Quote:
Originally posted by itchy93
I can't consider this art. It's in the same vein as those "uber-chic" musicians that pluck one note and let it ring, and say that "it captures the beauty-- nay, the very essence-- of life and blah blah blah". There is no definition for art, but it should convey a particular thought or emotion.
|
Again, I say of course it's art. Klein is a very famous artist. He was extremely successful and influential. The fact that you simply do not like this particular painting (one of his most famous) does not mean it's not art.
Quote:
|
Consider art as a language. If I were to open my mouth and go "gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa", you wouldn't say that I had just spoken English (or any language, to my knowledge). However, I state that this gutteral sound is representative of the collective sorrow of existence in this cold, cruel universe. Fine. But you still don't consider it a coherent communication.
|
I don't really see the analogy here. In fact what you've described above could (conceivably) be construed as an artistic action. You have used a
medium (in this case sound) to express an emotion.
What "emotions" do Pollacks work represent? What are they trying to communicate? They are certainly not pictures. But they are undoubtedly art.
Sometimes art is just something that is pretty.
Remember the first Impressionists were also lampooned as producing works that were not considered "art". But don't tell me that you now consider Monet, Degas, Renior, Pisssaro etc as not being great artists?
Mr Mephisto