Is this really art? - Page 2

GePap · June 9, 2003, 00:21

Fez..I am from Panama.

Keep up buddie, and look at the Flags!

Giancarlo · June 9, 2003, 00:22

Okay why did I never know that... hmm....

I didn't recognize the flag you had.. I never payed much attention to it...

Q Classic · June 9, 2003, 00:23

sure it's art.

maybe as much as you can say that artifice is art.

monolith94 · June 9, 2003, 02:21

I'd say that it's art, yes.

Hurricane · June 9, 2003, 02:57

Sure this is art. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be art.

Thoth · June 9, 2003, 03:24

It strikes me as being harmles, though a bit pointless. It's no worse than half the crap that gets pawned off as art nowdays.

LTEC! · June 9, 2003, 03:24

In modern art its considered a "happening" (started with you hippies)
but you could also group it with mass urban art.

so yes.

Buck Birdseed · June 9, 2003, 04:42

Certainly. His expression is reasonably meaningful in itself, carrying the dual layers of texture and bodies and contrasting our perceptions of both. It's also quite evocative, bringing forth at least a couple of emotional reactions and mental associations in most people.

It's perhaps not the best of art and it's starting to wear thin, but it's certainly more artistic than a lot of pre-modern painting...

alva · June 9, 2003, 06:35

Quote:

so if I take pictures of my penis and send it to women I like that would be art right? The judges never see it that way though, I always get restraining orders put on me.

For starters, your intention isn't the same

Kropotkin · June 9, 2003, 06:40

If some people like to think of it as art, then it's art. It isn't really art for me personally though. But, unless a number of people through history, I don't feel the need to force my own estetic thoughts on other people through, laws, violence or just plain mockery. As long as their not in the way for me if I'm about to cross the square to get to something, they can do whatever they want.

Ben Kenobi · June 9, 2003, 06:55

"Art should uplift."

Kropotkin · June 9, 2003, 07:30

As a side note: Art that Fez doesn't understand or aprove of is of cource leftist crap. I knew he would say that before I opened up the tread.

Frankychan · June 9, 2003, 07:47

No, it's not art.

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

I can crap in a bag, put it on display, and call it "art".

MRT144 · June 9, 2003, 08:34

its more of an event

Buck Birdseed · June 9, 2003, 09:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Frankychan
I can crap in a bag, put it on display, and call it "art".

You could also call it a Ukulele but that dunn make it one or the other.

Where in your expression would meaning be conveyed? What would you be trying to say with the turd? Nothing. Is it original? Provocative? Hardly. Is it a particularly intense or visually interesting expression? Nope. What you're left with is the meaningless, intellectually shallow faeces of a simpleton, not even remotely art.

Now if you were doing it 'cause your father beat you or something, then it could possibly be construed as art.

Giancarlo · June 9, 2003, 15:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
As a side note: Art that Fez doesn't understand or aprove of is of cource leftist crap. I knew he would say that before I opened up the tread.

Or pointless to that matter, as this was.

Ecthy · June 9, 2003, 16:38

@ Snapcase

Elok · June 9, 2003, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
You could also call it a Ukulele but that dunn make it one or the other.
Where in your expression would meaning be conveyed? What would you be trying to say with the turd? Nothing. Is it original? Provocative? Hardly. Is it a particularly intense or visually interesting expression? Nope. What you're left with is the meaningless, intellectually shallow faeces of a simpleton, not even remotely art.
Now if you were doing it 'cause your father beat you or something, then it could possibly be construed as art.

Actually, I seem to remember a London museum purchasing the preserved feces of a dead artist for a tidy sum. Dave Barry had a field day with it.
There should be certain requirements that need to be met, IMO, before something can be recognized as Art:
1. It must be interesting to at least one person other than the one who made it.
2. It must be valuable for its own sake, not just for any actual function it may have.
3. It must inspire deeper feeling on some level in some people.
4. It must require some form of discernible talent to execute.
5. It must be intentionally artistic at the time of its creation.

Drunken soccer hooligans are expressing a deep and profound feeling when they knock over cars; namely, that "[name of team] ****ing rules!" Their rioting is very emotionally intense and makes a tremendous impact on all who see it. You can't deny that it is provocative, and it was certainly original the first time it was done at a Roman Chariot race or somewhere. It's still not art though, because it requires absolutely no talent, and neither does the bozo with the camera in Spain.

GePap · June 9, 2003, 17:38

Actualy, getting a large amount of people to take their clothes of without feeling they are being used sexually, and arranging them in various poses, to insure the pics are not oevrtly sexual, or that they make some sort of contrast, does take quite a bit of skills.

No bunch of soccer Hooligans could do it.

Oerdin · June 9, 2003, 18:52

Gepap, they're standing in the street. There really isn't that much composition there. Sure he tells everyone to stand up, sit down, and currle into a ball but that's the extent of it.

St Leo · June 9, 2003, 21:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Gepap, they're standing in the street. There really isn't that much composition there. Sure he tells everyone to stand up, sit down, and currle into a ball but that's the extent of it.

Michelangelo couldn't paint in a pixel-perfect manner either, but that doesn't make him a non-artist.

Elok · June 9, 2003, 22:48

I meant artistic, creative talent. You know what I meant(I hope). Persuasiveness may be an art form, but that doesn't make the photo art. The actual act of telling the subjects where to stand and pressing the button is an administrative feat more than anything else. And his novel concept-"naked people are fun to look at"-isn't really news to me either.

chequita guevara · June 9, 2003, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Hell, leftist "artists" want to do just about anything with naked people in it and then claim it is art. Art envolves some sort of composition and talent; taking pictures of naked people in the street requires neither.

That's not actually true. Art is a medium of communication, a mode of expression. If you are trying to say something (or if someone gets a message from it), it doesn't matter whether it's good or bad, it's art. The quality of the art may be up for debate, but the fact of it being art is not.

Giancarlo · June 9, 2003, 23:42

HAhaha.. a communist talking about art.

Running around naked in the street, and having somebody take pictures isn't art. It is exhibitionism. That is what i believe this was all about.

Sava · June 9, 2003, 23:44

that has got to be a smelly f*cking crowd of people...

and full of dirty Spaniards no less

Giancarlo · June 10, 2003, 00:06

Well at least it wasn't done in the US... sheesh.. too many fat people.

Spanish people at least are handsome...

But those who took part were probably mostly foreigners... eww.. frenchmen..

Sava · June 10, 2003, 01:22

I wouldn't want to be in a crowd of 7,000 naked people no matter what nationality they are.

smelly spaniards or frenchmen
excessive-body hair Eastern Europeans
small-donged asians

they all suck!

and plus, those type of events usually attract wackos anyways

Dis · June 10, 2003, 01:23

I would if I could choose which women I get to stand or lie next to.

Sava · June 10, 2003, 01:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I would if I could choose which women I get to stand or lie next to.

my tongue would get too tired... anything higher than 3 is pushing your luck

Giancarlo · June 10, 2003, 01:29

Well sava, at least I am cute.