3 ms·

> Art is a form of communication. There has to be more to it than that. Otherwise, this very message would be classified as "art". If everything is art, then t

> Art is a form of communication. There has to be more to it than that. Otherwise, this very message would be classified as "art". If everything is art, then the term becomes meaningless. > This work is original and creative in the sense that it packs what wreaks our world into havoc into one device and puts it on the pedestal Works of art have historically required some effort. This is very low effort. I could take a potato battery from a kid's science fair, give it some fashionable title (something something society something technology mumble energy from nature) and it would become a piece of modern art. There has to be some standard, and these pieces should be amenable to criticism. Otherwise, how would one distinguish someone's garbage dumb from a piece of art? You can't. From your link (Jeff Koon's ball): > However, this state of perfection is fragile and impermanent. Temperature fluctuations and vibrations blend the solutions of water, causing the ball to move off-center and eventually to sink. The improbability of this sculpture underscores its metaphorical associations with life, death, and ambition that Koons carefully considered when he made a series of works for Equilibrium That sounds to me like an excuse. "I'm unable to perfect this and account for the required variables, so I'll concoct some story on how this is done by design". As for the goldfish in a blender...that is also low effort and provides no real insight on human nature. > The fish in a blender were put there as an invitation to kill a being. Yes, and we know people will do that, by observation. A single fish and a single blender would have been enough to prove the point. But then, it would look like a 5 minute job. In fact, it would take just as much to drop a pair of glasses against the wall. This would be art by the above definition, and people actually though so: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/arts/sfmoma-glasses-prank.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/arts/sfmoma-glasses-prank... It could be argued that it was a piece of art challenging art itself. > In that laptop lies the power of immense destruction, contained in a cheap plastic container. As a modern day's pandora's box, it's not too bad. Still. there must be a way to convey this in a more profound way. Which way is that? I don't know, but I only dedicated 5 minutes trying to come up with an answer. Maybe we could come up with something better in a month. Or we could place a MicroSD card in a pedestal with a couple of viruses, in 5 minutes and be done with it.

dahart 7y ago
> There has to be more to it than that. Why? What is it? > Works of art have historically required some effort. Effort is not a reliable or particularly good metric at all. Conceptual art as a genre is not based on effort, sometimes intentionally eschews effort, and there are many famous conceptual artists in the last century that have been accused of low effort yet still changed the world. > There has to be some standard, and these pieces should be amenable to criticism. Otherwise, how would one distinguish someone’s garbage dumb [sic] from a piece of art? You can’t. Correct. You can’t, and you never could. There is no such standard, and there does not have to be a standard. This is art, not logic. The questions “what is art?” and “is this piece art or garbage?” has always existed and always will. > As for the goldfish in a blender...that is also low effort and provides no real insight on human nature. Goldfish in a blender as a piece of art tautologically says something about human nature. To do something like that is human. To think it’s silly is human. To write it off as low effort is human. To be concerned for the fish while we’re blind to the animal and environmental destruction our economy brings is human. The only way to deny that it’s making any statement on human nature is to not put any effort into it and not think about it.

dahart 7y ago

> There has to be more to it than that. Why? What is it? > Works of art have historically required some effort. Effort is not a reliable or particularly good metric at all. Conceptual art as a genre is not based on effort, sometimes intentionally eschews effort, and there are many famous conceptual artists in the last century that have been accused of low effort yet still changed the world. > There has to be some standard, and these pieces should be amenable to criticism. Otherwise, how would one distinguish someone’s garbage dumb [sic] from a piece of art? You can’t. Correct. You can’t, and you never could. There is no such standard, and there does not have to be a standard. This is art, not logic. The questions “what is art?” and “is this piece art or garbage?” has always existed and always will. > As for the goldfish in a blender...that is also low effort and provides no real insight on human nature. Goldfish in a blender as a piece of art tautologically says something about human nature. To do something like that is human. To think it’s silly is human. To write it off as low effort is human. To be concerned for the fish while we’re blind to the animal and environmental destruction our economy brings is human. The only way to deny that it’s making any statement on human nature is to not put any effort into it and not think about it.