5 ms·

For me something is art if I would find it put near a dumpster and would think "Wow, who would throw this out? That's an amazing piece of work!". And by this de

For me something is art if I would find it put near a dumpster and would think "Wow, who would throw this out? That's an amazing piece of work!". And by this definition, I can assure you, a large part of the modern "art" wouldn't qualify - when put in a dumpster, it would be indistinguishable from trash.

aninhumer 10y ago
See this is what I mean. Why not say "For me a piece of art is worthwhile if..." instead of "For me something is art if..."? The latter leads to responses like "Oh no, it's still art because art means..." instead of "Oh but I really like X which doesn't fit your criteria, what do you think?"
- kiba 10y ago
  There's art that's absolutely garbage to look at, and then there's art that's basically indistinguishable from trash. At that point, it's just stuff.
  - heartsucker 10y ago
    > there's art that's basically indistinguishable from trash. Indistinguishable from trash to you maybe. This [0] was an piece at Ai Weiwei exhibit I saw in Berlin last year (I don't much care for his work, but that's beside the point). This is mostly indistinguishable from this [1]. One is a pile of crabs intentionally placed in in order to make a pun in Chinese (if I remember right). One is a pile of crabs. One is art. The other is not. I'm saying the Ai Weiwei piece is art because 1) he did it on purpose, 2a) he calls it art, and 2b) other people call it art. If I sculpted an exact replica of a trash can in the house I grew up with to symbolize {the passage of time, childhood, whatever, no symbolism at all}, then that's art even if it is literally made of trash and nobody but me ever called it art. At the risk of sounding like a children's show with a shallow message: anything can be art if you want it to be. [0] - https://d1lfxha3ugu3d4.cloudfront.net/exhibitions/images/2014_Ai_Weiwei_02-He_Xie_5760x3380.jpg https://d1lfxha3ugu3d4.cloudfront.net/exhibitions/images/201... [1] - http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/a-pile-of-crabs-evan-peller.jpg http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/a-pil...
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Sure you can change words to suit meaning, no problem. I saw an exhibit in SF that consisted of canvases with taxidermied dog parts stapled to them (briefly; I fled). The artist called it art; but it was junk. Defend it all you like; but there was absolutely nothing redeeming about it. You have to draw a line, even if its fuzzy.
      - heartsucker 10y ago
        > You have to draw a line But do you? I mean really, what gives anyone any authority to say that? Quoting wikipedia[0]: > Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. Maybe it was the artists intention to horrify and disgust, in which case stapling body parts on canvas certainly seemed to have that effect. Certainly that qualifies it as art. I really think it's exclusionary and elitist to tell anyone their creative works aren't art. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        It was cheap and stupid. Designed by the artist to thumb their nose at everyone who came by. It was no different than standing out front and mooning everybody. If that is art, then every drunken hobo at the bus station is an artist. That's why I prefer to use words like 'art' for things that are unambiguously artistic. Instead of abandoning the word (like that Wikipedia author) to goofy madeup definitions just not to offend somebody. How about this: Its my 'performance art' to offend folks on HN by disputing what art is. Now any objection to my remarks is hypocritical. I have full authority! Hey! Every troll is now an artist! Fits the Wikipedia definition anyway.
        heartsucker 10y ago
        People said Pollack and Warhol were cheap and stupid, but I think we can say that without a doubt they were artists. I'm not saying "literally everything is art always." Yes, a hobo who is mentally unstable mooning people isn't art. Someone a hobo mooning people as a statement about nudity and people's obsession with being proper, sure, yeah, that's art. > I prefer to use words like 'art' for things that are unambiguously artistic Unambiguous to whom? That lends it's self to all sorts of biases based on culture, nationality, class, age, etc. > How about this: Its my 'performance art' to offend folks on HN by disputing what art is. Yes. If you think it's some sort of art to do so, then yes, what you are doing now is art. > Every troll is now an artist! If every troll claimed their ability to enrage the internet is an art form, then yes. Since most of them don't, no. > Instead of abandoning the word (like that Wikipedia author) to goofy madeup definitions I'm pretty sure all definitions are "made up." Propose a better one for what art is, and I'll debate you on that.

aninhumer 10y ago

See this is what I mean. Why not say "For me a piece of art is worthwhile if..." instead of "For me something is art if..."? The latter leads to responses like "Oh no, it's still art because art means..." instead of "Oh but I really like X which doesn't fit your criteria, what do you think?"

kiba 10y ago
There's art that's absolutely garbage to look at, and then there's art that's basically indistinguishable from trash. At that point, it's just stuff.
- heartsucker 10y ago
  > there's art that's basically indistinguishable from trash. Indistinguishable from trash to you maybe. This [0] was an piece at Ai Weiwei exhibit I saw in Berlin last year (I don't much care for his work, but that's beside the point). This is mostly indistinguishable from this [1]. One is a pile of crabs intentionally placed in in order to make a pun in Chinese (if I remember right). One is a pile of crabs. One is art. The other is not. I'm saying the Ai Weiwei piece is art because 1) he did it on purpose, 2a) he calls it art, and 2b) other people call it art. If I sculpted an exact replica of a trash can in the house I grew up with to symbolize {the passage of time, childhood, whatever, no symbolism at all}, then that's art even if it is literally made of trash and nobody but me ever called it art. At the risk of sounding like a children's show with a shallow message: anything can be art if you want it to be. [0] - https://d1lfxha3ugu3d4.cloudfront.net/exhibitions/images/2014_Ai_Weiwei_02-He_Xie_5760x3380.jpg https://d1lfxha3ugu3d4.cloudfront.net/exhibitions/images/201... [1] - http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/a-pile-of-crabs-evan-peller.jpg http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/a-pil...
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Sure you can change words to suit meaning, no problem. I saw an exhibit in SF that consisted of canvases with taxidermied dog parts stapled to them (briefly; I fled). The artist called it art; but it was junk. Defend it all you like; but there was absolutely nothing redeeming about it. You have to draw a line, even if its fuzzy.
    - heartsucker 10y ago
      > You have to draw a line But do you? I mean really, what gives anyone any authority to say that? Quoting wikipedia[0]: > Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. Maybe it was the artists intention to horrify and disgust, in which case stapling body parts on canvas certainly seemed to have that effect. Certainly that qualifies it as art. I really think it's exclusionary and elitist to tell anyone their creative works aren't art. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        It was cheap and stupid. Designed by the artist to thumb their nose at everyone who came by. It was no different than standing out front and mooning everybody. If that is art, then every drunken hobo at the bus station is an artist. That's why I prefer to use words like 'art' for things that are unambiguously artistic. Instead of abandoning the word (like that Wikipedia author) to goofy madeup definitions just not to offend somebody. How about this: Its my 'performance art' to offend folks on HN by disputing what art is. Now any objection to my remarks is hypocritical. I have full authority! Hey! Every troll is now an artist! Fits the Wikipedia definition anyway.
        heartsucker 10y ago
        People said Pollack and Warhol were cheap and stupid, but I think we can say that without a doubt they were artists. I'm not saying "literally everything is art always." Yes, a hobo who is mentally unstable mooning people isn't art. Someone a hobo mooning people as a statement about nudity and people's obsession with being proper, sure, yeah, that's art. > I prefer to use words like 'art' for things that are unambiguously artistic Unambiguous to whom? That lends it's self to all sorts of biases based on culture, nationality, class, age, etc. > How about this: Its my 'performance art' to offend folks on HN by disputing what art is. Yes. If you think it's some sort of art to do so, then yes, what you are doing now is art. > Every troll is now an artist! If every troll claimed their ability to enrage the internet is an art form, then yes. Since most of them don't, no. > Instead of abandoning the word (like that Wikipedia author) to goofy madeup definitions I'm pretty sure all definitions are "made up." Propose a better one for what art is, and I'll debate you on that.