Yeah, the art world is a big put-on and one man’s “masterpiece” is another man’s soup can with a tampon soaking in it. Terry Zwigoff just made a movie about this vey thing. Old news.
If the Dada exhibit ever swings through your town, go see it. This discussion goes back at least that far, probably a lot farther.
whatever effort was required to make it, it just looks like twisted, broken chicken wire to me… maybe I’d like it better if i saw it in person.
Uh . . . that’s the whole point. “It just looks like twisted, broken chicken wire,” until you realized that it’s made of little pieces of wood. And it’s flat.
Or let me put it another way: If it *really were *made of chicken wire, it’d be totally unimpressive.
fair enough, to each his own. as i thought i made clear, the knowledge of how it was made/what it is made of does not affect my perception of the photograph of it. i don’t like it. and, as i said, perhaps my opinion would be different if i saw the real thing, in person. i don’t know.
this is only my own opinion, which i express because it differs from other opinions here about this piece, and this thread is about differing opinions regarding art.
They look like they’re produced by two different artists to me. The first one definitely looks like a kid’s (or possibly animal’s) painting.
The second one might be interesting, but I can’t tell at the postage-stamp size. If those really are by the same artist, then I don’t think it’s really an “artist” at all, because the first painting clearly shows no sense of color, composition, or anything resembling good art to me.
You know, the more I look at this painting, the more I’m sure this is either a 4-year or something like a chimpanzee. That’s clearly nothing like a Pollock or a Richter.
(bolding mine)
The law of gravity is old news too, but I find it still a relevant and mostly interesting topic for discussion.
So, perhaps all this IS old news, but it is still quite interesting to me. We all already KNOW that *“one man’s “masterpiece” is another man’s soup can with a tampon soaking in it.” * However I think that, paradoxically, it is easier to put down a known piece of art as “merely a picture of a soup can” than it is to offer one’s own spur-of the-moment, original thoughts on an a hitherto unknown image completely removed from any context.
I think it takes some guts to offer one’s honest and candid opinion of a piece claimed to be “art” but that’s not on display in a gallery or a museum or someone’s home. There is, i think, that little sense of fear in most people (“Hmm… that looks like shit, but what all my friends and everybody else in the world thinks it’s a masterpiece?”) when they are asked what they think of an image suddenly revealed to them without any explanations, descriptions or “expert” opinions.
Besides-- my whole reason for starting this thread was to have people present various “mystery” images and then for others to offer comment. Not so much opinions on whether they think it is any good/interesting/meaningful; but rather opinions on whether the image is or would be considered “art” (for the purpose of this exercise only, let’s say “art” is something that can be deemed worthy of display in a major art museum or gallery) by those with the power to influence (big-time art critics, important curators, Paris Hilton, etc.)
The following questions just go back to the “old news” stuff I guess, but still… I wonder about these things…
Why do people react to art? Does reaction to any old thing make that “thing” art? Does it have to be any certain kind or degree of reaction? Is there and can there by objective criteria for what is considered art?
If anybody–anybody at all-- claims that a certain image, object, thought, etc. is Art, does that make it so? I ask that seriously. Is EVERYTHING in existence art? Just valued differently by different people at different times and places?
First looks like bad Photoshop to me, and the second is a rather poor digital low-light image with a shitload of chroma noise.
My feeling is that neither of those images would pass muster with the art world’s “powers-that-be”. Personally, I don’t feel that either has any more artistic value than most random snapshots. That’s not to say they don’t have personal value to somebody out there (maybe the subject or the photographer).
However, just like the chicken wire matrix made from small bits of wood linked above, I might perceive the images differently if I found they had been hand-painted with nail polish! I still have no idea if it is “right” to vary ones artistic valuation of a piece based solely on the medium and/or the amount of time/effort spent creating it.
That is one of the big puzzles in my mind in the “Is it art?” debate.
And the answer is…
Heh. Did I call it, or did I call it?
I’ve seen chimps make better art than that… chimp.
Is is just me, but does this thing seem to move and change size? To me, the illusion is really strong.
