4 ms·

> Yves Kleins blue I do question calling those art. Monochromes were absolutely not new when Klein does a blue one. That's already quite mediocre. But then he

• lores 3y ago
  My considered opinion is "if it's not purely functional, it's art". Every other definition ends up self-contradictory. Screwdriver handles are art - 1,000 models of screwdrivers, all doing their job just fine, yet all with different handles. That's the designer putting forward his ideas of what evokes comfort, power, notability, progress, and whatever else, and in turn two different screwdrivers will generate different feelings in their owners. That's art; it may not be art that appeals to millions, or endures centuries, but very little does.
  • tgv 3y ago
    I know the definition (natural nor functional), but the post I'm replying to makes quite a distinction. It calls the work (there's another term for you) from the article not art. But Klein's Blue is one of the things that stands out to me as falling in the category "mediocre idea, mediocre execution." The idea was a cliche, the artist failed in conveying it in the execution, and the execution of the work itself was as good as the wall I painted last year. Why isn't my wall art?
    • gizajob 3y ago
      Because it's a wall, and you're not an artist.
      • tgv 3y ago
        There are walls that are considered art, which only leaves the circular explanation: only artists can make art.
        • atoav 3y ago
          Art imo always should have at least a tiny bit of anarchic moment as it tries to relate itself to the world that is. Of it doesn't or is purely about selling or copying, it stops being art. A guy that paints walls for his job, isn't doing art, just because he holds a brush and paints a wall. But just because it is his job and it serves a function doesn't mean he couldn't create art when he paints a wall. In the end it is a lot about the mindset of the artist and how they are willing to involve others with that mindset.