The conceptual artist Manzoni canned his own shit and sold it asThe Artist's Shit. Is that art? What I do question is why everyone is willing to agree that Mozart is a great artist, but gives modern art a lot less credit. Is it culture and history that dictates what we consider art? Is sometimes a society not ready for some art like van Gogh? Is that what is happening with the conceptual art at the moment?
Who said modern art is given less credit? I just happen to think squirting paint out of your ass (or your eyeball, as I've read of as well) may be highly creative, but I find it ridiculous and simply don't value it.
But that's me. If someone else appreciates that, or is willing to pay for it (or pay for canned shit, for that matter), further reinforces my "it's all subjective" view.
I think FrankieG up there put it best, simply so.
But hedonist, you said earlier, that "Sure, art's subjective, but...is it far-fetched for me to call bullshit on some so-called creations?"
If it's purely subjective, then let's agree that even a black painted canvas that someone painted can still be his art, regardless of being judged. He created it, after all.
My avatar, for instance just looks like a skull. Big deal, right? Look closer and you'll see that it's too children on a dock with 2 balloons and some birds flying overhead. It's all in the what you choose to see that makes art. It doesn't mean that someone's lackluster art isn't art!
Look up Shelley, Keats, and Oscar Wilde for edifying reviews on the subjectivity of art and criticism, and on aesthetics in general. There are many people who would argue that "professional art" is not art at all as the selling of it cheapens the value of the expression... i wouldn't argue this point but I see the logic, I almost feel as though my poetry has greater nobility if it is never read lol. I definitely think money has nothing to do with the definition of an artist, that is a narrow view that excludes probably millions of amazing visual, aural, and written word artists whose work was never noticed.
PJ has very mature opinions on art, Ed and Jeff are inspiring in taking their art seriously. Blood holds a very special place for me for this reason
How does that Ament quote go?, on PJ receiving a grammy for SBC, something like this... Jeff: .You're gonna give an award for art? Like, what the fuck does that even mean?
The conceptual artist Manzoni canned his own shit and sold it asThe Artist's Shit. Is that art? What I do question is why everyone is willing to agree that Mozart is a great artist, but gives modern art a lot less credit. Is it culture and history that dictates what we consider art? Is sometimes a society not ready for some art like van Gogh? Is that what is happening with the conceptual art at the moment?
Who said modern art is given less credit? I just happen to think squirting paint out of your ass (or your eyeball, as I've read of as well) may be highly creative, but I find it ridiculous and simply don't value it.
But that's me. If someone else appreciates that, or is willing to pay for it (or pay for canned shit, for that matter), further reinforces my "it's all subjective" view.
I think FrankieG up there put it best, simply so.
But hedonist, you said earlier, that "Sure, art's subjective, but...is it far-fetched for me to call bullshit on some so-called creations?"
If it's purely subjective, then let's agree that even a black painted canvas that someone painted can still be his art, regardless of being judged. He created it, after all.
I agree with FrankieG's definition as well.
Absolutely fair enough, backseat. His art, but not mine - by my admittedly personal standards.
But still, in the end (no pun intended with my earlier refs to ass-paint!), you're right......art is art indeed. In retrospect (and with subsequent reflection), it's not my place to say what is art, but what I perceive is art.
As I stated earlier, I don't think there will be a definition off art or artists we will all agree on... But hey, there would be no fun in such a discussion.
For me the artist is someone who has craftsmanship in his own unique way. He has his own signature, but also the freedom to find new ways to express his or her emotions in his/her art. I don't think getting paid for it means a lot in this discussion, because as many of you stated before, just a few lucky ones get the chance to make a living out off their art, but that doesn't mean that the ones who can't aren't artists.
For me it's to simple to state that that art is all subjective so you can't make a definition out off it. Yes, I do agree that it's subjective, but everyone for themselves can have his or her own definition and i like to hear them, so I can sharpen my own one...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
nothing else matters, all bullshit disappears & the focus is on their creation. after some time of this kind of living you become a mental case. artists are bat shit crazy. end of story.
I don't know does "bullshit artist"qualify for you?
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
I don't know does "bullshit artist"qualify for you?
No, it was a dumb joke. I'm generally too honest and definitely to opaque to be a good bullshit artist. Besides which, the arts to me are most essential next to family and friends. Maybe even more so than food, water, shelter and clothing.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
For art to mean something to me it has to make sense. I was amazed when I walked through a Mondrian exhibit, and the way Mondrian put the colors together made a psyche-sense. I mean it's boxes with some colors, but it boggled my mind because "it made sense."
When I make art I want it to be understood, but I also want that it takes the reader one step closer to understanding the scene or object in a new way. When I write and I look at a scene or a object it a new way it means I'm having fun with language. In that way, part of creating art may include play.
Like the tree that falls in a forest and no one hears it, if we make art, and no one sees it, can it be art? Yes, of course, but I think engagement makes art more alive. When I post poems on this board those poems ultimately mean most to me as I chose them to best represent the many ways I can see the world.
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
I like your take on this subject. I think it's impossible to be creative without play. While playing with words, music, in theater or with visual materials, you give your own version off a scene or object. I think in every form off art you play with the creation until it feels right, it makes sense to yourself. Without the playing I think you can't have the freedom to create any kind off art.
I also like your comparison with the falling tree that no one hears. Art becomes more alive with engagement. If you get your work seen, you can get feedback from the viewers, by which you can compare if the thing you tried to show the world is understood by the viewers.
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Comments
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
If it's purely subjective, then let's agree that even a black painted canvas that someone painted can still be his art, regardless of being judged. He created it, after all.
I agree with FrankieG's definition as well.
I definitely think money has nothing to do with the definition of an artist, that is a narrow view that excludes probably millions of amazing visual, aural, and written word artists whose work was never noticed.
PJ has very mature opinions on art, Ed and Jeff are inspiring in taking their art seriously. Blood holds a very special place for me for this reason
How does that Ament quote go?, on PJ receiving a grammy for SBC, something like this...
Jeff: .You're gonna give an award for art? Like, what the fuck does that even mean?
But still, in the end (no pun intended with my earlier refs to ass-paint!), you're right......art is art indeed. In retrospect (and with subsequent reflection), it's not my place to say what is art, but what I perceive is art.
For me the artist is someone who has craftsmanship in his own unique way. He has his own signature, but also the freedom to find new ways to express his or her emotions in his/her art. I don't think getting paid for it means a lot in this discussion, because as many of you stated before, just a few lucky ones get the chance to make a living out off their art, but that doesn't mean that the ones who can't aren't artists.
For me it's to simple to state that that art is all subjective so you can't make a definition out off it. Yes, I do agree that it's subjective, but everyone for themselves can have his or her own definition and i like to hear them, so I can sharpen my own one...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
in this case he is a musician
his name is... neil young
he is greatness
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
:-bd
2010: 5/20 NY, 5/21 NY ... 2011: 6/21 EV NY, 9/3 WI, 9/4 WI ... 2012: 9/2 PA, 9/22 GA ... 2013: 10/18 NY, 10/19 NY, 10/21 PA, 10/22 PA, 10/27 MD
2015: 9/23 NY, 9/26 NY ... 2016: 4/28 PA, 4/29 PA, 5/1 NY, 5/2 NY, 6/11 TN, 8/7 MA, 11/4 TOTD PA, 11/5 TOTD PA ... 2018: 8/10 WA
2022: 9/14 NJ ... 2024: 5/28 WA, 9/7 PA, 9/9 PA ---- http://imgur.com/a/nk0s7
When I make art I want it to be understood, but I also want that it takes the reader one step closer to understanding the scene or object in a new way. When I write and I look at a scene or a object it a new way it means I'm having fun with language. In that way, part of creating art may include play.
Like the tree that falls in a forest and no one hears it, if we make art, and no one sees it, can it be art? Yes, of course, but I think engagement makes art more alive. When I post poems on this board those poems ultimately mean most to me as I chose them to best represent the many ways I can see the world.
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
I like your take on this subject. I think it's impossible to be creative without play. While playing with words, music, in theater or with visual materials, you give your own version off a scene or object. I think in every form off art you play with the creation until it feels right, it makes sense to yourself. Without the playing I think you can't have the freedom to create any kind off art.
I also like your comparison with the falling tree that no one hears. Art becomes more alive with engagement. If you get your work seen, you can get feedback from the viewers, by which you can compare if the thing you tried to show the world is understood by the viewers.
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee