Comments | year

year_x

Art?

Jul 05, 2007 21:21

Boab referenced this article and it enraged him because the central idea is that Damien Hirst creates 'art', and Banksy doesn't. My feelings on what is 'art' are fairly well trodden in my mind, as it's something I return to often. However, I'm not sure if I've ever put it out there in it's pure form. I'm normally allying it to my thoughts about ( Read more... )

philo

Comments 20

(The comment has been removed)

year_x July 5 2007, 22:20:47 UTC

Style as in some quality other than the communication which I can't at the moment put my finger on ( ... )

llamarines July 5 2007, 22:54:28 UTC

Essentially, you're saying that modern art is the punk rock of the non-music world - that the medium isn't important, that the skill of the artist isn't important - what is important is what it conveys. Is that correct ( ... )

year_x July 6 2007, 08:26:03 UTC

It is a difficult one to reconcile. I think that my ignorance of the art world means that I don't know who the La Q equivalent is in, say, modern art. I hadn't factored in the money side of things to my argument because I'm always banging on about it. With that in mind then yes, I do have a problem with all those well known artists. I agree with the point(s) you are making.

So what if my example was artist "N.E. Body". A guy who hasn't 'sold out' to Saachi etc, but still creates unmade beds, decomposing cows heads etc. He manages to get them displayed in small local galleries, but has to keep a day-job as he makes no money from his art. Are his works still art?

year_x July 6 2007, 08:33:13 UTC

and yes, I do think modern art is the punk-rock of the non-music world. That is why it's always confused me that you don't like it. Essentially, I think you dislike it because of the commercialism within the form. And the inherent pretension in it. However you can get as pretentious as me when it's your area of interest. And in that respect you are a contradiction wrapped in an enigma wrapped in clothes found in the street

llamarines July 6 2007, 08:58:33 UTC

Yes, I'm clearly massively inconsistent when it comes to my differing viewpoints on music and art, and I know I'm hugely pretentious when I start talking about stuff I care a lot about. When it comes to music, I love ramshackle noise, I love stuff played with passion by people who don't give a fuck for keeping strongly in time or even in tune (us, prime example) and all that - but when it comes to art, I can't stand stuff made by people made with no technical skill. I realise it's almost doublethink - holding two logically inconsistent views simultaneously and yet believing them both, but what can you do ( ... )

Thread 16

(The comment has been removed)

year_x July 6 2007, 08:59:48 UTC

1: yeah, my model for the artist/work/observer interface isn't very developed. However I know what I'm trying to get at. It's a fairly critical part of the argument, so I'll have a think and try to iron it out a bit better. The difficulty, as always, is semantics ( ... )

ghostsmut July 7 2007, 11:12:30 UTC

I find it most frustrating that stuff can only be labelled as "art" if a large enough group of people decide that it is. Everything is art, surely. The council worker who paints lines on the road has just as much value as some fag who paints on a canvas.

But basically: TLDR

;)

year_x July 7 2007, 11:22:04 UTC

I agree completely

juice1 July 9 2007, 18:20:16 UTC

I think I am just agreeing with Don here, but basically I think everything is 'art' if you look at it in a certain way.

year_x July 10 2007, 19:14:23 UTC

Which way?

juice1 July 16 2007, 18:13:35 UTC

lol, I just mean if you like something then to you would that not just be a piece of art?
also i think everyday things like just everything (I am really bad at explaining myself, especially trying to write things, sorry!) can be art. everything is interesting in it's own way and gets you thinking, so then is it not art? like even tarmacced (sp?) roads can be interesting I think.