Are they trying to see if there's something there that's not immediately obvious? Are they curious whether it's actually painted or printed, which they might be able to tell from the surface of the canvas? Are they thinking about the process by which this piece was made, or are they curious about WHY somebody would make a piece like this? Is it making them think in ways they wouldn't have thought before they saw this piece?
Then it's just a case of art doing its job, and if someone doesn't enjoy seeing curiosity awakened in people, they should probably stay the hell away from art museums.
@Crisssy101, 'hate' is a strong word, but it loses currency if employed indiscriminately. Witness the utter meaningless of 'awesome,' for example.
As for art, art is a matter of context and perspective. Anything can be art, but that doesn't automatically make everything art. And since one person's art can be made out of another person's trash heap, it is unlikely you will ever reach a circumstance where everything is art (at the same time).
See, to me, that black thing reminds me of the monolith from 2001, which is a movie I considered a work of art, and because of the connections I've made in my mind, I can see the art of a plain black canvas in that shape. (This may have nothing to do with the intentions of the artist.) I would also, however, have an almost overwhelming urge to parody the apes from 2001 if I were there, though.
And another thing ... I think that for some artists, the people who look at the art and react to it make up part of the artwork. If art is meant to evoke a reaction, then part of the 'performance' of the artwork is being able to observe others reacting to it. So art certainly doesn't exist in a vacuum, but art has 'done its job' by provoking a reaction in you as you respond to the way others are responding to the piece.
@johnr :) But going by that logic why couldn't I declare this MLKSHK picture art? My artwork has certainly provoked a reaction in you and the others here. If we can remove any actual talent or skill from whatever working definition of ART we choose (which I am ecstatic to hear BTW)... this HAS to be art too.
I don't agree. I think art does take skill and talent. I think art is deliberate and any personal connections an audience forms from it, intentional. I think Art is not all inclusive. And I think the day I can be considered an artist is the day the terrorist have truly won.
@Crisssy101, I think you could declare that MLKSHK picture art if you so chose--what else is it but something to be looked at and possibly thought about? Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the be(er)holder. I'm reminded of the artists (and perhaps I use the term loosely) who make art by pressing their painted genitals onto the canvas, or squirt paint at the canvas out of their butts. People do that, and apparently get space in museums, or at least press attention (because I would have not heard about it otherwise). Some people call it art ...
I suppose I could talk all day about what is and isn't art. I'm given to having a kind of loose definition because I think creativity can be expressed in a variety of ways, not all of which necessarily require skill or talent. Certainly many moms would argue the point that their kids' refrigerator decorations are 'art' to them, and the indifferent observer would be hard put to say any talent was evident in the same efforts.
My experience with creating art is that it is usually deliberate, but what the artist intended and what the audience takes away can often be separated by a humongous divide. I have written short stories for a creative writing class that people found all sorts of symbology in that I never consciously intended when I was writing.
You probably are more artistic than you give yourself credit for, and for chrissakes, look around you, the terrorists already have won. :-)
There so many great artists that do not create art expecting an audience to react with a particular intention in mind. If they did that, they'd be marketers or propagandists. This is why when asked what a lyric means, most good musicians say that they don't want to say and that it is up the listener.
Then it's just a case of art doing its job, and if someone doesn't enjoy seeing curiosity awakened in people, they should probably stay the hell away from art museums.
:p
As for art, art is a matter of context and perspective. Anything can be art, but that doesn't automatically make everything art. And since one person's art can be made out of another person's trash heap, it is unlikely you will ever reach a circumstance where everything is art (at the same time).
See, to me, that black thing reminds me of the monolith from 2001, which is a movie I considered a work of art, and because of the connections I've made in my mind, I can see the art of a plain black canvas in that shape. (This may have nothing to do with the intentions of the artist.) I would also, however, have an almost overwhelming urge to parody the apes from 2001 if I were there, though.
I don't agree. I think art does take skill and talent. I think art is deliberate and any personal connections an audience forms from it, intentional. I think Art is not all inclusive. And I think the day I can be considered an artist is the day the terrorist have truly won.
Oh wait they don't.
So we will have to hear this discussion for fucking ever.
I suppose I could talk all day about what is and isn't art. I'm given to having a kind of loose definition because I think creativity can be expressed in a variety of ways, not all of which necessarily require skill or talent. Certainly many moms would argue the point that their kids' refrigerator decorations are 'art' to them, and the indifferent observer would be hard put to say any talent was evident in the same efforts.
My experience with creating art is that it is usually deliberate, but what the artist intended and what the audience takes away can often be separated by a humongous divide. I have written short stories for a creative writing class that people found all sorts of symbology in that I never consciously intended when I was writing.
You probably are more artistic than you give yourself credit for, and for chrissakes, look around you, the terrorists already have won. :-)
Also, art can be dumb. Doesn't make it