? What if it's an ugly painting, but a painting nonetheless--is it art or not? 
But doesn't that betray the fact that artist often challenge the established views of what art should be?
I don't think so. Duchamp is the one who made it clear that art wasn't functional (in my opinion). He took a snow shovel, hung it from the ceiling and called it a 'readymade work of art' (title: In Advance of the Broken Arm). The shovel does not function as a shovel, and that's why it became art. He also changed the game by saying "I'm an artist," instead of "I'm a painter." or "I'm a sculptor." He challenged what art should be by saying pretty much anything *could* be art, if the artist deemed it as such. This is one reason I think there is so much crappy contemporary art; thanks to Duchamp anyone thinks they can just pick up something and say, "It's art." The difference was that 1. Duchamp did it first (which, like it or not, is important in the history of art) and 2. the thought process behind creating the art is just as important (and sometimes more) that the finished product. Marcel got that...some artist's today don't have any original thought behind it. If you are interested in learning more about this artist/choice thing, I recommend reading "Kant After Duchamp" by Thierry de Duve -- particularly the chapter called "The Readymade and the Tube of Paint." I would think artist would attempt to create functional pieces of art.
See also Decorative Arts. 
I guess depending on the way someone approaches a functional object, they could say that it functions and is artistic but not art. OR, they can say it's art, but happens to have residual purpose.
See also Design. 
Of course, I don't have formal training in art though--I'm just extremely talented.
So when are you coming to NYC to see the museums?! .de Duve edit. [Edited 6/19/09 20:32pm] 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 |