is this art? ::i hope i just didn't say that outloud::
 

http://www.cameuro.com/random/onlyblue.jpg
"Monochrome Bleu"
Yves Klein, 1960

I posted this on the General Discussion because I am interested in everyone's opinion, including the people don't really have a passion for art, and not just the art fanatics.

Recently I visited the Modern Tate Gallery in London, England. Great show. But I stumbled across this piece. It defied everything I knew and learned about art. How is this art I asked myself? The man next to me grunted, "Best work here, enjoy it while it lasts." If this man, I thought, thinks this piece of blue canvas is the best work in the show, than I'm really missing something. Is this art to you? What is art to you? I enjoy Rothko's work, "absolute" art I guess you can call it, because the colors lead me to self-examination, like a poem, but this BLUE canvas really leaves me blank. Keep in mind when responding, the texture of the piece was, so, awww, flawless, and the blue, aww, so vibrant.

It seems that this was the most thought-provoking piece there -- and while I don't think that art needs to be thought-provoking, the capacity for generating thoughts is certainly a sign of art.

Perhaps Yves Klein hoped that you would stop and think about the nature of art itself. If so, the artist succeeded.

I think one of the greatest pieces of art was when Picasso took bicycle handlebars and seat, put them together, and called it a bull's head.

I think that whether or not something is art is subjective -- but I personally consider anything art if its creator intended for it to be such. (This is sufficient but not necessary for something to be "art" to me)

I think its the oposite, it dont matter what the creator wanted it to be, its what others think of it as, if people think its art, then it is, is an artist does somthing like a blank sheet and nobody sees it as "art" then it isnt, surely.

i think he might of just wanted to do somthing different, personally i dont see it as art.

In general I do not consider anything that I can make on a random whim to be art. So to me "Monochrome Bleu" is not art because, in my mind, the word "art" bestows upon a creation a certain amount of dignity that acknowledges either its grandeur and/or the the skill and vision of its creator or the non-triviality of its message. "Art" should be reserved for these creations because, although the utility they provide to people is intangible, it's still definite.

Example:
I'm pretty certain that everyone who sees Michaelangelo's work in the sistine chapel for the first time will be impressed to some degree and will stop to analyze it bit, whereas "Monochrome Bleu" might evoke absolutely no response from a good number of viewers who simply see a blue square inside a white square. Almost no one would consider the former trivial because even if they don't like it they will at least acknowledge that it is a work of great skill and effort and represents many generations' view of their religion; some people would feel that "Monochrome Bleu" is wasting valuable museum space.

Final analysis: If there is a good chance that it is trivial to the point that it bestows no benefit --- artistic, philosophical, moral or otherwise --- to a large amount of viewers, it's not art.

I think that art can be personal or directed towards an audience.

I personally think that if anyone (creator or viewer) considers it as "art," I will also consider it "art" on the basis that it generated some sort of artistic experience. People are certainly allowed to personally view it as "not art," and I'm sure there are people that feel that way about every piece of art out there. I am just less stingy about applying the term -- if I someone is thinking "art," that's art to me.

I think it's art. Bad art.

It's art because it is an expression of the individual in an established medium. "Established medium" is not essential here, it just removes the largest argument against some media being art, like a jar of urine with an object inside. I think it's bad art because it took no skill. It caters to the "art for art's sake" crowd that are impressed with themselves for being evolved enough to see "the beauty of simplicity".

If this is art, then the artist is the viewer, not the person that painted flat blue on a canvas.

I would use the terms "good art" and "great art" to express this sentiment -- that's our main difference.

Nevertheless, I consider "Monochrome Bleu" to be a fine work of art. Why? Because:

1. I think it takes balls to be the first guy to make a blue square and call it art. The artist, I feel, wasn't acting on random whim but carefully thought out the effect that creating this work would have on its audience.

2. It raises some great self-referential questions about what we consider art. It seems that some people have very averse reactions to this type of thing existing, as if it is an afront to other forms of art. Some artists stir up thought and emotion through masterful technique or universal themes. Others do so by making a big blue square and confusing people.

EDIT: I do wonder if he is the first to make a monochromatic rectangle and call it art. Chances are it had been done before. In which case, I would still call it art, but not "good art."

I hate to dominate this thread so, but I have a question for you. Would you extend the above statement to a prehistoric cave painting of stick-figure type men? If not, why not?

This would mean that a peice of work with a heap of creativity and little skill invovled would be "bad art" in your opinion?
I had this question typed up way better before and I don't know what happend to that window...

In my opinion it is not art. That it is displayed in art gallery doesn't change this. It is a blank canvas waiting for some art to be applied to it.

The only art involved was the 'art of keeping a straight face whilst bullshitting about your latest artwork' which Mr Yves Klein is obviously a grand master at.

Even it is a 'vibrant' blue, it could just as easily have in dull blue, pale blue or a different colour altogether. The end result would have been the same.

Whoever paid money for it has been conned.

I don't really consider something like this to be art. It may have taken thought from the artist but it took no work to create it. There is no difficulty in expressing a plain blue canvas.

I kind of lost my faith in modern day artists when a guy hung a urinal on a canvas and sold the thing off for some insane amount of cash. Then there was the guy who just turned in a blank canvas, much like this one (except this one just happens to be blue)

I think that the problem with this sort of art is not that it doesn't require much effort to create, but that it's overdone.

If we were living in a time when all artists were classically trained and following set non-abstract schools of art, and something did something like this, the impact would be explosive. It would be highly original and controversial.

Today, many artists recognize that this is an easy way to make some money and overproduce the same kind of thing over and over. Hence, there's lots of what I would consider "bad art" out there. But if some people like it I won't hold it against them. And I still consider this "art."

I can, sort of, see your point but I disagree. If you presented a work like this as art 200-400 years ago you would probably get stabbed in the eye with a red hot poker.

You're not dominating the thread, your asking thoughtful questions. :-)

Art evolves. Prehistoric cave drawings were the pinnacle of man's artistic ability at the time. Now we can do better. Frankly, my daughter at 3 could do better. Her 3 year old scribbles have as little artistic merit as does this flat blue canvas, and neither belong on exhibition.

A good artist making good art will provoke thought and emotion. Not the pretend awe of a pretentious Soho art crowd, but real thought and real emotion. "Blue" fails here.

art is whatever you decide art is...

it's like beauty... what you find beautiful someone else finds ugly.

But! goin' through the paint chips down at Ace Hardware should not be considered as visiting an art gallery - this would apparently be more at home with the paint chips. To me art has to evoke some emotion - its has to sorta' grab reach out and grab you - not just lay there, dead and emotionless. While a mixture of black and white can definitely be art - a dead skunk in the middle of the road is not.

My own definition of art lies with skill and cleverness. This work took no skill and no thought. Thus, it is hardly a *work* of art.

This concept isn't even original. People do this half-assed 'art' all the time, and always have. It's as common as a stick figure drawing.

I think it's art. If you look at it long enough you will see a very large penis entering a pre-pubescent girl.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. I don't consider this art because it doesn't stimulate my visual senses....doesn't make me look at it as anything else but a blue canvas. Perhaps I have no imagination.

To someone else, this particular color might strike up a fond memory, vision or other sense they have felt before. To them, this might be considered the best piece in the show.

Were it a superintelligent shade of the color blue, I would consider it art. Creating life from paint is an immeasurable achievement.

As it stands, it's certainly a very pretty shade of blue, but isn't art.

Keep in mind this was painted in 1960 when this style was really coming about. Here is some explanation I found that can help qualify the artistic value to some perhaps:

"The work of Yves Klein emanates from a new design of the function of the artist. This one is never to be strictly accurate the author of a work since, according to Klein, the beauty already exists, in an invisible state...The first monochromic ones of the beginning of the Fifties, which express the sensitivity at the pure state, with "paintings of fire" of the last year of its life where one of the four elements is expressed under the direction of the artist, in fact the cosmos becomes visible. The reduction of the colors to the blue patented by Klein makes play pictorial matter the role of the air, of the vacuum, of which, for Yves Klein, are born the force from the spirit and imagination. Lastly, the "technique of the alive brushes", or "anthropometry", amounts leaving with the human body the care to make the table, thus putting the artist in withdrawal.
It is understood that this artistic practice fully finds its direction only in reference to a singular design of the world that Klein starting from parallel experiments was forged: Japanese judo (: practical of art) founded on the forces and natural elements of cosmos (water, air, fire, ground), for the visualization and the assimilation of positive or contradictory energies, and the esoteric philosophy of the Rosicrucian brotherhood which seeks the spiritual forces controlling the Universe.

Far from being a formal artistic step, the activity of Yves Klein is thus controlled by a cosmology which turns into to world the principal actor of art. It is this idea of the world as works which Klein brings to the New Realism . But if all its work is directed by a spiritual need which led it to widen the field of the usual artistic techniques, all the following generation, which refuses the aesthetic object, nevertheless knew to inherit its innovations, beyond its party taken mystical."

Take it for what it is - much of what there is to appreciate is in the technique itself. This is not at all to say I would like it hanging in my home, just a little bit of knowledge to apply when observing the painting itself.

Actually, this is pretty good art.
I find Klein's work extremely interesting. If I'm not mistaken, a good portion of his work centers around this color of blue...it's a very special color that he tried to have patented as "Klein Blue" or something of that nature.
If you don't find the monochrome panel interesting, you might be able to appreciate some of his other works, where he covered naked women with this blue, and pressed their bodies onto the canvas. :)

Boring.

Far more interesting.

http://www.poster.net/klein-yves/kle...om-3500385.jpg

But still not very...

no

I was waiting for the picture to load.................

Yes, technically it could be considered art, but I can't believe people called it good. If I did it, I can be 100% positive that people would hate it, but you stick in some place artsy and all of th sudden people are trying to find the inner meaning of blue canvas.

Personally I would have taken it one step further and put a 24/7 camera to it, and put a TV beside it. From there the "picture" would change every minute... maybe I would show the weather....

HAHAHA
I don't think it's art, but like it's been stated, the artist has probably accomplished his purpose of people discussing it.

Its a color
 

not art

Thanks for your intriguing commentary on this piece.

no its just a purple box

"no" atsteve, 2003

Recently I visited the Tilted Forum Project. Great forum. But I stumbled across this post. It defied everything I knew and learned about posting. How is this a post I asked myself? The man next to me grunted, "Best work here, enjoy it while it lasts." If this man, I thought, thinks this single word is the best comment in the thread, than I'm really missing something. Is this a post to you? What is a post to you?

I think you're missing its author's point, lordjeebus.
It's pretty obvious that he was making a statement about moral absolutism and its effect on philisophical discourse today. By pushing the boundaries of what we consider a post, he wished to make his audience simultaneously rethink the nature of their own posts -- what makes them so unique, in a harsh world when anyone can dismiss you with a simple "no."

same here thought there was something worng with my internet for a second

:lol:

THis is not art. You don't have to be classically trained or be a great freehand drawer or anything to make art. But In my mind something like this does nothing as far as I'm concerned. I dislike this kind of "art" as well as any sort of "shock" art that abounds.

For example, how does one get famous by doing crazy ass things. I want to poop in a shoe box and call it art. The funny thing is if the right people acknowledge it as art, it thus becomes art and not just a stinky box.

Of course it's art.

First of all (though not exclusively), art is that which makes you stop, think, debate. In this regard it has succeeded admirably.

Yves Klein also worked very hard to develop the colour blue that is used in this painting. IKB-79 I believe it's called.

If you think that this painting was not art, did you visit the rest of the gallery? What about the plain glass of water that the artist maintained was an oak tree? Not a representation of an oak tree, but a real oak tree.

What about the video art? Did you watch the time-lapse of the fruit decaying? The looped video of a man in a mask boxing?


Let's broaden our consideration.

What about Piet Mondrian's pictures? They also are just coloured boxes. http://artchive.floridaimaging.com/m...drian_bykr.jpg.

What about Andy Warhol's pictures? Are they art?

What about Jean-Michel Basquiat? Many would say his work is simply graffiti. http://www.emory.edu/ENGLISH/Bahri/untitled.GIF

Then there's Kasimir Malevich, who also created works that look like simple coloured boxes.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth...sant-woman.jpg

Art can be defined many ways. I think the most appropriate is "If the artist says it's art, then it's art."

You don't have to like it. You don't have to "understand" it. You can even say you think it's nonesense.

However, you can't stand back and say "I think that's not art."

So, in summary, is Klein's work art? Of course it is. In fact, I love it.

I highly recommend the book This is Modern Art by Matthew Collins (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books). Or a more clinical assement would be the book Modern Art edited by David Britt. Finally there's the seminal work The Shock of the New by Robert Hughes (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books).

Art is there to be enjoyed. If you don't like, move on and spend some time looking at something else.

Mr Mephisto

At most, I would say that this piece is simply, "clever". People look at it and question it. It's pretty general in that sense though. It's just a blue box! Thoughts and questions will arise just because it's too general.

I think that it did not take any skill whatsoever and I doubt the artist contemplated long on how to express his idea as a blue box. I believe that real art requires some skill and a little thought.

If anything, it's art only because the artist said it was.

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.

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.

Itchy93

"gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

So Milo is "just clever?" Mondrian is "just clever?" What about Matisse?

What about Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin (enfant terrible of the BritPop movement)?

How "clever" was it for Andy Warhol to take a photograph of an accident and sell it as art? Indeed, is photography art in your opinion at all? What about his famous Marilyn Monroe prints?

Your comment "It's just a blue box" is very interesting. What does it mean to you? The fact that you're talking about it means something.

I'm not trying to be nasty, but this simply shows ignorance of the facts in this particular case. Klein spent years developing his famous blue colours. In fact this colour, or IKB (International Klein Blue) as it became known, was so new that it was successfully patented. From 1949 onwards he concentrated on blue and from 1957 onwards he painted 194 paintings in IKB.

Klein was one of the "New Realists" and is considered by most of the art world to be a master.

In 1954 Klein said "I believe that in the future, people will start painting pictures in one single colour, and nothing else but colour." He was a visionary, in the same way that Jackson Pollack was a visionary. I recommend the book Bright Earth - Art and the Invention of Colour by Philip Ball for a fascinating look at how colour has evolved, and how certain artists have used it, over the centuries (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books).

I wonder if you consider Pollacks work to be simply "dribbles of paint?"

Untrue. Klein is a famous artist whose work is collected around the world.

I should imagine the "installation art" of Christo (he of the famous pink ribbons around famous buildings) would also not be to your liking?

Mr Mephisto

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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...

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.

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....

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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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 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.

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.

http://www.immoralist.org.uk/klein/fpaint.jpg
http://www.centrepompidou.fr/educati...xl/3i00568.jpg

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

that sounds suprisingly beautiful

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.

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.

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.

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

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

That's what I said.

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

Mr Mephisto

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 !"

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.

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!

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? :(

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

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)

I do respect your love of art Mr Mephisto, it rivals my love of music. therefore, because i have no knowledge of visual art, i will make my arguement using music as my example. if i create a piece of music, i believe it to be a representation of myself. i dont think people who hear it need to listen to my other composistions to understand what my whole motive for making music is.

it must be the same with visual art. and as far as this art goes, i hate it. its just my opinion. no big deal. in fact, i think its so bad that no arguement can make me think otherwise or find any significance in it. the man mixed some colors together to make one color and put it on a canvas. i think that is, for lack of a better word, lame. if that was his intent then great. although i cant see this man (or any artist) getting satisfaction out of people not liking his work.

Well said and duly noted.

But it's still "art", if you will! :-)

Personally, I can't stand heavy metal ("thrash metal") or some of the "ghetto" rap music you hear. I don't like a lot of the R&B that seems to clog the charts these days either.

My preference? I would prefer to sit down and listen to a Miles Davis record, or perhaps something by Chopin. Quite a difference from Regurgitator as you can see.

But I don't say "That's not music!".

Mr Mephisto

but that song isnt just one note... prolonged.. ive never heard a song like that... it would be dead air... not music... or a system test

I find this a piece of art. I wouldn't call it a "work" of art, but it's a piece. Call me nutty, but I tend to find beauty in almost everything from the veins of a leaf to an empty evening lit street. I'd be interested to see the piece in person, with something like this I would hope that if you got up close and personal with it you'd noticed slightly different textures, maybe even brush strokes.

That's where I think the real art would lie. How did the piece come to life, sometimes if you watch how the strokes of a painting unfold, even a simple painting like this, you get to delve a little into the mind of the creator. Dunno, call me a fucking nut, but that's what I find interesting about people's art, get a fun reflection of their personality, and possibly even get to ponder things for yourself too.

The fact that people have to ask if it's art or not makes it art to me. I would never buy a blue canvas, or even paint one and put it in my home. I'd rather just paint the whole wall. But then again, I'm a nut with a mutlishaded room and a painting of the crab nebula on my ceiling (was a pain in the ass to do, but worth it).

I have yet to hear a successful musician that made an entire song with a single note. Even three chords can be used to convey something. One note cannot in my opinion unless your point is "le vide" :rolleyes:.I know you were using it as an example, but I don't think most 5 year olds could play a three chord song in correct time, but any child with hands can take electric blue and cover a canvas with it. Any child under supervision could set a canvas on fire. I guess I just expect more from visual art than gimmicks. Is that elitist? Maybe so, but it's my belief on this subject.

Gotta go now. I'm a little broke this week and I'm gonna piss in a jar and stick a crucifix in it to make some cash. Gotta practice my pretentiousness to appear genuine tho. ;)

LOL

Mr Mephisto

I don't see this as art. Everyone could make this.

It is art. in fact i love his work. and don't even get me started on Pollock. Besides MC Escher, i think Pollock, to me, is the most artistically and mathmatically inspiring artist. Pollock was able to create fractal like image and share his perspection of the world with us. Oh well, i'm going off topics. But i do believe it is art

I'm glad someone agrees with me arael!

Mr Mephisto

sure enough

"What is art?" is a question that seems to keep recurring here.

On one level, it is simply a semantic question. The meaning of a word is determined by its usage. Therefore, over time time, we can be a part of deciding what art is.

I like to doodle with shapes and designs. They are not art, but they could be studies for art if I ever took the next step. In my mind, this is an example of a study. The artist "experimented" with this color of his; but he did not make the effort to turn it into art.

I would prefer to call this "design." The blue canvas might look great in a number of settings. Imagine a public room in a modern house with high ceilings and large windows with while walls and furniture with a few primary colors, or maybe just black. This painting would really stand out. Of course it would be better if you had three of them.

I don't know. I would say there's a mass of people who view Nirvana as crap. So that doesn't make you elitist, just a little silly. :D

If you like it, it's good for you. That's the bottom line. (I am almost entirely kidding in the previous paragraph. The almost is the hangover from people comparing Cobain to Hendrix simply because he made music and died young.)

Poop SEX IS ART!

Modern classical composer John Cage (1912-1992) is perhaps most famous for a piece entitled 4'33" which consists of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence (or, perhaps more accurately, the absence of intentional musical sound.) It is a very interesting musical analogue to the subject of this thread.

after thinking about this for a while, it occurred to me that maybe we've been talking about (at least) two different kinds of art -- art which is stunning to the senses (like great visual art), and art that's stunning to the mind. does anyone follow me?

you can look at a painting, and just be amazed at the art in it's form. or listen to a tune and think wow that's incredible. or you could consider the blue painting, or listen to 4'33", and think about the effect it has on its audience. while all good art in any form usually has a profound effect on its audience anyway, it seems to me that there's a kind of art that focuses more on the audience, than the actual work of art itself...

right, Klein's art is essentially conceptual...

Are those dead frogs being used as stamps???

haha... that is original. and funny. awesome.

I think you have a great point. One that I have been struggling to communicate, but that you have described perfectly.

Art does not have to be just "nice pictures" (a la Rembrandt, Whistler, David etc), or even just "impressionistic" (a la Monet, Degas, Pissaro etc).

What about the abstract impressionist art of Pollack? Surely that does not constitute "bad art", does it?

Mr Mephisto

Re: is this art? ::i hope i just didn't say that outloud::
 

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....

Re: Re: is this art? ::i hope i just didn't say that outloud::
 

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?

http://www.abcgallery.com/D/duchamp/duchamp28.JPG
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?

http://www.humanitiesweb.org/gallery/191/1.jpg
Jackson Pollack. Cathedral. 1947: Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, Texas, USA.


Perhaps you also consider this a con?

http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition...ank/1941_2.jpg
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