NSFW: Assholes: Art Exhibit in Portuguese Museum Called "The Eye of the Anus" on Display

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=lapsus_;42624692]All I know is that art has taken a U-turn when photography came around, it was unchained from it's social role of potraying reality and instead started focusing on it's other pillar, author's interpretation. That is modern art for you. 100% iterpretation, 0% fidelty to reality.
I get it it's meant to be pictures of assholes that doesn't stand for assholes, or so the author would argue.

The fact is that those are pictures of assholes, not canvas of assholes. They were not interpreted by the author. They did not go through his sensibility- they were caught by a machine, loaded into another machine, and shat out by another machine. Machines do not interpret. Machines gives a frame of what is real. Those are, then, pictures of assholes.

The author wants to gather attention / stir up trouble / do something new.[/QUOTE]

the very choice to take a picture of the asshole was interpretive in itself.

unless you are saying photography is never artistic.

[editline]24th October 2013[/editline]

which is insulting to the many photographers out there that rightfully consider themselves artists.

[Sgman91]

Saying that anything can be art is just as meaningful as saying nothing can be art. Art has no purpose, meaning, or significance if anything can be art.

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42627778]Saying that anything can be art is just as meaningful as saying nothing can be art. Art has no purpose, meaning, or significance if anything can be art.[/QUOTE]

why?

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42627787]why?[/QUOTE]

If I can take a picture of my shit and call it art in the same way that a genius can paint a masterpiece that expresses the deepest of human emotion can call his work art then the word 'art' has no meaning. Any word that can encompass anything is meaningless. Words and ideas only have significance because they refer to something specific.

IMO, the modern idea of complete subjectivity of art has gone a long way in destroying it.

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42627801]If I can take a picture of my shit and call it art in the same way that a genius can paint a masterpiece that expresses the deepest of human emotion can call his work art then the word 'art' has no meaning. Any word that can encompass anything is meaningless. Words and ideas only have significance because they refer to something specific.[/QUOTE]

so then the words art and music mean nothing to you?

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42627819]so then the words art and music mean nothing to you?[/QUOTE]

I, personally, don't hold that art and music are completely subjective.

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42627826]I, personally, don't hold that art and music are completely subjective.[/QUOTE]

is this music to you?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFKFiXSx4[/media]

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42627839]is this music to you?

[/QUOTE]

First of all, I am familiar with the performance that you linked. Secondly, I would call it just that: a performance, not music.

In my opinion, that performance is a perfect example of confusing uniqueness with quality.

[Valdor]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42627826]I, personally, don't hold that art and music are completely subjective.[/QUOTE]

What exactly is required to call something music? It's completely subjective.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Valdor;42627872]What exactly is required to call something music other than sound? It's completely subjective.[/QUOTE]

The differentiation between *artistic music and sound is that music, as art, is created in order to be heard by humans and for a purpose that relates to humanity.

The idea I'm talking about is art, not music, per se.

[zakededodead]

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;42622485]You're only getting half of the art piece if you don't know its intent. Yes, you're literally looking at assholes and that is as unpleasant as looking at assholes actually is, but you're only getting half of the picture here.

But if you're dismissive, and can't get over yourself enough to stop calling things pretentious and then writing them off you may actually be able to find some sort of value in, as abrasive as this is upfront, a statement that he may be attempting here. This isn't just advice for this exhibit, it's for art and expression in general.[/QUOTE]

I'll paraphrase frued here: Sometimes a cigar is just a asshole

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42627883]The differentiation between *artistic music and sound is that music, as art, is created in order to be heard by humans and for a purpose that relates to humanity.

The idea I'm talking about is art, not music, per se.[/QUOTE]

music is an extension of art.

you would say there is nothing musical about nature?

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42627905]music is an extension of art.

you would say there is nothing musical about nature?[/QUOTE]

I would say that not all music is art. For example, I would call birdsong music, but not art.

Music is mathematical. It is based on fractions, wave functions, and how they harmonize together in our brain. On the other hand, art is emotion based. It must have purpose where music doesn't.

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42627909]I would say that not all music is art. For example, I would call birdsong music, but not art.

Music is mathematical. It is based on fractions, wave functions, and how they harmonize together in our brain. On the other hand, art is emotion based. It must have purpose where music doesn't.[/QUOTE]

but one could say art is also based on theories on aesthetics(color theory, balance, etc.) and how they harmonize in the brain.

[Sgman91]

I remember reading a book that I can't remember at the moment where robots had taken dominion over all of humanity and one of the robots was trying to create a great piece of musical art. So he analysed all the great musical pieces created by human composers and made what would mathematically be considered the perfect piece of music because of it's perfect harmony, melody, etc., but when he played it for some of the remaining humanity it wasn't pleasant to those involved because it simply had no meaning. It didn't come from the yearnings, sadness, or joy of the human heart. Human emotion and experience is what makes art great.

[editline]23rd October 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42627942]but one could say art is also based on theories on aesthetics(color theory, balance, etc.) and how they harmonize in the brain.[/QUOTE]

One could say that, but it wouldn't be true. Art doesn't have to be pleasing to be great.

For example, I wouldn't say a masterful painting of the aftermath of a battle is pleasing to look at, but it can still stir the heart.

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42627945]One could say that, but it wouldn't be true. Art doesn't have to be pleasing to be great.

For example, I wouldn't say a masterful painting of the aftermath of a battle is pleasing to look at, but it stirs the heart and makes one consider their own existence and those who have given their lives before them. It can therefore still be great and full of purpose.[/QUOTE]

i don't think music has to be pleasing to be great either.

i don't think this song is very pleasing to the ear but i think it's a great song because it reflects personal experiences of mine.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK4dSBs_qBE[/media]

[breakyourface]

Every fucking art thread turns into a debate about subjectivity every goddamn time it devolves into 'your opinion vs. Mine'. Its so annoying and predictable facepunch I thought maybe we could move past this but I guess not.

[Take_Opal]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42627945]I remember reading a book that I can't remember at the moment where robots had taken dominion over all of humanity and one of the robots was trying to create a great piece of musical art. So he analysed all the great musical pieces created by human composers and made what would mathematically be considered the perfect piece of music because of it's perfect harmony, melody, etc., but when he played it for some of the remaining humanity it wasn't pleasant to those involved because it simply had no meaning. It didn't come from the yearnings, sadness, or joy of the human heart. Human emotion and experience is what makes art great.

[editline]23rd October 2013[/editline]

One could say that, but it wouldn't be true. Art doesn't have to be pleasing to be great.

For example, I wouldn't say a masterful painting of the aftermath of a battle is pleasing to look at, but it can still stir the heart.[/QUOTE]

But a piece, so alien to humans, would undoubtedly fill them with fear or uncertainty and that alone would qualify it as a work of art. And "Human emotion and experience is what makes art great." may (or may not) be, but that doesn't qualify art alone.

And isn't using that example, where humans did not find the robot's song pleasing to help your argument completely contradicting saying art doesn't need to be pleasing to be art?

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42627968]i don't think music has to be pleasing to be great either.

i don't think this song is very pleasing to the ear but i think it's a great song because it reflects personal experiences of mine.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK4dSBs_qBE[/media][/QUOTE]

I've said that art must be purposeful, not pleasing.

In my opinion, if a piece of art accurately and clearly portrays it's intended purpose then it is good art and the less a piece of art has to be explain the better it is.

Remember that there's a difference between saying, "I like enjoy listening to X" and "X is art" in the same way that there's a difference between saying, "I enjoy eating X" and "X is food." Let's take a rock, for example. Just because someone likes eating rocks, which I'm sure there's someone who does, doesn't mean rocks are food.

[Take_Opal]

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;42627979]Every fucking art thread turns into a debate about subjectivity every goddamn time it devolves into 'your opinion vs. Mine'. Its so annoying and predictable facepunch I thought maybe we could move past this but I guess not.[/QUOTE]

Then why do you contribute to the argument?

[editline]23rd October 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42628011]I've said that art must be purposeful, not pleasing.

In my opinion, if a piece of art accurately and clearly portrays it's intended purpose then it is good art and the less a piece of art has to be explain the better it is.

Remember that there's a difference between saying, "I like enjoy listening to X" and "X is art" in the same way that there's a difference between saying, "I enjoy eating X" and "X is food." Let's take a rock, for example. Just because someone likes eating rocks, which I'm sure there's someone who does, doesn't mean rocks are food.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying anything not obvious is not art.
Ok, I'm just going to stop listening to you because you are a verified High School philosopher.

[breakyourface]

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;42628017]Then why do you contribute to the argument?

[editline]23rd October 2013[/editline]

So you're saying anything not obvious is not art.
Ok, I'm just going to stop listening to you because you are a verified High School philosopher.[/QUOTE]

I aint arguing with nobody I'm making an observation that this thread is filled with a bunch of assholes just like this exhibit

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;42627981]But a piece, so alien to humans, would undoubtedly fill them with fear or uncertainty and that alone would qualify it as a work of art. And "Human emotion and experience is what makes art great." may (or may not) be, but that doesn't qualify art alone.[/QUOTE]

Please, present an opposing argument. It's easy to call something wrong without presenting an alternative.

[QUOTE]And isn't using that example, where humans did not find the robot's song pleasing to help your argument completely contradicting saying art doesn't need to be pleasing to be art?[/QUOTE]

I did a poor job of explaining the situation. It wasn't that they didn't find it pleasing alone, but that they didn't find anything in it. There was no emotion to be found because it wasn't created for any purpose beyond pure mathematics. It was as if the robot put an equation into sound and in the same way we wouldn't call an equation art that piece of music wasn't art.

[editline]23rd October 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;42628045]I aint arguing with nobody I'm making an observation that this thread is filled with a bunch of assholes just like this exhibit[/QUOTE]

Yes, because honest discussion is such an assholish thing to do. You are the only one contributing nothing.

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=butre;42627709]the message is that anything is art[/QUOTE]

Is that necessarily a good thing?

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42628011]I've said that art must be purposeful, not pleasing.

In my opinion, if a piece of art accurately and clearly portrays it's intended purpose then it is good art and the less a piece of art has to be explain the better it is.

Remember that there's a difference between saying, "I like enjoy listening to X" and "X is art" in the same way that there's a difference between saying, "I enjoy eating X" and "X is food." Let's take a rock, for example. Just because someone likes eating rocks, which I'm sure there's someone who does, doesn't mean rocks are food.[/QUOTE]

but does art have to have meaning on the part of the creator or the part of the person who is interpreting the art subjectively in their own brain?

for example, even if the artist had no intention or meaning behind his pictures of anuses, if another person extracts a greater meaning from the piece, isn't it art no matter how meaningless it is to you? that's why people say "everything is art" or "art is purely subjective". romantic portraits "aren't art" to me, but they might be art to you, which is fine. i think the mona lisa is overrated and unexciting, you might disagree. that's totally cool. but don't say that me listening to music you don't understand, or me looking at pictures you don't identify with, is in any way unartistic please. if you promise to do that, i promise i won't do the same to you.

[Take_Opal]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;42628063]Is that necessarily a good thing?[/QUOTE]

Does that matter?

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;42628017]So you're saying anything not obvious is not art.
Ok, I'm just going to stop listening to you because you are a verified High School philosopher.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the ad hominem. Have a nice day.

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;42628063]Is that necessarily a good thing?[/QUOTE]

it's not a good thing, and it's not a bad thing. it just is. art is art to someone and everything holds some artistic merit to someone else.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42628068]but does art have to have meaning on the part of the creator or the part of the person who is interpreting the art subjectively in their own brain?

for example, even if the artist had no intention or meaning behind his pictures of anuses, if another person extracts a greater meaning from the piece, isn't it art no matter how meaningless it is to you? that's why people say "everything is art" or "art is purely subjective". romantic portraits "aren't art" to me, but they might be art to you, which is fine. i think the mona lisa is overrated and unexciting, you might disagree. that's totally cool. but don't say that me listening to music you don't understand, or me looking at pictures you don't identify with, is in any way unartistic please. if you promise to do that, i promise i won't do the same to you.[/QUOTE]

I would call anything created with an emotional purpose to be art. In my opinion, the opinion of the person experiencing it has nothing to do with whether it is art or not.

I judge whether art is good or bad based on whether it clearly portrays the purpose of the creator. For example, if I create a painting out of pure joy and happiness in order to try and express that happiness, but it instead expresses sadness I have been unsuccessful in my artistic endeavor. My art is bad.

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42628104]I would call anything created with an emotional purpose to be art. In my opinion, the opinion of the person experiencing it has nothing to do with whether it is art or not.

I judge whether art is good or bad based on whether it clearly portrays the purpose of the creator. For example, if I create a painting out of pure joy and happiness in order to try and express that happiness, but it instead expresses sadness I have been unsuccessful in my artistic endeavor. My art is bad.[/QUOTE]

but to the people who it expresses sadness to it could be the greatest work of art they have ever seen.

[editline]24th October 2013[/editline]

it seems elitist to say that the art that other people like is "bad art"

[Sgman91]

Here's a question for you: If the intent of the artist is irrelevant when judging whether at is good or bad then how can we define whether an artist is a good or bad artist? Or can we at all?