Forum menu
Special Talent?
Well they thought to do it... and I like it.
The special talent argument falls down a bit when you talk about photography, since many great pictures are simply snapped.
And the "I could have done that" one that my Dad likes to trot out also falls down, because you didn't, did you? He did, and gained money and fame for it. If it's that easy have a go yourself, go on.
Anyway, art is clearly self defined, so trying to define it is futile and completely misses the point.
Oh and I suspect the brackets and the risk assessment are related 🙂
If it's that easy have a go yourself, go on.
Will do. How hard can it be.
Put a reminder in your diary for around 36 years time when I've found the 'perfect' whatever-it-is to use ...
Me Likeee, though again as said the brackets detract from the visual plain like.
Talking of planes, that one in the British Museum last year (see photo in here somewhere) was impresive (though not there any more)
Art for Art's sake..
Money for Gawds sake..
It might be art, it might not be art - but it's definitely a shit attempt at a levitating rock.
there's always a danger a cleaner will leave his mop and bucket in the middle of the floor and people will start clstering round it discussing the new exhibition.It's in an Art Gallery, therefore it must be Art.
Art is what artists do.
I'm more concerned about the fact that the BBC are telling us that 340 tons equates to 308,443 kg rather than the correct 303.5 tons.
Art is designed to cause interest and conversation - it work
It's art
IF the intent is to communicate then it is art. Though I'm damned if I understand what it is saying. Constructivism can difficult to appreciate.
There is [i]something[/i] about standing beneath a heavy object. Anyone walked under the locomotive engine in York railway museum? You can almost sense the mass above you.
IF the intent is to communicate then it is art
My wife phoned earlier to communicate with me.
Is she an art?
😀
Just looks like a rock out of place to me but then I'm not pretending to be an art critic and looking for meaning.
Why not spend 36 years making a realistic papier mache rock then not use big ugly brackets. Or use them to add to the illusion. Maybe that's what he did.
I'm more concerned about the fact that the BBC are telling us that 340 tons equates to 308,443 kg rather than the correct 303.5 tons.
Depends if they're talking about long tons or short tons. If they're talking about short tons, they're correct. Since the story is from the USA, it probably is short tons the BBC are quoting.
[url= 
]link to how i feel about this 'art'... nsfw possibly[/url]
It's a bigger piece of rock than the photos make it look:
His most famous work - [url= http://doublenegative.tarasen.net/double_negative.html ]a trench....[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
I got a Land Art book for father's day.Was captivated by these
[img]
[/img]
Have a little dream to do a road trip to them someday.
That's a nice photo for sure, but it looks to my uneducated eyes a sunset through some massive pipes.
is [url= http://www.juxtapoz.com/Current/3d-sketchbooks-by-nagai-hideyuki ]this[/url] art..?
[img] 
[/img]