Homophobic?
Seriously?
We’re discussing flaming bags of poo? Are we twelve?
Agreed. I draw the line at canned poo.
It’s been apparent to me for some time that **Terr **is either a troll or a drooling moron.
I recognize I’m being closed-minded. It could easily be both.
It seems to me that the wise thing to do is stop engaging him.
I never said it couldn’t be defined, dipshit. What it shouldn’t be is defined and limited by an prejudiced ignoramus like you. That’s what I am pitting: idiots who, puffed up by their own ignorance and erroneous assumptions about the artistic world, declare art they don’t like and don’t understand as not being art. I pitted morons whose definition of art is essentially limited to what they like, and what they don’t like they define arbitrarily as not art.
A good definition for art is very difficult. People who thoughtfully and inclusively try to define art, say for a respected and established dictionary for example, are not being pitted here.
One could make the argument that some works of art are so revered by the broader society, that society itself has ownership of it in some sense, even if the work in question is in a private collection.
Yeah, I was bored last night. I’ll behave myself.
Although, if Merriam Webster gets back to me, I will report in.
Granted. My point is that the very act of destroying any art (like your kid’s Play Doh sculpture) doesn’t meet any definition of vandalism.
And if it does, then yes, you can feel free to vandalize art you own.
Quite so. Too many Philistines on this thread fail to grasp the powerful, revelatory message of the flaming bag of dog poop.
You see, it isn’t the flaming bag of poop in itself which is art, but the aesthetic experience of the event. This is a kind of performance art, its purpose being to express the ephemeral nature of human existence which, despite its ephemerality, nevertheless possesses deep spiritual value. Though transitory, the flames of the burning bag are as beautiful and powerful as the restless spiritual energies that move our souls, while the poop expresses a profound contempt for crass materialism such as the owning of a front porch. The homeowner’s effort to douse the flames with his foot marvelously illustrates the futility of attempting to escape the dreadful realization of the empty and meaningless existence to which the homeowner’s relentless pursuit of wealth has brought him. Seldom has so simple and yet so eloquent a statement captured so perfectly the rich and multi-faceted complexities, conflicts and joys of the human condition. As such, it reflects the fears and ambivalent hopes of our strange times as manifested in such social and political movements as the Arab Spring and #Occupy Wall Street, and gives us greater insight into our epoch and our souls. I eagerly await further works by this artist.
The dictionary begs to differ.
Embrace your inner vandal.
Oh, never mind then. I thought you were pitting me. There is lots of art that I don’t like that is clearly art.
The reason the flaming poo isn’t set is because it isn’t consensual. Art without consent is not art.
Art, not set.
Since the connoisseurs refuse to come up with definition of art, how can you say that? Under what definition is art without consent not art?
I don’t get this. Years ago I made a painting, and now it’s sitting in my office. I didn’t seek permission to paint it, nor to hang it. Does that mean it’s not art? Whose permission should I have asked?
I think he means that by definition you can’t force someone else to possess or experience “art”. If you’d painted it on the side of my building or stuffed it through my mail slot without permission, it’s not “art”.
Not sure if I agree, but that seems to be what he’s saying.
That makes a lot more sense, thanks.
Yes.
Art requires both a producer and a consumer. Even if the consumer doesn’t like it, or even doesn’t expect it, if he consumes it willingly, or looks back later (if unexpected) and does not object, it is/was art.
I’m not sure I agree with this. Like I asked upthread, if I paint something and then put it in a room where no one will ever see it, is it then not art?