Quote:
Originally posted by phaedrus
So I look at that piece of blue. And I ask my self is it art on its own merits? I answer, no, it is just blue, a color test at best.
|
A particulary vibrant and ultra-marine. One that took years to develop and was considered so unique that a patend was granted.
Quote:
|
Is it art based on the context of the time? No. It was not revolutionary. It was not that original.
|
I would contest both of these statements. It
was revoluntionary. The movement itself was revolutionary.
Quote:
|
Perhaps the artist was trying to challenge our notion of art.
|
EXACTLY! I refer you to the web-pages I mentioned above. I even quoted the artist himself.
Quote:
|
Perhaps he was protesting war. Who knows, it could mean anything because it says nothing. We want it to have meaning, but it says nothing.
|
Perhaps to you. But it does "talk" to me. I like it. I don't think it's a masterpiece, but I appreciate it. I like the colour (which our monitors do not do credit). I like the "concept".
Quote:
|
So we can accept what the critic or artist say it means or we can stubbornly insist is means nothing because it says nothing. I am stubborn. It means nothing, it says nothing. It is neither pretty nor did it require great skill to make. It is a fraud.
|
Well, I don't mean to be unnecessarily argumentative, but you're actually wrong. It took significant time and effort to create. It
does say something - challenging contemporaeous attitudes toward art, colour and content - and it did require skill.
Quote:
Of course, art is always subjective. To me it is a fraud, to that museum's curator, it is art.
...
Nor will I convince you.
|
:-) Indeed.
Actually, I can understand your position. It's just that I disagree. But I enjoy the debate none the less! \
Mr Mephisto