Abstract art is lazy, and to be honest I think a lot of abstract artists THINK they have it in them to actually do genuine, thoughtful art and not something that was ALWAYS supposed to throw the audience off guard.

Pushing the extremes, with a pencil or a paintbrush or almost anything is very, very impressive.

Pushing the extremes with visual disgust, such as that bed, and other random things.

Like my uncle is an artist and I seriously bet if he had a piece of paper sprayed it with water and let it dry and put it on display with the modern non-cultural pieces it would probably sell, why? I don't know.

or I over time could sell what appears to be a bunch of scribbles on some paper.

Everyone keeps saying "I could *insert retarded thing* and say it was art and make money", and while I agree that this does happen, to call abstract art lazy or say that art on the whole has no merit is silly. One of the best things about art is it ambiguity. Nobody can really say what is or isn't art, and anyone who tries is likely wrong on at least some level.

I could create "art", every single person that posted in this thread could as well as every person that didn't, but I'm not claiming to be able to sell it. I was making an example, and a pretty good one too, considering the piece "My Bed". My bed is like that right now! You're welcome to come look, but you'll have to pay an entrance fee to support my young artistry (just enough for me to support/develop various addictions and piss on a tampon for my next exhibition). No? Okay, so, why did people get all excited over a dirty bed? Was it really that sensational of a "statement", or was it just that she knew the right people to support her work? You be the judge.

Basically, if we're going to go down the road of "everything is art", then there is no art. Everything is just everything, everything is normal. Or is art just things that I have to pay to look at? I'm having a hard time deciding what art is myself, so I'm resigning with the thought that it's impossible to define. I don't hate all art or artists, I've seen some pretty impressive stuff by talented people, or pieces that actually made me think (ie: I saw what I needed at that time in that piece). I'm an artist myself (and so are you), you see. I just don't have rich friends with connections to put forth my broken, dirty household items on exhibition. See, that's the problem. Is someone even considered an artist before he's sold something. Before he's "made something worth selling"? I'm pretty sure he isn't.

Also, seeing what you want to see in something gives you the merit, not the author. No artist could ever plan to induce all various emotions people can feel when they look at something, and claiming that it was planned is just pretentious nonsense.

Most of this isn't targeted specifically, and most of it is also random thoughts popping up after I posted or things that I couldn't really formulate.

Here's my view on art.



The tag on the ad in english "shit 24/7".
I consider the tag art, but not the ad behind it. The difference is that that Tag has no function, other than to entertain or provoke people seeing it.

The ad has a function: Selling a product. Even though the ad is technically "better" than the tag on it, it's not art. I understand that there are different views on this, but for me anything that has no other function than to invoke some sort of response in people seeing/touching/hearing/smelling it is art.

Trolling a forum can be art, answering a question cannot.

A few years ago I was in an art class. I completely forgot that we were going to do an art show, so I scribbled up some quick shit in photoshop. It was really messing and weird. I sold one for $80 and was the only person to sell anything for more than $10.

People that buy art prize originality over skill. People that complain about artists are boring and jealous.

You do realize that for the ad, probably some artists worked on it. So why can't it be art in your eyes? It can have a commercial function and still be art right?

Yes. See: Movie posters.

Then again, some designers worked on this computer im typing this with, some people designed the can I'm drinking from. Everything is art?

I disagree everything is not art. Everything is culture but not art.
Art has no function. Like the bed mentioned earlier It lost it's earlier function as a place to sleep, have sex etc. when it was taken to a gallery and signed. It became art when it lost it's fucntion. Same with the urinal.



Again you can see similiar wrapping on buildings that are under construction/renevation. Not art. This wrapping was made purely of artistic reasons = it's art. There was no function for that wrapping.

Architechture is a tricky subject. As most most builidngs have a function, but can still be considered art. I haven't really thought about this too much. I'll just go ahead and say buildings are art if the architechture is orginal and unique. Sidney Opera house for example is art.

'Purity' of art comes down to 2 factors, how commercial a piece is, and how much a piece is done for critical acclaim.

An advert is essentially done purely for commercial reasons.

The tag however was done not for commercial, however it was (arguably) done for critical acclaim.



Art done for neither reason, is indeed quite pure.

Personally I'm against the "Art is Everything" definition of Art. Since, Giving art the definition of everything makes no progress towards actually identifying what is and isn't art. After all, if the world generally felt that Art was a synonym for Everything, then we wouldn't see so many critiques saying that a certain piece of work isn't Art.

I mean, I'm sure those who say that "Everything is Art" have felt the urge to claim that at least one piece they've seen in their lives wasn't or isn't Art before. That's why I see a need have a definition that separates art from everything, because it's natural to separate them.

Personally I define art to be anything that can be appreciated. What's good about this definition is that it allows for one person to consider something art, while another person can consider that exact same thing to not be art. Since different people appreciate things differently - So those that have experienced many things in their lives and can appreciate virtually everything would (With this definition) define art to be everything. But, with this definition those who can't appreciate everything can actually say something isn't art (For them at-least). This definition also allows for several things to be considered art, (Science, Literature, Movies, Adds, Rhetoric, etc.) since most things in life can be appreciated.

For example, if I type the words: [Hi]. Most people (Including me) wouldn't consider the [Hi] to be art since they don't/can't appreciate the text or it's presentation. Most people would just see the good old Text. However, those who are experienced in making fonts might actually consider the [Hi] to be Art. Since they have experience in that field.

Changing my old example a little bit...


Now the image above is more likely to be considered art than just [Hi] because it brings the viewer into the central [Hi]. This natural feeling of being brought into the central [Hi] is easier to appreciate than the text by itself (Unless I screwed the image up with those black lines... ). Since it is, hopefully, easier to appreciate it should also be more likely to be considered art by someone. Same applies to the image that the original poster presented. Some can appreciate that painting, while others can't.

On a different note...

@DaBandito, Most (Not using the word "most" lightly) people consider Science an Art. Heck, I've got a book in my drawers called, "The Art of Problem Solving" that teaches anything from Algebra to Calculus. I'd say the book is fairly named and that Math has several uses in real life (Yay for related rates... >_<).

@Gorman, Out of curiosity, are you talking about yourself in the bathroom tile thing?

Hrm, after typing all of this up I realized my definition is pretty much hanz0's Definition...