3 ms·

So my post was downvoted and flagged. And without any reply, ok, here's why I said you'd swallowed the bullshit. > the simple fact of calling this art was a pr

So my post was downvoted and flagged. And without any reply, ok, here's why I said you'd swallowed the bullshit. > the simple fact of calling this art was a profound statement, A statement of what? Why is it profound? > one worth considering within its context. Why is it worth considering? Why is it worth doing so within its context? Its context is its siting within an art gallery, so does the re-siting it into an art gallery de-facto make it art? If so that's a pathetically shallow achievement. > Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression What effing perspective? What context particularly? What expression - what does 'expression' even mean here? This trademark nebulousity characterises self indulgent bullshit that props up 'art' and the people who 'consume'[0] art. (not knocking art, far from it, but lack of rigorous thinking is dangerous. Think for yourself, don't let others do it for you). [0] Damn, I hate that word.

bondarchuk 6y ago
I would like to know why some people get so extremely angry about something being in a museum that they don't think should be in a museum.
- odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
  Maybe because in many cases (not saying this one as I don't know the details) it is because it costs people in taxes to keep these museums/pay the artists and also it is also very much linked to favours/connections (there is a word but I am missing it, opposite of meritocracy) for these artists? If I signed a urinal on the cafe I am now, I would be label a vandal, but if some 'important' person does it, it has meaning and perspective? I never went to a modern art gallery since maybe 15 years ago when tax-funded museum displayed a piece of art that was just an old piece of bread in the floor. No-one at the floor when I visited 'understood' it and found it the tacky and just self masturbation by the 'artist'. My tax money paid for that idiot to put a piece of bread on the floor and call it art, and through connections (which are more important in the art/movie/music world than people realised) I paid to have someone put a piece of fucking bread on the floor. Yes, after 15 years I am still angry because my tax-euros still go for this shitty things that are justifiable as 'art'
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  I'm not with @odshoifsdhfs on the taxes (well, maybe) but on all else he is IMO spot on. If it was wrong enough to downvote and ultimately kill, why has no-one bothered to point out exactly why it's wrong?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
imtringued 6y ago
>so does the re-siting it into an art gallery de-facto make it art? If so that's a pathetically shallow achievement. Yes it is art. There is no barrier to turning into something into art. You don't need to go to a government office and license your work as art. You don't need to go to an established committee of artists to approve your work as art. Art can be bad, otherwise good art couldn't exist. Every good artist started out as a bad artist. People started to think all art must be good because that's the only form of art they see and the only way to counteract that is by showing them bad or ugly art.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > There is no barrier to turning into something into art. Then what divides art from not-art? Is there even a difference? > Art can be bad Then why do people look at it? Are you saying they can't distinguish good art from bad? Isn't at least one of the purposes of an art gallery to exhibit good art and not bad? If not, what is an art gallery for? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 it was made in 1917. If it was bad art as you imply, it's been over a century and no-one's officially dismissed it as bad (or is it described officially as bad art?). What does that say. "Fountain was not rejected by the committee, since Society rules stated that all works would be accepted from artists who paid the fee" - ah,. so money changing hands was a requirement for it to be treated as art. "The work is regarded by art historians and theorists of the avant-garde as a major landmark in 20th-century art." Apparently it's good art then. I guess. AFAICT. Who can say? It's like nobody's even thinking about this, just "it's art so it's art", whereas "am I being suckered" doesn't come into it.
grasshopperpurp 6y ago
>A statement of what? Why is it profound? I view it as part of the wider conversation at the time, where many artists were challenging the standards of art. The Fountain is a little more on the nose than - say - Paul Klee intentionally using imperfect lines to give his art more feeling (which brings to mind J Dilla's slightly off-beat drum patterns). On the nose works better for some people.

bondarchuk 6y ago

I would like to know why some people get so extremely angry about something being in a museum that they don't think should be in a museum.

odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
Maybe because in many cases (not saying this one as I don't know the details) it is because it costs people in taxes to keep these museums/pay the artists and also it is also very much linked to favours/connections (there is a word but I am missing it, opposite of meritocracy) for these artists? If I signed a urinal on the cafe I am now, I would be label a vandal, but if some 'important' person does it, it has meaning and perspective? I never went to a modern art gallery since maybe 15 years ago when tax-funded museum displayed a piece of art that was just an old piece of bread in the floor. No-one at the floor when I visited 'understood' it and found it the tacky and just self masturbation by the 'artist'. My tax money paid for that idiot to put a piece of bread on the floor and call it art, and through connections (which are more important in the art/movie/music world than people realised) I paid to have someone put a piece of fucking bread on the floor. Yes, after 15 years I am still angry because my tax-euros still go for this shitty things that are justifiable as 'art'
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
I'm not with @odshoifsdhfs on the taxes (well, maybe) but on all else he is IMO spot on. If it was wrong enough to downvote and ultimately kill, why has no-one bothered to point out exactly why it's wrong?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

imtringued 6y ago

>so does the re-siting it into an art gallery de-facto make it art? If so that's a pathetically shallow achievement. Yes it is art. There is no barrier to turning into something into art. You don't need to go to a government office and license your work as art. You don't need to go to an established committee of artists to approve your work as art. Art can be bad, otherwise good art couldn't exist. Every good artist started out as a bad artist. People started to think all art must be good because that's the only form of art they see and the only way to counteract that is by showing them bad or ugly art.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> There is no barrier to turning into something into art. Then what divides art from not-art? Is there even a difference? > Art can be bad Then why do people look at it? Are you saying they can't distinguish good art from bad? Isn't at least one of the purposes of an art gallery to exhibit good art and not bad? If not, what is an art gallery for? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 it was made in 1917. If it was bad art as you imply, it's been over a century and no-one's officially dismissed it as bad (or is it described officially as bad art?). What does that say. "Fountain was not rejected by the committee, since Society rules stated that all works would be accepted from artists who paid the fee" - ah,. so money changing hands was a requirement for it to be treated as art. "The work is regarded by art historians and theorists of the avant-garde as a major landmark in 20th-century art." Apparently it's good art then. I guess. AFAICT. Who can say? It's like nobody's even thinking about this, just "it's art so it's art", whereas "am I being suckered" doesn't come into it.

grasshopperpurp 6y ago

>A statement of what? Why is it profound? I view it as part of the wider conversation at the time, where many artists were challenging the standards of art. The Fountain is a little more on the nose than - say - Paul Klee intentionally using imperfect lines to give his art more feeling (which brings to mind J Dilla's slightly off-beat drum patterns). On the nose works better for some people.