The software heist of the century, or a modern art masterpiece? - Polidicks

some of you people. it's not intended to be thought provoking, or a display of artistic ability, it's a testament to technology and how $5 billion worth of shit can fit in something almost as small as your hand, all thanks to the internet it IS nothing more than a black box with a spindle inside. it's not supposed to be deep, it's not the next mona lisa. it's "holy shit, look what you can do in under an hour with the internet." 1TB external drives were unheard of 10 years ago.

[QUOTE=GeneralSergant;31922055]It really doesn't surprise me. Right now you could shit on a kitten, take a picture, slap a five million dollar price tag on it and sell it to some douche. In fact I may do that.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29[/url]

Smells like opinions in here. It's art. Some people will like it. Others wont. It's art.

Meh. I don't really like it as art but i do see the argument that it is art. For me i don't qualify things that the artist didn't really do any real work art. Also i think art shouldn't need a little description of what it is which this does if your going for the whole it's a sign of the times deal. Though i think it would make more sense without all the illegal stuff(if everyone knows it's illegal has anyone been fined yet?) and as a more look at what humanity can do.

[QUOTE=Scavenger;31922431]For me i don't qualify things that the artist didn't really do any real work art. [/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29[/url] [quote]Though i think it would make more sense without all the illegal stuff(if everyone knows it's illegal has anyone been fined yet?) and as a more look at what humanity can do.[/QUOTE] im sure theres some artistic protection law somewhere [editline]24th August 2011[/editline] i mean the piece wouldnt be there without the illegal content, because who is gonna pay $5 million for to make a piece of art?

[QUOTE=Sanius;31921649]"""""scare quotes""""""""[/QUOTE] Are they effective "sanius". [editline]25th August 2011[/editline] Yes they are.

[QUOTE=Simski;31913916]What's the point in calling something "art" if "art" can be anything? This is why I hate modern art, it makes "art" a useless definition that can be used on absolutely everything.[/QUOTE] Don't even learn about art history then, you'll go crazy when you learn about Marcel Duchamp if you think this is hate worthy. Though, I like that kind of art because it's supposed to be reflexive and make you self aware in various ways. I don't see why art has to be limited to clever paintings or what not.

[t]http://i.imgur.com/wioyp.jpg[/t] heh, ""art"" am I right guys??

[img]http://www.askart.com/AskART/photos/PHL5132002/6.jpg[/img] more "art"

Alright,which one of you dickheads stole my harddrive and put it on the internet?

the message behind this work isn't that esoteric, guys.

[QUOTE=Sanius;31922791][t]http://i.imgur.com/wioyp.jpg[/t] heh, ""art"" am I right guys??[/QUOTE] what would you do if somebody said no? Let's find out. To me, that isn't art. What say you.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;31923192]what would you do if somebody said no? Let's find out. To me, that isn't art. What say you.[/QUOTE] suck on my di- i mean no that's not the definition of art so to go around calling things not art is like seeing a bicycle and saying "NO THAT'S A TREK BIKE IT'S NOT A REAL BICYCLE"

[QUOTE=Sanius;31922791][t]http://i.imgur.com/wioyp.jpg[/t] heh, ""art"" am I right guys??[/QUOTE] that's actually an awesome futurist painting or a motion study, i can't remember which. [editline]24th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;31922840][img]http://www.askart.com/AskART/photos/PHL5132002/6.jpg[/img] more "art"[/QUOTE] this is something i would legitimately classify as art.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31923248]suck on my di- i mean no that's not the definition of art so to go around calling things not art is like seeing a bicycle and saying "NO THAT'S A TREK BIKE IT'S NOT A REAL BICYCLE"[/QUOTE] you realise there are fucking tons of definitions for art, and I reckon you'd be hard pressed to get everyone to agree with one.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;31923297]you realise there are fucking tons of definitions for art[/QUOTE] not within the general art establishment no, it's defined as anything with an artistic endeavor or intended significance. the whole arguments that everyone has about art ties more to aesthetics of art than actual art, nobody disagrees with that definition of art at all, not the dictionary, not wikipedia and not the art establishment. that's why this art piece is art and everyone acknowledges that unless you're in the fringe like the stuckists. so if you think the definition of art was anything more than that you are completely mistaken.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;31923297]you realise there are fucking tons of definitions for art, and I reckon you'd be hard pressed to get everyone to agree with one.[/QUOTE] One of the points of art should be to make you think of your definition of art. Art is the process of subjectivity, the definition should be the same. People should always argue about what art is and isn't.

I've always thought the Dadaists would be amused if they read threads like these.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31923356]not within the general art establishment no, it's defined as anything with an artistic endeavor or intended significance. the whole arguments that everyone has about art ties more to aesthetics of art than actual art, nobody disagrees with that definition of art at all, not the dictionary, not wikipedia and not the art establishment. that's why this art piece is art and everyone acknowledges that unless you're in the fringe like the stuckists. so if you think the definition of art was anything more than that you are completely mistaken.[/QUOTE] Merriam Webster defines it as "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects". wikipedia defines it as "...made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions." in fact an entire branch of philosophy contains the discussion of the definition of art. you thinking there is one definition everyone agrees upon is just wrong. not to mention what people think is art changes

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;31923540]Merriam Webster defines it as "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects". wikipedia defines it as "...made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions." in fact an entire branch of philosophy contains the discussion of the definition of art. you thinking there is one definition everyone agrees upon is just wrong.[/QUOTE] yeah on a deeper level sure but basically it's all just artistic expression once you cut the pretension out and the result of that expression is art. if you go further into that it's less about what art means and more about the merit of stuff which is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31923596]yeah on a deeper level sure but basically it's all just artistic expression once you cut the pretension out and the result of that expression is art. if you go further into that it's less about what art means and more about the merit of stuff which is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] You're talking about the definition of art. There is no shallow level. You can't just say "Well, this definition is fine until you really start to look at what art is"

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;31923646]You're talking about the definition of art. There is no shallow level. You can't just say "Well, this definition is fine until you really start to look at what art is"[/QUOTE] no it's more "Here's art, now debate what you like about it and anything you don't like can go outside of your subjective category of art". you're mixing the subjective and the objective meanings of art. objectively art is just stuff and once you bring it down to a subjective level then you talk about merit and if it is good or whatever. on an objective level merit and beauty is irrelevant so it can't form as part of the objective definition of art. so it's all art just like all bolts are bolts and all films are films.

[QUOTE=pie_is_good;31923451]I've always thought the Dadaists would be amused if they read threads like these.[/QUOTE] They'd be having a ball with it and marcel Duchamp would just be pissing himself laughing because he's being vindicated around every corner.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31923714]no it's more "Here's art, now debate what you like about it and anything you don't like can go outside of your subjective category of art". you're mixing the subjective and the objective meanings of art. objectively art is just stuff and once you bring it down to a subjective level then you talk about merit and if it is good or whatever. on an objective level merit and beauty is irrelevant so it can't form as part of the objective definition of art. so it's all art just like all bolts are bolts and all films are films.[/QUOTE] But do we even have an objective definition of art? You defined it as intended significance or artistic endeavour. But do we then rule out art made by chance? With no intention of creating a masterpiece, and yet we find it pleasing?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;31923646]You're talking about the definition of art. There is no shallow level. You can't just say "Well, this definition is fine until you really start to look at what art is"[/QUOTE] It is thought provoking. Maybe not to you, but to some. It is your subjective view. I found it quite thought provoking - [QUOTE=I]The reason this can be considered art is because the lay man is not familiar with the idea that the value of 5 of these could fit on a hard drive [img]http://blog.themillionairenurse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/million-dollars-by-suburbandollar.jpg[/img] That's the lifetime income of 14 doctorate-level income earners, or 30 average income earners. A lifetime of income for each of them. While this may not impress you, the average person cannot even fathom that concept.[/QUOTE] I'd never thought of how the value of possessions has gone from material to conceptual [digital] and this made me consider that - It provoked thought. The artist made it with the intention of provoking thought, ergo it is art.

[QUOTE=Sanius;31921868]Nor is Mona Lisa.[/QUOTE] But Mona Lisa is technically good. This is not a painting or something that has content in the strokes themselves. I don't think that the Mona Lisa is the best thing ever (honestly, I'm not so sure why it's that popular), but it is well done. This isn't 'done' at all, because it's not something hand-crafted. It's a statement and nothing more, and not a thought provoking one.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;31923777]But do we even have an objective definition of art? You defined it as intended significance or artistic endeavour. But do we then rule out art made by chance? With no intention of creating a masterpiece, and yet we find it pleasing?[/QUOTE] well the idea is that it's the medium. so if the art is made by chance then the presenting of it intends significance or artistic endeavour. it's kind of like film you know, simply capturing it makes it film like art. the simple fact that this artist intended to capture something makes art the medium for it if that makes sense. once you go down a deeper level you can argue about what is subjectively artistically valid or not but it doesn't take away from the fact that if it wasn't objectively art you wouldn't be arguing about it in an artistic context.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31923834]well the idea is that it's the medium. so if the art is made by chance then the presenting of it intends significance or artistic endeavour. it's kind of like film you know, simply capturing it makes it film like art. the simple fact that this artist intended to capture something makes art the medium for it if that makes sense. once you go down a deeper level you can argue about what is subjectively artistically valid or not but it doesn't take away from the fact that if it wasn't objectively art you wouldn't be arguing about it in an artistic context.[/QUOTE] Hmm. I'm not so sure. However, I see where you are coming from.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;31922149] it's not intended to be thought provoking, or a display of artistic ability, it's a testament to technology and how $5 billion worth of shit can fit in something almost as small as your hand, all thanks to the internet [/QUOTE] I took it as meaning that the value of intellectual property is grossly inflated by greedy corporate interests and that a bunch of 1s and 0s on platters not much bigger than your hand is worth millions is the most asinine idea of the 21st century hey look we're having a discussion on art

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31923873]I took it as meaning that the value of intellectual property is grossly inflated by greedy corporate interests and that a bunch of 1s and 0s on platters not much bigger than your hand is worth millions is the most asinine idea of the 21st century hey look we're having a discussion on art[/QUOTE] I'd be interested to know if it was the value that record labels give tracks, or the RRP of them. As in, when they take legal action the value they assign the "lost sales".