Ah, but do you mean a heap of desiccated cow manure lying in a field, or on display in a gallery? The latter pile of of bullshit is exponentially more valuable.
Well, the former has value as fertilizer, while the latter has value as a way of easily identifying yahoos with more money than good sense.
…And more pretentious.
Not at all.
Is art != is good art.
To say something is art is not to say it is therefore necessarily well-crafted, thoughtful, beautiful, important, or valuable. It could be dreck. It could be rubbish. But it’s still art.
I said nothing of the sort. Writing that something someone said is stupid is not remotely equivalent to dictating to them what they “can think and say.” You are a fucking imbecile for being incapable of making that distinction.
Programmers are the same way, as far as being cat-like and difficult to explicitly herd, but the programming world still goes through fads and still ignores good languages (that is, languages that could easily help solve current problems) simply because most people pay attention to what their peers pay attention to. No herding, just a limited eyeball economy.
So bugger off and post in a different thread, and enjoy basking in your own ignorance. That you think there’s something wrong with the other things you mentioned sums you up, really. I’m not overly interested in napkins, but if it’s a choice between listening to someone describe their favourite napkins in great detail, or you describing your opinions* on art, I know I’d pick the former.
*To the extent that your meaningless statements even rise to the level of opinions.
Quick question: if you think it is “dreck” or “rubbish” art, is it ok to vandalize it?
Good for you. Where did I say there was something wrong with napkin collecting? I think it is great that some people have their little hobbies, but that I myself find napkin collecting rather boring. Which I do, like I find many things pretending to be art. Boring art that doesn’t touch me in any way. But if some people think it’s great to collect shit on cans and farts in bottles, then that’s great for them that they have their little hobby. As long as I’m not required to help fund their various napkin or art hobbies, then everybody is happy. I’m still going to make fun of you though. You will survive I expect.
The unfortunate part is of course that art ought to be important. But mostly the kind of art that I expect this thread is about is just fairly much uninteresting and irrelevant for pretty much everybody outside some small cliques. Like napkin collecting. It matters little and changes nothing. Around here the main audience of modern art museums is the 50yo+ female public employee/early retiree. This is the segment that makes it go round. When you have cornered that group you have a revolutionary message that will change the world!
No.
Mock it, yes. Scoff, laugh, point and laugh, sure. Refuse to buy it, absolutely. But, vandalize… absolutely not.
Ok then if I put a flaming bag of poop on your doorstep, you’re not going to vandalize it?
Reductio ad absurdum.
This is quite stupid.
Vandalism is damaging or destroying other people’s property. If you have put a flaming bag of poop on my doorstep, it has become ipso facto mine and I can do with it as I please. Besides the fact that nobody is going to argue that you don’t have a right to destroy art that has infringed on your property (which is why it’s OK to clean up graffiti).
Can we stop with the stupid games?
In other words, because you don’t like or understand it, it’s unimportant, uninteresting and irrelevant for almost everyone else. Got it. What I can’t figure out, though, is why your ignorant and idiotic opinion should trump that of intelligent and informed people who actually see these artworks, and form their opinion based on that, and not third-hand received opinions.
Look, you don’t like modern art? Fine by me. You don’t understand it? Ok, I guess, although unless you’ve tried to understand it you need to know your opinion is worthless. You think there’s something wrong with other people liking it? Absolutely not fine. Stop trying to spread ignorance around to make yourself feel better.
Ah so vandalizing art is ok if you own it? I guess I missed it in the:
“Mock it, yes. Scoff, laugh, point and laugh, sure. Refuse to buy it, absolutely. But, vandalize… absolutely not.”
message.
In the example you gave, you don’t just own it, it was forced upon you without consent.
If someone paints a mural on the side of my house without asking, I don’t have any obligation to respect their rights as a creator.
On the other hand, if I commission an artist to paint a mural, turning around and destroying would be jerkish.
And if someone decides to host an art exhibition that includes a burning bag of shit as part of the installation, I don’t have any right to invade their space and stomp on it. It’s not a matter of whether or not its art. It’s a matter of respecting social boundaries.
Ok, I’m not going to defend art work that involves or includes a criminal act.
Really? But art is all about pushing boundaries (as some would have it, including in this thread). But I guess not all boundaries, only the ones you approve of.
Forcing it upon you without your consent is part of the art. Why would you vandalize it just because you don’t agree with it?
That’s not how I would have it. I think there’s lots of perfectly fine art that doesn’t push any boundaries whatsoever.
And I’d also argue that any art that’s FORCED upon me will almost certainly cease to be art FOR ME. (Although it might conceivably work as art for an external observer.) However, the morality of shanghaiing innocent bystanders to serve as elements of a performance piece is highly questionable. It wouldn’t mean the piece is Not Art – it would just make it offensive. (Much in the same way that a sculpture made from human body parts would be.)
Because, as I said above, if it really is intended to be a transgressive piece, then my destroying it is an expected part of the performance. And if the artist didn’t intend for me to play that role, then he should warn me in advance:
“Hey, I’m going to be burning a bag of shit on your doorstep as part of this indie film I’m shooting! Please leave it alone!”
I know you’re trying to be flip in this line of argument, but it actually raises some interesting questions about the role that agency plays in aesthetic response, the morality of different sorts of artistic expression, and the capacity of a single work to simultaneously be art and NOT be art, depending on the attitude of the viewer/participant.