Conquer Club

MeDeFe wrote:I'll take a different angle from the rest of you, you've all been talking about expressing oneself and emotions and so forth. But it's really a lot simpler than that, art is what we consider to be art.

A possible point of criticism is that the same thing might be considered as art by one person and as not-art by an other. But I don't see that as a problem really. In fact it rather nicely corrseponds with what we can observe. Some people said that inducing miscariagges over a period of time and presenting the results to the public is art, others said it isn't. The same was true when the exhibition with that dog came up, some said it was art, others said it wasn't.

To conclude, art, like most things in society, is a human construct and can only be satisfactorily defined from the angle of human perception.

hecter wrote:

mandyb wrote:

hecter wrote:Art is a means of expression for the senses that requires skill on the part of the artist and provokes both thought and/or an emotional response in the people experiencing the artistic works.

EDIT: That means, of course, that what is considered art varies from person to person. It's all a matter of perspective and what you choose to call it. While you may not consider a video tape of a drunk hobo yelling at traffic for ten minutes, why can't somebody else? Dadaism is considered an art form, but I certainly would not give it that title.

I read recently of a South American 'artist' who tied a starving dog up in one of his exhibitions - he also surrounded it with his collages made from dog food.
'Thought provoking and extremely emotional' it may have been, but art, definitely not.
Amazingly enough, he wasn't prosecuted and continues to exhibit despite violent protests.

You missed a crucial part of my definition. Anybody can starve a dog to death.

MeDeFe wrote:

hecter wrote:

mandyb wrote:Thought provoking and extremely emotional' it may have been, but art, definitely not.
Amazingly enough, he wasn't prosecuted and continues to exhibit despite violent protests.

You missed a crucial part of my definition. Anybody can starve a dog to death.

But not everybody will be able to combine that with a message about the audience.

hecter wrote:Nobody but the audience can decide what art is.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Anything for any of the senses which generates emotion.. be it good or bad emotion .. can be art.

savant wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Anything for any of the senses which generates emotion.. be it good or bad emotion .. can be art.

2 for $3 egg mcmuffins at mcdonalds makes me a happy camper... now that's art.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Anything for any of the senses which generates emotion.. be it good or bad emotion .. can be art.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

savant wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Anything for any of the senses which generates emotion.. be it good or bad emotion .. can be art.

2 for $3 egg mcmuffins at mcdonalds makes me a happy camper... now that's art.

Exactly ... but don't expect to get rich on it ... Unless you happen to have been names "Andy Warhol".

MeDeFe wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Anything for any of the senses which generates emotion.. be it good or bad emotion .. can be art.

I'm not sure whether all minimalist art can be said to generate emotions, and still it is considered art.

jonesthecurl wrote:NO, it's calld "Here's to the Arts", and Art runs it. The bar menu is all inspired by people called Art or Arthur. (King, Conan Doyle, etc). Honest.