Originally posted by: dparker
Originally posted by: MachFive
How so, because not everyone shares your opinion on the matter?
No, because I'll bet you a quarterburger that if you took that website to your teacher and told him that there's not a fiber in your that considers that art, he'd smack you upside the head with a Dali reprint.
Art is prone to being poorly defined, I'll give it that. But aside from "sculptures" that consist of a hobo's backyard filled with trashbags or a steaming pile of feces, I've got a loose definition of art.
That painting, that's like 50 inches by 30 inches, and has a 1 inch red dot in the middle? I may f*cking hate the sh!t out of it, but I still think it's art.
Ever hear of "Broadway Boogywoogy"? People at the time bashed that for being a poor excuse for art, but ask any art critic/teacher today if it was art, and they'd tell you it was.
Yes, art can mean many things. But this guy's work isn't ANYWHERE near the Thin Red Line between art and bullsh!t.
That's your opinion and the beauty of it. We could go at it all night arguing about it's artistic merit and we won't get anywhere. Hell, I don't think we could even define the term art. If you like it, that's great. I don't. Does that make me ignorant or uncultured? Like I've said earlier, the man does has some skill with the brush, but I just think his subject matter somewhat lacks in the creativity department. The subject matter has been done before a million times over, and to me it seems like he just sat down and thought "What can I do to incorporate blood into this picture..." Hell, the title of the set "Blood" set off all sorts of cheese alarms even before I looked at the pics.
It doesn't matter though, because I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. While I personally do not care for the work, I do not think that you are ignorant because you do.
I'm arguing because while you admit that your opinion of the work and mine differ, you still continue to say it's not art. This is an argument that can be won, because it's either art or it isn't.
When I wake up, I look forward to continuing. I'm going to go to bed in a moment, but first, I need to get something off my chest.
<rant>
By the way, just so you know, I laugh at the people who are going to school to "become artists."
That's the biggest pile of horsesh!t that thousands of people have been duped into believing.
YES: You can go to school to learn art history. Certainly.
But you cannot LEARN to appreciate, nor can you learn to create, ART. Art is not something that can be taught. Just like poetry cannot be taught. Just like the way to become a good writer cannot be taught. And just like being a good musician CANNOT BE TAUGHT.
You can learn to use techniques, you can learn the styles, you can learn the history - But you cannot LEARN how to make it. You have to discover that on your own. And you cannot learn how to enjoy it - That too has to come to you on your own time and dime.
I loved the movie "Dead Poet's Society" because there was a great moment in it - When all those students tore out that page in their textbooks which detailed how to "rate" a poem.
That's bullsh!t. You can't rate a poem on a scale of 1 to 10, or 1 to 100, or anything. You can only look at a poem and see if it evokes something in you, see if it effects you.
If that poem has NO effect whatsoever - that does not mean it isn't a poem.
It means you didn't like that poem.
I hate ee cummings, but that doesn't mean it isn't a poem.
I hate the new Metallica, but that doesn't mean it isn't music.
I hate Harry Potter, but that doesn't mean it isn't a novel.
I hate abstract art, but that doesn't mean it isn't art.
Do you get the drift?
</rant>