Students left a pineapple in the middle of an exhibition and people mistook it for art - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;52202012]Art seems to primarily be recursive in it's meaning these days. It's all self-referential in some way or another.[/QUOTE] It's kind of reminding me of the satire of the 18th century and how artists started mocking the overly flowery nature of certain sonnets of the time

[QUOTE=megafat;52201931]If all art could mean anything and everything, what's the point of art? It's all become redundant.[/QUOTE] That's the point modern art tends to make as a whole. It's why the whole "is this art ?" question is dumb, especially when applied to a whole medium. Art is art. Whatever claims to be art is art. You cannot give a universal definition to art because the instant you think you've brought it all together under one definition there's someone out there that comes up with a new novel way of artistically shitpost your definition into irrelevancy.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52202031]This is literally a thread to an article about someone mocking modern art, how is this not a clear space to criticize art.[/QUOTE] That's not what I said? Nowhere in my post do I say you shouldn't criticize art here? I'm singling out the know-it-alls who try to give the end-all definition to art whenever anything unconventional pops up

The pineapple being in a case is priceless, but the glasses incident referred to in the article is even more ridiculous: [T]https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2016/05/26/10/art-glasses.jpg[/T] [MEDIA]https://twitter.com/cuttyboy_tj/status/734951316095533057[/MEDIA]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52202051]That's the point modern art tends to make as a whole. It's why the whole "is this art ?" question is dumb, especially when applied to a whole medium. Art is art. Whatever claims to be art is art. You cannot give a universal definition to art because the instant you think you've brought it all together under one definition there's someone out there that comes up with a new novel way of artistically shitpost your definition into irrelevancy.[/QUOTE] There are only so many ways of saying the same things. It's just some people think one way is superior than another, which is the only thing that annoys me about art. It's not the art itself.

I hate how pretentious modern art movements are. They're not about talent, capability or execution; but self-important meta-commentary (or lack thereof, cos that also counts, ffs). Art is no longer about [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Wright_of_Derby%2C_The_Orrery.jpg/800px-Wright_of_Derby%2C_The_Orrery.jpg"]paintings attempting to achieve realistic lighting[/URL], or [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Proserpina"]marble sculted so it seems as soft and malleable as flesh[/URL]. The whole process has been cheapened by people who put urinals on exposition, supposedly because it's all (meta)commentary on the medium, with no talent behind it. This stunts proves exactly that, and art snobs eat it up.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52202121]There is much more behind art than just technical ability. It is about the message and emotion put into a piece. For example, this may look like a "mess" to some, but to others, this is an extremely emotional piece: [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Kline_no2.jpg[/t] Can you not feel the emotion? You can just feel the rapid brushstrokes of the artist.[/QUOTE] I see a broken telephone pole, and maybe a dude taking a dump off the edge of it.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52201951]I understand why people wouldn't like all types of modern art. What I don't understand is why so many people feel the need to act all high and mighty about it. These "no, let me tell you what art [I]really[/I] is" tirades often feel more pretentious than whatever piece they're trying to criticize[/QUOTE] Yeah, if you don't like it I don't get why you feel the need to tell other people they shouldn't like it. If I wanna walk around and look at pineapples that's my own concern.

[QUOTE=lintz;52201564]this is why i cannot stand the state of modern art as it is sure you could make an argument for this being actual art while being a parody of modern art but that's the fucking problem[/QUOTE] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;52202073]I hate how pretentious modern art movements are. They're not about talent, capability or execution; but self-important meta-commentary (or lack thereof, cos that also counts, ffs). Art is no longer about [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Wright_of_Derby%2C_The_Orrery.jpg/800px-Wright_of_Derby%2C_The_Orrery.jpg"]paintings attempting to achieve realistic lighting[/URL], or [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Proserpina"]marble sculted so it seems as soft and malleable as flesh[/URL]. The whole process has been cheapened by people who put urinals on exposition, supposedly because it's all (meta)commentary on the medium, with no talent behind it. This stunts proves exactly that, and art snobs eat it up.[/QUOTE] Giving a piece ample, context-sensitive consideration is not "eating up stunts". To claim that Duchamp's urinal has ever been an industry standard is historically inaccurate; And, I believe, malicious. [I]Fontaine[/I] was a work of deception, and produced the intended recation. You can't hate modern art. You might hate modern art galleries. You might hate the pretense, you might hate the importance given to the pieces, the oppressiveness -of the place and the people who attend it- of having things you don't find particularly beautiful have a room of their own and a price tag to match. But to say you would hate them in a vacuum without having seen much of it is a bold claim.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52202121]There is much more behind art than just technical ability. It is about the message and emotion put into a piece. For example, this may look like a "mess" to some, but to others, this is an extremely emotional piece: [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Kline_no2.jpg[/t] Can you not feel the emotion? You can just feel the rapid brushstrokes of the artist.[/QUOTE] Although it seems like you're being sarcastic, in my opinion that's true

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52202186]I am absolutely NOT being sarcastic. I fucking love expressionism, abstract expressionism, and the impressionist movement. If you ever see an action painting in real life, it is just breathtaking: [t]http://kizny.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/6447.jpg[/t] Just look at the emotion! The act of painting is itself the art, one may argue.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't get what you mean by "just look at the emotion." It's a guy splattering paint with an expressionless look. I see more emotion in the construction workers I pass by on the way to work.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52202204]The strokes, the wrist movements, you can feel all of that just by looking at the finished piece. It's difficult to explain. You have to understand that the act itself is the art.[/QUOTE] I've seen that kind of art being made firsthand (a good friend owns an art studio), and it's not that hard to understand in the slightest. It's just entirely unimpressive. Showing *emotion* is easy. Expressing that emotion in a way that touches the common human experience is the hard part. It's the difference between being some guy putting paint on the canvas and a [I]painter[/I]. I can happily/sadly/etc. splatter pain. In fact, anyone can. We can all express our emotion in the act of splattering paint. The skill of the artist is doing more than just throwing emotion on a canvas. They put their emotion into something deeper, something that is more than just pure emotion, something that other people can look at and gain an even deeper understanding of whatever the artist is trying to express.

Art was a mistake

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202211]I've seen that kind of art being made firsthand (a good friend owns an art studio), and it's not that hard to understand in the slightest. It's just entirely unimpressive. Showing *emotion* is easy. Expressing that emotion in a way that touches the common human experience is the hard part.[/QUOTE] Well it works for me so mission accomplished

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52202215]Well it works for me so mission accomplished[/QUOTE] Well it doesn't for me so mission failed.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202197]It's a guy splattering paint with an expressionless look.[/QUOTE] He's a painter not a comedian. Consider the timeless form of the painting as a finished piece. What is the relevance of his facial expression at the moment of making? I'm more interested in the way he holds his brush and how he's in it up to his knees. His brushstroke, if I may call it that, is aerial figure: he's at odds with the very creation he's undertaking, and the final product will make this very apparent. The final product itself is not only as a testimony of the process. To see it as only that would render the Pinapple we were discussing absolutely inane: the humor found in the pineapple piece is, to me in the crude, asymetrical disposition of it and in the grotesque figure of the glass cage that surrounds the otherwise inane object. While we're still on that painting I would like to take a closer look at it with colors, actually.

[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;52202073]I hate how pretentious modern art movements are. They're not about talent, capability or execution; but self-important meta-commentary (or lack thereof, cos that also counts, ffs). Art is no longer about [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Wright_of_Derby%2C_The_Orrery.jpg/800px-Wright_of_Derby%2C_The_Orrery.jpg"]paintings attempting to achieve realistic lighting[/URL], or [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Proserpina"]marble sculted so it seems as soft and malleable as flesh[/URL]. The whole process has been cheapened by people who put urinals on exposition, supposedly because it's all (meta)commentary on the medium, with no talent behind it. This stunts proves exactly that, and art snobs eat it up.[/QUOTE] tbh art would be pretty boring if it was all about painting realistic nature. [sp]thats why it isn't[/sp]

[QUOTE=da space core;52201767]Personally, i dont like like art that took 5 seconds to make. I dont care if its classical or modern style or whatever, if it took considerable effort to create, I respect that. But if you simply sneeze on a canvas and call it a day, screw you for giving artists a bad reputation. Case in point, there was an art competition when i was in high school, and my friend worked really hard on a cool drawing for it. He placed second to a guy who submitted a blank piece of paper, because it was "symbolic"[/QUOTE] I take it that you're not a fan of [I]Fountain[/I] by Marcel Duchamp? A readymade sculpture that's just a fucking urinal.

[QUOTE=Scarabix;52202252]His brushstroke, if I may call it that, is aerial figure: he's at odds with the very creation he's undertaking, and the final product will make this very apparent.[/QUOTE] I'm actually curious, please tell me what you mean by this. As far as I can tell, it's artsy mumbo-jumbo with no actual meaning, but I'm am 100% ready to proven wrong. How is he at odds with the creation?

[QUOTE=duckmaster;52202241]Well it doesn't for me so mission failed.[/QUOTE] If it works for anyone (including himself then he has basically done good shit. If you don't like it move on

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52202284]If it works for anyone (including himself then he has basically done good shit. If you don't like it move on[/QUOTE] That standard makes all art critique and discussion impossible. I'm sure literally any piece of art can be enjoyed by someone (as sown by this pineapple).

I think this summarizes art very well [video=youtube;rQWPq0ZvgJQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQWPq0ZvgJQ[/video]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202269]I'm actually curious, please tell me what you mean by this. As far as I can tell, it's artsy mumbo-jumbo with no actual meaning, but I'm am 100% ready to proven wrong. How is he at odds with the creation?[/QUOTE] It is mumbo-jumbo. We've come at a stage where painting without touching the canvas is considered a genre of its own that needs to be exhausted so we can move on. The amount of control you lose on the final output when attempting this is considerable; But I'm not sure how else you're going to get this result, and as such it also has the added benefit of being near impossible for a faux to be produced. It's very niche, I'll give you that. [QUOTE=Blind Weasel;52202256]tbh art would be pretty boring if it was all about painting realistic nature. [sp]thats why it isn't[/sp][/QUOTE] Imagine a world where Zeuxis and Parrhasius are decreed to have won art, and no one can come up with new shit anymore.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52202284]If it works for anyone (including himself then he has basically done good shit. If you don't like it move on[/QUOTE] If art worked for everyone then it wouldn't be art now would it.

Our modern art museum has a piece by Felix Gonzalez-Torres that's a pile of candy the same weight as himself meant to symbolise his slowly wasting away with AIDS as visitors take pieces with them. The only problem is everyone is so conditioned not to touch the art that no one ever takes a piece.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202211]I've seen that kind of art being made firsthand (a good friend owns an art studio), and it's not that hard to understand in the slightest. It's just entirely unimpressive. Showing *emotion* is easy. Expressing that emotion in a way that touches the common human experience is the hard part. It's the difference between being some guy putting paint on the canvas and a [I]painter[/I]. I can happily/sadly/etc. splatter pain. In fact, anyone can. We can all express our emotion in the act of splattering paint. The skill of the artist is doing more than just throwing emotion on a canvas. They put their emotion into something deeper, something that is more than just pure emotion, something that other people can look at and gain an even deeper understanding of whatever the artist is trying to express.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sgman91;52202269]I'm actually curious, please tell me what you mean by this. As far as I can tell, it's artsy mumbo-jumbo with no actual meaning, but I'm am 100% ready to proven wrong. How is he at odds with the creation?[/QUOTE] Have you thought that maybe, you haven't tried to look at this under a genuine light? That even when you're trying to delve further into art and its meaning, you can't stop yourself from attacking an honest interpretation with this "artsy mumbo-jumbo" shit? I'm sorry, but it doesn't come off as very receptive, and so there's not much of an incentive to be constructive, even if you do seem curious. Point being, there's a lot of people in the art world who don't say this stuff just to suck up to a clique or appear "deep". Most, I'd say, get into this sort of talk because they genuinely believe in it. They find beauty in deconstructing art and what it means. I'd say you should give it a try and indulge in the pretense, just a little.

[QUOTE=laserpanda;52202325]Our modern art museum has a piece by Felix Gonzalez-Torres that's a pile of candy the same weight as himself meant to symbolise his slowly wasting away with AIDS as visitors take pieces with them. The only problem is everyone is so conditioned not to touch the art that no one ever takes a piece.[/QUOTE] I'd take the entire pile and sell it back to the museum

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52202336]Have you thought that maybe, you haven't tried to look at this under a genuine light? That even when you're trying to delve further into art and its meaning, you can't stop yourself from attacking an honest interpretation with this "artsy mumbo-jumbo" shit? I'm sorry, but it doesn't come off as very receptive, and so there's not much of an incentive to be constructive, even if you do seem curious. Point being, there's a lot of people in the art world who don't say this stuff just to suck up to a clique or appear "deep". Most, I'd say, get into this sort of talk because they genuinely believe in it. They find beauty in deconstructing art and what it means. I'd say you should give it a try and indulge in the pretense, just a little.[/QUOTE] That's why I asked for clarification. I want to truly understand your positions. People can genuinely believe something all they want, but unless they can explain it, then it's not real knowledge. It's just them emoting. His response was to say that it is mumbo-jumbo. I'm not quite sure how to take that.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52202197]I honestly don't get what you mean by "just look at the emotion." It's a guy splattering paint with an expressionless look. I see more emotion in the construction workers I pass by on the way to work.[/QUOTE] he isn't just mindlessly splattering paint, while it's harder to tell than other, more traditional works, there is thought put into the painting. the colors, composition, the type of paints he used, etc. were all made with consideration as to how it would improve the quality, and the end result ended up being at least somewhat pleasant to look at.