b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » Message 7898480 (Thread)

And like I said, an extremely wide definition is useless.

If everything is art, then art is a synonym for everything, and we don't need another word for everything. We do need a word for the process of carefully making beautiful things.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being provoking in unclear ways, just that one can do it without committing acts of art. I'm doing it right now, see.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:57, archived)

Bah.

Legs on a snake, all of you.

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:00, archived)

DAMMIT

I MISSED OUT ON AN ARTGUMENT.

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:03, archived)

OH NO YOU DI'HNT

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:05, archived)

SWEEEET.

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:12, archived)

Just thinking about stuff.

Nothing wrong with thinking.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:05, archived)

I agree.

"Knowing" is often a barrier to experiencing though. I'm clear which I'd rather do :)

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:07, archived)

ALSO:

www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=916964

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:27, archived)

Hee.

Good.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:32, archived)

Seriously though

an analogy which occurs to me is of young children standing around in a playground, heatedly discussing the definition of fun. I'd rather just play.
That's not to say that I'm anti-intellectual, or non-intellectual, but the idea of categorization, which is really what's being discussed here, is not really that interesting to me personally, particuarly since it all comes down to nothing more than personal opinion, however forcably that opinion is expressed, or however conventionally 'correct' it is currently considered.

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:39, archived)

Definitions are unimportant

but things need explaining. In the case of art I see a dodging of an explanation.
I'm also interested in what fun is, by the way, because that's also difficult to explain -
meaningfully, fruitfully difficult, not just intractable.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:44, archived)

Brilliant.

Great. That's the point. And when we say that we accept everything with an open mind and don't reject out of hand. That sounds like what you're saying and it sounds like we're arguing from the same precept. But, to return to the point, that's not cubism.

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:44, archived)

YES.

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48, archived)

NO.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:53, archived)

I AM ONE POSITIVE MOTHERFUCKER.

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:55, archived)

WE'RE OFF THE PAGE.

I AM SO ENGORGED RIGHT NOW.

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:56, archived)

WHOA

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:00, archived)

Oh my God

I'm a big fan of Eno's music but I'm afraid both he and the author of the piece have misunderstood Duchamp. such is art

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:41, archived)

You do not have access to Duchamp's thoughts.

Thus, all you can possibly be expressing are your own opinions, or someone else's. The fact that you do so in such a condescending way is not particularly endearing.

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:43, archived)

Duchamp

did not publicly explain his work but that does not mean that the consensus is incorrect.

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:46, archived)

Neither does it mean that it is correct.

I repeat, all you're expressing is your own, or someone else's, opinions.

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48, archived)

BTW

I'm sorry if I've sounded condesending in my posts. I've not intended that at all and I'd rather people read my posts with the voice of an interested informed nobody.

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:49, archived)

Well, even if Duchamp was speaking

he'd still only be expressing Duchamp's opinions about what Duchamp thinks. Still prone to errors.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:47, archived)

Haha

that's just your opinion :)

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48, archived)

Without sarcasm

You may be a genius. (I'm going to bed. Merry Christmas)

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:51, archived)

Goodnight

it's nice that an interested informed nobody thinks I'm a possible genius. I think.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:00, archived)

Cya, merry xmas.

Come play again soon.

(

Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:11, archived)

No I don't want you to think I think everything is art

I merely suggested everything CAN be art. Found Objects have been a part of art for a century and they have opened up the way for us to consider the temporial locus of a transformation between rubbish and art. Can a mere discovery be art? If so then anything Can be art. Whhich prompted my last comment. (see Duchamp)

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:04, archived)

Oh, well, that's true.

Well then, where does that leave us.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:06, archived)

That is the eternal question.

Welcome aboard.

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:10, archived)

OK. I think

1) Duchamp's urinal (of which I am very fond) is provoking, but it's not pretty. It's just making a statement via an object. You can call that art if you want, but there are all kinds of other ways to do it, so it would be better if we could give up calling those things art (which is unlikely to happen, oh well).
2) It's a very good point about all kinds of found objects being capable of being made pretty by being framed, or by some other means of the artist suggesting to you a good way in which to look at them. However this ought to be about beauty in order to qualify as art, and being abruptly presented with something jarring is not at all the same.
3) Art goes along with a message, and the art is one thing and the message is another, and they depend on each other somewhat.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:14, archived)

Also

messages expressed vertically one word at a time are very inexpressive.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:16, archived)

As artist or viewer?

Figure where you stand and it's all down hill from there.

(

Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:12, archived)

Found objects as an artform is fucking useless.

I was in a gallery about a year ago and one of the artists was selling a piece called "dumpster 4" (there was a number 4 in the dumpster where he found the stuff), and it was 20 showerheads painted yellow.

She spent half a fucking hour talking about how he had found abandoned objects and turned them into art by "gathering them together". I had three issues with this:

1. There was no point - what is he trying to provoke/invoke?

2. The dumpster had gathered all those objects before he got there,

3. It was just a bunch of fucking showerheads painted yellow. For $20k.

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:16, archived)

I've heard you talk about this before

and I think I stole the example and used it as part of a letter to The Times.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:19, archived)

Awesome.

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:20, archived)

Not incorrect, just over-priced.

(

Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:20, archived)

I'd pay cost price, if I had a use for twenty yellow showerheads.

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:25, archived)

Not the point. And I know you understand that well.

We both love Doc's work. Any artist with
a good portfolio of works, can, and should
be able to do the same. You saw the work
first hand, it sounds to me liek the person
may have failed it. So I would accept your
judgment in the showerhead's case.

(

Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:32, archived)

The only reason that this example sticks in my mind

is because I saw someone run over to it and buy it after the most retarded artspeech I had heard. And it was probably a good investment.

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48, archived)

Could be so.

A mid-line, to low work, by a spectacular
artist can often be more valuable.

(

Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:57, archived)

Right.

So any painting is worth the price of the paint plus the price of the canvas?

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:55, archived)

If it's all one colour, yes.

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:59, archived)

As a minimum, YES.

[/;-D

(

Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:00, archived)

I like to think of "art" as a descriptive word like "awesome"

Anything can be awesome, but not everything.

Why do people not stand around talking about why something might be deemed awesome? Because that would make it less awesome.

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:19, archived)

Isn't it fucking awesome that

We’re having a serious informed debate on Art on B3ta? The electronic generation is not dulled by technology it seems. *ejaculates*

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:38, archived)

Right now it's fun more than awesome.

Awesome would be if this disccusion spawned a bunch of pictures.

(

gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:44, archived)

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:47, archived)

As it's topical and you're not offended by much.

Indeed! I'm digesting now, Nanny!

(

Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:51, archived)