Is this really art?

[Sava]

but I can't tell if you are smelly...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
and plus, those type of events usually attract wackos anyways

But then again.. you are certainly right...

These type of events do usually attract the butt ugliest people...

And me smelly? LOL.. no.. I am a tall, clean European. Not to mention I got some elements of complusive disorder, so I am anything but smelly.

[Sava]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but there are always outliers... you know, the bell curve... I mean sh1t! Look at yao ming, with almost 2 billion asians running around, 1 of them was bound to be tall and good at basketball...

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Elok
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.

Why?

2. It must be valuable for its own sake, not just for any actual function it may have.

Surely, being an expression, it is it's own function. Er. But yeah. That's what I mean when I say the expression itself must be meaningful.

3. It must inspire deeper feeling on some level in some people.

It must be designed to, certainly. But again, why does art need a second person? I mean, a medium onto nothing is a bit ****, I agree, but surely a Picasso in a cave is still, as it were, a Picasso?

4. It must require some form of discernible talent to execute.

Circular argument. What measure of talent is there except that the result is good art?

5. It must be intentionally artistic at the time of its creation.

Okay, I'll concede this one.

I'll stick to my "intensity, complexity and unity of both ideas and expression" criterion, thank you.

I think Tunick's piece is art, because it certainly plays with your mind and your perception of surfaces and textures, as well as evoking images of mass-coreographed totalitarian gatherings. The body, like in a modern dance piece, is used to represent something else - a cobble-stone, a simple piece in a massive puzzle - while at the same time posed in an exposed, emotionally vulnerable way. The street paved with naked people is both a visually interesting image and a commentary on the human condition, what more do you need?

[Frankychan]

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.

good one. What I'm saying is that a lot of these "artists" go out and present these "things" and label them as art. I could probably say that I'm trying to show the world the meaninglessness of capitalism or some other political idealism.

But it seems to me that this aint nothing but trying to push the limits.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
5. It must be intentionally artistic at the time of its creation.

Disagree. Museums are full of ancient "art" which was originally created for utilitarian purposes, not to be artistic. The Neolithic fertility statues come to mind.

Many people consider furniture, clothing and other such items to be works of art, even though that may not have been the purpose behind their creation.

Art is simply in the eye of the beholder. There's not much other limit one can place on it.