Is simple so bad?

No-one seems able to define what art is. And maybe that’s my point. If anything can be art as long as someone deems it to be then it’s a bit stupid really. Where will art end? Eventually something truly ridiculous will be deemed art and devalue what has gone before.

But I don’t entirely agree with your point.

Making a lump of stone look feminine, making it look like a woman is skillful.

Making a lump of whatever the blob is made of look like a blob is less skilled. It’s a blob. How do you know the artist wasn’t trying to sculpt the hanging gardens of Babylon but was a bit rubbish?

Elfin’s not that big so it shouldn’t be too much.
He says he has a prize winning bottom so I’m not sure if cutting him length ways left to right is fair…

Could art be anything that someone hasn’t left in a completely natural state?

DrRSwank has confused art with interior decoration

If anything can be art as long as someone deems it to be then it’s a bit stupid really.

Marcel Duchamps fountain

Where will art end?

‘Art is dead’ has a common refrain since the original blank canvas was hung

Er, it’s a toilet?

DrRSwank has confused art with interior decoration

Oh bugger, not again…….

Could art be anything that someone hasn’t left in a completely natural state?

That may be the case but some enterprising artist will no doubt give a weird name to a tree somewhere and then you will be wrong. Art is what you say it is. They act of defining it as art both makes you into an artist and the subject into art.

I used to have ongoing discussions with a friend about the nature of art. She stated that art cannot have a use. I countered that with the assertion that a vase can be considered to be a piece of art but she insisted it was design. You can never win this and you can never nail down a precise definition of art. The second you do, it will change.

Was the guy who managed to create convincing copies of ancient artworks an artist or a craftsman (or even just a plagiarist)? He was clearly technically very competent and created beautiful things but they were not original, they were forgeries. Were they art?

The definition of art is one of the great philosophical questions of our time and the usefulness of a definition even moreso.

No-one seems able to define what art is. And maybe that’s my point.

Well you aren’t making a very good job at it to be sure.

Making a lump of whatever the blob is made of look like a blob is less skilled. It’s a blob. How do you know the artist wasn’t trying to sculpt the hanging gardens of Babylon but was a bit rubbish?

Okay, how about this piece from the same artist?

That one is an improvement MF. At least I can tell roughly what it is.

She stated that art cannot have a use

So if I hang a picture on my wall to cover a crack in the plaster then it’s no longer art?

I’m really confused now.

So the unmade bed isn’t art, cos a bed has a use – and had been used?

Torminalis – thanks, I am therefore an artist. I’m going to sell this thread. It’s title is Inception.

Torminalis – thanks, I am therefore an artist. I’m going to sell this thread. It’s title is Inception.

Does that mean I am modern art?

Not anymore…. 8)

At least I can tell roughly what it is.

So for you, art is simply something that looks like the real thing?

No, but it has to look like something (other than a blob).

I am playing devils advocate here but…

So if I hang a picture on my wall to cover a crack in the plaster then it’s no longer art?

If the painting was designed to cover the crack then it is just design. If not it is just artwork in a poor environment.

Does that mean I am modern art?

No one said all art is good. 😉

No, but it has to look like something (other than a blob).

Why?

Rothko is considered to be one of the great abstract artists but all he did was create massive walls of colour. Blobs if you will. Quite impressive ones if you see them in the flesh.

Good Dr. Have you ever actually studied art on any kind of academic level?

TO get a fuller understanding of ‘modern art’ (I bloody hate that expression), simply look at a retrospective of Picasso over his career.

He is generally credited with the development of cubism, an artistic movement that generally invokes cries of “What?!!! A bloody six year old couldd have done that!!!! She’s got three bloody eyes!!!!!”

But Picasso was trying to convey something more than human form. TO express emotion and feeling. He did this because he’d developed the depiction of human form, as is traditionally referred to by artists, as far as it could go. The man was a genius! He could have produced ‘traditional’ art that would have been ‘better’ (ie: technically more proficient) than anything before. But whats the point of that?

So he challenged himself. And with it, other peoples pre-conceptions of what ‘art’ should represent

It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child

– Pablo Picasso.

Good Dr. Have you ever actually studied art on any kind of academic level?

I thought the answer to that was obvious?

No, but it has to look like something (other than a blob).

Why?
Is this art?

Is this art?

Is this art

Sitting in the Rothko room at the Tate Britain (ruined now its in the Tate Modern and the crowds) is a very very emotional experience.

I have no idea why. I don’t think i really want to know. It just is! And maybe that’s the whole point

Abstract Expressionism is all quite fascinating when placed in its context of American Macarthyism etc. It means a lot more when you understand the rationale behind it. Same as most Art. Its usually a reaction to something momentous

MF – no, no and no….

Scribbles.

Nasty 1980s jumper design.

Wrapping paper from the £1 shop.

Do you ever wonder where Nasty 1980s jumper design and Wrapping paper from the £1 shop came from? Where the influence’s are? The subliminal effects art has on every aspect of a society?

Again – I don’t know why I’m asking that question? I suspect I know the answer

MF – no, no and no….

This?

This?

Shoes and cars are both examples of design rather than art. those happen to be representations of the things but it seems to be in a more functional way with little regard for expression or meaning so I would say that they are not art IMO.

Shhh – I am not asking you 😉

ooh, sorry. 😳

Shoes and cars are both examples of design rather than art. those happen to be representations of the things but it seems to be in a more functional way with little regard for expression or meaning so I would say that they are not art IMO.

Torminalis, is this art then?

Ahh – Magritte?

Shhh – I am not asking you 😉
(but you are right)

I refer to my earlier statement

I am playing devils advocate here but…

BUT, my devils advocate is probably about as ‘right’ as my personal opinion so I shall say yes. The design of the pipe is a functional thing but we are not looking at that. We are looking at a representation of the pipe juxtaposed to a statement that alludes to more meaning than merely the functional.

It is not to my taste and is a bit obvious but I think it is art. It certainly has no function (unless you have a crack in your wall to cover up 😉 ).

The design of the pipe is a functional thing but we are not looking at that. We are looking at a representation of the pipe juxtaposed to a statement that alludes to more meaning than merely the functional.

I would say that same argument could be used for the second example I showed (the car) and it is a poster so it was created as ‘art’.

an oak tree

Well as Magritte would have said, try driving the picture. That said, it is at best an hommage to a design, could be argued either way but I wouldn’t put it on my wall!

Make way, make way…

Right then. I know you’ve all bin eagerly awaiting my input, and I thank you all for your patience.

What is ‘Art’? Hmm. Really quite subjective, innit? I mean, there are myriad forms of art, and as many opinions as there are people who view them. Who’s right?

To me, Art is something which is created using craft and skill, which serves as a statement by it’s creator. It is something which provokes an emotional response in the audience, something that relies on it’s audience’s ability to interpret it’s intended message, as well as adding their own meaning to it.

I believe a work of art should speak for itself as much as possible, without requiring elaborate explanation. It’s here where I feel a lot of so-called ‘art’ falls down; yer Emin, Hirst, Whiteread etc’s work seems to need lots of hi-faluting explanation by so-called ‘art experts’; if you don’t get it, the implication seems to be that you’re a philistine, or a bit thick. A very patronising and arrogant attitude which disguises the fact that the work is very often a pile of toss. The shysters mentioned are almost completely reliant on the sycophantic network of art critic friends and gallery owners, friends in the meeja (darling), and the Emperor’s New Clothes Syndrome.

A mate’s GF studied ‘Fine Art’ at a top art college in That London. By Leo Sayer, was she crap. Couldn’t draw, paint, sculpt owt or indeed use any medium effectively to actually produce owt of any note whatsoever. Surprise surprise, she now writes about art. 🙄

Sadlty this story is repeated throughout the contemporary art world. Mind you, the odd gem sparkles amongst the shite. There are some decent artists out there, but sadly their work is often overlooked for ‘controversial’, ‘edgy’ or ‘shocking’ ‘conceptual art’ (spits) which has about as much merit as the aftermath of a bad case of Dehli Belly.

No it’s true. I’m right, and anyone with any sense and the ability to think for themselves can see this.

Seems that art commentators are more concerned with championing the latest pile of pretentious toss that their poncy friends in Hoxton or Caymden have told them about, than actually seeking out genuine artistic talent. And, as with everything else in this throwaway materialistic society, It’s more about the latest trends, and looking cool in front of your peers, than expressing and real appreciation for real talent, skill and craft. I went to an art show last week; the best thing about it was the free beer, and the tight pants worn by a very charming young lady whose email I managed to get….

This criticism isn’t just confined to contemporary art; there’s plenty of dross throughout the entire history of Human Expression. I just think it’s easier to create something now, and call it ‘art’. People are too frightened to actually stand up and say ‘oh look, the Emperor has no clothes on‘.

He says he has a prize winning bottom

This is actually true. However, it is a wonderful and beautiful work of Nature, rather than a work of art. Mind you, if I were to take a cast of it, then use that to mould life-sized replicas, then obviously such a creation could grace (and indeed enhance) any gallery on Earth. 🙂

So, apart from Elfins bottom, nothing is art?

Oh and the car and shoe aren’t art (are they). I wouldn’t even use them to cover the cracks in my plaster.

My friends rib me about this all the time but I have no art in my house apart from a pencil drawing a mate did for me which makes me smile.

So, apart from Elfins bottom, nothing is art?

😀

Actually, speaking of cracks….

Oh and the car and shoe aren’t art (are they). I wouldn’t even use them to cover the cracks in my plaster.

But you can tell what they are so they must be art?