4 ms·

> Duchamp didn't just pick things up and put them on display. The very act of "picking up" is art. As a matter of fact, everything associated with an artist is

> Duchamp didn't just pick things up and put them on display. The very act of "picking up" is art. As a matter of fact, everything associated with an artist is art. When an artist farts, it could be considered art if the artist intended so. Please, don't tell me that those "modifications" were somehow more important than the very act of recognizing/curating. Important -- yes perhaps -- but more important than "picking up"? No. > Dare I ask you to back this one up? I spent roughly five years studying contemporary art and it is a very general conclusion, a piece of "wisdom" so to speak, that I came to through my experience with contemporary art. I doubt that any single example I bring up will satisfy you (you will then claim that it's anecdotal evidence). Perhaps this piece of "wisdom" has been mentioned somewhere by some art critic, but I don't have any literature at my hand right now, and scouring Google could be too selective (you can usually confirm anything by performing a Google search). Basically, you have to take what I said at face value (or consider how many years you spent studying art and whether to go along with what I said or come up with your own piece of wisdom).

nate_meurer 15y ago
Wow, so let me get this straight. Anything an artist touches or otherwise considers qualifies as art. Since any representations of such are immediately and automatically copyrighted, I am threatened with the prospect that my own art is inevitably infringing on countless copyrights. Sort of gives new meaning to the phrase "maximal copyright" doesn't it? Thankfully, reading the second part of your comment reassures me. It's rare that I encounter an appeal to authority where the supposed authority is the party appealing. 5 years of study not withstanding, your comment below about "anyone who understands art" gives me enough information to properly categorize your arguments.
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  > Anything an artist touches or otherwise considers qualifies as art. Not literally, but that's the general gist of it. It all depends on context. > I am threatened with the prospect that my own art is inevitably infringing on countless copyrights. Look. If you are an artist, not only do you infringe on countless "copyrights" (have to use quotation marks because I am not talking about literal copyright), but many other artists also infringe on yours. There. EDIT: Have to expand a bit on copyright. The reason I wasn't talking about copyright in a literal way is because art has its own system for dealing with "copyright" infringement (actually a superior one, one that is closer to how free market works than to how law works), distinct from legal action. Legal action usually only comes in when (a) there is significant money involved, (b) when hard evidence could be readily used, and (c) when dealing with low-end and mass markets such as popular photography. Hard evidence in art is usually very difficult to come by (as you might have gathered from my "appeal to own authority" response). The system for dealing with copying is simply that when a work is labeled derivative by a large enough number of people in-the-know, its value in the high-end market evaporates. Most other spheres (e.g. tangible goods market) don't have such system in place and therefore have to rely on the legal concept of copyright. ANOTHER EDIT: Seems like you are a kernel hacker, so my hat is off to you. Just want to let you know that the concepts we are talking about in art do not translate well into software (derivative software is still useful, often more so than what it was derived from, while unoriginal art is just that).

nate_meurer 15y ago

Wow, so let me get this straight. Anything an artist touches or otherwise considers qualifies as art. Since any representations of such are immediately and automatically copyrighted, I am threatened with the prospect that my own art is inevitably infringing on countless copyrights. Sort of gives new meaning to the phrase "maximal copyright" doesn't it? Thankfully, reading the second part of your comment reassures me. It's rare that I encounter an appeal to authority where the supposed authority is the party appealing. 5 years of study not withstanding, your comment below about "anyone who understands art" gives me enough information to properly categorize your arguments.

bluekeybox 15y ago
> Anything an artist touches or otherwise considers qualifies as art. Not literally, but that's the general gist of it. It all depends on context. > I am threatened with the prospect that my own art is inevitably infringing on countless copyrights. Look. If you are an artist, not only do you infringe on countless "copyrights" (have to use quotation marks because I am not talking about literal copyright), but many other artists also infringe on yours. There. EDIT: Have to expand a bit on copyright. The reason I wasn't talking about copyright in a literal way is because art has its own system for dealing with "copyright" infringement (actually a superior one, one that is closer to how free market works than to how law works), distinct from legal action. Legal action usually only comes in when (a) there is significant money involved, (b) when hard evidence could be readily used, and (c) when dealing with low-end and mass markets such as popular photography. Hard evidence in art is usually very difficult to come by (as you might have gathered from my "appeal to own authority" response). The system for dealing with copying is simply that when a work is labeled derivative by a large enough number of people in-the-know, its value in the high-end market evaporates. Most other spheres (e.g. tangible goods market) don't have such system in place and therefore have to rely on the legal concept of copyright. ANOTHER EDIT: Seems like you are a kernel hacker, so my hat is off to you. Just want to let you know that the concepts we are talking about in art do not translate well into software (derivative software is still useful, often more so than what it was derived from, while unoriginal art is just that).