3 ms·
Was Leonardo da Vinci not an artist when he drew the Vitruvian Man? Were all Renaissance sculptors and painters for that matter not artists, since they were cop
by yakubin 4y ago
Was Leonardo da Vinci not an artist when he drew the Vitruvian Man? Were all Renaissance sculptors and painters for that matter not artists, since they were copying the Greco-Roman style? Are script-writers of House of Cards not artists due to writing a Shakespearean play? Is George Lucas not an artist because he did not make anyone question what art is?
> Duchamp also said "Art is either plagiarism or revolution". So unless you are doing Greco-Roman statuary in a manner that shatters people's expectations of Greco-Roman statuary, your statues are a jejune copy of what has come before -- and therefore not art.
Here is a contradiction. First plagiarism is listed as an example of art, to then be described as "not art". Also, I think that art which sticks to established understanding of what art is isn't necessarily plagiarism. Just because there were plenty of standard 3-act structured plays/films, does not mean that subsequent attempts are plagiaristic. Otherwise art would be castrated to just form, when in fact it is a marriage of form and substance.
I think this fixation on "subverting expectations" comes from self-centredness of some artists. Maybe if you dedicate your whole life to just art, you don't have other experiences to draw from to create something about more than art itself. And so art becomes a simulacrum.
- bombcar 4y agoYeah, by that definition a badly done copy of a famous statue would be "art" because it falls short of a copy, but a brand new statue perfectly executed in the style of a famous statue would not be art, because it doesn't shatter anything. I feel too many people want to define art such that they "love all art" - when art can be done well, or poorly, and you can like or not like it even if done well. Now saying "when is art done" may be more complicated; the designer perfecting a perfume to capture a particular scent and be long-lasting and non-toxic is doing art (and other works) - but the machine that eventually makes gallons and gallons of the perfume to put in little bottles is not "making art" even if the result is a "work of art". Art requires intent.
- bitwize 4y ago> Yeah, by that definition a badly done copy of a famous statue would be "art" because it falls short of a copy, but a brand new statue perfectly executed in the style of a famous statue would not be art, because it doesn't shatter anything. L.H.O.O.Q. is famous and influential in ways that a modern Mona Lisa style portrait would not be. Hey, I don't make the rules.