this is a philisophical question. i've gone round and round with this, and it really really interests me. i dont think there is an answer.
if i pee in a glass and stick a crucifix in it, is that art? cause someone did and others said it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian
.......clipped
1) It has to be created
2) It has to make a statement
If it does meet those two criteria, it's art. Architecture, sculpture, music, theatre, these are all unambiguously art.
,,,,,.
|
shooting martin luther king and jfk was making a statement. were those shootings art? i am not being a wise ass or trying to prove you wrong, i am legitimately asking if they were art.
most people say art is something that causes emotion, affects us, makes us think, makes us feel, etc. "performance art" is art, right? setting fire to someone makes us think, causes emotion, and all that, and i always ask if setting fire to someone is art.
if the king/jfk shootings are NOT art, then why? because they are negative? if it causes emotion, makes a statement, etc, by those definitions, its art, regardless of the statement being negative or positive.
i think of the joker in the first batman movie (played by jack nicholson). to him, he was making art. to others, he was killing and maiming.
---------- Post added at 09:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ametc
Most art is mediocre and unoriginal. Very few artists have what it takes to be deep and thought provoking and subtle. I'm not saying I'm original.. I'm not. But, I know when others are.. and I've seen very few artists who are truly original. Not saying that I hate all unoriginal art. Just saying.. originality is hard.
|
why does it have to be deep and thought provoking?