[QUOTE=megafat;38800193]And this is why it's not art.
The only way to view this is through comedy.[/QUOTE]
I think its more about taste and how you look at things
[IMG]http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/wp-content/blogs.dir/262/files/2012/04/i-2eb7d13739bfb2d8a4921797e3a50b52-art1.jpg[/IMG]
There was a gallery full of empty paintings.. This is pure ~Art~
On the other hand, the point of the empty paintings was that your imagination had to 'paint' the empty spots.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;38800201]I think its more about taste and how you look at things
[IMG]http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/wp-content/blogs.dir/262/files/2012/04/i-2eb7d13739bfb2d8a4921797e3a50b52-art1.jpg[/IMG]
There was a gallery full of empty paintings.. This is pure ~Art~
On the other hand, the point of the empty paintings was that your imagination had to 'paint' the empty spots.[/QUOTE]
It's not art because there is no art. And i don't need to visit a place that shows art to use my imagination.
[QUOTE=megafat;38800214]It's not art because there is no art. And i don't need to visit a place that shows art to use my imagination.[/QUOTE]
Exactly my point, some see it as art others see it as a 'Those are just empty paintings, thats not art'
[QUOTE=darth-veger;38800190]Because i am not interested in art i am called sad. What logic is that :v:[/QUOTE]
There was probably a less rude way of putting it, but I do think it's sad that you literally have no interest in art. You've circumscribed yourself to an artless world. It's a depressing thought. How can that be illogical?
[QUOTE=Kommodore;38800277]There was probably a less rude way of putting it, but I do think it's sad that you literally have no interest in art. You've circumscribed yourself to an artless world. It's a depressing thought. How can that be illogical?[/QUOTE]
I enjoy the little things more then the average person you see at the train station. Things like museum and some person that splashed some colors on a wall are things i just stand by and say 'the christ is this'.
I enjoy nature and life, guess you could say that would also be art but its not.. art 'art'.. Now i am confused.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;38800201]I think its more about taste and how you look at things
[IMG]http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/wp-content/blogs.dir/262/files/2012/04/i-2eb7d13739bfb2d8a4921797e3a50b52-art1.jpg[/IMG]
There was a gallery full of empty paintings.. This is pure ~Art~
On the other hand, the point of the empty paintings was that your imagination had to 'paint' the empty spots.[/QUOTE]
Pfft, that ain't got shit on Malevich's 'White on white'
[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G_m1MiGfz5k/TZX15mt4CNI/AAAAAAAALxo/w_EU5O03F7k/s1600/Malevich%2B-%2BWhtie%2Bon%2BWhite.jpg[/IMG]
For fucks sake, you're supposed to interpret art, not question whether or not it's art. If you're asking "Is this art?", then no, it's not art.
The fact that someone put up a blank canvas and told the viewer "No, it's art, all you have to use is your imagination.", then it's not art because i had to ask "Is this even art?"
you guys do realize that this is not an interpretation of the song and that the performance had no relation or context having to do with fireworks, right? this is just some youtube user making a joke. the original video is old as fuck
People are only there because John Lennon married her
For what reason I have no fucking clue. The first part of the 'singing' reminded me of that character from Mad TV
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ-p4Q9W-qg[/media]
I see no point in art where the interpretations are so varied that the actual piece loses all meaning.
This is screaming, this is art:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwmlq4p7l9M[/media]
I want to see the lyrics.
"Oeha-haha- ha - hoe"
[QUOTE=megafat;38800350]For fucks sake, you're supposed to interpret art, not question whether or not it's art. If you're asking "Is this art?", then no, it's not art.
The fact that someone put up a blank canvas and told the viewer "No, it's art, all you have to use is your imagination.", then it's not art because i had to ask "Is this even art?"[/QUOTE]
Conceptual art would like to have a word with you.
The fact that you're questioning the piece it self mean it's doing it's thing. Art isn't simply "pretty things", art can be a statement, a question, an object, etc. Art can be anything, you don't use the word art as a measurement of how pretty something is. It's not up to you to you to decide what is art and what is not, for everything is art, what is up to you however is if you like the piece or not.
I could shit on a piece of paper and throw it against the wall to make fun of contemporary art, and it would still be art.
I find it pretty disgusting how some people can spend hours upon hours crafting a piece of art only to get less appreciation and recognition for it than someone who
[QUOTE=OHNOES;38800764]
shit on a piece of paper and throw it against the wall[/QUOTE]
art, more like fart
Also Duchamp's 'Fountain'
Basically he got a urinal, signed it, then put it in a gallery.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)[/URL]
[IMG]http://whatafy.com/storage//2012/10/2012/10/06/conceptual-art-beyond-ideas/The-fountain.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Sharker;38800832]I find it pretty disgusting how some people can spend hours upon hours crafting a piece of art only to get less appreciation and recognition for it than someone who[/QUOTE]
This.
Or maybe it's just Dadaism
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada[/url]
I honestly thought this was satire. I thought it was a little kid playing a prank on art gallery goers, turns out this is apparently art
Reminds me of this:
[video=youtube;EPXr6IJbgZo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPXr6IJbgZo[/video]
[QUOTE=Occlusion;38800372]I see no point in art where the interpretations are so varied that the actual piece loses all meaning.
This is screaming, this is art:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwmlq4p7l9M[/media][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38800356]you guys do realize that this is not an interpretation of the song and that the performance had no relation or context having to do with fireworks, right? this is just some youtube user making a joke. the original video is old as fuck[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38799583]that was actually really well done. it wasn't just yelling into a microphone, it was an absurdist reimagining of modern popular music. the contrast between the soft and soothing background music with the grating primal shouts left a similar impression as Jun Togawa's work with Yapoos. I'm not even normally an artsy kind of guy (or a yoko ono fan) but even I saw the artistic value here.
Yoko knows what she's doing, that's for sure.
[editline]12th December 2012[/editline]
facepunch doesn't understand art[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdZ9weP5i68[/media]
The original video
The ignorance in this thread... You people need to take a Visual Arts class. It goes over everything including stuff people don't usually want to consider art. The first things you go over are Duchamp's Fountain posted above along with other "simple" things such as canvases with only one color and why you probably don't consider it art. The way people react towards things like this is because of prejudice, ignorance, lack of information, etc. You soon learn to look at the art's form/meaning rather than its content.
Malevich's White on White (posted earlier) is the representation of the universal image of God.
Rothko Chapel
[IMG]http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1313538773-rothko-chapel03.jpg[/IMG]
Reinhardt has a series of black paintings based on Zen Buddhism.
[IMG]http://johndanversart.co.uk/versions/003/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Ad-Reinhardt-Black-Painting-No.-34-1964-oil-on-canvas.jpeg[/IMG]
Take an art class and learn to look at things differently as opposed to being ignorant idiots. Things don't have to look beautiful and realistic. "Oh, but I can paint a square." Sure you can, but that doesn't mean simple things don't take skill.
She made fun of pop music, just fyi.
[QUOTE=Tippmann357;38804042]The ignorance in this thread... You people need to take a Visual Arts class. It goes over everything including stuff people don't usually want to consider art. The first thing shown in the class was Duchamp's Fountain posted above along with other "simple" things such as canvases with only one color. Then way people react towards things like this is because of prejudice, ignorance, lack of information, etc. You soon learn to look at the art's form rather than its content.
Malevich's White on White (posted earlier) is the representation of the universal image of God.
Rothko Chapel
[IMG]http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1313538773-rothko-chapel03.jpg[/IMG]
Reinhardt has a series of black paintings based on Zen Buddhism.
[IMG]http://johndanversart.co.uk/versions/003/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Ad-Reinhardt-Black-Painting-No.-34-1964-oil-on-canvas.jpeg[/IMG]
Take an art class and learn to look at things differently as opposed to being ignorant idiots. Things don't have to look beautiful and realistic. "Oh, but I can paint a square." Sure you can, but that doesn't mean simple things don't take skill.[/QUOTE]
Also known as: Talentless people being praised for doing nothing.
If I took a picture of my shit somebody could probably interpret a meaning from it, it doesn't mean it isn't shit though.
[editline]12th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=JimmyRobot;38804047]She made fun of pop music, just fyi.[/QUOTE]
The song was edited on to the video.
She's just a crazy.
[QUOTE=Noss;38804056]Also known as: Talentless people being praised for doing nothing.
If I took a picture of my shit somebody could probably interpret a meaning from it, it doesn't mean it isn't shit though.
[/QUOTE]
What do you think of this collage? Can you make this with your paper?
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WD75rjdVjYU/Tploar9rnBI/AAAAAAAACvo/YglfLQcQdf0/s1600/collage.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Tippmann357;38804132]What do you think of this collage? Can you make this with your paper?
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WD75rjdVjYU/Tploar9rnBI/AAAAAAAACvo/YglfLQcQdf0/s1600/collage.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
That's better than a blank canvas, a canvas painted pure black, or Yoko Ono screaming in to a microphone.
[QUOTE=Noss;38804160]That's better than a blank canvas, a canvas painted pure black, or Yoko Ono screaming in to a microphone.[/QUOTE]
Better? You don't sound very intrigued. Why aren't you saying it's genius? It's a Picasso. But who cares anyway because it doesn't take skill to glue a piece newspaper and sheet music onto a wallpaper.
[QUOTE=Tippmann357;38804211]Better? You don't sound very intrigued. It's a Picasso. But who cares anyway because it doesn't take skill to glue a piece newspaper and sheet music onto a wallpaper.[/QUOTE]
I'd say it takes considerably more skill than screaming in to a microphone for five minutes. And the result is a lot better too.
Don't get me wrong, I like abstract art - but there is a difference between works like Picasso and people who create an exhibition of blank canvases.
[QUOTE=Noss;38804240]I'd say it takes considerably more skill than screaming in to a microphone for five minutes. And the result is a lot better too.
Don't get me wrong, I like abstract art - but there is a difference between works like Picasso and people who create an exhibition of blank canvases.[/QUOTE]
Well, performance art is either a success or complete failure. I sure as hell don't understand the message behind the performance but that doesn't mean I'm going to say it's stupid without knowing more information about it.
How is there a difference with that collage since it's Picasso's? It's simple isn't it? Or do you think it's good just because it's a Picasso?
[QUOTE=Novangel;38800076]I can never understand modern 'art'.[/QUOTE]
this isn't art so don't worry
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38799936]Who are you to say what is and isn't art?[/QUOTE]
Because if anyone else who's not famous did it, they'd be called a lunatic.
[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;38806063]Because if anyone else who's not famous did it, they'd be called a lunatic.[/QUOTE]
she got famous by doing shit like this though
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
