4 ms·

> 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 act

> 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.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Hm. Art by the wishy-washy definition doesn't have to be framed as art, it just has to be 'intentional'. Its hard to argue that Trolling is not intentional, to provoke emotional response. In fact that hits the nail on the head. I refuse to call Trolling 'art'. We all know it isn't. Well sometimes a particularly inspired, evil troll comment can be said to 'rise to the level of art'. We all know what that means. Its not art just because somebody says it is ('frames it' as art). Its not art because it generates an emotional response, like the hobo or troll. Its not art because it took skill to do. That whole Wikipedia definition is flawed.
    - heartsucker 10y ago
      > I refuse to call Trolling 'art'. We all know it isn't. This is why I like a definition of art that is overly broad, so no one can get swept away and called not art. I don't want someone's real, actually creative efforts to be casually dismissed because it was lumped in with something that "isn't 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.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Hm. Art by the wishy-washy definition doesn't have to be framed as art, it just has to be 'intentional'. Its hard to argue that Trolling is not intentional, to provoke emotional response. In fact that hits the nail on the head. I refuse to call Trolling 'art'. We all know it isn't. Well sometimes a particularly inspired, evil troll comment can be said to 'rise to the level of art'. We all know what that means. Its not art just because somebody says it is ('frames it' as art). Its not art because it generates an emotional response, like the hobo or troll. Its not art because it took skill to do. That whole Wikipedia definition is flawed.
  - heartsucker 10y ago
    > I refuse to call Trolling 'art'. We all know it isn't. This is why I like a definition of art that is overly broad, so no one can get swept away and called not art. I don't want someone's real, actually creative efforts to be casually dismissed because it was lumped in with something that "isn't art."