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

[QUOTE=Blazedol;52205276]i know it's been said before but you're really underselling the thought people like pollock put into their art dawg. there's a lot of consideration those artists put into several aspects. the brushstrokes and texture of pollock's paintings helped convey the emotion he wanted to. he wasn't just mindlessly splashing paint onto the canvas and would sometimes have his paints be more aggressively slammed onto the canvas whenever he wanted to invoke a more intense emotion like anger, or calmly drip the paint onto the canvas whenever he wanted to make it seem more calmer. that's the barebone basics of it, but it should at least give you an idea of the thought process behind splatter art paintings. there's also the stuff with how he chose his colors but pascal already explained that with detail on page 4. and although i don't think seeing the size is [I]that[/I] important, i feel it adds some context as to how much time and effort went into those paintings and i feel seeing the sheer size of the paintings explains that better than just words can, though your experience may vary edit: and hell even if you don't think it's trying to go for an emotional response it's still trying it's damnest to look visually appealing despite being a mess.[/QUOTE] That's just part of painting though. For Warhol's famous piss oxidation on copper pieces are you gonna say "Warhol put a lot of consideration into how he aimed his penis, and how he clenched his sphincter at just the right time to make less or more urine come out. He wasn't just mindlessly pissing at the copper."

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52205310]That's just part of painting though.[/QUOTE] and? it still requires thought and effort to maintain consistency and have an organized composition. [QUOTE]For Warhol's famous piss oxidation on copper pieces are you gonna say "Warhol put a lot of consideration into how he aimed his penis, and how he clenched his sphincter at just the right time to make less or more urine come out. He wasn't just mindlessly pissing at the copper."[/QUOTE] i honestly don't know enough about warhol to say whether or not it is, but if i were forced to guess, probably. even if it's dumb as shit.

If someone needs to tell you that an artist was slightly miffed when brushing the canvas, the piece failed its purpose in conveying said emotion or meaning to you. The end-result is often like a messy napkin, with no technicality to admire. Like Ecksdee pointed out, there's paintings out there portraying abstract concepts like happiness, grief, regret, anger; without resorting to some stuck-up asshole having to tell you what it represents. You can tell by the expressions, the framing, the choice of color and lighting. [QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;52205420]The idea that the readymades lessened the value of the process actually empowers it, that's the whole point of it.[/QUOTE] So, the meta-commentary is more important than the creative process or the end-result itself? In that case, fuck every dumbass who spends decades of their lives learning about lighting, composition, color, anatomy... Why would you bother making something as intricate as a [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azy-c6QXUCw"]Strandbeest[/URL], when you can wipe your ass on a canvas and have everyone marvel at how deep and meaningful it supposedly is? [I]That[/I] is why so much people find contemporary art so distasteful; because of its pretentiousness and self-importance over substance.

[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;52202073]The whole process has been cheapened by people who put urinals on exposition<...>[/QUOTE] The idea that the readymades lessened the value of the process actually empowers it, that's the whole point of it.

None of you can understand true art. [IMG]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb57887/mrbean/images/2/22/Bean%27s_mother.jpg[/IMG] This is true art. You all need to watch Bean again.

[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;52205420]The idea that the readymades lessened the value of the process actually empowers it, that's the whole point of it.[/QUOTE] Exactly. TBH the Dada movement (and surrealism as well) are probably my favorite art movements.

[QUOTE=153x;52204456] [t]https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/sfmomamedia/media/research-projects/downloads/EdeK_98.298.jpg[/t] You'd be absolutely correct to say there is no technical barrier to make this kind of art, and you don't have to appreciate it, but that's where we are now. Nobody says you can't like classical painting just because we are past that point in history[/QUOTE] When you say this is [I]Rauschenberg's[/I] Erased de Kooning Drawing, why is it his exactly? If my 'art' is a blank piece of paper, than wouldn't the company that manufactured it have more authorship in it than I did? Or is the mere act of putting something in a frame make it [I]your[/I] work. I can take a picture of the golden gate bridge and sell it as much as I like, but I can't take a picture of the coca-cola logo and sell it the same way. Does taking a photo of someone elses work make me the artist responsible for it?

[QUOTE=Fish_poke;52201768]At best it could a be a temporary piece with new iterations every once in a while after is left to rot for a while.[/QUOTE] no let it rot. its a piece to represent the decay of society

[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;52205403]So, the meta-commentary is more important than the creative process or the end-result itself? In that case, fuck every dumbass who spends decades of their lives learning about lighting, composition, color, anatomy... Why would you bother making something as intricate as a [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azy-c6QXUCw"]Strandbeest[/URL], when you can wipe your ass on a canvas and have everyone marvel at how deep and meaningful it supposedly is? [I]That[/I] is why so much people find contemporary art so distasteful; because of its pretentiousness and self-importance over substance.[/QUOTE] The way I see it, there's no inherent value to art, we attribute value to it by using context and perceived stimuli from contact with it, the fact that still today Dada is enough topic to cause us to challenge each other's notions of art is more than enough reason to hold it in such high regards. There's more to Dada than a display of an urinal the same way that there's more to realism than just paint in a canvas. Neither of them are more important.

I wonder what would happen if that was a pineapple pizza instead?

[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;52205930]The way I see it, there's no inherent value to art, we attribute value to it by using context and perceived stimuli from contact with it, the fact that still today Dada is enough topic to cause us to challenge each other's notions of art is more than enough reason to hold it in such high regards. There's more to Dada than a display of an urinal the same way that there's more to realism than just paint in a canvas. Neither of them are more important.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Just because an object does not have a practical use, it does not mean it's not meaningful. If it has a purpose, it has intrinsic value. There is value and merit to art. If a piece clearly transmits its message, it has achieved its purpose. Obtuseness does not replace substance. Picasso attempted to portray people in non-conventional ways, while still keeping sceneries and subjects recognizable. It achieves its purpose, while having its own distinct visual identity. Renée Magritte made extremely absurd and surreal paintings, which subvert the viewer's expectations of how objects in the physical world should behave. Even if it doesn't explicitly carry a message, it achieves its goal of surprising onlookers. Pollock sprays paint on a canvas, which most people think doesn't clearly convey anything, be it emotion or any other abstract concept. Hence, it fails in its purpose, and is disregarded as art. [QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;52205945]I wonder what would happen if that was a pineapple pizza instead?[/QUOTE] It would've gone straight into the trash instead of a glass display. [QUOTE=bdd458;52205993]Where are you getting "most people" from. I'm not even around artsy types and lots of people I know like and appreciate Pollock's work. Something doesn't need a message to be art, nor does it need one assigned by the piece's creator. Art is in the eye of the beholder.[/QUOTE] Like I said above, people like Magritte didn't attach a message to their art, but that didn't make it devoid of a purpose. Portraits don't do anything else besides illustrating someone, but they often achieve in projecting an identity. And as for "most people", I do mean "[URL="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/17684/Art%20results%202-01.png"]most people[/URL]". Ever thought how you don't need an art degree to appreciate chiaroscuro; as opposed to people in this thread suggesting people take a course on how to admire a sculpture of [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/art/2016/05/12/Anthea-Hamilton-Project-for-Door-CULTURE-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bqeo_i_u9APj8RuoebjoAHt0k9u7HhRJvuo-ZLenGRumA.jpg"] a man spreading his ass[/URL]? I mean, if you feel it's a nice ass, more power to you.

Where are you getting "most people" from. I'm not even around artsy types and lots of people I know like and appreciate Pollock's work. Something doesn't need a message to be art, nor does it need one assigned by the piece's creator. Art is in the eye of the beholder.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52204907]I'm going to be honest. Posts like this come across as the most pretentious drivel I've ever seen. The art community has very little respect in society for being snobs who sniff their own farts while looking at nothing, and it's well fucking deserved IMO.[/QUOTE] Who gives a shit? Why is it a bad thing that someone would enjoy the things I described? Why on earth would you lose respect for someone who enjoyed any of that in their own time?

[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;52205969]I disagree. Just because an object does not have a practical use, it does not mean it's not meaningful. If it has a purpose, it has intrinsic value. There is value and merit to art. If a piece clearly transmits its message, it has achieved its purpose. Obtuseness does not replace substance. Pollock sprays paint on a canvas, which most people think doesn't clearly convey anything, be it emotion or any other abstract concept. Hence, it fails in its purpose, and is disregarded as art. [/QUOTE] you're conflating art and craft, I would definitely suggest reading Collingwood's aesthetic theory [URL]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/collingwood-aesthetics/#ArtCraf[/URL] and also, you're incorrect on Pollock. Pollock is regarded as a painter, and his art is displayed. the fact that his art is regarded as such is enough for it to be so his art isn't disregarded, it is recognized and not only that, infamous if your defining characteristic of art is whether or not it achieves a purpose via clearly transmitting a message, then a stop sign is truly a masterpiece

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52206111]you're conflating art and craft, I would definitely suggest reading Collingwood's aesthetic theory [URL]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/collingwood-aesthetics/#ArtCraf[/URL] [/QUOTE] I'll actually give that a read, thanks for the recommendation. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52206111] and also, you're incorrect on Pollock. Pollock is regarded as a painter, and his art is displayed. the fact that his art is regarded as such is enough for it to be so his art isn't disregarded, it is recognized and not only that, infamous [/QUOTE] I can't argue with that. I nor any other single person has the right to dictate what counts as art, and I apologize if I came across as being so presumptuous. The point I tried to make, is why so many people have such a strong dislike for abstract art. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52206111] if your defining characteristic of art is whether or not it achieves a purpose via clearly transmitting a message, then a stop sign is truly a masterpiece[/QUOTE] Heck, it sure beats Rothko and co. at conveying anything. It has a clear sillouette, and is immediately recognizable and understandable regardless of culture or background. You don't need someone to tell you what a handicapped-only sign stands for, despite its minimalism. [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52206172]Yes, congratulations, you've successfully described his point. It's very very good at conveying a message. It's possibly the best conveyed message of all. And if that's what art is about, then a stop sign is the most artistic thing in the world[/QUOTE] If a piece represents nothing, conveys nothing, if it's devoid of the artist's thoughts or abilities (besides "look how fast I can make my brush go lol"); what is its point then? What is there for the onlooker? How is that supposed to evoke anything but abject disgust towards the pretentiousness of the work, its creators and defenders? [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52206172] Which is why most galleries have accompanying descriptions for pieces like it, or why so many buyers choose to meet with the artist and talk to them in person about their work?[/QUOTE] AAAAH, so art cannot be devoid of meaning after all, then? In that case, if it cannot be conveyed or interpreted without external explanation, it fails. And then we're back at my initial argument.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52205925]Have you ever considered that art and an argument could be the same thing? Sooo many people in this thread need to take an art history class to understand the feelings behind these movements. Or just get on wikipedia for a bit.[/QUOTE] Sure, but in this case the argument isn't present in the piece. No one would have any clue what argument was being made by looking at it. The argument is found in the accompanying description or words from the creator. There's also the problem of visual art being a horrible medium for making arguments. Even the most argumentative pieces are just appeals to emotion because that's about all you can do purely in the visual.

[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;52206161]Heck, it sure beats Rothko and co. at conveying anything. It has a clear sillouette, a distinct color, and is immediately recognizable and understandable regardless of culture or background.[/QUOTE] Yes, congratulations, you've successfully described his point. It's very very good at conveying a message. It's possibly the best conveyed message of all. And if that's what art is about, then a stop sign is the most artistic thing in the world [editline]9th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52206164]Sure, but in this case the argument isn't present in the piece. No one would have any clue what argument was being made by looking at it. The argument is found in the accompanying description or words from the creator.[/QUOTE] Which is why most galleries have accompanying descriptions for pieces like it, or why so many buyers choose to meet with the artist and talk to them in person about their work? Do you realize a lot of art buffs actually [I]enjoy[/I] the idea of going "what the hell is THIS doing in an art gallery"? At first it's shocking, then it's intriguing, and with the explanation it becomes interesting, or meaningful. That's a perfectly valid way of appreciating art that conveys very little visually on its own. [editline]9th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;52206161]AAAAH, so art cannot be devoid of meaning after all, then? In that case, if it cannot be conveyed or interpreted without external explanation, it fails. And then we're back at my initial argument.[/QUOTE] I think you missed "pieces like it" in that post. I wasn't talking about art as a whole. Please stop being so fucking desperate for a zinger, I'm trying to give you a genuine point of view here Tbh I'm not even sure what you're saying. This quote is pure snark and no substance

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52206172] I think you missed "pieces like it" in that post. I wasn't talking about art as a whole. Please stop being so fucking desperate for a zinger, I'm trying to give you a genuine point of view here Tbh I'm not even sure what you're saying. This quote is pure snark and no substance[/QUOTE] Alright, let me clarify. My argument is that many people dislike abstract art because apparently, it can't be interpreted without having followed a course or having someone explain to you what is means. I find that, as illustrative media, if a painting fails to convey what it portrays, its value is less than that of a piece that does it succesfully. You and Cloak Raider argue that art is not about conveying anything with clarity (ie. the stop sign argument), or even convey anything at all. I find that doubtful, because a piece has no meaning, then it would have no purpose or drive to have been created in the first place. But then you go on and contradict yourself, saying galleries have accompanying explanations of what is being represented, or that you can talk to the artist and ask for its meaning. So, you say that such pieces [I]do[/I] have a meaning behind them, that has to be conveyed. But if the piece needs external aid to communicate what it means, it's doing a poor job as a visual medium. Show, don't tell. I'm not fishing for zingers, I'm trying to have a discussion. You don't have to be dismissive of other's arguments, if you can't defend yours.

the fact that this discussion is happening is important. art is a human made construct. without us, there wouldn't be art. art is us putting subjective meaning into anything or everything. thats fine if you dont see meaning in something, or dont appreciate it, but the mere fact that some do - that's what makes art well, art.

One of the few things that is a constant in the definition of art across the centuries is that art needs detractors to exist.

[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;52205930]The way I see it, there's no inherent value to art, we attribute value to it by using context and perceived stimuli from contact with it, the fact that still today Dada is enough topic to cause us to challenge each other's notions of art is more than enough reason to hold it in such high regards. There's more to Dada than a display of an urinal the same way that there's more to realism than just paint in a canvas. Neither of them are more important.[/QUOTE] Precisely this. Art can be just as much subjective as it can be objective when it comes to meaning and aesthetic value. I've seen plenty of modern and abstract-expressionist pieces that evoke thoughts and emotions more compelling than plenty of Rennsaissance pieces. I find value within how modern works display such a mastery of shape, color and form that they can do so much with so little. There's often so much subtle detail and thought behind these works, and even when there isnt, then that's fine too.

[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;52206332]Alright, let me clarify. My argument is that many people dislike abstract art because apparently, it can't be interpreted without having followed a course or having someone explain to you what is means. I find that, as illustrative media, if a painting fails to convey what it portrays, its value is less than that of a piece that does it succesfully. You and Cloak Raider argue that art is not about conveying anything with clarity (ie. the stop sign argument), or even convey anything at all. I find that doubtful, because a piece has no meaning, then it would have no purpose or drive to have been created in the first place. But then you go on and contradict yourself, saying galleries have accompanying explanations of what is being represented, or that you can talk to the artist and ask for its meaning. So, you say that such pieces [I]do[/I] have a meaning behind them, that has to be conveyed. But if the piece needs external aid to communicate what it means, it's doing a poor job as a visual medium. Show, don't tell. I'm not fishing for zingers, I'm trying to have a discussion. You don't have to be dismissive of other's arguments, if you can't defend yours.[/QUOTE] I think you misunderstand. I have never argued that "art it not about conveying anything with clarity/at all". I'm saying art can be about conveying meaning, but it doesn't HAVE to be. The entire point here is that there is absolutely no need to have an easy definition for what art is, because there are so many more aspects to it than just visual appeal and craftsmanship. I'm not contradicting myself, because I'm trying to move [I]away[/I] from absolute statements on what art is or isn't. That's it. That's all I'm saying. You have every right to only enjoy work that stands up on its own, and I respect that. I'm just asking that you understand why other people might enjoy exploring everything else that art encompasses

[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;52205748]When you say this is [I]Rauschenberg's[/I] Erased de Kooning Drawing, why is it his exactly? If my 'art' is a blank piece of paper, than wouldn't the company that manufactured it have more authorship in it than I did? Or is the mere act of putting something in a frame make it [I]your[/I] work. I can take a picture of the golden gate bridge and sell it as much as I like, but I can't take a picture of the coca-cola logo and sell it the same way. Does taking a photo of someone elses work make me the artist responsible for it?[/QUOTE] It's his because it was his idea to erase the drawing and present it as art. The key difference here is in the idea and the execution. Similarly when musicians sample other songs or sound clips they often credit or give a nod to the original artist but it is first and foremost THEIR song. [editline].[/editline] Also as a sidenote you totally could take a picture of the coca-cola logo and sell it. That's literally the entire career of Andy Warhol. The reason [i]why[/i] you do it is the key to defending it as a valid work of art, in Warhol's case it was about pop culture, capitalism and the ownership of intellectual property in the public sphere

[QUOTE=richard9311;52201638][t]https://i.imgur.com/pdlB9E5.png[/t][/QUOTE] The problem with people like them is they're making art for validation instead of for its own sake. [editline]9th May 2017[/editline] "them" being the tripfag.

I think people should stop trying to create a definition of art which excludes things they don't like or value and focus on appreciating the art they do like and value because its a very subjective thing and what is one mans trash is another mans treasure. lol jks art ended the second the baroque diedd. every day art gets further from gods good grace. the only artwork that should be allowed is [I] la pietà[/I] or the crucifixion.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52208007]I think people should stop trying to create a definition of art which excludes things they don't like or value and focus on appreciating the art they do like and value because its [B]a very subjective thing and what is one mans trash is another mans treasure.[/B][/QUOTE] For modern art it's more [QUOTE=Lonestriper;52208007][B]a very subjective thing and what is one mans trash is another mans treasure, ergo it must be trash to no-one. If someone thinks it's trash then they need to go take an art history class and go educate themselves.[/B][/QUOTE]

It's called anti-art. Hate pretentious egomaniacs who love symbolism and get away with everything that takes zero effort? That's exactly what crap like a banana peel is arguing against. It stated with Duchamp. There is no meaning to that kind of art other than art sucks.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52208007]I think people should stop trying to create a definition of art which excludes things they don't like or value and focus on appreciating the art they do like and value because its a very subjective thing and what is one mans trash is another mans treasure. lol jks art ended the second the baroque diedd. every day art gets further from gods good grace. the only artwork that should be allowed is [I] la pietà[/I] or the crucifixion.[/QUOTE] Do you thank real meaningful art critique is possible? If so, then it can't be 100% subjective.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52208502]Do you thank real meaningful art critique is possible? If so, then it can't be 100% subjective.[/QUOTE] You don't need to be objective to make meaningful critique. Critics disagree all the time

[QUOTE=Thlis;52208046]For modern art it's more[/QUOTE] man that's like turning up to the last harry potter movie without having seen the previous ones and complaining that you have no idea what is going on or who these people are [editline]10th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52208502]Do you thank real meaningful art critique is possible? If so, then it can't be 100% subjective.[/QUOTE] Yeah man you can make meaningful critiques of art. People do it all the time. It's still subjective though. These aren't exclusive things. as for the real part, that's incredibly loaded. Real as in what? Objective? the Platonic ideal of art? Inferences like that are assuming one form or method of art is the base from which all art must be judged, which just isn't the case.