Would you consider this to be art?
- Thread starter kita
- Start date
Seriously. That's like calling violent video-games art. This has consequences and it's not something I would encourage, and I feel that calling it art would encourage it more and add value to it.
So no. To me it is not art.
It's just..incredibly desensitizing. I am scared that one day we'd find real bodies on the street and then call that Art.
Something just feels wrong about it.
U
Untitled
I agree. I see creating as a basic human right. ;D People need to butt out. It's very natural and all talk just diverts and complicates unnecessarily. That said I would personally give the said artist a piece of my mind if I one of my kids stumbled on a body that actually wasn't one, but someone's artwork. This kind of a project is the type people become a part of involuntarily. I don't like that. You can't be so naive as to think seeing a dead body could possibly affect someone negatively. Which is more important: Someone's artistic expression or someone's emotional equilibrium? I vote no.2. Keep it in the gallery. In that context you get what you pay a ticket for and can choose to be shocked or challenged.
Absolute nonsense. I would totally consider that art.......to me, art is dependent on time-frame, I'm sure the mayans would have loved this peice.
U
Untitled
I sure did, didn't I. I'll just get my coat... ;D
Well... fine. Here's my opinion: I think it is art, but I don't think it's the greatest masterpiece of the century or decade. Just your general art student basic everyday art. I personally find it a bit irresponsible and contrived. That said I have strong beliefs that there should be also mediocre and really bad art. Everyone gets an A for effort in my school of thought.
U
Untitled
That I think is essentially the problem. I have an aversion to being critical of others' output because I find people moving from being consumers to creators of work, wether art or finding new accounting solutions, very important.
Pretty much this. Except I wouldn't really ever say that skill, talent, and vision don't matter. I think those things do matter in a lot of cases, and deserve recognition when they are there. It depends on the art. But not having those qualities in buckets doesn't automatically discount something as art. What annoys me is that there are people who think they can call something "not art" just because they don't happen to like it, or don't like what it symbolizes. To me that is sort of the equivalent of saying, "I don't like this chicken, therefore I will no longer acknowledge that it is a chicken."
Duh. I did say IMO, didn't I?
Just about anyone can be an artist now, just as anyone can be a photographer. Technology helps those with no talent to have talent. While natural abilities just become a thing of the past.
True true all true!
if i were to take a picture of swirling clouds mixing in and around a setting sun, with colors exploding on the horizon, most people who say its beautiful.
here's the thing....the picture itself is artistic, and essentially, art. BUT the real star here, the real art would be the actual sun/cloud/color combination.
here's the thing....the picture itself is artistic, and essentially, art. BUT the real star here, the real art would be the actual sun/cloud/color combination.
Since when did the notion of murder and suicide become Art? Give me a break.
You're right, it is about a time frame. This is the delusion of a society that lacks imagination and has had too much leisure time on its hands. A dumped body with a bunch of balloons strapped to it? Really? You can rationalize it all you want, there is absolutely nothing artistic or creative about fake bodies lying around and devaluing human life in such a way.
I am deeply disturbed.
For me personally I would probably have to be there to decide whether this is art to me. I think this is supposed to be a type of art that relies on viewer interaction... Definitely harder to judge from just a photo of it (IMO).
The question of "What is art?" reminds me of the Dada movement from a century ago. Marcel Duchamp's Readymades comes to mind.
The question of "What is art?" reminds me of the Dada movement from a century ago. Marcel Duchamp's Readymades comes to mind.
just because its macabre and morbid doesnt make it NOT art. not everything can be peaches and cream, happy happy joy joy. nor does it have to be "beautiful" to be art.
some people find gloomy, dark, grey skies more to their liking than clear blue skies.
it's just preference.
have you ever seen the movie american beauty??
aside from the whole plastic bag dancing in the air scene (which ricky describes as the "most beautiful thing hes ever seen), there is also a scene where (although i cant remember exactly @ the moment), he talks about videotaping a dead bird or some shit. just a crushed bird on the side of the road. and he discusses what makes it beautiful.
which, by the way, is why the movie ends with kevin spacey dead on the table with blood dripping all over the place.
ricky is the 1st to find him, and when he sees him, he recognizes the beauty of the moment. probably because kevin spacey died happy.
7 minute clip of what i'm talking about:
[video=youtube;qe0hieRCj_0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe0hieRCj_0&feature=related[/video]
ricky is the 1st to find him, and when he sees him, he recognizes the beauty of the moment. probably because kevin spacey died happy.
7 minute clip of what i'm talking about:
[video=youtube;qe0hieRCj_0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe0hieRCj_0&feature=related[/video]
art is expression. it doesn't necessarily require 'skill'
if you are painting a portrait of a person or of scenery and you want it to look real then yes you will need some sort of talent to copy the image.
yet abstract art is purely from the imagination, and requires no preset rules or specific talent.
as for the images in this thread - yes i would consider ithem art, although i find the bodies disturbing. unpleasant art is still art.
if you are painting a portrait of a person or of scenery and you want it to look real then yes you will need some sort of talent to copy the image.
yet abstract art is purely from the imagination, and requires no preset rules or specific talent.
as for the images in this thread - yes i would consider ithem art, although i find the bodies disturbing. unpleasant art is still art.
I don't think ART is subjective at all. It is our response to ART that is subjective.