Quote:
Originally Posted by squeeeb
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.
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 ----------
why does it have to be deep and thought provoking?
|
Your examples meet my Expression requirement but not necessarily the one of Intent. You'd have to ask the assassins to be sure but I assume their motivations were political (crudely speaking) or selfishly emotional. Political and Artistic expression can certainly be intertwined but not necessarily.
If I remember my high school Law class correctly, the question of what defines a Criminal Act comes down to two aspects: the first being the nature of the act itself and the second being intent. "Actus Reus" and "Mens Rea" respectively. It's a similar debate, no?.
As to "Who" determines art? To me that's moot except to public body funders. (Again, the debate about what Art is worth). If I create a work of Art in solitude and there is no audience, it's still art because I made it so. On the other hand if an audience discovers the psychotic scribblings of a long-dead lunatic (not art by my definition) and then puts it on a wall at a gallery and tries to curate meaning (or an aesthetic) from it, then it becomes Art (and yet doesn't make the original creator an artist).
So the authority for defining art can go to both sides, thus cancelling out the question.
Art doesn't have to be deep or through provking. See the "Art for Art's Sake" movement.