Tiger69z

Hehe i have to insert this in here

"The young fool sees a tree, the wise old man sees something else"

I believe it was blake who said this, i might've quote this wrong.

Eitherway i believe that you guys can relate this to the piece of art. Just my .02 cents

empu

The question answers itself. It is art, and brilliant. It forces you to face that very question: Is it art? By the time you've determined that it is, without a doubt, not art, it has already won.

taliendo

I think the first time I saw a blue square called "art" was when my six year old cousin came home from first grade. I obviously don't view this as a very artistic work.

__________________
-LIFE IS ABSURD-

lordjeebus

Allow me to rephrase.

It takes balls to, having developed the technical skills as an artist to paint pretty much whatever is in your mind, and having established oneself as an artist, to set aside one's skills and reputation and make a blue square and take it seriously as art.

itchy93

But it wasn't intended to be construed as an artistic action. It was intended to be (in context of the analogy) a linguistic communication. I guess I could consider "Monochrome Bleu" to be an artistic expression, but it doesn't fit my definition of art.

Again, my definition is my definition; it's the same way that I've conditioned myself to (almost) never say anything directly negative about something. To me, this world is subjective, so I make sure that I am defining my opinions rather than trying to define the object... uh... objectively. I didn't say it's not art, I said I don't consider it to be art.

Agreed. But I just don't happen to find any clear thought or emotion conveyed in this particular piece, nor do I find it particularly pretty. I think that even "pretty art" communicates an thought: admiration for the "pretty" subject. So while I suppose Klein could've found this color to be pretty, it's not something that is relayed to the audience very well. And judging from most people's interpretations, I'd say that wasn't his intent, either.

Itchy93

__________________
That's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

Mephisto2

I still don't understand how you can say this.

Again, you cannot seriously say Yves Klein's work is not art. It's in some of the world's best and most prestigious gallerys. His work is collected and bought all over the globe.

You can say, however, that you don't find it very interesting, inspiring, pretty etc. You can obviously state that it "doesn't do it" for you. But it's wrong to say it's not art.


Most people? To whom are you referring? If it's the people who have posted to this thread, then I submit to you that this does not reflect a fair and true representation of the 'art world' or indeed 'public opinion.'

In fact, "most people" do in fact love his work. Otherwise it would not be in the galleries or being bought for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also, his work is similiar in concept to many other artists, several of whom I referred to above. Milo, Mondrian, Malevich etc. Alliteration aside, there are plenty of others who paint just 'coloured squares.'

I have found this to be a very interesting thread. I think I may even start a "Painting of the week" post for the future! My "Poem of the week" thread didn't seem to whip up the interest I had hoped. And I can't keep posting to the TB all the time... heh



Mr Mephisto

aa1037

I agree. "Art" and "work of art" are two entirely different things. In order for something to be a work of art it must have required work. The artist of the uninspired blue rectange conned whoever bought that blank canvas. The new wave of modern art is terrible - twisted coat hangers and random sh*t being glued together. I could give my little cousin some glue and wood, claim I made this "art" and make money. Jeez, I guess being a dilettante is in style.

Mephisto2

Not true.

As I said in earlier posts, it took Yven Klein years to reach his "blue period" and his work actually resulted in a unique colour; one that was successfully patented.

It absolutely is art.

As much as Jackson Pollack's "paint dribbles."
As much as Basquiat's "scribblings."
As much as Lichtenstein's "comics"
As much as Reinhardt's "black squares"

In this example, it could be described as "minimalism", a well regarded sub-genre in modern art.

Just because you don't like it, or are unfamiliar with the artist, doesn't mean it isn't art. And it certainly doesn't mean the work took little or no effort.



Just my 2c's worth.


Mr Mephisto

Jam

I was too... waited a while.. wondered what was up since i have broadband,

anyways, if that is art, then you will be amazed at what happens when windows crashes...

Phaenx

I like artists who have talent myself. I saw a painting in Vegas of a saint or something and almost dropped a load. "Holy crap, someone painted that?" I said intelligently to the foppish fellow next to me.

It looked real, super cool.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Fearless_Hyena

Very well said, I'd have to agree with Peetster completely. The only art I can see in that, is that it provokes a discussion,
(including this discussion!!) about whether this is artistic or not.

In fact, that's a kind of art in itself!!! To make you ponder about the artistic quality of something... it's an art to create something that generates that kind of response. Maybe that's what some people see in it....

ARTelevision

Interesting discussion...

Unless you are a real absolutist and think there is or should be a final answer on something like this, you can accept the idea that there are several ways to answer a question that seems as simple as this one.

There is an academic tradition that defines art by virtue of a cannonical affiliation to its methods of interpreting art history and esthetics (or aesthetics if you prefer that spelling).
Klein’s work is a well-known and respected part of that cannon – pretty much for the reasons given here by Mr Mephisto.

Apparently many, if not most, of the people responding don’t accept this explanation of things artistic. That’s because the academic tradition of art galleries, museums, art critics, and the modern and contemporary artists who mine that vein haven’t been particularly successful at involving the majority of the population in their version of “art.”

So if the professionals who are entrusted by culture to make the official calls on questions like this aren’t accepted as authoritative, then we’re pretty much left with subjective calls. That’s pretty much how discussions of this sort evolve/devolve (take your pick).

I’d be careful, though, when looking to pin things down to a simple definition. That’s often the problem in life and especially in philosophy (esthetics is a branch of philosophy). When the question boils down to whether something vast and complex, manifold and diverse - something that is part of many people’s widely varying experience - can be nailed down by a single word or definition, we’re getting very close to pure semantics.

For the most part, art is what individual artists choose to call it and what various audiences and individuals are willing to accept as art. This will satisfy the subjectivists and relativists among us. It won’t do much for those who require absolute certainty in things.

__________________
create evolution

Tophat665

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Tophat665

The above post intentionally blank, mostly to go <b>atsteve</b>'s brilliant questioning of what makes a post one better.

Of course it's not Art. It doesn't have the snazzy cowboy hat, nor the two beautiful ladies.

So far as absolutism goes, I think <b>peetster</b> is absolutely right: of course it's art, but it's wretchedly bad art. Pollack and Basquiat and Rothko and Reinhardt and Klein and Warhol are certainly artists, but as professional artists, I am inclined to think of them as frauds.

Unsurprisingly, I also have to agree with what <b>Art</b> has to say about it. The problem with not having an absolute definition what is and is not art on the one hand and, within art, what constitutes very good and very bad, is that I think a fair percentage of the country would agree that a civilization which supports art is thereby improved (Sorry about the construction of that, my girls just woke up, and I get to think in three word chunks now until the end of the day). So there needs to be some way to determine what deserves support, since I would argue that it is better to support no art at all than to support a great deal of bad art.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

itchy93

Again, Mr Mephisto, it's a matter of subjectivity. Klein's IKB-79 looks more green to me than blue. You could tell me I'm wrong, and that it is, in fact, blue, but that wouldn't change my perception of it, nor would it make it wrong for me to say that, to me, it appears green. Same goes for the artwork itself; I don't perceive it to be art, but that's not to say that I deny the fact that it is.

Sorry to use so many analogies, but I can't think of a better way to express my perspective.

And I don't really feel like arguing this anymore, so if you say it's art, then damnit, it must be art

Itchy93

__________________
That's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

Mephisto2

Hey itchy,

We're not arguing! I was in fact enjoying the debate.

Trust me when I say that when you see the actual picture in question, or any of the others painted in IKB79, you will definintely notice it's of the most vivid and intense ultra-marine. Your PC/laptop monitor does not do it justice.

Like I said earlier, I liked this thread. I'm tempted to post another picture later and see what kind of debated it engenders. Not whether it's art or not (I think we've done that to death), but wheater individual posters like it.

Mr Mephisto

skier

Perhaps it is not art at all, but when viewed through a specific chromatic filter it contains a secret message to al-queada operatives in London who are as we speak preparing to detonate a high-yeild explosive next to buckingham palace.
At least, that's the most plausible solution i can think of for this man's desire to portray a large painted blue square.

__________________
"Asking a bomb squad if an old bomb is still "real" is not the best thing to do if you want to save it." - denim

Sledge

Not that there's much to be added, but I feel like I've learned a lot just from reading this post, in no small part thanks to lordjeebus and Mephisto. Go you!

Holo

Personally I think art can only be called such when talent is obvious. I can barely draw a stickman so If I can easily duplicate a piece I don't consider it art. Much of modern art is a smokescreen for talentless hacks who don't want to work at Mcdonald's such as Mr. Klein.

__________________
I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince

bijou

I see it as art in that it appeals to me, and that is my definition of art. It makes me think. Taken out of context, it is just a blue square, you have to see several of the artist's pieces to appreciate it, it seems to me. It is most definately art, and very enjoyable and playful, I think; especially when viewed with the knowledge of the blue woman on the canvas.

I agree, it takes absolute balls to create this and call it art - would you prefer the artist paint vases of flowers in different colors to match the decor of the person buying the painting? You would call this person who whores his art to appeal to as many people as possible an artist, but not Klein, who stays true to his vision and is recognized because of it.

I live in Houston and the Museum of Fine Art here commissioned a site installation by James Turrell called The Light Inside to connect two of its buildings. It is a tunnel with neon lights and to just stand inside it and listen to the comments of people going through is wonderous. Do they recognize that this tunnel is art? No, most don't until they are told. But it is. It is made to make you think of art as something different. And it succeeds, as does Klein.

Mephisto2

I hope that this was a simple troll attempt.... :-)

Mr Klein doesn't want to work at McDonalds?! That comment would be funny, if it weren't so alarming. For the record, he could probably buy several McDonald's restaurants himself, were he alive today to sell his works personally.

One should also not be so quick as to consider Klein's work in monochrome blue (IKE) in a vacuum. Take his "fire paintings" for example.




I advise you, with all due respect, to actually familiarize yourself with an artist before making sweeping generalizations about him and his work.

You could start here:
http://www.immoralist.org.uk/klein/klein1.htm
http://www.yvesklein.net/
http://www.centrepompidou.fr/educati...Yves_Klein.htm
http://www.artycity.com/biography/YVES-KLEIN.htm


Mr Mephisto

Esen

Life is art

so anything in it, would be considered art.
BTW was it Andie warhol who said life is art?
or was it does life imitate art or does art imitate life.,
bah now im all confused

__________________
~Esen
What is everyone doing in my room?

SirGoreaxe

Ok I have been patient to read this thread in its entirty, but my definition of art to me hasn't much changed. If I can go out get a bunch of canvas, some paint, and a video game. Go over to Gakfaces house and play the video game. After each round, weather loosing horribly(like most of the time) or after winning the game, I mix up some of the paints together then randomly throw it or put it on the canvas with the emotion I am experiencing at that time. Does that mean I can then take it to an art gallery, after spending 4 years dedicated to naming them, and sell them for hundreds of thousands of dollars?

To me that isn't art even thoe I tried to make it art.

__________________
(;þ "You can't change what has happened, but you can make the best of it, and make better decisions from the past." (Unless there is a quick edit button.)

jaker

wow, thanks for all these replies! one question i have - after seeing some people's take on art, me taking a shit could be a masterpiece. everything is art, in its own way.

ARTelevision

Mr Mephisto, your enthusiasm for the cannonical academic and high-culture tradition of modern and contemporary art is noteworthy, but it is apparent it is not compelling.

My previous paragraph:
-quote:

Apparently many, if not most, of the people responding don’t accept this explanation of things artistic. That’s because the academic tradition of art galleries, museums, art critics, and the modern and contemporary artists who mine that vein haven’t been particularly successful at involving the majority of the population in their version of “art.”

-end quote

…is intended as a condemnation of the elitist and, in my opinion, irrelevant arguments you have been proffering here. It tends to push this thread toward having the overall feel of a high-brow browbeating and it does invite flaming. I commend the other posters for not turning it into a flame-fest.

Any art which fails to engage viewers and audiences is a failed art. The artistic expressions which you are instistent upon foisting upon us here are some of the consumate failures of Modernism.

You are veering toward accusatory remarks – the implication being the audience for these works is somehow at fault for having zero appreciation of them. The simple fact is that it is the artists who have failed their audience. They have committed the sin of hubris and sold out their connection to their audience to the highest bidder. This art is elitist. It’s no wonder that most people abhor it.

__________________
create evolution

ubertuber

I am relieved to see someone saying this. I believe that the expressive burden is incumbent on the artist, not the audience. There was actually a long period in modern musical history (1940-1970, approx) during which "audience alienation" was almost a badge of pride. Works from this period are so cerebral that any artistic value that may be present can only be decoded by study and LOOKING at a score. This has bothered me because I feel that in music, if you can't hear it, it isn't there. Anyway, we are still recovering from the damage (or maybe we are still dying slowly) caused by this period of arrogance on the part of composers (and performers who didn't stand up for audiences). I do believe that art can exist for art's sake, but the consequences can be severe if the artist isn't willing to meet the audience at least halfway. One result in modern art and modern music is that the non-expert viewer/audience always has a sneaking suspicion that they are being "put on" by the artist and there is nothing there, in fact, to be seen. This is indicative of a breach of trust that may not be able to be healed.

I have brought this up to illustrate a little artistic context - the visual and performing arts often mirror each other in stylistic approaches and challenges. I am wondering if the art world is seeing the sort of fallout that musicians are.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Holo

ok I went to all those link and looked at the pics of his work, and I guess I just don't like his work. I'm no learned art critic, just someone who appreciates talent(read:effort in creation) in art. I wouldn't compare Marilyn Manson to Beethoven, tho I enjoy both, or Yves Klein to Rembrandt. They are both on totally different sides of the same field, in talent and style. Even Dali makes more sense to me than this guy's work. He's almost as bad as Andres Serrano, who jerks off in cow blood and mixes it and then throws it on glass and calls it art.

If can duplicate it with my complete lack of artisitc talent it is not art. I can't shoot a mountain like Ansel Adams or paint a courtyard like Monet, but I can set canvases on fire and paint canvases white. Shit, I painted my kid's room 3 more colors than that and even did a scallop design as a border...am I an artist then? No, just a guy with a brush and some paint who isn't pretentious enough to call it art.

from the last site in your linkage:

In 1958, Klein created a stir in Paris by exhibiting an empty gallery painted white, entitled ‘Le Vide’, The Void.

In my world this is called a gimmick, not art. I'd be fired for bringing an empty stack of papers as my report that was due that day. Art is work when you expect it to feed you, and this to me does not warrant a paycheck. Just my opinion, and I know I differ from others. If you like it, that's more impotant than my opinion anyway.

__________________
I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince

jaker

that sounds suprisingly beautiful

lordjeebus

I think that's the kind of art that is stupendously great if you're the first to come up with doing it. Seriously -- how many people would think of doing this? And I think that, as jaker suggested, it would be aesthetically beautiful also. Some people create a stir politically with their art -- Klein created a stir in his own art community.

If you're not the first, you're just wasting people's time and gallery space. I think we can agree on this.

ARTelevision

Yeah, personally, I can appreciate this stuff too, by the way.
I just wouldn't attempt to convince anyone of its intrinsic value.
To tell you the truth, I wouldn't attempt to convince anyone of anything.

__________________
create evolution

Willy

I just just came up with my metric for determining whether or not something is art. If it is something that I, a non-artist, could duplicate in less than 10 minutes using some masking tape and a roller, it's not art.

By this metric, a blue square doesn't qualify.

Mephisto2

Firstly, I'm a little shocked at the implication I was flaming anyone. Or that my posts invited flaming from others.

At all times in this thread I have tried to be courteous. I can't see where I have not. Indeed, I have specifically mentioned how much I was enjoying the lively debate.

In essence my argument has consistently been that it not really a justifiable statement or argument to simply say "that's not art". Especially when debating one of the world's most famous minimalists and one whose work is exhibited all around the globe. Of course it's art.

One may not like it.
One may not "appreciate" it (with no projorative implication).
One may consider it rubbish.

But I think it's a bit pompous (to be honest) for someone to say "that's not art" or "that took no effort".

That's all. My opinion. And one which I debated courteously.

How is that flaming?

I'm insulted by your contention.

And Klein's work patently does engage its audience. Myself included. And, I maintain, everyone here. As it has certainly engaged a lively debate.

I have implied nothing. You simply said "most people" when referring to this thread. I replied that, in my opinion, that was an unsafe statement.

I have accused no one of anything. I am a fan of art. I like Klein's work. Am I at fault for trying to convince others of the intrinsic beauty I see in it?

To help me try others to see it like this,

- I have specifically gone out of my way to quote the artist.
- I have recommended books on the subject, and linked to the relevant Amazon pages
- I have referred to other artists who also suffered public scorn at times, to support my argument.
- I have included direct links to several of the world's most famous artists.

I did all this in an attempt to be helpful, to show others why I feel like I do.

And you now accuse me of being arrogant, flame-baiting and elitist?

Actually, not only am I insulted but I'm also disappointed. I would have expected more from you, judging from your other posts in different threads.

I have now quite simply lost all interest in this thread or debate. If by trying to "proselytize" my love of art to others is welcomed with accusations of flame-baiting and elitism etc, then it's not worth the effort.

Mr Mephisto

ARTelevision

I said it tends to push things in that direction.
And I said you were veering toward accusatory remarks.

That's what I said.

__________________
create evolution

Mephisto2

Yeah, I guess you're being very open minded and positive in your responses to my love of art.

Mr Mephisto

nirol

Is This Art?

As noted, this all depends on the definition of "art".

I think of Art as an item capturing and exuding beauty. It should denote some creativity and technical mastery by the creator.

Others think Art is what ever you have balls enough to sucker anyone else into devoting time to examine. You are an esteemed artist if you can get a grant to do it, really esteemed if you can get a government grant.

So, long answer to say "NO !"

__________________
'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784)

VitaminH

I guess I am dense and close minded, while some of his paitings are very nice, all i see with the one in question is a blueish-purple rectangle. As for his exhibt ‘Le Vide’ I probably would have been demanding my money back. I can go and look at plain white walls anywhere. I came to see the creations of anothers mind, not the emptiness of it.

__________________
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

dnd

haven't read through all the comments made, theres so many, joined this quite late....

but i was actually at the Tate Modern Gallery last week where this is exhibited and standing back and looking at it does really make you question modern art, but then i considered the fact that i had stood there for quite a while looking at this one painting which makes me consider that it invoked thoughts and feelings....
so yes..art!

__________________
"Never underestimate a dumb question"-- Brandon Boyd

lalakill

I saw a man outside a gallery last week painting 3 rectangles of different colors on a canvas, and in passing by a second time (within about 30 minutes) he had created about 5 more of the same exact look. That to me is BAD art.

It does leave a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach to think certain people are able to sell art when some amazing artists struggle to sell anything. But what can you do?

jaker

as noted: i think we all need to examine this, and other "is this even art?" art with a time perspective in mind.

jvwgtr

That's an interesting music/art parallel that I was pondering while reading all of the "that ain't art" posts here.
It reminds me of my parents begging my teenage self to turn off the "noise" emanating from my stereo.

Arguing that Klein's painting isn't art because he used only one color -- and you could duplicate the work in mere seconds -- is like insisting that INSERT BAND NAME HERE's work isn't music because they only use three chords, and your five-year-old can play it on his Fisher Price guitar.

Am I now a music elitist because I like Nirvana, and Mom & Dad don't "get it?"

It's so interesting to me that music and art, in my view, go hand-in-hand...yet there are vast differences in acceptance.
The stripped-down exploration of raw sound and emotion of punk and other genres is widely accepted as pushing music to new levels...yet in the visual arts, the masses regard similar work as "crap."
The public's artistic sensibilities hold fast to the visual equivalent of Laurence Welk.
If it's not easily digested in a single viewing, it's not art...to me, that's the exact opposite of art.
But that's just me.

(For what it's worth, Mr Mephisto, you're my new hero)