What is Art and what is not ?

uscitizen said:
K, out of context .
But beyond that, do you think the goverment should define art ?
should Michangellos statue of David been seen by children. I thnk most agree it is art, but is also covered by obscenity laws.
Click to expand...
Nope. I don't think they should, nor should they fund it. I do think that they should and must make an objective definition of what will or will not go into a publicly funded museum though. Even if it is made display by display. Such as "this display will feature only classic art" or "this display will feature only folk art". There is no way to be 100% fair and to feature every art piece unless you have unlimited space, they must make objective choices just as they do when creating a park.
 
As for museums it is possible for the government to say works of art will be shown that are considered by the art community at large to be worthy.
 
IHateGovernment said:
As for museums it is possible for the government to say works of art will be shown that are considered by the art community at large to be worthy.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that is pretty vague in itself, the orange things, the umbrellas. I think those were considered art by the art community.

Well considered worty by the art community until a religious outrage is raised...
then the govt bows to the religious community.

Btw imho most "artists" are borderline insane.
 
IHateGovernment said:
As for museums it is possible for the government to say works of art will be shown that are considered by the art community at large to be worthy.
Click to expand...
This too would be a more objective definition. One could survey the community to find "worthy" pieces. There are many types of museums and there would be many types of such definitions.

The orange hanging things were specifically concept art and therefore not displayed in any museum.
 
And most all muesems are taxpayer funded ?
So you think selected art should be taxpayer funded ?
Govt shoud not fund "new" art ?
Therefore the definition of what is art should remain constant ? Or at least struggle along without govt funding.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood you again.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
And most all muesems are taxpayer funded ?
So you think selected art should be taxpayer funded ?
Govt shoud not fund "new" art ?
Therefore the definition of what is art should remain constant ? Or at least struggle along without govt funding.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood you again.
Click to expand...
The art is not funded by the museum, only displayed. You make an assumption that is not evident. The Museum doesn't pay for the art, if it does then it is funding the art and IMO out of where I think the government should go.

Just as they must choose where to put a park using objective means, they can define what they display using such means.
 
And yes, artists should "struggle" if they are unsuccessful. Just as I would were I unsuccessful in my field.

Amazingly one can work at a regular job and be an artist at the same time. That the government would and should subsidize their art is ridiculous.
 
Damocles said:
The art is not funded by the museum, only displayed. You make an assumption that is not evident. The Museum doesn't pay for the art, if it does then it is funding the art and IMO out of where I think the government should go.

Just as they must choose where to put a park using objective means, they can define what they display using such means.
Click to expand...
Damo Art is bought and comissioned by mueseums.....Fact.
 
I understand your view, but since there is little capitalistic gain out pof public museums, without public (taxpayer) support they would wither and die.
I feel museums and the arts to be valuable in education.
of course we can all just get business degrees :rolleyes:
 
Once again, Museums would be funded and would not die. They just wouldn't purchase the art to display. They would not "wither and die" except in your disassociating what I have stated to predict the worst possible outcome without regard to what I actually have said.
 
Funded but not to purchase art....I would be curious to know what percentage of displayed art in museums was purchased. But do not know so I will drop it. And agree to disagree.
 
I understand your view, but since there is little capitalistic gain out pof public museums, without public (taxpayer) support they would wither and die.
I feel museums and the arts to be valuable in education.
of course we can all just get business degrees

thats not true there is plenty of art that is produced capitalistically. Music is art but it doesn't need government subsidies. If people won't pay for it they must not want it that much.
 
Well I guess there is the Elvis museum and such :)

I think I referred to tourist trap stuff in this or the other thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top