am i missing something?
- Started
- Last post
- 49 Responses
- digdre0
you have to know the context i guess
- eating_tv0
- hahahaukit
- fuck me that is BRILLIANT!!Projectile
- hahahahbigtrick
- MrMackem0
no lol cat, no good.
- ukit0
P.S. I realize this is the most pointless argument of all time, so I'll shut up now;)
- ukit0
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's up to the person creating it whether they want to frame it as "art" or not. And of course there was SOME effort put into these, even if in the end it wasn't enough to make them very good:)
Anyway, I'm sure you agree modern art is a lot of times as much about the concept as the execution. How can you glance at a piece of work and try to second guess the concept?
That's why I think art can't really be some kind of qualitative judgment. It's simply a type of creative work, the same way design is.
- Peter0
"The way you guys make it sound, there is not good and bad art, only good art.
It would be like saying any design I don't like isn't actually design."
-
I'd put it differently. Unlike the bad design you posted there's no effort made in those photographs. Agreed, there's readymade/found art, but the photos on the first page doesn't even qualify as that.
If we are to see beauty in everything there would be nothing considered art as everything would already be it. You have to draw the line somewhere.
- ukit0
The way you guys make it sound, there is not good and bad art, only good art.
It would be like saying any design I don't like isn't actually design. Like this:
(the header of the most popular design site on the web, ironically)
It's bad design from my point of view, but it's not up to me to judge whether it actually is design or not. It serves that purpose the same way these photos, shitty as they might happen to be, serve the purpose of being art.
- inteliboy0
If it doesn't make me think, or feel something - then it aint art in my eyes. Normally mean not much thought has gone behind it in the first place.
Those photos don't really say much, nor have an interesting aesthetic. Even that snapshot low-fi element is missing. Just kind of boring really.
- Peter0
Those photos are art if they were taken by a famous artist.
If not they're pretty shitty.
- ali0
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
- gramme0
I might have confused him with one of his Dadaist contemporaries.
- ukit0
Actually Duchamp lived to be 81 and died of natural causes.
- gramme0
Marcel Duchamp realized art can be made from anything, and that anything can be considered art depending on context. This led him into a deep depression that in turn drove him to suicide.
Robert Rauchenberg realized art can be made from anything, and that great beauty can be found in the mundane. This led him to be one of the most prolific artists of the 20th and early 21st century.
As someone who sees a great deal of objective truth in the world, I think art is about as subjective as anything can possibly be. If you have an opinion about something that is being called art, good. If you can articulate your reasons for liking or disliking something, great.
Pondering whether something is art or not doesn't really seem worthwhile to me.
For the record: I can't stand the photo style that started this thread either. But I don't consider it worth bitching about. The world is full of too many horrific logos and terribly kerned headlines for me to care. :P
- VikingKingEleven0
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/8726216@N05/4930479199/" title="Sn-art? by dallasguy1378, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/4930479199_7d519a929f.jpg" width="500" height="334" alt="Sn-art?" /></a>