[Flipside]

Let me put it this way, the National Gallery has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to preserve the DaVinci cartoons. They show the grace, intellect and skill of this artist.

Equal amounts have been spent on preserving and restoring great Architecture, sculptures etc.

Who, in their right mind, is going to spend that kind of money to preserve a cellophane bag full of rubbish for our future generations to look upon and wonder (what the hell we were thinking).

[Blaise Russel]

Why is a cellophane bag full of assorted materials any less worthy of existence than pieces of paper with ink on them or funny-shaped bits of stone or metal?

[vyper]

[q] pieces of paper with ink on them or funny-shaped bits of stone or metal[/q]

Because of the beauty in thier expression.

[Gloriano]

why they didn't just leave note This is not garbage but meh.

[Janos]

I LIKE PEARS

[Rictor]

Because "classical" painting/sculptures/art actually represent something.

The function of art is to a)to look cool and/or b)convey a message or feeling or insight.

The best art does both, this does neither. Lets face it, most people who buy this stuff are snobby Manhatanites who hand wierd crap on their wall so their shallow friends will think they're sophisticated. IO would venture to guess that for a good chunk of the population, probably the majority, art is what someone else says it is. If an art critic says that a garbage bag is the greatest masterpiece ever, and an art gallery displays it behind a velvet rope, than you'de better believe thats its art, or you "don't get it". And most people want to get it.

For example, I think most of Picasso's better known work falls into the same category as this garbage bag. Ditto Pollock and Mondrian etc.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
why they didn't just leave note This is not garbage but meh.

ROFL!

*walks into art museum*

*notices that every piece of art is labelled 'This is NOT garbage'*



Surely that would be the saddest thing ever. When we have to tag art to prevent it from being seen as garbage and thrown away.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

*agrees with Rictor*

And as for labelling what isn't garbage, it would be a lot easier to label what is.

[Gloriano]

Originally posted by Tiara



Surely that would be the saddest thing ever. When we have to tag art to prevent it from being seen as garbage and thrown away.

Yeah, but did that help in this case? no it didn't, because it looked like garbage. still Meh.

[Janos]

Originally posted by Rictor
Because "classical" painting/sculptures/art actually represent something.

The function of art is to a)to look cool and/or b)convey a message or feeling or insight.

[/b]
And inspire, provoke conversation, make us take a different point of view. Art is controversial by nature - quite often artistic works are INTENDED to be stupid, ugly or confusing, just to make us consider what art actually is. Trying to label art as "portraying and conveying form of whatever" is as stupid as saying "minimalistic electro-ambient is not music".

The best art does both, this does neither. Lets face it, most people who buy this stuff are snobby Manhatanites who hand wierd crap on their wall so their shallow friends will think they're sophisticated. IO would venture to guess that for a good chunk of the population, probably the majority, art is what someone else says it is. If an art critic says that a garbage bag is the greatest masterpiece ever, and an art gallery displays it behind a velvet rope, than you'de better believe thats its art, or you "don't get it". And most people want to get it.

[/b]
Oh, it's the snobby manhattians so the value of this art is zil!
Actually, this piece has managed to inspire conversation among COMPUTER GAME IDIOTS, isn't it a sign? If it truly was totally trivial and irrelevant meaningless piece of ****, no one had ever noticed. Granted, the way this art piece got publicity is pretty interesting, but however - it makes us discuss. It has successfully managed to do what it was supposed to do.

For example, I think most of Picasso's better known work falls into the same category as this garbage bag. Ditto Pollock and Mondrian etc.

?

I LIKE PEARS <3 Blaise

[Galemp]

So which of these is 'art':



or



?

The first is a generic landscape by Thomas Kinkade. It looks nice but is completely devoid of meaning or substance. The second is a painting by Jackson Pollack, one of the most influential modern artists, and is an expression of visual texture. There is more emotion, power, and meaning behind the second than the first, which in my opinion makes it more worthy to be called 'art.' An art creation does not have to visually represent something familiar, it has to emotionally and conceptually express a concept and communicate a theory, idea, or anything else the artist wants to express.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

*waits for someone to spot an image of Jesus in the 2nd one, thereby doubling its value*

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by Janos
I LIKE PEARS <3 Blaise

Sadly, I can't claim intellectual ownership of that statement. Not really, anyway. Entire thing was basically a rip, although from something about something else entirely where fruit was an allegory or something.



Anyway, I concur with the two posts by Janos and Galemp. Points are raised that I feel are valid and pertinent and cool and stuff.

[Tiara]

First one: Ok, as generic as it can possibly be... Not art in my mind.

Second one: Did a 2-year old make this? Or someone in solitary confinement at the MIFFA (Mental Institution For Failed Artists)?

Seriously, if someone wants to convey emotion and power, it should be done in a way that has actual meaning. Throwing swatches of paint against a canvas for 2 minutes hardly qualifies as art but more like an attempt to make art of of kitch and to milk a ****load of money out of it.

You can conve emotions without making your work look like ****.

[Rictor]

Oh come on. Thats like if I write a book with only the word "window" repeated 65,143 times. Its probably going to "provoke conversation" between the sensibe majority who views it as a piece of crap, and the elitist, "intelletual", snobish minority who thinks that its the greatest piece of literature ever.

And if I manage to get an art gallery to display it, and go around the country on a book signing tour, that doesn't make a great artist, it makes me a great businessman (or if you prefer, swindler)

Frankly, this is a slap in the face not only to the likes of Michelangelo and Da Vinci, who spent their lives creating art, but also to even the lowlist art student or comic-book artist, who put in 15 hour days just to get a tiny gallery somewhere in the middle of nowhere to display their art.

It probably took less than an hour to put the garbage bag together, and in addition to the substantial money he's recieving for it, he is also paraded around the "art community" as some sort of genius.

[vyper]

Kinkade is a marvelous artist and his work conveys and inspires human emotions we associate with our happiest times. His scenes are always immersive and indicative of the kind of coloured childhood memories even the worst of us have.

[Janos]

Originally posted by Rictor
Oh come on. Thats like if I write a book with only the word "window" repeated 65,143 times. Its probably going to "provoke conversation" between the sensibe majority who views it as a piece of crap, and the elitist, "intelletual", snobish minority who thinks that its the greatest piece of literature ever.

[/b]
The fact that the "snobbish minority" likes it and majority does not does not dimish it's value - people value different things, and populism in art is prety horrible.
I watch birds. Majority of people do not and do not even value my hobby as useful. Birdwatchers use expensive optics. Is my hobby meaningless? [Yes, this was a horrible strawman, but you get my point.]

And if I manage to get an art gallery to display it, and go around the country on a book signing tour, that doesn't make a great artist, it makes me a great businessman (or if you prefer, swindler)

[/b]
Sometimes the two are not readily separable. If people like to see and read your book, you have managed in something - expressing yourself and finding people who think like you. Maybe.

Frankly, this is a slap in the face not only to the likes of Michelangelo and Da Vinci, who spent their lives creating art, but also to even the lowlist art student or comic-book artist, who put in 15 hour days just to get a tiny gallery somewhere in the middle of nowhere to display their art.

[/b]
So? Michelangelo and Da Vinci did pretty much totally different kind of art, as does the art student. Irrelevant to value of this piece.

It probably took less than an hour to put the garbage bag together, and in addition to the substantial money he's recieving for it, he is also paraded around the "art community" as some sort of genius.

OH NOES IT TOOK TOO LITTLE TIME GRRRRR STUPID ART FAGS
Now, seriously, what has time it took to take the garbate bag and fill it with trash to do with the value of this piece? For an experienced guy it takes 2 minutes to pretty accurately sketch some dude's face into paper, then additional 30 minutes to color it up (I am taking these number outta my ass, FYI).

[Janos]

Originally posted by vyper
Kinkade is a marvelous artist and his work conveys and inspires human emotions we associate with our happiest times. His scenes are always immersive and indicative of the kind of coloured childhood memories even the worst of us have.

... like being forced to wear humiliating clothes, eat bad food, being punished for some reason we don't understand etc.?

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by vyper
Kinkade is a marvelous artist and his work conveys and inspires human emotions we associate with our happiest times. His scenes are always immersive and indicative of the kind of coloured childhood memories even the worst of us have.

I disagree.

Taking a step out into the void and making a judgement about something based on one thing... I find his picture/stuff rather boring. You might see childhood memories, but I see a house, with snow. Maybe... I don't know, maybe I could say 'it says something about man and nature living in harmonious bliss' or 'it says cottages are cool' but... I'd be lying if I said I really *knew*, if I really had an idea of what it means. In truth, "I don't get it".

In contrast, I like the Pollack picture. I get a feeling of... maybe anger, rage, or maybe frustration perhaps, or triumph, or any of the feelings that are connected with POWER. The broad, long 'brushstrokes' streaking across the canvas, striding the board like a colossus... I'm not an art critic, this might not be the Establishment's feelings on the matter, but to me, that's what I get out of it. A demonstration of power... like a Tesla coil, y'know?

But... and this is perhaps quite important... when I look at Kinkade's picture, do I stand legs apart, openly cupping my testicles, and declare "This is not Art!"? Do I say "He doth slap his willy in the face of the Artistic Greats, and his mother didst perform oral sex on orangutans!"? Do I say "A Mockery and an Idiocy this is, and It pleaseth me not! Be rid of It!"

No, 'cause I have a realistic perception of the influence I have in defining words and the world: i.e. Me. I'm perfectly justified in saying 'I don't like this' or 'This means nothing to me, I feel nothing, sense nothing... I am dead inside,' but I can't say 'No one should like this, it is crap' or 'This is not art, [what I say] is art'. I certainly don't think that anyone who doesn't get Pollack is dumb, nor that anyone who gets Kinkade or Herr Metzger is crazy, nutso, stupid, doesn't know the *real* meaning of art...

Maybe that's just me.

[vyper]

Blaise how old are you? I'm not piss taking I'm serious, I'm wondering for a reason.