Quote:
Originally posted by phaedrus
The only art involved with that work of "art" was the con job by the "artist" in convincing the art community that pice of blue was art. It is lame, boring, meaningless, etc....
|
Have you read the entire thread?
If you have, and you still think Klein's work is a "con", let me ask you the following questions.
Do you consider this to be art?
Marcel Duchamp.
Fresh Widow. 1920. Miniature window: wood painted blue and eight rectangles of polished leather. 77.5 x 45 cm on a wooden board, 1.9 x 63.3 x 10.2 cm. The Museum of Modern Arts, New York, NY, USA.
What about this?
Jackson Pollack.
Cathedral. 1947: Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Perhaps you also consider this a con?
Pablo Picasso.
Still life with a pidgeon. 1941. Oil on canvas.
Not sure of collection
The whole point here is that should be considered in its
context, not simply the paint on the canvas. If that were not the case, artists like Pollack, Picasso, Mastisse, Kandinski, Milo etc would be thought of as simple "scribblers".
One has to consider what the artist is trying to say, what they want to communicate, the medium in which they work etc.
Some art may not appeal. Indeed, I don't like a lot of modern art myself (Damien Hirst is a good example), but that doesn't mean the artist is a con-man.
I don't suppose I will convince you though. :-)
Mr Mephisto