A couple attending an art exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery were staring at a painting that had them completely confused. The painting depicted three black and totally naked men sitting on a park bench. Two of the figures had black penises, but the one in the middle had a pink penis.
The curator of the gallery realized that they were having trouble interpreting the painting and offered his assessment. He went on for nearly half an hour explaining how it depicted the sexual emasculation of African Americans in a predominately white, patriarchal society. In fact, he pointed out, "Some serious critics believe that the pink penis also reflects the cultural and sociological oppression experienced by gay men in contemporary society."
When the curator left, a Scottish man approached the couple and asked:
"Would you like to know what the painting is really about?"
"Now why would you claim to be more of an expert than the curator of the gallery?" asked the couple.
Because I'm the artist; I painted this picture," he replied. "In fact, there are no African Americans depicted at all. They're just three Scottish coal-miners. The guy in the middle went home for lunch."
Art is whatever you want it to be. Duchamp famously submitted a urinal and called it art. The world agreed, and now it's seen as a Dadaist masterpiece. What made it art was Duchamp deciding it would be. What made it great art was context. If your six year old daughter draws a flower and you hang it on the fridge, it can be rightfully considered art by even the most highly renowned art critics. It probably won't get good reviews. But that doesn't mean it's not art."Art" is a fluid, almost meaningless concept. If it's a concept at all. To ask if something is "art" makes little sense.
I refrained from calling my photography "art" for many years. At some point I realized that calling a photograph "art" was usually a way of distinguishing it from competent, I think that if a person wants to call his work "art" he ought to try to sell it. If it sells, it's art. Otherwise...
Art is not so much a concept as it is a definition. Read it. And calling something art only if it is commercially successful is ludicrous."Art" is a fluid, almost meaningless concept. If it's a concept at all. To ask if something is "art" makes little sense.
I refrained from calling my photography "art" for many years. At some point I realized that calling a photograph "art" was usually a way of distinguishing it from competent, I think that if a person wants to call his work "art" he ought to try to sell it. If it sells, it's art. Otherwise...
Art is not so much a concept as it is a definition. Read it. And calling something art only if it is commercially successful is ludicrous.
There are lots of good dictionaries. Take your pick. I think the Oxford dictionary is as good as any.Faber... if for you "art" is a "definition" that means you can define it. Please honor us with your definition.
it is art as soon as people's wallets say so.Is it Art and if it is, is it worth the money for the name or otherwise?
https://se.royalacademy.org.uk/artwork/Wolfgang-Tillmans-RA/67
That's true. It's actually quite difficult to lose out on the high end art market, unless you do something really stupid. There are teams of people whose full time job it is to know the location of each important work of art, the age and health of the owner, and the attitude of its inheritor to the work's disposal. Other collectors curate new artists, knowing their reputation as connoisseurs is currency. So if Saatchi buyers an unknown artist's work for £30k, it's unlikely to ever be worth less, and if promoted properly by informed critics is likely to be valued much, much higher as other collectors and galleries follow suit.Ultimately someone will buy a picture for 10 million dollars because it costs 10 million dollars.
There are lots of good dictionaries. Take your pick. I think the Oxford dictionary is as good as any.
"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."
It's hardly a dodge. The thing about definitions is that everyone doesn't get to make up their very own personal definitions of words. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to carry on conversations. So I don't have my own personal definition of art or music or tire or doorknob. If you have any question about whether a particular drawing or painting of Picasso's is art, refer to the definition. This isn't rocket science. Now, having determined something is art, deciding whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, or traditional or innovative, is a more involved exercise. There is an entire branch of philosophy - aesthetics - devoted to it. Most people conflate art with good art, and pronounce something they don't like or understand, or which does not sell, as not art. It is an example of muddled thinking. You can see it in many of the posts here.Faber, you dodged my question, deferring to Oxford. Using your definition, would you say everything Picasso drew or painted was "art" ?
He wanted something special and unique. Lots of art buyers enjoy supporting artists more than they enjoy the actual art they buy. And sometimes they just like participating in something interesting, even if that means buying something ridiculous. It's not any different from owning a Hasselblad or Leica. Or pretty much any kind of collector. Some people enjoy spending money on impractical things. It's their money. They earned it. It's their choice where to spend it.I'm currently printing for a somewhat demanding art gallery's B&W group exhibition (photos, drawings, paintings). For that gallery's convenience I'm accepting "artist" designation..
Not long ago an art photo collector and benefactor for many artists (sculpture, painting, photo) asked to buy a photo.. His shy, delicate, and elderly wife. I'm proud of it and happy he likes it, but I wouldn't reduce it to "art" and didn't accept money. This is a man who's bought his own 20X24 portrait.. a mediocre portrait, but the fact that that he paid to move and install that giant camera at his specified location seems more important than its "art." That fact is more important than the photo or its artistry.
Probably because his idea of art is a steroid pumped landscape or a portrait so heavily processed the subject looks like they were in a fire. Long experience of such people has taught me discussion of art is futile. He reckons he could "set up" a street photography "snap" without breaking sweat, and the rest of his opinions seem to be equally informed.I don't know why you have this negative attitude towards the art label.
The Jackson Pollock estate is going to be sad to hear that.To be called art, it should at the minimum have a good composition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?