Do you think this is art?

Discussion in 'Bizarre and Off-Beat News' started by Ciara, Jul 10, 2008.

  1. Ciara

    Ciara New Member

    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Loading...


  3. Kiki

    Kiki New Member

    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It looks ridiculous.
     
  4. Ciara

    Ciara New Member

    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its right in the middle of a village and if u knew what these villages look like over here you would realise JUST how out of place and an eyesore this type of stupid "art" looks Kiki. Its one thing preserving the telephone boxes but preserve them in the right setting. That just looks minging!!!
     
  5. Taximom

    Taximom Former Member

    Messages:
    16,234
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Quite the phallic symbol erected there. It's ugly!!! :D
     
  6. kazzbar

    kazzbar Inactive

    Messages:
    4,175
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Must be a joke.....
     
  7. philamena

    philamena Former Member

    Messages:
    7,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not the kind of art I appreciate.
     
  8. babycat

    babycat whiskey in a teacup

    Messages:
    1,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I'm obviously in the minority here, and I like reading all of the different opinions, but as an artist, I think it is just fine. I wouldn't personally buy it for my house, and it doesn't employ the elements and principles that would cause me to consider it GOOD art, but I encourage a conscious effort to create. I don't think it is offensive at all.

    But then, we've reached the stage where art is a commodity to people- they only want to buy it if it is "pretty". Art used to be a great means of conveying political opinions, religious commentary, oppression, history, social commentary, satire, incite rage, evoke sadness. Many people don't realize that artists aren't driven to create just to make money, or even to necessarily make "beautiful" things. Personally, I like work with a concept behind it, and I do a lot of "out there" stuff. I did a whole series on meat, and it was even censored on myspace as being considered "violent". I don't see how it was violent at all- it was just raw meat, like you might see in a grocery store. Some of us eat meat everyday. It was interesting that the everyday object, something we might pass in the grocery store was somehow considered SO controversial that they censored it off of my myspace. My point is- I KNOW that no one will want to buy it. But I was still driven to create it. Even if it won't hang over someone's couch. In fact, ESPECIALLY because it won't hang over someone's couch.

    However, since it is how I make a living, I had to come to terms with the fact that I have to produce more commercial art, that people will want to hang. People have this crazy idea that art should match their sofa. I don't necessarily agree with that.

    My neighbors backyard is an eyesore that I have to look in every day (my apartment overlooks his balcony) and I can't do anything about that. Our city streets are littered with trash, people have
    cars broken down, I am subjected to seeing teenagers thongs hanging out of their pants. I guess my having to see that structure every day wouldn't bother me, in the grand scheme of things.

    Though I don't necessarily find that particular structure attractive, or a successful design, I applaud their right to create. We all have different ideas of what beauty is. I, myself, have a very wide spectrum.

    So the question is...who gets to decide what is beautiful? Is it fair that a group of people decide that for the rest of us?



    quick example: Lucian Freud's painting of a large nude woman recently sold for $33.6 million dollars at auction. It set a record. I heard tons of people complaining that she was not attractive, they didn't "get it" they would never "buy" it, it was not "art" etc.

    Anyway, I happen to love it...he's my favorite painter;) But you get the point...who gets to decide what art is?

    Link contains a nude, click at your own risk:)

    http://www.artnewsblog.com/2008/05/most-expensive-living-artist-lucian.htm
     
  9. kazzbar

    kazzbar Inactive

    Messages:
    4,175
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Welcome Babycat..I think you make some very valid points. I too like the nude painting. It is very well painted and 'special'.....
    I still do not particularly like the phone booths but each to their own. I guess I do not find the artwork 'very clever' or thought provoking...
     
  10. babycat

    babycat whiskey in a teacup

    Messages:
    1,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks;) Honestly, I don't find it clever or thought provoking either. I don't even think it is a good design, personally. I wouldn't buy it/WANT to see it every day.


    BUT, that said, I do feel the pain of censorship from time to time.

    BUT I think where the problem lies is...WHO can decide what is valuable...who gets to say? It's a very difficult question. I think this piece inadvertently raises this question...thought I don't think that was the concept.



    But that's what makes this world so great- we DO all have different ideas/opinions of beauty, art, etc...it is just difficult sometimes when they have to mesh so that we can all enjoy the world.

    There will never be a solution, I think, but I do enjoy the discussion, and reading everyone's different opinions, and I am am glad that the topic was brought up at all...it's nice to see people discussing art, even if it it is whether or not they like it.

    Cheers:)
     
  11. SeriouslySearching

    SeriouslySearching Active Member

    Messages:
    35,527
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I like it! I have a "thing" for those red phone booths. The only thing I would change is the base color. It should have been striped like the flags. LOL

    Welcome to WS, Babycat! :)
     
  12. RainbowsAndGumdrops

    RainbowsAndGumdrops New Member

    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it is funny that someone would actually think of something like that. It just makes me shake my head, laugh, and wonder "who on Earth thought of that?".

    I don't think it is the most creative thing I have ever seen, but then again paint splattered on canvas is claimed as art so often that i think this deserves to be called art.
     
  13. GlitchWizard

    GlitchWizard Reprobate

    Messages:
    3,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    This is kind of neat, actually. It's a far sight better than the "art" they put up at the University of Florida when I was there. One looked like a thing of french fries without the bag, another looked like a baked potato (though others thought it looked like doo doo.)
     
  14. dontpanic38

    dontpanic38 New Member

    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, count me in with you, I agree 100% with your post. As a photographer it is getting scary to see that if someone else does not agree with your "art" if you are lucky, the least that happens is that you are censored. The unlucky are sued or told that they are breaking a law. These days, you can't offend, or cause someone to stop and think because it could endanger the safety of kids, adults, pets, insects, whatever some bozo decides they don't like.

    I think that art can be anything and I have recently discovered the art of public performance, which will be the next thing the do gooders go after, but some of the flash mobs and the improv groups (Improv Everywhere) have done some hilarious stunts that are completely brilliant in the planning and the effect on the unsuspecting public.

    Anyhoo, thanks for speaking up! I wondered if I was in the minority while I started reading this thread!
     
  15. Rudolf

    Rudolf Sociopaths are 4% of the general population; That'

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm just happy to see that people still care enough to argue about "what is art"!
     
  16. Taximom

    Taximom Former Member

    Messages:
    16,234
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  17. GlitchWizard

    GlitchWizard Reprobate

    Messages:
    3,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I enjoy things that make me look at the world a little sideways, even if just for a moment. Perhaps "general public" takes themselves a bit too seriously and forgets that life isn't supposed to be one big negative arguement. Would I like the monstrosity in my yard... no. But in a public park, sure.

    Now, when the dude put a fish in a blender a few years back, I was fine with that... not artistic, but certainly creative and if you don't have a fishbowl, it's perfectly acceptable...- until he plugged the blenders in and let people turn them on. Then I didn't think it was art or creative or perfectly acceptable anymore, but something else entirely. Mean, I think is the word. Plain mean.
     
  18. gaia227

    gaia227 I have never taken any exercise except sleeping an

    Messages:
    3,742
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Personally, I do not like it. I appreciate it but I don't like it. However, I think it is the artists field he can put whatever he wants (within reason) in it. It certainly could be worse and just because people don't like it shouldn't mean that he has to be censored and prohibited from erecting sculptures on his own property. Part of the art of this sculpture is it is inciting debate about what art is and certainly what is art to some is trash to others and vice versa.

    I don't like my neighbors pink flamingo lawn ornaments but I'm not going to call a neighborhood committee to make her take the hideous things down (I don't have neighbors with yards but you get the point).

    And to echo GlitchWizard. It can certainly cross the line. I am sure we remember the starving dog as art or the girl who incited several miscarriages on purpose and filmed them - now that is offensive and personally I think it takes advantage of what art is by trying to stretch the boundries into virtual art -where the artist actually incites violence and suffering on another person instead of just depicting it through an artisitc median. I don't see much creativity in starving a dog and watching it suffer but I can recognize the creativity in depicting a dog's struggle through the use of your empathies, imagination and expressing that experience with paint, clay, metal, etc.
    Unfortunately in this age most people want instant gratification. They want things to be spelled out for them. They don't want to have to look at a piece of art and have to figure out that it is depicting the struggle of a dog starving, they want the starving dog to be right there in front of them and say, oh okay - this is about a dog struggling with starvation.
     
  19. 4eyedbuzzard

    4eyedbuzzard New Member

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a bit odd, and not my taste, but it is on private property. If it doesn't violate any zoning laws I'd have to side with the artist.
     
  20. Ciara

    Ciara New Member

    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am glad I started this thread. I enjoyed reading what babycat and dontpanic wrote and I agree with a lot of what you guys say. I dont want to see art stifled. I have been known to be creative myself:crazy::crazy:
    I just think that like gaia said it can also go over the line as in the example of that emaciated dog. Then there was that stupid exhibit of Tracy Emin's where she had that unmade bed with used condoms strewn all over it. In my eyes that is not art.
    In the case of the story above, I just think its stupid and not in the least artistic but like others have said its on private property.
    I prefer modern art myself but I also like to see it in its correct setting and not out of keeping with its surroundings. It can still be creative and artistic.
     
  21. Ciara

    Ciara New Member

    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are right. In fact that looks double bloody stupid because you have this lovely classical building behind it and then what looks like a piece of cheap lego plonked on the lawn in front. They could have put something more in keeping with that building instead of in such stark contrast especially when it looks so crap! Whats artistic about that:bang::bang::bang:

    Gotta love the lingo:crazy::crazy::crazy:
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice