5 ms·

> I could have done that, but I didn't - because I'm not sufficiently full of shit. I think you're missing the point though. The whole significance of that ex

> I could have done that, but I didn't - because I'm not sufficiently full of shit. I think you're missing the point though. The whole significance of that exhibition is that esteemed artists are given a grand platform (with a long history) to express any idea they want and this (the 3 blank canvases) is the one they chose. That in and of itself is the art. They had no obligation to display those 3 blank canvases. In fact, they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive with the finest strokes and details (presumably if you're at the level of getting museum exhibits, this is just a base level of skill you've acquired and is trivial to display). But the very fact that the artist used the platform to express the idea that the canvas itself is the art and the entire point is beautiful. They placed an emphasis on the very beginning rather than the end of the creative process. In some ways, the exercise is totally pointless, cliche, and lazy. I agree. But there is also immense beauty in the same exercise because somewhere along that very seam lies the answer to the question "What is the meaning of anything at all? What's the point of this museum?". If that pointless piece with 3 blank canvases led to you and I to having this conversation here, then I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished".

arexxbifs 6y ago
> That in and of itself is the art. I'm pretty sure we could argue for the rest of our lives about what art is. Suffice to say, I disagree. > they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive I honestly doubt that. At one point, most avant-garde artists were also very capable craftsmen, but that's a long time ago. > there is also immense beauty in the same exercise While there is truth to the old adage of the eye of the beholder, I happen to believe there is also universal, objective beauty. I sincerely disagree that any of the two need to be constructed by some contrived abstraction and over-interpretation of the act of exhibiting three blank canvases. > I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished" I think they considered their mission accomplished by the sheer increase in worth their work will have from being displayed at the Guggenheim.
- jmcqk6 6y ago
  I'm not the person you're replying to, but I thought I would jump in. Just the fact that there is a disagreement about what is and isn't art points to the reality that there isn't an objective standard for judging art. Art by it's nature is personal. If there was truly an objective standard of beauty, then you could measure it, and there wouldn't be a debate. Unless you're claiming that there is an objective standard, but it's secret knowledge only known to you. Then I would be the one calling you full of shit. You can call this or that "full of shit" and that's your opinion, not some objective fact in reality.
  - arexxbifs 6y ago
    Jump right in! I seem to be in rant mode anyway. :) Defining art and defining beauty must not be confused. I don't think art _must_ be beautiful, I was commenting on whether three blank canvases could convey some kind of beauty. Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. Beauty is a very profound concept. We know if it's there. Objective beauty is measurable. There's for example a definable, codifiable way of determining what we consider to be a beautiful face (it's about symmetry and averages). Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours). There can be art without beauty and there can be beauty without art, but the art I find most lasting, enjoyable and interesting is the one that manages to convey beauty above all else.
    - askafriend 6y ago
      > Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. But it's precisely the context that makes this art in my view. I don't think someone displaying 3 blank canvases in their garage would be the same. It's different when a highly respected artist chooses to do that in the Guggenheim. It adds an element of theater that produces an emotional response. This is quite a messy conversation since the bounds are effectively "what is art?". But it's always a fun one to have.
camjohnson26 6y ago
Except that entire idea is cliche at this point. It’s not that we don’t get the artist’s point, it’s that that point has been made to death already and doesn’t reveal anything new.
- majormajor 6y ago
  By the time stuff ends up in a huge museum, it's almost certainly going to be cliche. Those places will collect striking or significant examples of whatever styles and times they're featuring, and then the "anybody could've done this" discussion is similarly played out and tired. If you don't like a style, don't go to exhibits that feature it. That's why I avoid still lifes and portraits and a lot of other pre-19th-century work. I find them dreadfully dull. And if you want to see new things vs things you've already made up your mind about, you're gonna have to do more work and more digging to find the right venues!

arexxbifs 6y ago

> That in and of itself is the art. I'm pretty sure we could argue for the rest of our lives about what art is. Suffice to say, I disagree. > they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive I honestly doubt that. At one point, most avant-garde artists were also very capable craftsmen, but that's a long time ago. > there is also immense beauty in the same exercise While there is truth to the old adage of the eye of the beholder, I happen to believe there is also universal, objective beauty. I sincerely disagree that any of the two need to be constructed by some contrived abstraction and over-interpretation of the act of exhibiting three blank canvases. > I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished" I think they considered their mission accomplished by the sheer increase in worth their work will have from being displayed at the Guggenheim.

jmcqk6 6y ago
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I thought I would jump in. Just the fact that there is a disagreement about what is and isn't art points to the reality that there isn't an objective standard for judging art. Art by it's nature is personal. If there was truly an objective standard of beauty, then you could measure it, and there wouldn't be a debate. Unless you're claiming that there is an objective standard, but it's secret knowledge only known to you. Then I would be the one calling you full of shit. You can call this or that "full of shit" and that's your opinion, not some objective fact in reality.
- arexxbifs 6y ago
  Jump right in! I seem to be in rant mode anyway. :) Defining art and defining beauty must not be confused. I don't think art _must_ be beautiful, I was commenting on whether three blank canvases could convey some kind of beauty. Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. Beauty is a very profound concept. We know if it's there. Objective beauty is measurable. There's for example a definable, codifiable way of determining what we consider to be a beautiful face (it's about symmetry and averages). Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours). There can be art without beauty and there can be beauty without art, but the art I find most lasting, enjoyable and interesting is the one that manages to convey beauty above all else.
  - askafriend 6y ago
    > Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. But it's precisely the context that makes this art in my view. I don't think someone displaying 3 blank canvases in their garage would be the same. It's different when a highly respected artist chooses to do that in the Guggenheim. It adds an element of theater that produces an emotional response. This is quite a messy conversation since the bounds are effectively "what is art?". But it's always a fun one to have.

camjohnson26 6y ago

Except that entire idea is cliche at this point. It’s not that we don’t get the artist’s point, it’s that that point has been made to death already and doesn’t reveal anything new.

majormajor 6y ago
By the time stuff ends up in a huge museum, it's almost certainly going to be cliche. Those places will collect striking or significant examples of whatever styles and times they're featuring, and then the "anybody could've done this" discussion is similarly played out and tired. If you don't like a style, don't go to exhibits that feature it. That's why I avoid still lifes and portraits and a lot of other pre-19th-century work. I find them dreadfully dull. And if you want to see new things vs things you've already made up your mind about, you're gonna have to do more work and more digging to find the right venues!