Art today

[Dan1089]

I went to a Takashi Murakami exhibition today (mind you,I'd never heard of him prior) and as very interesting as it was,I just "didn't get it".Sure it was colourful,unusual etc but I dont understand why people would spend a fortune on that.While I listened to my friend saying things like "Its a revolutionary piece that draws its superficial roots from the late 90s sexual paradox" (wtf?),I just thought "Hmmm,thats a cute bunny".Is it because I am perhaps uncultured and therefore cannot appreciate artists like Takashi who are more likely to use Microsoft's paint brush instead of an actual paint brush?I might be showing extreme prejudice here but I like my art very conventional.

[yar]

WOW is all I can say just Goggled him Love his cartoonish way of painting the colors are outstanding. I envy you Dan.

[fredv3b]

Art is now whatever the artist considers to be art, hence you can now find almost anything called art. In the past art was much more constrained, Michaelangelo was commissioned to paint biblical scenes on the walls of the Sistine Chapel. He wasn't asked to produce 'some art'.

[fjp999]

I went to a Takashi Murakami exhibition today (mind you,I'd never heard of him prior) and as very interesting as it was,I just "didn't get it".Sure it was colourful,unusual etc but I dont understand why people would spend a fortune on that.While I listened to my friend saying things like "Its a revolutionary piece that draws its superficial roots from the late 90s sexual paradox" (wtf?),I just thought "Hmmm,thats a cute bunny".Is it because I am perhaps uncultured and therefore cannot appreciate artists like Takashi who are more likely to use Microsoft's paint brush instead of an actual paint brush?I might be showing extreme prejudice here but I like my art very conventional.

[COLOR="Purple"]Glad you finally appreciating cute bunnies Dan...

Art Appreciation and, I guess, Classification is very subjective.

Whenever any new format is created there is always a discussion as to it being art or NOT.

Often times someone will decide that something is art when even the person performing the act had no intention of what he was creating was A.R.T.

Take cave wall drawings... take film (movies)... take photography... If it didnt represent the human body as seen then it wasnt appreciated. Thank God that changed and we can enjoy a huge dicked Tom Of Finland. Some even consider Grandmas quilt to be art???

Not sure how long it took photography to be accepted as a possible art form and there are probably a few Neanderthals who cant accept the possibility...

Some consider car design art. I consider bicycle design art...

Would I spend a fortune on "that" Takashi A.R.T.? FUCK NO. I just want a decently priced Warhol Piss piece to masturbate over

Um, and did you actually say "wtf" to your friends description forcing him/her to explain that unusual description

and what do you define "very conventional" art to be?[/COLOR]

[sox-and-the-city]

Far as i'm concerned, it's only art when it says something about the human spirit. A three year old's picture of a house is thus not art, but michelangelo's David is. A video diary of a holiday in the balearics is not art, but a properly good film, like, say schindler's list, IS. And so on...

This means that much of what we consider to be modern art, like say, anything Andy Warhol did or Tracy Emin's entire life's work are not art.

Take the tent. I really can't see how she managed to spread 'my uncle's pal' all the way over a tent, but that's entirely beside the point. I could write the names of everyone i've ever kissed on a fridge-freezer unit and would that be art or just a horrifically incriminating record of how easy i can be sometimes?? There'd be lots of names like 'torn-shirt guy' and 'spartan mcfisticuffs' such where their actual names have been forgotten...

[fredv3b]

Far as i'm concerned, it's only art when it says something about the human spirit.

Is that when it says it to you, to the artist, to the critic or the general public?

[sox-and-the-city]

All except the artist?? Any combination of the others?? I guess to a degree it should be universal, if art is exclusive then isn't that defying the point a little??

[marshlander]

I'm having a little trouble with the notion of consensus that you seem to be implying, Sox. Are you really suggesting that an artist's output is only art if the viewer agrees?

Whilst individual works of art may well contain happy accidents, I would consider a degree of intention on the part of the artist should be present. The artist could be exploring a technique, a theme or an idea, but much art over the years has also provided a challenge to its creator's audience. Certainly over the past half century a number of works now regarded as "art" were once considered "merely" graphic design.

[sox-and-the-city]

Well, yeah. Just because an artist made it doesn't give it some magical tanscendent power or anything. Art really should say something. And i don't mean 'an exploration of the divisions of traditional ideas of gender and the ways in which our generation tries to circumvent the task of finding its own identity', or any other meaningless waffle.

I can rant about it for ages, but i'm holding back because i'm really really really judgemental when it comes to art...

[sweetlad86]

Fine Art is just fall of shit most of the time!!