Support NeoGAF

[freenudemacusers]

Sorry, I should have said "of most contemporary art". I like most of the stuff found of the blog, but I'm not a fan of the more known contemporary art (like the artist's shit...shit and the painted blue square, or the can of campbell soup).

Nobody said you had to like everything.

 

[Derrick01]

What does "real art" even mean?Poetry,literature, movies etc... is art as well you know.

I don't know nor do I care. It's one of the most useless descriptors ever used by the human race.

 

[Damon Bennet]

oh god this thread.

people dont understand art and make a clown of themselves by spouting nonsense :/

 

[BocoDragon]

What the fuck is this.

The truth.

 

[Halcyon]

I understand art just fine. Contemporary art that requires thought or a skill is fine. Random pretentious art is just people thinking they are sitting at the cool table in the lunch room.

 

[freenudemacusers]

The truth.

one can only lol

 

[vio]

You really think figurative art (I'm guessing that the antonym to what you meant when you said "modern art") have a better batting average?

And if you think that people like Rothko or Pollock has no talent than you really don't know what you're talking about.
You might not like their output, you might think that this type of talent is useless, but believe you me, it's not common.
I know every person on the internet think they're the kid who is the only one brave enough to see that the emperor has no clothes, but come on now, if that was as simple as you make it, more people could've figure out how to make a living doing it (and there are countless people who would love that, myself included).

p.s.
I could've done it + yeah, but you didn't = abstract expressionism.

Like i said there is good stuff and then there is rest which is just nothing at all. There is way less of the first one. By the way what do you think of Congo`s work?

 

[Finaika]

How is she going to have sex?

 

[Hoo-doo]

oh god this thread.

people dont understand art and make a clown of themselves by spouting nonsense :/

Educate us, oh wise one.

 

[Red Liquorice]

So daring and avante garde. gasp.

 

[ComputerMKII]

How is she going to have sex?

She won't.

 

[Chichikov]

Sorry, I should have said "of most contemporary art". I like most of the stuff found of the blog, but I'm not a fan of the more known contemporary art (like the artist's shit...shit and the painted blue square, or the can of campbell soup).

I don't like Piero Manzoni or Yves Klein either.
I'm a bit more ambivalent toward Andy Warhol, I don't like most of what he did, but he had a huge and mostly positive influence about art in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

Also, none of those guys are generally considered contemporary.

By the way what do you think of Congo`s work?

I think they're cute, but only really engaging on the meta level (which personally I find a bit less interesting).

 

[BocoDragon]

I understand art just fine. Contemporary art that requires thought or a skill is fine. Random pretentious art is just people thinking they are sitting at the cool table in the lunch room.

The funny thing is, in art circles, just being "aesthetically pleasing" or "skilled" is not art... It actually has to have some deeper meaning.

So that is why many people might say a beautiful videogame is not art, but pushing a block of ice around the streets of Mexico is.

The problem I have with that is its all about the pretentious bullshit you spout before and after the project. If you had the charisma and the straight-faced will to do so, you could frame anything with a "beautiful meaning" that you pull out of thin air.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the examples of post-modern art (like the artist who put his own shit in a can) were just trolling art just to see what passed muster with the community, and to their surprise, people bought it.

Like a cult leader: the power of charisma drives this field.

 

[Escape Goat]

it would have been cool if she had a minute to escape before ravenous scorpions got hungry enough to start biting.

 

[BocoDragon]

one can only lol

sorry guys, i was wrong. "Priests have something real and tangible to give you."

Religion is adorable.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I think this is a Yoko Ono piece.

 

[sn00zer]

Tildaaaaa...

one of the few things on the internet to actually make me laugh out loud

Also this is dumb....god I hate a majority of modern art with a passion...some I do like though

 

[Lonely1]

What the fuck is this.

Art.

Educate us, oh wise one.

Is too deep for us plebes to grasp.

 

[Ripclawe]

Close-minded people who pull the "contemporary art is shit" card depress me.

You're not supposed to like everything that is art, and you sure as hell can't look down on other people because you like Van Gogh more than Andy Warhol.

oh yes I can. Modern Art like this is an exercise in "lets see what I can get away with" More than anything else. I refuse to take stuff like this seriously

 

[Carnby]

Tilda Swinton looks like E.T. I'll never be able to unsee it.

 

[freenudemacusers]

oh yes I can. Modern Art like this is an exercise in "lets see what I can get away with" More than anything else. I refuse to take stuff like this seriously

what is being gotten away with, exactly?

An integral part of The Maybe's incarnation at MoMA in 2013 is that there is no published schedule for its appearance, no artist's statement released, no no museum statement beyond this brief context, no public profile or image issued. Those who find it chance upon it for themselves, live and in real—shared—time: now we see it, now we don't.

seems pretty straightforward; simple really. I've noticed often people who guffaw with scorn at some of this stuff assume pretense where none exists.

 

[akira28]

I like it. Nice concept. "The Maybe".

 

[captainnapalm]

I've always strongly disliked this kind of art. But to each their own.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

This might not mean anything to you, but to someone else it might, and then for that person it's art.

Simple as that.

 

[Haly]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

This might not mean anything to you, but to someone else it might, and then for that person it's art.

Simple as that.

Why have the word "art" anyway? If it's so broadly defined?

 

[bangai-o]

if this was Selena Gomez, would gaf understand art?

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

I've been cool with Tilda since Constantine. Nothing wrong with some contemporary art.

 

[Erasus]

I like it.

I dont get it, but that is probably the point of this. The randomness of it is probably a protest to how scheduled we still are despite modern technology. Or something. Or that we are all trapped in our own lives.

To me, art can be anything.

 

[Chichikov]

I think this is a Yoko Ono piece.

Yoko Ono is incapable of such levels of self reflection and eloquence.

Why have the word "art" anyway? If it's so broadly defined?

Language is a living thing.
If you want a more formal answer you probably going to have to study linguistics.
The good news is that linguistics is great.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Why have the word "art" anyway? If it's so broadly defined?

Because it's easier if we categorize things that we react to, things that inspire us; things that create dialogues and reactions, which is the definition of art in my opinion.

It's sort of sad that art needs to be "hard" for it to be valid, when the reaction is only what matters.

 

[ComputerMKII]

Pretty much every art movement has tried to redefine art, no wonder we don't know what art is anymore.

 

[Htown]

i hate it when people say something isnt "art".

just because you dislike it, or think the quality of said thing is of low standards it does not mean that its not art.
art does not have to be thought provoking. it can, though!

This thing is totally art.


It's fucking terrible art, but it's art.

 

[captainnapalm]

Because it's easier if we categorize things that we react to, things that inspire us; things that create dialogues and reactions, which is the definition of art in my opinion.

It's sort of sad that art needs to be "hard" for it to be valid, when the reaction is only what matters.

Art doesn't need to be "hard", but for some people it does need to have aesthetic value. This kind of art originates from a rejection of aesthetics. It's all based in theory.

 

[Messypandas]

I don't want to go "down that road" but art to me is merely a state of conscious when I react and absorb specific pieces.

 

[Drakeon]

Uh... What's the point of this?

 

[Sadsic]

acting is really weird

its the art of lying

it feels so alien to me

 

[freenudemacusers]

Uh... What's the point of this?

does something need a point?

 

[Haly]

Because it's easier if we categorize things that we react to, things that inspire us; things that create dialogues and reactions, which is the definition of art in my opinion.

I can't agree with this. By your definition, "art" is anything we have strong feelings about, or things we react to. I have strong feelings about the city, and one of my past times is just walking around the admiring the flow of traffic and people. So my questions are as follows:

1) Would a city be considered "art"?
2) If a city can be considered "art", can't anything?
3) What is the purpose of a building being called "The Museum of Modern Art", or "The Metropolitan Museum of Art", if "art" not only refers to everything contained in those buildings, but the buildings around those buildings, the people who walk in and out of those buildings, and so on and so forth?

It seems the only way your definition would hold is if the word "art", as used in the names of these buildings, is a deception, that the buildings are implying boundaries where they do not exist.

Yet people still visit them, still pay admission for them, still consider everything inside "art", but everything outside "not art". How can this be? It's as though you can turn anything into "art" by taking them into one of these buildings and mounting a label beside it. Is that all it takes to make something "art'?

TL;DR: "Art is what someone considers art" is the most useless definition I've ever heard of.

 

[Salsa]

I'd do that, must be one hell of a weird experience

kinda more crappy for those seeing her though.

 

[BocoDragon]

I can't agree with this. By your definition, "art" is anything we have strong feelings about, or things we react to. I have strong feelings about the city, and one of my past times is just walking around the admiring the flow of traffic and people. So my questions are as follows:

1) Would a city be considered "art"?
2) If a city can be considered "art", can't anything?
3) What is the purpose of a building being called "The Museum of Modern Art", or "The Metropolitan Museum of Art", if "art" not only refers to everything contained in those buildings, but the buildings around those buildings, the people who walk in and out of those buildings, and so on and so forth?

It seems the only way your definition would hold is if the word "art", as used in the names of these buildings, is a deception, that the buildings are implying boundaries where they do not exist.

Yet people still visit them, still pay admission for them, still consider everything inside "art", but everything outside "not art". How can this be? It's as though you can turn anything into "art" by taking them into one of these buildings and mounting a label beside it. Is that all it takes to make something "art'?

TL;DR: "Art is what someone considers art" is the most useless definition I've ever heard of.

But in some ways .. That is what art is. If I put my shit in a can, I'm a wierdo or I have mental illness. But if I convince the art community to "put a label beside it" as you put it, then yes, it becomes art.

Yes, that definition troubles me too.. But it is the way it works in some ways.

Incidentally because this is GAF, anime and games like Wind Waker are art, because they were on display at the Vancouver Art Gallery in 2008. This thought was literally asserted to me by an art professor on a podium last week

 

[Curtisaur]

Not enough expired Spaghettios in vagina to be art.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

acting is really weird

its the art of lying

it feels so alien to me

You're breaking down the concept too much. Acting is role play. It challenges your boundaries as a person, while giving you the opportunity to live out fantasies. It isn't lying, it's doing something different and not being afraid to make a fool out of yourself. To take a "role" that is outside of your comfort zone builds your individual character and shows that you don't have the fear of failure.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Not enough expired Spaghettios in vagina to be art.

you don't know that. she could be chock full of them in every orifice.

 

[Curtisaur]

you don't know that. she could be chock full of them in every orifice.

She didn't cram them in, on film, in a room full or artistes so it doesn't count.

 

[steveovig]

How the hell does she go to the bathroom?

 

[Tea and Toast]

This thread lead me here, which is cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uENITui5_jU

 

[Tom_Cody]

ART!

 

[Chichikov]

you don't know that. she could be chock full of them in every orifice.

That's why they call it The Maybe.

 

[ComputerMKII]

How the hell does she go to the bathroom?

That's part of her other performance piece.

 

[Haly]

She didn't cram them in, on film, in a room full or artistes so it doesn't count.

The question of whether or not Swinton has Spaghettios in her orifices is art. The audience is invited to wonder whether she's sleeping peacefully, or struggling to keep all the spaghettios inside her, trying to suppress her disgust at the slowly disintegrating bits of pasta in order to maintain her image, an allegory, you can say, of modern life. As outsiders, we can only wonder what trials she's going through inside her cage of glass, and I think that is why it's called "The Maybe".

"Maybe" she has spaghettios inside her, "Maybe" she doesn't.