Is this really art?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brianeno
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes it is art. What else could it be? Is it saying anything that makes enough sense to be able to be expressed in a sentence? No. Does it evoke similar feelings of emotion in those who see it; or different feelings which are in some way related one to the other, and provoke useful discussion? No. Is it witty? No? Is it pleasurable for some to look at in itself? Not that I can see. Is it offensive? Well, I suspect not very, to very many, and that those claiming to be offended are either paid to say that, enjoying claiming to be offended, or actually are offended, but not bright enough to relalise that people who make this sort of art profit from such reactions. on the other hand, a witty poster on CAF once pointed out that my opposition to a cross on public land was really a proposal to replace the cross with a symbol of what I believe in: nothing! Should I be offended by Popsicle sticks with nothing on them? šŸ˜‰
 
Hokomai said:
Yes it is art. What else could it be? Is it saying anything that makes enough sense to be able to be expressed in a sentence? No. Does it evoke similar feelings of emotion in those who see it; or different feelings which are in some way related one to the other, and provoke useful discussion? No. Is it witty? No? Is it pleasurable for some to look at in itself? Not that I can see. Is it offensive? Well, I suspect not very, to very many, and that those claiming to be offended are either paid to say that, enjoying claiming to be offended, or actually are offended, but not bright enough to relalise that people who make this sort of art profit from such reactions. on the other hand, a witty poster on CAF once pointed out that my opposition to a cross on public land was really a proposal to replace the cross with a symbol of what I believe in: nothing! Should I be offended by Popsicle sticks with nothing on them? šŸ˜‰
Click to expand...
This is a wrong mindset that is the result of being allowed to be conditioned. I walked through a very large scale group of art ā€œinstallations,ā€ some featuring recognizable objects or modified examples of representational objects.

Profit. Sorry, art gallery owners are wondering where the new collectors will come from. If you speak, as I have, to most fine artists, it is always about something in their soul. Commercial art was considered prostitution by fine artists.

Art that means nothing is nothing. I could walk into an art exhibition with a pot filled with dirt with a lightbulb sticking out of it, add a card that read: ā€œUntitled - 185,ā€ put it somewhere, and walk out. Itā€™s not art because it is placed in a primitive place of worship of nothing or the offensive. That represents a belief system, nothing more.

Your remark that people are paid money to say anything against this sort of art is extremely offensive.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Your remark that people are paid money to say anything against this sort of art is extremely offensive.
Click to expand...
Sorry; I did not consider that an observation that people are employed (what I meant by paid money) to criticize this sort of thing would be offensive. I had in mind employees of the Catholic organizations which can be relied on to respond to this sort of thing, media critics, academics defending their own traditions etc. I was not objecting to them being paid, I was suggesting that were they not, they would not feel strongly enough to say anything.
 
Hokomai said:
Sorry; I did not consider that an observation that people are employed (what I meant by paid money) to criticize this sort of thing would be offensive. I had in mind employees of the Catholic organizations which can be relied on to respond to this sort of thing, media critics, academics defending their own traditions etc. I was not objecting to them being paid, I was suggesting that were they not, they would not feel strongly enough to say anything.
Click to expand...
Iā€™m sorry to hear you think thatā€™s the case. Yes, a writer, a journalist, gets paid for what he does. But, some faithful Catholics here are not looking for any money. I canā€™t judge the motives of anybody I donā€™t know but I support anyone who speaks the truth, and yes, I am biased toward Catholic and Christian writers who present the truth - the documented truth. We cannot afford to be silent about offenses to our faith.

Peace,
Ed
 
The world is full of stuff like this. Gotta develop a thick skin.

Criticizing organised religion is so edgy.
 
edwest2 said:
Iā€™m sorry to hear you think thatā€™s the case. Yes, a writer, a journalist, gets paid for what he does. But, some faithful Catholics here are not looking for any money. I canā€™t judge the motives of anybody I donā€™t know but I support anyone who speaks the truth, and yes, I am biased toward Catholic and Christian writers who present the truth - the documented truth. We cannot afford to be silent about offenses to our faith.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, when you enter into a media debate (mass or social media), you incur risk. The risks include drawing further attention to the thing you oppose. Your view of these things is a minority one, even in the US. Most people do not feel strongly enough about religion to respond to such offenses. When you respond you have to win more people to your minority point of view that you lose by your statements leading those in the majority to support the offenses. This is an uphill battle, especially where you are talking about intrinsically trivial things, like Popsicles. Much ā€˜offensiveā€™ art comes from juxtaposing the sacred and the profane. The more sacred, and more profane, the better. The cartoons of the Prophet, the ā€˜virgin in a condomā€™, the Popsicles are all examples. When you enter the debate, you increase he perceived value of the work by heightening the sacredness of the object portrayed, and the sense of contrast. You in effect become a part of the art. This is intended by the artist. In my view those offended by such things would be better to adopt a tactic of ignoring both the art and the artist, and if you must say something, claim not that the artist has done what is intended: offended; say instead that the artist has misunderstood the nature of the sacred thing, and that the art work therefore fails as an artwork. Now that will hurt.
 
clark_kent said:
The world is full of stuff like this. Gotta develop a thick skin.

Criticizing organised religion is so edgy.
Click to expand...
ā€œedgyā€ one of my favorite words in the donā€™t say what you really mean category. How about a little truth, eh?

Edgy means itā€™s going to offend someone, usually people with strong moral principles, like Christians.

Iā€™m tired of media-speak.

Peace,
Ed
 
Hokomai said:
Ed, when you enter into a media debate (mass or social media), you incur risk. The risks include drawing further attention to the thing you oppose. Your view of these things is a minority one, even in the US. Most people do not feel strongly enough about religion to respond to such offenses. When you respond you have to win more people to your minority point of view that you lose by your statements leading those in the majority to support the offenses. This is an uphill battle, especially where you are talking about intrinsically trivial things, like Popsicles. Much ā€˜offensiveā€™ art comes from juxtaposing the sacred and the profane. The more sacred, and more profane, the better. The cartoons of the Prophet, the ā€˜virgin in a condomā€™, the Popsicles are all examples. When you enter the debate, you increase he perceived value of the work by heightening the sacredness of the object portrayed, and the sense of contrast. You in effect become a part of the art. This is intended by the artist. In my view those offended by such things would be better to adopt a tactic of ignoring both the art and the artist, and if you must say something, claim not that the artist has done what is intended: offended; say instead that the artist has misunderstood the nature of the sacred thing, and that the art work therefore fails as an artwork. Now that will hurt.
Click to expand...
That is simply your point of view. The truth is the truth. Offense is offense. Unless the artist tells us different, the goal is obvious to the average person who doesnā€™t care what the art world believes but does care about defending what is sacred as sacred - not as a toy or plaything for somebody else. Artists are not a special class of people.

Those who hold the sacred as sacred will never be indifferent to its misuse. We cannot afford to become indifferent. Even the Pope has told us that.

Peace,
Ed
 
The product of trash minds is trash, not art.

Let me say something that isnā€™t politically correct there days.

Some people are inferior.

The ā€œartistā€ who made that junk is inferior.
 
In a way yes, but in another way no. Itā€™s creative but it does nothing for me. There is little to no skill that was involved (besides getting the ice pop on the stick) and I attribute such creativeness to modern art which I think is mostly cr*p.
 
Just got back from IMDb and picked up this thing of beauty:
De gustibus non disputandum est
Click to expand...
Translated: ā€œIn matters of taste, there can be no disputes.ā€ Meaning: There must not be debate concerning taste.

Subjectivism. Itā€™s like nails on a chalk board to my ears.
 
Hokomai said:
Ed, when you enter into a media debate (mass or social media), you incur risk. The risks include drawing further attention to the thing you oppose. Your view of these things is a minority one, even in the US. Most people do not feel strongly enough about religion to respond to such offenses. When you respond you have to win more people to your minority point of view that you lose by your statements leading those in the majority to support the offenses. This is an uphill battle, especially where you are talking about intrinsically trivial things, like Popsicles. Much ā€˜offensiveā€™ art comes from juxtaposing the sacred and the profane. The more sacred, and more profane, the better. The cartoons of the Prophet, the ā€˜virgin in a condomā€™, the Popsicles are all examples. When you enter the debate, you increase he perceived value of the work by heightening the sacredness of the object portrayed, and the sense of contrast. You in effect become a part of the art. This is intended by the artist. In my view those offended by such things would be better to adopt a tactic of ignoring both the art and the artist, and if you must say something, claim not that the artist has done what is intended: offended; say instead that the artist has misunderstood the nature of the sacred thing, and that the art work therefore fails as an artwork. Now that will hurt.
Click to expand...
Good points. However, I disagree in calling this or anything like it ā€˜artā€™. But than we have to get into semantics and define what ā€˜artā€™ is. I define it as some sort of human expression (music/poetry/performance/sculpture/painting/writing) that communicates an idea/message/truth as the artists sees it. Great art, to me, sparks contemplation of that truth with the emotion the artist is attempting to associate it with. Great art doesnā€™t require an explanation because it is evident in the work itself- we see the artists expression or feeling of the truth as he sees it.

I used to have a reprint of a Vargas drawing. (Pinup artist) Normally not my thing, but there was something about the drawing. It was of a woman sideways pulling on her stockings. Somehow it wasnā€™t prurient at all but communicated a fascination, respect bordering on reverence for the woman, her femininity and uniqueness. I found out years later that it was a drawing of his wife. Somehow that feeling came through.

All this piece says is ā€œIā€™m a talentless hackā€.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top