What is Art and what is not ?
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
uscitizen
Villified User
Yet his paintings sell for tons of cash and have withstood the ages. I don't have to like art to see whether or not it was successful.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Its like pornography you know it when you see it. Problem is not everyone will agree with you.
That stupid thing they did in New York with the haning orange things. That isn't art to me but some consider it so.
That stupid thing they did in New York with the haning orange things. That isn't art to me but some consider it so.
Ohhh, I forgot what that was called. That was the biggest scam I ever saw!
Oh yeah - the orange things. It was that guy (I forget his name) who does big "concept" art stuff. I read that years ago he did a big "concept" art project, by putting hundreds of colored umbrellas along california highways.
Successful art is either purchased or collected. It can also be considered successful if it is simply popular. However, a novelist who can only sell one copy of a book would not be "successful". Or a painting that draws nobody and that nobody cares about would not be quite as successful.
Selecting already made pieces of art for a museum need not even have such a requirement. They just don't need to pay the artist for the art. The art itself does not need to be funded by the government....
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
This makes me think of a Beavis & Butthead episode where they visit an art museum.
There is a modern art piece that is just a cobbled mass of metal shapes. The boys climb on it and cause it to collapse. Then their hippie teacher comes out and says that this piece is very representative of in idea or feeling and that the meaning would be lost entirely if it was even altered slightly.
There is a modern art piece that is just a cobbled mass of metal shapes. The boys climb on it and cause it to collapse. Then their hippie teacher comes out and says that this piece is very representative of in idea or feeling and that the meaning would be lost entirely if it was even altered slightly.
uscitizen
Villified User
IHG I have a problem with seeing that kind of stuff as art, but realize that others do not see the world exactly as I do. Nor would I necessarially want them to.
I don;t really think we want to all become like a bunch of clones out of the same vat.
Old Communist China ring a bell ?
I don;t really think we want to all become like a bunch of clones out of the same vat.
Old Communist China ring a bell ?
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Right its all subjective. Thats why I don't like the government making any ruling on such a thing.
I made the point in answer to "What about museums" one can make objective decisions on already created art. One could define "successful" art, that you might not like the definition is irrelevant. Each museum makes such decisions on what to display all the time. They should not, however, fund it if it is a government entity because of the subjective nature of the art and that was the context of the discussion where I made the statement.
You attempted to take my point and meaning out of context and place it in vacuum.
If it hadn't started with a statement that I made, missing a word, and taken out of the original context I would agree.
Just saying that somebody can define art. No, somebody cannot. But nobody made that statement.
I am saying that museums are not funding art and that we all know that every piece of art cannot fit into a museum therefore a necessity of defining what will or will not comes into effect.
Making a place where people can go and look at art is not funding the art any more than making a park for people to relax in is funding fresh air.
A museum funded by the government should not pay for or fund art, they should have objective rules on what they will display so that all pieces falling in that area can be displayed. They shouldn't judge on the subjective value, but must create an objective definition or they cannot be "fair" in what they display.