If you think that something is Art, then to you it *IS* Art.

It is a personal decision that affects only yourself.

Sometimes Art is something that someone finds aesthetically pleasing.

Other times Art is something that causes you to examine yourself and your prides and prejudices.

After all, (mods, please forgive the language, but it is the title of the work) consider the photograph titled 'Piss Christ' by Andres Serrano (1987).

To some, it is high art. To others, it is deeply offensive and they want it to be banned and the artist punished.

My point is that such reasoning robs art of its meaning. If everything is art then by extension nothing is art. Hence, art becomes meaningless, it loses its point and its value. Such reasoning literally kills art.

The thing with something like 'Piss Christ' is that it can be art and still deeply offensive to other people. No one has ever stated that art cannot be offensive. It can and something like that just proves it. The people that hate it and are offended by it can hate it as much as they want, it doesn't distract from the fact that its art. If they don't consider it art it only says more about them then about the art itself.

But Мишель, just *who* decides what is Art and what isn't? You? Me? The Government?

Oxford Dictionary wrote:

Art
Noun

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Beauty...

Emotional power...

Different people have different standards of Beauty.
Different people are emotionally moved by different things.

Therefore, different people are going to have different standards of what is Art, and what isn't.

Ok, an example...

One of my kids grabs a crayon and scribbles all over a wall.

To me, it is just a mess that I am going to have to clean up.

But to my kid, it is high art.

So then what is "art"?
I created this in a digital rendering program called Poser, is it art?

This is art to me. I think most of us think so.
3 Kenta of 5.
I'm impressed:)

My point is that such reasoning robs art of its meaning. If everything is art then by extension nothing is art. Hence, art becomes meaningless, it loses its point and its value. Such reasoning literally kills art.

The thing with something like 'Piss Christ' is that it can be art and still deeply offensive to other people. No one has ever stated that art cannot be offensive. It can and something like that just proves it. The people that hate it and are offended by it can hate it as much as they want, it doesn't distract from the fact that its art. If they don't consider it art it only says more about them then about the art itself.

So then what is "art"?

Are my photos and videos art, if I take time and effort over them rather than just snaps?

I know that many who create digital pictures feel themselves artists.

I created this in a digital rendering program called Poser, is it art?



or this created using the same software.



What you are saying is that art has boundaries and some things can never be art.

So can you define what is art and what can never be art?

---

My point is that such reasoning robs art of its meaning. If everything is art then by extension nothing is art. Hence, art becomes meaningless, it loses its point and its value. Such reasoning literally kills art.

Art doesnt follow logic. Thats the beaty with Art.
What a boring World otherwise.
Computer made art:(

If you think that something is Art, then to you it *IS* Art.

It is a personal decision that affects only yourself.

Sometimes Art is something that someone finds aesthetically pleasing.

Other times Art is something that causes you to examine yourself and your prides and prejudices.

After all, (mods, please forgive the language, but it is the title of the work) consider the photograph titled 'Piss Christ' by Andres Serrano (1987).

To some, it is high art. To others, it is deeply offensive and they want it to be banned and the artist punished.

My point is that such reasoning robs art of its meaning. If everything is art then by extension nothing is art. Hence, art becomes meaningless, it loses its point and its value. Such reasoning literally kills art.

The thing with something like 'Piss Christ' is that it can be art and still deeply offensive to other people. No one has ever stated that art cannot be offensive. It can and something like that just proves it. The people that hate it and are offended by it can hate it as much as they want, it doesn't distract from the fact that its art. If they don't consider it art it only says more about them then about the art itself.

I was wandering around London Docklands this week and came across this



It is at the bottom of Cubitt Steps, Middle Dock.

Called "Two men on a bench" by Glies Penny

Here is a closer view from the other side.



The question, is it art?

Remind me of the market place in Hasselt:



I love that statue! The kids always go sit on their lap:))

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

In closing, I leave you with a piece of Art, describing Art and Art Critics.

Warning, slightly rude. May not be SFW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_v_ubcYsTI

Now if we could only be allowed to do that to the politicians that mess up, that would be the best art of the 21st century. :-)

Nahh.. They would probably like it.

Edit: heh a quick edit on me. :P

but would it be performance art, or artistic criticism?

Maybe a touch of all 3 :-)

In closing, I leave you with a piece of Art, describing Art and Art Critics.
Warning, slightly rude. May not be SFW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_v_ubcYsTI

Now if we could only be allowed to do that to the politicians that mess up, that would be the best art of the 21st century. :-)

Nahh.. They would probably like it.
Edit: heh a quick edit on me. :P
but would it be performance art, or artistic criticism?

So funny:)
Could it be today? (Retorical question)
Im still laughing....

Rude? nonsens.

In closing, I leave you with a piece of Art, describing Art and Art Critics.

Warning, slightly rude. May not be SFW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_v_ubcYsTI

Now if we could only be allowed to do that to the politicians that mess up, that would be the best art of the 21st century. :-)

Nahh.. They would probably like it.

Edit: heh a quick edit on me. :P

but would it be performance art, or artistic criticism?

In closing, I leave you with a piece of Art, describing Art and Art Critics.

Warning, slightly rude. May not be SFW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_v_ubcYsTI

Now if we could only be allowed to do that to the politicians that mess up, that would be the best art of the 21st century. :-)

Pg is parental guidance 12 years or over at least that is what it is here and we are not as strict as in the states.
M is mature 15 and over
AO is adult only 18 or over
x is porn so is xx and xxx use your own imagination on them one's

Hmm Strange.
I have seen clips on youtube that's PG rated.
Science shows like Beyond the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman...
Are art program also PG? And if so. Why? Makes no sense.

So it's actuallay some persons looking at porn and rate them at three levels.
Weird.

Huh? Beyond the Wormhole PG rated??

[edit]Children wouldn't understand everything but surely they can watch it without their parents?

Its true:(
Its not up to some weird politician moral and 'concern' for Children to rate anything. In Scandinavia at least its up to the parents to raise and prepare them for the real life.
To me the US rating system is like Russia and former DDR. Horrible.

I know that are many americans who also object to this.
There have been hearings in US Senate about rock lyrics.
Al Gore was one in the panel and he's a fan of FZ Music:)
Frank Zappa where asked by some stupid woman in the panel about his childrens toys:(
"Your welcome to see them at my house" He said.
At the same hearing John Denver(!) addressed the same thing.
And Dee Snyder:)
Opressing of ART!

But showing extreme voilence is OK in the US:(

It didn't used to be 'OK'.

A movie, "A Clockwork Orange (1971)" was released initially in the USA with an 'X' rating.

Yes, there was some amount of nudity/sex in it, but nothing that really crossed the line into 'Porn'.

It got the 'X' rating primarily due to rather (for the time) extreme violence.

The PG rating on 'Through the Wormhole' isn't all that surprising.

Most *CHILDREN'S* cartoon movies nowadays get a PG rating.

The rating system in the USA *IS* messed up, and the distinctions between the various ratings are quite... fluid.

I remember a live-action Disney movie (with a PG rating) that had full-frontal female nudity in it. "Dragonslayer (1981)"

Yep, ALL messed up.

As to what is are, and what isn't...

I am sorry, but I must disagree with Мишель and agree with Wiggo.

Wiggo wrote:

Art, like beauty, is only in the eye of the beholder.

If you think that something is Art, then to you it *IS* Art.

It is a personal decision that affects only yourself.

Sometimes Art is something that someone finds aesthetically pleasing.

Other times Art is something that causes you to examine yourself and your prides and prejudices.

After all, (mods, please forgive the language, but it is the title of the work) consider the photograph titled 'Piss Christ' by Andres Serrano (1987).

To some, it is high art. To others, it is deeply offensive and they want it to be banned and the artist punished.



Now on to the subject of the thread. That... big rock.

I would be inclined to say that I would personally decide the entire installation was 'Art', though maybe not the rock by itself.
What it 'says' to me is that it is a metaphor of the human condition. Namely, a somewhat precarious existence at the boundary between the Natural and the Artificial.

But then what do I know... I am, after all, from a State that has quite the uncultured reputation in the USA, which has quite the reputation of being a bunch of Philistines in the minds of the rest of the world.

YMMV, SSFD.

In closing, I leave you with a piece of Art, describing Art and Art Critics.

Warning, slightly rude. May not be SFW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_v_ubcYsTI

I was wandering around London Docklands this week and came across this
IMAGE
It is at the bottom of Cubitt Steps, Middle Dock.
Called "Two men on a bench" by Glies Penny
Here is a closer view from the other side.
IMAGE
The question, is it art?

Yes, it is art.
Reason: with one look you can clearly see what it represents.
It doesn't make you think "what the heck is that supposed to be?"
Instead one can appreciate the skills of the artist in portraying the scene.
In other words, as i said in an earlier post, it needs no explanation.

Sounds like a good definition of Art.
Something you like but cannot explain why.

I was wandering around London Docklands this week and came across this

IMAGE

It is at the bottom of Cubitt Steps, Middle Dock.

Called "Two men on a bench" by Glies Penny

Here is a closer view from the other side.

IMAGE

The question, is it art?

Yes, it is art.

Reason: with one look you can clearly see what it represents.
It doesn't make you think "what the heck is that supposed to be?"
Instead one can appreciate the skills of the artist in portraying the scene.
In other words, as i said in an earlier post, it needs no explanation.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

I was wandering around London Docklands this week and came across this
It is at the bottom of Cubitt Steps, Middle Dock.
Called "Two men on a bench" by Glies Penny
Here is a closer view from the other side.

The question, is it art?

Of course its art. What else.
And I really like it.
I'm quite certain that most seeing this at least enjoy it for various of reasons.
And the statues works well with the surroundings.
Not like that rooster in Trafalgar Square!

And the new building in the back with archs on top of the windows.
Totally useless but nice to look at.
I give this 3 Kenta out of 5:)

I was wandering around London Docklands this week and came across this



It is at the bottom of Cubitt Steps, Middle Dock.

Called "Two men on a bench" by Glies Penny

Here is a closer view from the other side.



The question, is it art?

---

Sorry Julie . I know i fail'd English but that did not make cents to me at all . Is that what is called ART , sounded to me like the ravings of a mad man that could not think of one thing at a time but then i never did get poetry if that is what it is .

*wounded look* THAT is collaborative literature Glenn!! At its deepest and most profound!! AKA seti's very own story thread!
Good one Julie!! :))))))))))))) still giggling...
:)))))
edit: It is NOT the ravings of just ONE mad man... OR woman...

:))) Let the mad people unite!

A cover from an art Magazine:)

Sorry Julie . I know i fail'd English but that did not make cents to me at all . Is that what is called ART , sounded to me like the ravings of a mad man that could not think of one thing at a time but then i never did get poetry if that is what it is .

*wounded look* THAT is collaborative literature Glenn!! At its deepest and most profound!! AKA seti's very own story thread!

Good one Julie!! :))))))))))))) still giggling...

:)))))

edit: It is NOT the ravings of just ONE mad man... OR woman...

:))) Let the mad people unite!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

It's better for kids with dyslexia etc now than it used to be,

so true thank gowd.

---

Oh ok Anneit . I also did not understand Shakespear either till i saw the plays then i sort of understood it ....my grade for English was a big "F"

:))

edit :there a joke in itself a English man flunking English ....:))

It's better for kids with dyslexia etc now than it used to be, so the big F in my view, was for the inadequate teaching methods of the time.

You were right not to understand Shakespeare until you saw it though :) He wrote his plays to be performed not read, and in the contemporary English of the time, not some throwback to Neanderthalese :) The man would turn in his grave (and no doubt put himself in one over his comedies alone) if he knew what suffering would be inflicted on generations to come :)

Oh ok Anneit . I also did not understand Shakespear either till i saw the plays then i sort of understood it ....my grade for English was a big "F"

:))

edit :there a joke in itself a English man flunking English ....:))

---