2 ms·
> There seems to be a debate though over 'what is art?' The question matters deeply to those trying to make art tradeable. Their business is about maintaining
by tommiegannert 4y ago
> There seems to be a debate though over 'what is art?'
The question matters deeply to those trying to make art tradeable. Their business is about maintaining scarcity (a.k.a. non-fungibility), so they'll spend up to some portion of their profit margins on gatekeeping and defending terminology.
- fbn79 4y agoMaking a parallelism with Fountain by "Duchamp". Duchamp is the Artist not the company that designed and produced the urinal. The same way the Artist is the person that summoned the AI to get that picture.
- beardyw 4y agoFountain very particularly didn't try to be something it wasn't and didn't win a prize. It was genuinely disruptive to the concept of what is art. This is almost the opposite - something folks here say they would hang on their wall. But that would apply if it was a copy of someone else's picture. To some extent that is what it is. Not sure in that case it should win a prize.
- andybak 4y agoYou mean by Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven? :) https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2014/11/01/did-marcel-duchamp-steal-elsas-urinal https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2014/11/01/did-marcel-ducham...
- isitmadeofglass 4y agoThe people defending art aren’t the artists. They don’t care about the sanctity of the annotation. They create stuff that people value and buy, it doesn’t matter to them if people call it art or anything else. The people up in arms are the critics, the gallery owners, the rich kids who collect items made by people good at making interesting stuff. Because if art isn’t special, if it doesn’t have some deep rooted special meaning that transcends reality. They are not better than the sports commentators and shopkeepers they so desperately try to elevate themselves above.