7 ms·

One thing to consider is that being a case of the emperor's new clothes is intentional. Consider The Fountain again: The artist had the audacity to put a urina

One thing to consider is that being a case of the emperor's new clothes is intentional. Consider The Fountain again: The artist had the audacity to put a urinal in a gallery. It's not so much that this was a particularly lovely piece of ceramic (though some may think so). The point is the meta-awareness that urinals don't belong here. The rule-breaking is the art. The fact the emperor has no clothes is the exact reason people were talking about it. It's not that no one has ever seen a naked person before! But the emperor?! That's not supposed to happen!

wycs 8y ago
Art is the production of veblen goods. Duchamp, in his genius, realized that though the ability to buy something painfully handcrafted does signal wealth, buying literal garbage is a much better display of wealth. Someone who can afford to buy a meticulously painted portrait, well, one may be will willing to make sacrifices for beauty. Someone able to spend millions on literal garbage - now that is a rich man. Another aspect is photography allowed normal people access to create cheap reproductions of beautiful art. High-class people used to be able to distinguish themselves from the mob with beautiful things the mob couldn't afford. But this does not work with cheap reproductions allowing one to signal the same taste. In this way, there became an incentive for high-class people to acquire and inculcate a taste for art that is actively repulsive to distinguish themselves from those normal people who desire beautiful things. Mostly this doesn't matter. They are only hurting themselves. But the effect of these incentives on public architecture has been pretty horrifying.
- Hoasi 8y ago
  > Duchamp, in his genius, realized that though the ability to buy something painfully handcrafted does signal wealth, buying literal garbage is a much better display of wealth. Someone who can afford to buy a meticulously painted portrait, well, one may be will willing to make sacrifices for beauty. Someone able to spend millions on literal garbage - now that is a rich man. > Mostly this doesn't matter. They are only hurting themselves. But the effect of these incentives on public architecture has been pretty horrifying. This is a very good analysis summary.
redunculous5 8y ago
But at what point does daring rule-breaking degenerate into mere gimmickry. I guess I can understand why piece generated so much interest in it's time, but since then we've been subjected to a relentless parade of urinals, cow corpses, faeces, signed brillo boxes etc. At this point we've seen the emperor naked ad nauseum
- MagicPropmaker 8y ago
  The _second_ time it's done! The way I see it, the first person to hang an all white canvas in an art gallery is a genius. The second, third, and fourth, not so much.
  - jmhnilbog 8y ago
    Eventually it becomes interesting again, though. The guy who does nothing but white canvases gets a degree of notoriety after a while. And the three thousand, two hundredth guy who does nothing but white canvases blows up because now it's funny that people are still doing that. 'First!', 'Frist!!!', 'FIRST!!!1111lol!' and other web comment poop is born of the same impulse.
- krapp 8y ago
  At that point it becomes a meme. Are memes art?
  - zachkatz 8y ago
    Memes are absolutely art. Why not? That's actually the thesis behind my startup, Memes On Canvas: https://www.memesoncanvas.com https://www.memesoncanvas.com
    - ggggtez 8y ago
      Amazing, good luck with your lawsuits. /s
- skybrian 8y ago
js2 8y ago
I think it's easier to appreciate the skill involved in making a piece of art than it is to appreciate the art piece itself. Some people (myself included), may even prefer appreciating the skill in and of itself, independent of the art. Further, I think it's easier to comprehend how difficult it must be to produce a realistic sculpture or painting or what have you, compared to an abstract piece. As the piece becomes more abstract, appreciating it requires, I think, a lot more contextual information that the viewer may simply not have. Of course, some art may just be crap. Who's to say?
fginionio 8y ago
Nowadays, rule-breaking is no longer provocative. It's derivative. We all got the memo: there's no set definition of art, it doesn't need to be skillfully made, it doesn't need to be beautiful, it can be offensive, blah blah blah. It's not clever any more. I respect Duchamp. He made his point so eloquently that none of the imitators are adding anything to the conversation.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  See Banksy's "Love is in the Bin". People are still excited when artists break convention, even if it gets harder and harder to do something unexpected.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    "it gets harder and harder to do something unexpected." I just found something! https://designyoutrust.com/2016/07/guy-paints-over-shit-graffiti-and-makes-it-legible/ https://designyoutrust.com/2016/07/guy-paints-over-shit-graf...

wycs 8y ago

Art is the production of veblen goods. Duchamp, in his genius, realized that though the ability to buy something painfully handcrafted does signal wealth, buying literal garbage is a much better display of wealth. Someone who can afford to buy a meticulously painted portrait, well, one may be will willing to make sacrifices for beauty. Someone able to spend millions on literal garbage - now that is a rich man. Another aspect is photography allowed normal people access to create cheap reproductions of beautiful art. High-class people used to be able to distinguish themselves from the mob with beautiful things the mob couldn't afford. But this does not work with cheap reproductions allowing one to signal the same taste. In this way, there became an incentive for high-class people to acquire and inculcate a taste for art that is actively repulsive to distinguish themselves from those normal people who desire beautiful things. Mostly this doesn't matter. They are only hurting themselves. But the effect of these incentives on public architecture has been pretty horrifying.

Hoasi 8y ago
> Duchamp, in his genius, realized that though the ability to buy something painfully handcrafted does signal wealth, buying literal garbage is a much better display of wealth. Someone who can afford to buy a meticulously painted portrait, well, one may be will willing to make sacrifices for beauty. Someone able to spend millions on literal garbage - now that is a rich man. > Mostly this doesn't matter. They are only hurting themselves. But the effect of these incentives on public architecture has been pretty horrifying. This is a very good analysis summary.

redunculous5 8y ago

But at what point does daring rule-breaking degenerate into mere gimmickry. I guess I can understand why piece generated so much interest in it's time, but since then we've been subjected to a relentless parade of urinals, cow corpses, faeces, signed brillo boxes etc. At this point we've seen the emperor naked ad nauseum

MagicPropmaker 8y ago
The _second_ time it's done! The way I see it, the first person to hang an all white canvas in an art gallery is a genius. The second, third, and fourth, not so much.
- jmhnilbog 8y ago
  Eventually it becomes interesting again, though. The guy who does nothing but white canvases gets a degree of notoriety after a while. And the three thousand, two hundredth guy who does nothing but white canvases blows up because now it's funny that people are still doing that. 'First!', 'Frist!!!', 'FIRST!!!1111lol!' and other web comment poop is born of the same impulse.
krapp 8y ago
At that point it becomes a meme. Are memes art?
- zachkatz 8y ago
  Memes are absolutely art. Why not? That's actually the thesis behind my startup, Memes On Canvas: https://www.memesoncanvas.com https://www.memesoncanvas.com
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    Amazing, good luck with your lawsuits. /s
skybrian 8y ago

js2 8y ago

I think it's easier to appreciate the skill involved in making a piece of art than it is to appreciate the art piece itself. Some people (myself included), may even prefer appreciating the skill in and of itself, independent of the art. Further, I think it's easier to comprehend how difficult it must be to produce a realistic sculpture or painting or what have you, compared to an abstract piece. As the piece becomes more abstract, appreciating it requires, I think, a lot more contextual information that the viewer may simply not have. Of course, some art may just be crap. Who's to say?

fginionio 8y ago

Nowadays, rule-breaking is no longer provocative. It's derivative. We all got the memo: there's no set definition of art, it doesn't need to be skillfully made, it doesn't need to be beautiful, it can be offensive, blah blah blah. It's not clever any more. I respect Duchamp. He made his point so eloquently that none of the imitators are adding anything to the conversation.

ggggtez 8y ago
See Banksy's "Love is in the Bin". People are still excited when artists break convention, even if it gets harder and harder to do something unexpected.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  "it gets harder and harder to do something unexpected." I just found something! https://designyoutrust.com/2016/07/guy-paints-over-shit-graffiti-and-makes-it-legible/ https://designyoutrust.com/2016/07/guy-paints-over-shit-graf...