What makes it Art?

[LLPunting]

One for the Art aficionados amongst us.

Male Gaze, male artist, prejudicial judgement about motivation, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Man takes and presents many photos of a (number of) vaginas and their owners in their nakedness...

Woman takes and presents many photos of a (number of) vaginas and their owners in their nakedness...

Without a artist's bio or a (BS) declaration of intent, if you were approaching an exhibition, what would you be looking for and mindful of when viewing the images?

[RandomGuy99]

The black and white ones must be the art ones.

[timsussex]

Fifty odd years ago the Newcastle city council unveiled a modern art piece outside the civic centre and the BBC local tv set up a camera and asked passers by what they thought of it

"whats it supposed to be?"
"what is it man?"

were some of the more printable comments but eventually they found someone who seemed to like it
"Ah think the man is a genius" - after all the negative comments the interviewer was astounded and asked what the guy liked about it
"Oh I hate it but anyone that can get paid thousands of pounds for that crap must be a F***ing genius"

[Marmalade]

There's a line of thought (not one I particularly subscribe to, but factual enough) that says Art is what is called Art.

If the photos are displayed in a reputable gallery exhibition they thereby 'become' art, even if they weren't before.

A way of justifying it is, that if people go to an art gallery they start thinking about "what it means", the arrangement of light and shade etc etc. That doesn't generally happen if some hoodie on a street corner shows you the photos in a brown paper bag.

On the 'male gaze' issue, this would be an accompanying agenda by a female artist. A male artist would probably have to work harder in today's environment. That 'agenda' also becomes part of the 'art'. So a dump truck, a toilet (duchamp) or anything can be art. Sometimes we are forced to agree.

[Marmalade]

Without a artist's bio or a (BS) declaration of intent, if you were approaching an exhibition, what would you be looking for and mindful of when viewing the images?

A titillating bit of cunt. 

[akauya]

Talking about vaginas and art, it's worth paying a visit to the Vagina Museum

External Link/Members Only

A friend of mine was raving about that place, I thought she was talking bollocks but I went and found it very interesting.

I also saw a one-woman play/comedy show called The Joyful Cult of Pussy Worship there, very funny.

[Marmalade]

Talking about vaginas and art, it's worth paying a visit to the Vagina Museum
A friend of mine was raving about that place, I thought she was talking bollocks but I went and found it very interesting.

Some of the exhibits are truly remarkable!! 

Hidden Image/Members Only

[akauya]

Some of the exhibits are truly remarkable!! 

Hidden Image/Members Only

Glad you enjoyed it too 

[myothernameis]

The black and white ones must be the art ones.

Used to go into Waterstones, and go the art section, but first look for the  porn section, there isn't one

Checking through the art books came across some Japanese art books, basically porn, and some of it hard core stuff, and not even censored or age restricted, as it was art

[RandomGuy99]

Used to go into Waterstones, and go the art section, but first look for the  porn section, there isn't one

Checking through the art books came across some Japanese art books, basically porn, and some of it hard core stuff, and not even censored or age restricted, as it was art

You should checkout the Metart and Femjoy 1001 books sold by Amazon.

[standardpostage]

I think, that the original artist's, were cavemen, who painted pictures on cave walls 

Today's artist's are like Banksy, who paints on building walls 

There's an artist who lives near me, he is a piss artist 

[Blackpool Rock]

Along with many others I tend to think a lot (probably most) modern art is total bollocks but not as much bollocks as these so called experts and art critics try to convince you that it's great and what it "Represents" 

Sometimes I can look at a piece of art and think it looks nice or good and appreciate that it required skill or talent to create however sometimes it just leaves me bewildered as to why 
I quite like Banksy and some street art that's interactive and gets people involved, love The Angel of the North though i've never actually seen it in person but I thought it was great when some NUFC fans hung a massive Shearer shirt on it 
IMO that's good art as it inspires people to get involved

I have no artistic talent whatsoever however this does allow me to judge this so called art against a good benchmark, basically if I think that I could have done it then it's crap and isn't art 

I love these hoaxers who put forward "Art" which was done by a chimp or a 5 year old but it gets critical acclaim from these "Experts", what a bunch of tossers 

External Link/Members Only

[catweazle]

Along with many others I tend to think a lot (probably most) modern art is total bollocks but not as much bollocks as these so called experts and art critics try to convince you that it's great and what it "Represents" 

My thinking exactly.  What is "artistic" about, say, Tracey Emin's unmade bed? She stumbles out of it, probably  hungover, and decides its "art".  Noooooooo it ain't, it's a con trick.

[Blackpool Rock]

My thinking exactly.  What is "artistic" about, say, Tracey Emin's unmade bed? She stumbles out of it, probably  hungover, and decides its "art".  Noooooooo it ain't, it's a con trick.

Exactly, what i've always said is that if I shit in a pint glass and claim it's art then I get told to fuck off whereas someone like Damien Hirst does it and suddenly people are all talking about it and paying stupid money to buy / exhibit, well shit 

[LLPunting]

Interesting that given the chance to discuss vaginas as art (or not art) most respondents would rather not talk about them, even though we spend so much money trying to get in them... 

[Blackpool Rock]

Interesting that given the chance to discuss vaginas as art (or not art) most respondents would rather not talk about them, even though we spend so much money trying to get in them... 

Reminds me of a joke I heard when I was at school with some blokes in a pub discussing who designed the vagina, the 1st bloke said it was designed by an artist due to the contrast and colours, 2nd bloke said it was an architect and the 3rd bloke thought it was an engineer.

The 4th guy sat and thought for a while before stating it was definitely Blackpool council because only they would put a pleasure park next to a shithole    

[Marmalade]

Interesting that given the chance to discuss vaginas as art (or not art) most respondents would rather not talk about them, even though we spend so much money trying to get in them... 

Unless we are talking about designer fannies (surgeon as an artist) it’s not vaginas but artistic representations of them. Plenty of ancient depictions of Venus or lookalike that have prominent vaginas but I think that might be a reflection of the fact that body parts weren’t deemed ‘obscene’ the way they often are today.

While anything “is” art as soon as an art curator / gallery owner sayeth “thou art a work of art”, that’s not something I necessarily agree with. There’s surely a difference between a mystical work of great beauty when Raphael paints the Three Graces who happen to be nude, and some artyfarty fanny photos that are sufficiently mainstream not to be classed as hardcore oozy gash. Isn’t there a line of thinking that artists generally lost the fucking plot a couple of centuries ago? Recycled Drivel and Commentary seems to replace Inspiring Acts of Genius.

[Marmalade]

I don’t think Banksy is a ‘great artist’: he just happens to be insightfully with where no-one else can, a smidgeon above the general mediocrity.

[Thephoenix]

Along with many others I tend to think a lot (probably most) modern art is total bollocks but not as much bollocks as these so called experts and art critics try to convince you that it's great

Many years ago a colleague of mine made a little extra money selling landscape paintings of the Australian outback.
The local Bank Of NSW were offering a prize of £A1.000 to budding amateur local artists to provide an art piece representing the pioneering spirit of the state of Western Australia.

He decided to have a go just for a laugh.
He wasn't a fan of modern art.
He went to the local scrap metal dealers and collected a random collection of bits and pieces, stuck them together with no particular plan or design and presented it as an entry.

I kid you not. He won first prize and the work was put on display in the bank foyer.

I can't recall the exact comments from the judges, but no doubt they described it as being imaginative , abstract, cathartic, profound and inspirational.

I met up with him on a recent trip back to meet with ex colleagues in W.A. and he said its still on display in the bank.

[akauya]

I don’t think Banksy is a ‘great artist’: he just happens to be insightfully with where no-one else can, a smidgeon above the general mediocrity.

Some may argue that's what makes him a "great artist."   

[catweazle]

. Isn’t there a line of thinking that artists generally lost the fucking plot a couple of centuries ago?

I would tend to agree.  Perhaps someone  can explain to me how  sticking lumps of elephant shit to a canvas  makes it "art" ? Or gaffer-taping a banana to a wall?

[Marmalade]

Some may argue that's what makes him a "great artist."   

Given that that is both witty and insightful would you say that makes you a great artist?

There are many lines of thought in what makes art, as I’ve agreed. I simply express my own view.

[Marmalade]

Too much art (and, with respect, I include Banksy) is simply rearrangement of existing material and brings nothing new to the world. Banksy’s contribution is by way of installation art, his anonymity, his ‘self-destructing’ auction piece. With Warhol, it was his outlook.

Hidden Image/Members Only

Or what about this? Is it art?
Officially, very much so…
Hidden Image/Members Only

[Colston36]

The first artist to take the piss led the way.

It's 103 years since Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal to an exhibition. The rules of the organisers meant they couldn't refuse it.

So that was the moment when art went mad.

[Colston36]

Some of the exhibits are truly remarkable!! 

Hidden Image/Members Only

Love it.

[akauya]

Given that that is both witty and insightful would you say that makes you a great artist?

Hardly, but I may have been described as a BS artist at some point in my life. Not sure if that counts.

There are many lines of thought in what makes art, as I’ve agreed. I simply express my own view.

Indeed. And I happen to share your opinion - although not 100%. I once went to the Tate Modern with an artist friend of mine where I happen to see External Link/Members Only. I was not impressed and was having a rant as to how the hell is a glass of water an oak tree? Contemporary art is bollocks, etc. etc.

My friend explained (and will paraphrase but probably not do justice to his explanation) on why the glass of water should/shouldn't be art. The way he explained is that there are various forms that art can be expressed: visually (paintings, written form e.g. books), aurally (music, singing), physical (dance,) etc. Not to mention theatre, film, that combines all or some of these. Traditionally and historically those are the main forms of human artistic expression. Whilst the whole traditional artistic human output is awesome. Some think this is somewhat restricting on ourselves if all that's we can ever achieve as sentient species. Therefore the conceptual art tries to transcendent all forms of human perception and senses. Some may call it art not only for your eyes or ears but also for your imagination.

Let's face it, the very fact that I was there talking about the bloody glass of water and trying to imagine it as a tree was firing angry neurons in my head and whether I liked the 'art' in front of me or not it had the desired effect that I was reacting to it and using my imagination to appreciate it (or not.)

We don't all have to like conceptual art, after all we don't all like ALL forms of art. I particularly love Salvador Dali's surrealist art - some people hate it. I happen to dislike Pollock's art whilst others rave about it.

Similarly some people like modern conceptual art and others don't. What I don't like is the pretentious twattery from some conceptual artists who think they are the dog's bollock simply because they 'created' some radical art thing. I do appreciate some conceptual art and I think it's an added bonus when it comes from non-twat artists who are trying to explore new forms of artistic expression, humbly and without the twattery.


edit: If I had been a contemporary of Dalí's I would probably have hated his guts too because he was a twat-extraordinaire but in a 'nice' way 

[Marmalade]

Hardly, but I may have been described as a BS artist at some point in my life. Not sure if that counts.

Indeed. And I happen to share your opinion - although not 100%. I once went to the Tate Modern with an artist friend of mine where I happen to see External Link/Members Only. I was not impressed and was having a rant as to how the hell is a glass of water an oak tree? Contemporary art is bollocks, etc. etc.

My friend explained (and will paraphrase but probably not do justice to his explanation) on why the glass of water should/shouldn't be art. The way he explained is that there are various forms that art can be expressed: visually (paintings, written form e.g. books), aurally (music, singing), physical (dance,) etc. Not to mention theatre, film, that combines all or some of these. Traditionally and historically those are the main forms of human artistic expression. Whilst the whole traditional artistic human output is awesome. Some think this is somewhat restricting on ourselves if all that's we can ever achieve as sentient species. Therefore the conceptual art tries to transcendent all forms of human perception and senses. Some may call it art not only for your eyes or ears but also for your imagination.

Let's face it, the very fact that I was there talking about the bloody glass of water and trying to imagine it as a tree was firing angry neurons in my head and whether I liked the 'art' in front of me or not it had the desired effect that I was reacting to it and using my imagination to appreciate it (or not.)

We don't all have to like conceptual art, after all we don't all like ALL forms of art. I particularly love Salvador Dali's surrealist art - some people hate it. I happen to dislike Pollock's art whilst others rave about it.

Similarly some people like modern conceptual art and others don't. What I don't like is the pretentious twattery from some conceptual artists who think they are the dog's bollock simply because they 'created' some radical art thing. I do appreciate some conceptual art and I think it's an added bonus when it comes from non-twat artists who are trying to explore new forms of artistic expression, humbly and without the twattery.


edit: If I had been a contemporary of Dalí's I would probably have hated his guts too because he was a twat-extraordinaire but in a 'nice' way 

You make a very good point, and I have had similar experiences when accompanied by a persons fully trained in art. One can find new windows into understanding and enjoying. Dali I also like and find slightly more self-evident.

I wonder however if this is a somewhat different quality. Picasso’s cubism is excellent when tutored, and most modern art installations or conceptual artworks can yield interesting discussion. I am wondering what the point is I’m maybe trying to make and how to express it.

I think in the area I’m particularly interested in there has to be an element of beauty. This is not always the same as the intellectual enjoyment experienced from discussing artworks with a knowledgeable person.

Rodin and Gaugin for instance express a beauty of the human form that goes beyond intellect. They project something of the essence-ial that allows one to perceive natural beauty with greater depth.

I don’t know if a metaphor will help or not. One can look at a woman who is technically ‘beautiful’ in a catwalk sense, perfect measurements, proportions, stature and near symmetry. There is a ‘beauty’ there that can be intellectually appreciated. Then one can look at a similar woman through the eyes of love. That second experience is so much deeper. This, I think, is akin to the eye of the artist such as Rodin and Gaugin. As for Picasso, we all know a) that he was a genius, and b) that he was a pure cunt. One doubts if in his whole life he ever truly loved anyone.