# What is Art?



## weltweit (May 24, 2014)

Presumably everything in an art gallery is art, which means photography is also art.

When is photography art?

Is drawing and painting always art?

What is art? and does it matter?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

Art is something that doesn't matter for anything you can describe adequately in words, but still matters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

All definitions of art are doomed to failure, though, including mine.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Art is something that doesn't matter for anything you can describe adequately in words, but still matters.


For something that does not matter, some people pay astounding amounts of money though.


----------



## Dr. Furface (May 25, 2014)

It's a manifestation of the imagination, innit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> For something that does not matter, some people pay astounding amounts of money though.


Ah the commodification of art is an entirely separate issue. Art existed before it was commodified. It is an impulse, a reaction to being alive and knowing that you are alive.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

Google says : https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=....3.0....0...1ac.1.45.img..0.3.262.15eo12iWft4


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah the commodification of art is an entirely separate issue. Art existed before it was commodified. It is an impulse, a reaction to being alive and knowing that you are alive.


So, on earth, only humans do it?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 25, 2014)

Art is what I like. Every else isn't art.


----------



## Fez909 (May 25, 2014)

art is asking the same question that's been asked a thousand times and expecting a different answer.

art is thinking up new ways to increase pogo's blood pressure

art is that feeling when somehow this thread ends up on page 100


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

Dr. Furface said:


> It's a manifestation of the imagination, innit.


Yep. An idea I like very much is that the first cave drawings were not attempts to replicate the world around us, but rather to show what cannot be seen - namely what is only in our minds.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Art is what I like. Every else isn't art.


No it's not. 

I may not know what I like, but I know art.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Art is what I like. Every else isn't art.


But if it is in a gallery surely it is art, even if you don't like it?
Emin's bed for example .... ******** that she is  *


* edited to remove offence.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it's not.
> 
> I may not know what I like, but I know art.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah the commodification of art is an entirely separate issue. Art existed before it was commodified. It is an impulse, a reaction to being alive and knowing that you are alive.


Yes, value is somehow inflated and then like classic cars, a work becomes an investment bought by the super rich looking to "diversify" their portfolios. ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes, value is somehow inflated and then like classic cars, a work becomes an investment bought by the super rich looking to "diversify" their portfolios. ...


It is irrelevant to the question in the op. It is something else - 'what can art be used for?', which is a different question.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

Dr. Furface said:


> It's a manifestation of the imagination, innit.


But often it is representative, e.g. a dot painting by an aboriginal of a crocodile, definitely art but is it imaginative?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> So, on earth, only humans do it?


Not necessarily, no. Are humans the only animals that know they are alive? No. Elephants certainly know they are alive.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> But often it is representative, e.g. a dot painting by an aboriginal of a crocodile, definitely art but is it imaginative?


It's not a crocodile, though, is it? It's a painting of a crocodile, or more accurately, it is a painting inspired by the image 'crocodile' that we ourselves create in our minds.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not a crocodile, though, is it? It's a painting of a crocodile, or more accurately, it is a painting inspired by the image 'crocodile' that we ourselves create in our minds.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not necessarily, no. Are humans the only animals that know they are alive? No. Elephants certainly know they are alive.


Do they? I suppose they might, but you aren't saying they have cave paintings ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

Yep, that's art.  

Art is, among other things, a response to the urge to show others what is going on in our minds. It's evidence that we are alive, and that we know we are alive, and we appear very strongly inclined to wish to provide such evidence, to demonstrate that there is more to being alive than there might appear to be.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Do they? I suppose they might, but you aren't saying they have cave paintings ?


No, but I am not privileging humans in some special way as the only animals capable of art. I see no reason to do that whatever.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

And this:


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

This on the other hand, I like, therefore it must be art  !


----------



## cesare (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> But often it is representative, e.g. a dot painting by an aboriginal of a crocodile, definitely art but is it imaginative?


Depicting a bird's eye view of the ground from the perspective of sitting on the ground to paint, and never having had a bird's eye view, is imaginative imo, yes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> Depicting a bird's eye view of the ground from the perspective of sitting on the ground to paint, and never having had a bird's eye view, is imaginative imo, yes.


That painting is highly imaginative in lots of ways - not least the one you mention.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> And this:


It doesn't do a lot for me. It doesn't move me.

It is also typical of much conceptual art in that the viewer has to put their own ideas onto it for it to make much sense. She is showing us her bed and what it looks like, but she is not telling us why she is showing us her bed, and without us projecting some idea we might have of why she is doing that, it makes little sense.

Is she doing it to show her own inner turmoil? If so, she's only presenting rather abstracted evidence of that inner turmoil - its result in the state of her bed. Or she just could be a tremendous slob who doesn't care about cleanliness - Quentin Crisp did not go 'boo-hoo, look at me, I can't clean up', he said 'yay, look at me, I don't clean up, and I don't care'. So in that sense, we really are projecting our ideas onto it - it doesn't demand a particular interpretation. The art here is perhaps a reflection of the artist in another way - it is lazy: look, I'm an artist in such turmoil that _this_ is what I present to you as my art.

That said, I don't hate it. I think I _can_ see why she's done it. And given the way that she's presented it as art, it is art, even if you don't like it. It is art that rather requests our indulgence, mind you. But then so was Duchamps' Fountain, and I like that.


----------



## cesare (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> But if it is in a gallery surely it is art, even if you don't like it?
> Emin's bed for example .... slattern that she is


What's the equivalent derogatory term for an untidy, dirty man?


----------



## rr22 (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> What's the equivalent derogatory term for an untidy, dirty man?


Scruffy cunt


----------



## cesare (May 25, 2014)

rr22 said:


> Scruffy cunt


That's not specific to men though.


----------



## rr22 (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> That's not specific to men though.


One hell of a point,
A Failure,
"Mad"
L.M.F.
Eccentric,


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2014)

Art is humankind's attempt at channelling the divine.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 25, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Art is humankind's attempt at channelling the divine.



Interesting response. 

_Art is creative expression, representation and response. _


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It doesn't do a lot for me. It doesn't move me.
> 
> It is also typical of much conceptual art in that the viewer has to put their own ideas onto it for it to make much sense. She is showing us her bed and what it looks like, but she is not telling us why she is showing us her bed, and without us projecting some idea we might have of why she is doing that, it makes little sense.
> 
> ...



That unmade bed is rubbish, and not art unless someone is a very gullible individual.  Yes, people can project their own thoughts onto it, but its still the equivalent of projecting your ideas onto a turd.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2014)

If you project your ideas onto a turd, turd-germs can travel back up the thought waves and infect your mind.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 25, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If you project your ideas onto a turd, turd-germs can travel back up the thought waves and infect your mind.



But what if it is a polished turd?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2014)

That's racist.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 25, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's racist.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 25, 2014)

The 'you can't polish a turd' saying is a variant of 'you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear', but I like the extended version 'you can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2014)

Nothing like a joke, well explained.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> What's the equivalent derogatory term for an untidy, dirty man?


I thought slattern works for a man or a woman, does it not?

eta: oh no, I see that it does not. !!

eta2: would never call a woman a slob, for me only men can be slobs


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Interesting response.
> 
> _Art is creative expression, representation and response. _


Does it require response?

If Picasso or Dali never showed any of their work, would it not still be art?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Does it require response?
> 
> If Picasso or Dali never showed any of their work, would it not still be art?



I don't think it requires a response no. 
Much art is created in repsonse to other things though.
Also those who see art have a response of some kind.


----------



## Blagsta (May 25, 2014)

Art, art is the ring around your bathtub.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2014)

Asking 'what is art?' is like taking a hatpin to a balloon full of bullshit.


----------



## Blagsta (May 25, 2014)

Art is a joint rolled in toilet paper.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Art is a joint rolled in toilet paper.


I don't think you are taking this seriously!!


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

I think art is about creativity.
I know some very creative people and it isn't a stretch to say they are artistic.


----------



## Blagsta (May 25, 2014)

I am not of your world. But fear me not, I will do you no harm!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 25, 2014)

Art is subjective. It is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Sirena (May 25, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Art is subjective. It is in the eye of the beholder.


And art stands in opposition to science.  The one is a subjective flight of fancy which can't be measured and the other is a limited expression of objectivity which must be measurable.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Art is subjective. It is in the eye of the beholder.


So, for me, if I like it, it is art, if I don't it ain't!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> That's not specific to men though.


A lot of people in the UK at least don't really call women 'cunts'.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2014)

_Art_ was a short-lived phase in the history of the organisation and display of human creativity. Chiefly associated with the rise of capitalism and bourgeois culture. It failed to live beyond the defeat of its host.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

This is one of my all time favourite photographs. It is exactly as I intended it to be and is straight out of the camera. For me this is what I enjoy.

No Title:


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

Sirena said:


> And art stands in opposition to science.  The one is a subjective flight of fancy which can't be measured and the other is a limited expression of objectivity which must be measurable.


I'm not so sure that's true. I don't see opposition between science and art. Both have things in common - the role of inspiration and seeing the world in a new way, for instance: without creative thinking, science would go nowhere. Art can feed off science, and science can feed off art. Complementary, perhaps, but not opposite.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 25, 2014)

If the question is about visual art then I like to see art as a story told in pictures. ....

But to my mind all art is about telling a story ...as in one mind communicating with many through a medium. Visual or Auditory.


----------



## cesare (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A lot of people in the UK at least don't really call women 'cunts'.


A lot of people in the UK at least don't really call men 'cunts' either.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> A lot of people in the UK at least don't really call men 'cunts' either.


Yes, but of those that use the word, many only use it for men. I would think that most do.


----------



## cesare (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, but of those that use the word, many only use it for men. I would think that most do.


I disagree.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> I disagree.


ok. ime it is very rare to hear a woman called a cunt, particularly by a man. Very different usage from the US in that regard.


----------



## cesare (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ok. ime it is very rare to hear a woman called a cunt, particularly by a man. Very different usage from the US in that regard.


My experience differs from yours.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

We seem to have diverted down an OT alley ....

Surely there is more to say about Art, what is and what isn't and the like ...

My dad used to paint, with a pallet knife, he built up his pictures layer on layer, they were almost three dimensional. They were impressions, not detailed, he didn't like detailed paintings, in fact he used to say, what is the point of them, why not just take a photo.


----------



## cesare (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> We seem to have diverted down an OT alley ....
> 
> Surely there is more to say about Art, what is and what isn't and the like ...
> 
> My dad used to paint, with a pallet knife, he built up his pictures layer on layer, they were almost three dimensional. They were impressions, not detailed, he didn't like detailed paintings, in fact he used to say, what is the point of them, why not just take a photo.


If you call a female artist a sexist derogatory term, expect to be pulled up on it.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> If you call a female artist a sexist derogatory term, expect to be pulled up on it.


I certainly wasn't aware it was a sexist term, I was going to write "slob" but as I don't ever use that for a woman the other word came to mind. Sorry if you were offended, but the bed suggests untidiness, mess, disorder, uncleanness, etc etc .. as I think it was intended to.


----------



## cesare (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I certainly wasn't aware it was a sexist term, I was going to write "slob" but as I don't ever use that for a woman the other word came to mind. Sorry if you were offended, but the bed suggests untidiness, mess, disorder, uncleanness, etc etc .. as I think it was intended to.


You'd have been better off with slob as it's not female specific


----------



## ToothlessFerret (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> So, on earth, only humans do it?









The bowerbird creates art in order to attract mates.  Are we so sure that isn't the origin of art in humans?  Sexual selection?  "Come up to my room to see my etchings!".

I've also seen an evolutionary explanation given for landscapes.  The suggestion is, that a beautiful landscape often includes a meandering river, hills, a valley, flowers, trees, bio-diversity.  In other words, a utopia for a hunter-forager.  Lots of natural resources.  Could that often be what attracts us?

Finally, how far back does human art go?  Although we think that we see an explosion of expression in the cave art of Europe, dating as far back as 35,000 years ago or more, anthropologists keep finding earlier evidence of painting, maybe body painting, going back to maybe 80,000 years ago or more - predating any exodus of anatomically modern humans into Asia and Europe.

Then there's the Acheulian bi-face "hand axes" dating back to over one million years ago.  Some of them are still clearly attractive, and asymmetrical beyond any practical requisite.

.... just a few thoughts from someone that doesn't understand art (but I know what I like!).


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> You'd have been better off with slob as it's not female specific


cesare, what is your understanding of the meaning of the word slattern?. google just says:

slattern
ˈslat(ə)n/
_noun_
dated
noun: *slattern*; plural noun: *slatterns*

a dirty, untidy woman.
"a slattern, her lipstick awry"
Which does not sound as derogatory as I think you feel?


----------



## cesare (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> cesare, what is your understanding of the meaning of the word slattern?. google just says:
> 
> slattern
> ˈslat(ə)n/
> ...


It's a gendered derogatory term. It's a gendered insult. It's offensive and there's no reason to call a female artist that because of a piece of her artwork.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> It's a gendered derogatory term. It's a gendered insult. It's offensive and there's no reason to call a female artist that because of a piece of her artwork.



Is it more offensive to you because it is a female specific term?

It was intended to be light hearted, hence the smiley, obviously that did not work, but such a bed is a bit disgusting no? Can I not comment on that?


----------



## cesare (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Is it more offensive to you because it is a female specific term?
> 
> It was intended to be light hearted, hence the smiley, obviously that did not work, but such a bed is a bit disgusting no? Can I not comment on that?


It's an insult designed and used specifically for females. It's sexist. Yes, it's more offensive to me because it's a fucking sexist insult. Comment on the artwork if you don't like it but don't call the artist sexist insults for producing it especially if you're fucking clueless as to what it actually represents.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

cesare said:


> It's an insult designed and used specifically for females. It's sexist. Yes, it's more offensive to me because it's a fucking sexist insult. Comment on the artwork if you don't like it but don't call the artist sexist insults for producing it especially if you're fucking clueless as to what it actually represents.


Ok...

As an artwork it doesn't do anything for me. I would want to put all the rubbish in the bin and change the sheets!

What does it represent for you?


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

> .....
> Two performance artists, Yuan Chai and Jian Jun Xi, jumped on the bed with bare torsos in order to improve the work, which they thought had not gone far enough. They called their performance _Two Naked Men Jump into Tracey's Bed_. The men also had a pillow fight[1] on the bed for around fifteen minutes, to applause from the crowd, before being removed by security guards. The artists were detained but no further action was taken.[2] Prior to its Tate Gallery showing, the work had appeared elsewhere, including Japan, where there were variant surroundings, including at one stage a hangman's noose hanging over the bed. This was not present when it was displayed at the Tate.[3]
> _
> My Bed_ was bought by Charles Saatchi for £150,000 and displayed as part of the first exhibition when the Saatchi Gallery opened its new premises at County Hall, London (which it has now vacated). Saatchi also installed the bed in a dedicated room in his own home.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bed


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

ToothlessFerret said:


> The bowerbird creates art in order to attract mates.  Are we so sure that isn't the origin of art in humans?  Sexual selection?  "Come up to my room to see my etchings!".


Bower bird, good point, but is it art or something else? A nest is not art, is this not like a nest? I know it is intended to attract a mate but does that make it art?



ToothlessFerret said:


> I've also seen an evolutionary explanation given for landscapes.  The suggestion is, that a beautiful landscape often includes a meandering river, hills, a valley, flowers, trees, bio-diversity.  In other words, a utopia for a hunter-forager.  Lots of natural resources.  Could that often be what attracts us?


Hmm... ok, but are landscapes especially popular in art? I know they are "popular" .. I suppose they could be especially popular .. don't know ....



ToothlessFerret said:


> Finally, how far back does human art go?  Although we think that we see an explosion of expression in the cave art of Europe, dating as far back as 35,000 years ago or more, anthropologists keep finding earlier evidence of painting, maybe body painting, going back to maybe 80,000 years ago or more - predating any exodus of anatomically modern humans into Asia and Europe.


Yes I think cave art goes way back, and body painting also ..



ToothlessFerret said:


> Then there's the Acheulian bi-face "hand axes" dating back to over one million years ago.  Some of them are still clearly attractive, and asymmetrical beyond any practical requisite. ..


Never heard of them .. will google.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

_The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, 1991, _Damien Hirst The work originally sold for around $73,000. The most recent price was $12-million.
http://art-now-and-then.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/damien-hirst.html


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Bower bird, good point, but is it art or something else? A nest is not art, is this not like a nest? .


----------



## ToothlessFerret (May 25, 2014)

An interesting study would be if the bowerbird creates in patterns with little due course to limited instinctive patterns, and to compare that to human creativity.  I must sound really boring.  I had no introduction to art as a kid, except via a shitty education system - that being state based, should have been much better than it was.  I think actually that in recent years, photography has made me much more aware about art than I've been ever in the past.  Especially in popular art as expressed on the Internet by actual people, uploading their photo-art.  Art is expression - with or without words.  I'm saying that without any education or reading in the arts.

I have read too much (and practiced) about archaeology and prehistory.  There is this question about "when did we become human".  I think that it's fair enough to state, that we became cognitive modern humans when we started to express art.  Because this was just another result of natural selection, it was very, gradual, and a very long process - extending over a million years.  The thing that really marks our species is culture.  We build our worlds around us, using imagination to change our environments to suit us.  Not always very well, or with due course for the long term.  I'm not kidding about the sexual selection.  It may have been a factor in that selection.  It got us laid.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Bower bird, good point, but is it art or something else? A nest is not art, is this not like a nest? I know it is intended to attract a mate but does that make it art?
> 
> ...



It could also be a photographic lie which could be art also.


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> It could also be a photographic lie which could be art also.


Stanley according to you just about anything can be art no?
For me Emin's bed isn't art, for me, for others it may be.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

A bower bird is doing something very specific, whether he knows it or not - he is trying to get laid. 

Is he able to stand back from what he is doing and appreciate what it is?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A bower bird is doing something very specific, whether he knows it or not - he is trying to get laid.
> 
> Is he able to stand back from what he is doing and appreciate what it is?



So is this guy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 25, 2014)

Genuine q, btw. I don't know.


----------



## weltweit (May 26, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So is this guy.


He seems to be doing quite well, he has most of her clothes off already !! And that without the complex lovenest of the bower bird!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 26, 2014)

But with the complex trappings of the zoot suit and low rider.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 26, 2014)

A male bower bird certainly has an aesthetic sensibility - a feel for what looks right and what doesn't in order to create the overall effect he's after - and of course, the female has a sensibility too in choosing one bower over another. 

That sensibility has certainly been developed over time through natural selection, and probably more of our aesthetic sense has also been shaped by evolution than most of us normally admit. 

That allows the bower bird and us to create decorative pieces. But we have also developed something the bower bird probably has not - works that knowingly attempt to communicate to others some sense of our inner lives.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

I'm not known for my flights of whimsy or particular dedication to artistry- a dabbler in poesy and short fic.

but, and dispute this if you will, I always saw the artist as the flawed lense, the human lense. And be it a painting, a poem, a story or a film. The thing captured is the thing seen through the eyes and emotions of the artist. It's not direct clinical photography or analytical history text. The art itself should tell you something of what the artist feels about what he is capturing in oils or words. Guernica is an obvious example.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (May 27, 2014)

Is this art?






Does anyone want to buy a print?


----------



## weltweit (May 27, 2014)

Apparently "My bed" is now for sale..


----------



## Dr_Herbz (May 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Apparently "My bed" is now for sale..


Some gullible fool will buy it, further perpetuating the myth that shite like that is art.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (May 27, 2014)

Tolstoy had it right....in "What is Art?"


http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> We seem to have diverted down an OT alley ....
> 
> Surely there is more to say about Art, what is and what isn't and the like ...
> 
> My dad used to paint, with a pallet knife, *he built up his pictures layer on layer, they were almost three dimensional*. They were impressions, not detailed, he didn't like detailed paintings, in fact he used to say, what is the point of them, why not just take a photo.



It's called _impasto_.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's called _impasto_.



Impressive!


----------



## xenon (May 27, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not so sure that's true. I don't see opposition between science and art. Both have things in common - the role of inspiration and seeing the world in a new way, for instance: without creative thinking, science would go nowhere. Art can feed off science, and science can feed off art. Complementary, perhaps, but not opposite.



Futile as defining what art is, this false notion of art and science being oppositional really ircs me. It seems to go along with stupid ideas about arty peple and sciency people being different. 

Basically I agree with you.


----------



## xenon (May 27, 2014)

Sirena said:


> And art stands in opposition to science.  The one is a subjective flight of fancy which can't be measured and the other is a limited expression of objectivity which must be measurable.



Try constructing giant steal sculptures with out recourse to scientific principles. Try ton investigate and explain theories about the beginning of the universe with out a mind capable of flights of fancy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Impressive!



Not really. I had a very good art teacher at secondary school. He was very into getting people to "jump in blind" with various techniques, including _impasto_.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really. I had a very good art teacher at secondary school. He was very into getting people to "jump in blind" with various techniques, including _impasto_.



I think we smoked too much reefer in art class at high school. For instance: it took me years to realize that the term wasn't 'trompe _de_ l'oeil'.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2014)

Not this again


----------



## stowpirate (May 31, 2014)

I don't think you can define art? A general drawing lines on a map, a kid jumping into a puddle, a poem are also art? All you can possibly agree on is to either love or hate it?


----------



## RoyReed (May 31, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> All you can possibly agree on is to either love or hate it?


I disagree


----------



## weltweit (May 31, 2014)

I was listening to Tracey Emin talking about My Bed on the radio recently, when asked about she described it as seminal - so I was thinking of putting my own bed on ebay


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

Are you saying your bed is covered in semen?


----------



## weltweit (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you saying your bed is covered in semen?


I rekon I could make it about as messy as hers was !!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 31, 2014)

Okay, so you can just send that to eBay then, we don't need pictures.


----------



## spanglechick (May 31, 2014)

Any definition of art, for me, needs to include something about the deliberate creation of something in the hope of inspiring or communication an emotional response in its audience. 

But not all art work for all audiences. 


I quite like Emin's bed, as it goes.  It's enormously bold, hugely personal, and pisses a lot of people off.  The point is not the skill or otherwise involved in making the piece.  Warhol didn't make his own screen prints...  It's the whole journey from inspiration to [audacious] realisation. The part of who she is that has developed over a whole lifetime and can be seen there.  If you start with her tent (which I love) and see the bed as a development of similar themes, she's confronting her "unfeminine" sexuality, promiscuity... Making a statement that's usually incredibly private... Almost washing her dirty linen in public. 

Now, I clearly wouldn't buy it as a piece of art for my home, but it isn't made for that.  I think Emin as a YBA shits all over Hirst.  Hirst is just smug.


----------



## spanglechick (May 31, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I rekon I could make it about as messy as hers was !!


The point about a lot of modern art is yes of course you could copy it.   But you didn't gave the original idea and it isn't personal to you anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Any definition of art, for me, needs to include something about the deliberate creation of something in the hope of inspiring or communication an emotional response in its audience.
> 
> But not all art work for all audiences.
> 
> ...


Agree totally that art is something made to elicit an emotional response. 

With Emin's bed, I do think it is a wee bit self-indulgent to produce pieces that only make sense if you know the artist's other work. I kind of like the spirit of Emin's bed, but I also fully understand why others are extremely underwhelmed by it. And even in the above, you are bringing a fair old bit of yourself into it in order to give the piece meaning. Brain Sewell's criticism of conceptual art is always exactly this - that the artist is expecting the viewer to provide the meaning. While I think I can understand Emin's bed, I also understand why others think it is a con-trick - but then that is mostly because of the commodification of Art and the addition of a price-tag to works, which distorts everything.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Agree totally that art is something made to elicit an emotional response.
> 
> With Emin's bed, I do think it is a wee bit self-indulgent to produce pieces that only make sense if you know the artist's other work. I kind of like the spirit of Emin's bed, but I also fully understand why others are extremely underwhelmed by it. And even in the above, you are bringing a fair old bit of yourself into it in order to give the piece meaning. Brain Sewell's criticism of conceptual art is always exactly this - that the artist is expecting the viewer to provide the meaning. While I think I can understand Emin's bed, I also understand why others think it is a con-trick - but then that is mostly because of the commodification of Art and the addition of a price-tag to works, which distorts everything.


I thought this when I was reading what you said earlier: surely most art, post say, the impressionists, requires the audience to bring its own meaning. Thinking Rothko or Klee or Pollock...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> I thought this when I was reading what you said earlier: surely most art, post say, the impressionists, requires the audience to bring its own meaning. Thinking Rothko or Klee or Pollock...


Klee and Pollock have never done that much for me, but I really like Rothko, so I'll take him as the example, if I may, to see if there is a difference.

I love sitting in the Rothko room in the Tate. I have sat there in the past for a good 20 minutes (may not sound that long, but it's almost unheard of for me to look at any piece of art for that long). I drift, and the paintings drift, and they produce a feeling of warm melancholia in me. But I would say that I am not bringing a meaning to the works - they remain abstract shapes and colours. I'm not thinking consciously about them at all. They produce an emotional response without any need for my conscious self to intervene at all. I do not need to intellectualise them at any level. In fact, I would argue that for many who don't like abstract art, it is the fact that they are attempting to intellectualise it that holds them back from appreciating it for what it is.

With Emin's bed, is there is at least some need for conscious intervention? Could that be a difference between Emin and Rothko? There is nothing in the visual aesthetic of Emin's piece to elicit a strong emotional response - you have to think about what she may be exposing about herself in the piece to react emotionally to it. With a Rothko painting, I do not need to know anything about the artist to make some sense of it, to react to it.

That's not necessarily a criticism. Duchamp's Fountain makes little sense unless you know the context in which it was made. That's the nature of conceptual art. But I think a clear difference can be drawn between such conceptual art and abstract paintings like a Rothko or a Klee.

ETA:

I guess one reservation I may have about things like Emin's bed is that the terms on which you are asked to appreciate it mean that you can't really object too much to such things as the students who jumped up and down on it and said that what they were doing was art too.


----------



## SkyTaylor (Jun 3, 2014)

Art is a assorted ambit of animal activities and the articles of those activities; this commodity focuses primarily on the beheld arts, which includes the conception of images or altar in fields including painting, sculpture, printmaking, photography, and added beheld media.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 28, 2014)

Tracey Emin 'hopes' bed artwork will go to museum
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28057325


> Tracey Emin 'hopes' her most famous artwork, an unmade bed, will end up in a museum after it is sold at auction.
> 
> My Bed (1998), which features stained sheets, cigarette packets, discarded condoms and soiled underwear, is being sold at Christie's on Tuesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 28, 2014)

Art is anything you want it to be. Tracy Emins bed is shit art, but it is art. 
The way I mow the lawn is art if I say it is. Duchamp did not have to sign and put a urinal in a gallery to make it art, it already is if you want it to be. Hopefully that was Duchamps point. 

Perhaps untouched nature isn't art, but just looking at it or being told to look at it makes it so.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 28, 2014)

What are you doing here, planted on your backsides like a load of serious mugs...

... you serious people, you smell worse than cow dung

DADA, as for it, it smells of nothing, it is nothing, nothing, nothing

It is like your hopes: nothing

like your heaven: nothing...

like your politicians: nothing...

like your artists: nothing...


----------



## weltweit (Jun 28, 2014)

Hi Dillinger4 haven't seen you around for a while, hope you are keeping well!


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2014)

Tracey Emin's My Bed artwork sold for £2.2m at auction
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28116274


> Tracey Emin's controversial My Bed modern artwork has sold for £2.2m at auction at Christie's in London.
> 
> The 1998 work features an unmade bed and a floor littered with empty vodka bottles, cigarette butts and condoms.
> 
> The work, which was shortlisted for the 1999 Turner Prize, had been put up for sale by millionaire art collector Charles Saatchi who bought it for £150,000 in 2000.



So it seems like Saatchi made a big profit. I wonder if it will stay in the UK.


----------



## xenon (Jul 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Agree totally that art is something made to elicit an emotional response.
> 
> With Emin's bed, I do think it is a wee bit self-indulgent to produce pieces that only make sense if you know the artist's other work. I kind of like the spirit of Emin's bed, but I also fully understand why others are extremely underwhelmed by it. And even in the above, you are bringing a fair old bit of yourself into it in order to give the piece meaning. Brain Sewell's criticism of conceptual art is always exactly this - that the artist is expecting the viewer to provide the meaning. While I think I can understand Emin's bed, I also understand why others think it is a con-trick - but then that is mostly because of the commodification of Art and the addition of a price-tag to works, which distorts everything.



^ This.

I could never stand art such as Emin's bed for the reasons you allude to. Art that is about the artist. Autobiographical personal expressions requiring the viewer to research them before any meaningful apretiation of the work can be felt.

Give me a Rachel Whiteread piece any day.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 20, 2014)

Now, this is art : Kieron Williamson art: Paintings valued at £400,000 [he is 11 years old!]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-28369124


> A collection of 40 paintings by an 11-year-old boy from Norfolk has been valued at £400,000 by a gallery.
> 
> Kieron Williamson, from Ludham, has been painting since he was five and his latest collection will go on show at Picturecraft in Holt this weekend.
> 
> It will be Kieron's ninth exhibition and will also mark 40 years since the death of East Anglian artist Edward Seago, one of his major influences.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2014)

Jake and Dinos Chapman sculpture removed from Rome gallery
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28740348
A nude sculpture by British artists Jake and Dinos Chapman has been removed from a Rome gallery after complaints from a children's rights group.

The sculpture, called Piggyback, had been on display at contemporary art gallery Maxxi since December.
But the Italian Observatory on the Rights of the Child labelled the piece "paedo-pornographic" and lobbied for its removal.

The piece depicts two girls, one with a penis sticking out of her mouth.
..


----------



## stowpirate (Aug 11, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Jake and Dinos Chapman sculpture removed from Rome gallery
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28740348
> A nude sculpture by British artists Jake and Dinos Chapman has been removed from a Rome gallery after complaints from a children's rights group.
> 
> ...



https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=J...EFsr07Abbq4GQDg&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=607

More shock media attention seeking stuff than art? Anyway I am sure I am in a minority here?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jake and Dinos Chapman sculpture&client=firefox-a&hs=QKu&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=YfDoU9HEFsr07Abbq4GQDg&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=607
> 
> More shock media attention seeking stuff than art? Anyway I am sure I am in a minority here?


I find it pretty strange stuff.....
Were I a gallery owner I am not sure I would want it in my gallery!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

I really like the Chapmans' stuff.

We live in puritanical times in many respects, in which a depiction of the grotesque is censored, and censured. I wonder how Hieronymous Bosch's work would go down if it hadn't been sanctified by the passing centuries.

Spineless of the gallery to give in to the complaints.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I really like the Chapmans' stuff.
> 
> We live in puritanical times in many respects, in which a depiction of the grotesque is censored, and censured. I wonder how Hieronymous Bosch's work would go down if it hadn't been sanctified by the passing centuries.


Well I suppose because I don't like it, that does not mean that it isn't art! But it is pretty strange stuff, could be the product of an ill mind even no?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Well I suppose because I don't like it, that does not mean that it isn't art! But it is pretty strange stuff, could be the product of an ill mind even no?


Could be, or could not be. It is an artist's job, surely, not to shy away from or try to block out ugly thoughts or images that enter their heads. Most of us have strange and ugly thoughts at times.


----------



## stowpirate (Aug 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I really like the Chapmans' stuff.
> 
> We live in puritanical times in many respects, in which a depiction of the grotesque is censored, and censured. I wonder how Hieronymous Bosch's work would go down if it hadn't been sanctified by the passing centuries.



Not sure we do live in puritanicaltimes? There are worse scenes in most digital games which could also be seen as art?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Not sure we do live in puritanicaltimes? There are worse scenes in most digital games which could also be seen as art?


I guess the truth is that we _always_ live in puritanical times. As Arthur Miller said, each generation must win its freedom anew. I think this is right and is true in many spheres - the puritans are always there in the corner, ready to blame society's ills on art.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Could be, or could not be. It is an artist's job, surely, not to shy away from or try to block out ugly thoughts or images that enter their heads. Most of us have strange and ugly thoughts at times.


I suppose it depends why they are making art .. I imagine there could be many reasons.
When I started doing art, mostly I created pretty out there stuff, but as I became able to draw more beautiful things also, I sort of put nasty things behind me.. perhaps these guys haven't got past that phase..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I suppose it depends why they are making art .. I imagine there could be many reasons.
> When I started doing art, mostly I created pretty out there stuff, but as I became able to draw more beautiful things also, I sort of put nasty things behind me.. perhaps these guys haven't got past that phase..


The cynic might say that they have stayed in a particular phase because it makes them a lot of money. Similar can be said of a lot of artists - that monetary success and recognition can lead conservatism in their approach: stick to what 'works'.

I like it. It's an exploration of the pair's playful, irreverent and sometimes disturbing imaginations. They make me recoil sometimes and laugh at others - often the same piece produces both responses. A bit like Bosch.


----------



## stowpirate (Aug 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I guess the truth is that we _always_ live in puritanical times. As Arthur Miller said, each generation must win its freedom anew. I think this is right and is true in many spheres - the puritans are always there in the corner, ready to blame society's ills on art.



Or art is in some areas indicating where society is going wrong ?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The cynic might say that they have stayed in a particular phase because it makes them a lot of money. Similar can be said of a lot of artists - that monetary success and recognition can lead conservatism in their approach: stick to what 'works'.


Do they make a lot of money?
I had never heard of them, but I can't claim to be knowledgeable on the art scene.  



littlebabyjesus said:


> I like it. It's an exploration of the pair's playful, irreverent and sometimes disturbing imaginations. They make me recoil sometimes and laugh at others. A bit like Bosch.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Or art is in some areas indicating where society is going wrong ?


I think there are two separate things there. The art market indicates many ways in which society has gone wrong. The crude commodification of art, the spending of millions on artworks by people who are interested only in its investment value. The fetishisation of particular pieces while others are ignored.

That is spectacularly fucked up. Kurt Vonnegut satirised it in one of his novels, in which he imagines a society that holds an annual art competition in which the winner is chosen by lot - their artwork is praised, they have money showered on them, and all the other artworks are destroyed.

But there has long been an element of that - if you look at the nineteenth century you find that many of the artists who were most successful in their own lifetimes are now entirely forgotten. The most celebrated artist of our time, as judged by the future, may currently be toiling away in poverty and frustration somewhere as their art is largely ignored.

Value and the nature of value, and how that is connected to money, is a difficult thing, and the kinds of art that are currently fetishised as valuable commodities may well reflect some bad things, most notably the skewed nature of the process by which artworks become celebrated in the first place. And that may skew the kinds of art that are made. But I don't think that's a massive problem. There is lots of art of all kinds around, and art should reflect bad aspects of society, surely. An art world that cheerfully disregarded the wider world's problems (and also the inner world's demons) would be a rather diminished beast.


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 11, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Jake and Dinos Chapman sculpture removed from Rome gallery
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28740348
> A nude sculpture by British artists Jake and Dinos Chapman has been removed from a Rome gallery after complaints from a children's rights group.


Same sort of fuss when Hans Belmer's _Poupee_ were exhibited at the Hayward Gallery, and later at the Whitechapel were the dolls were removed.


Spoiler: Photo of 'erotic' poupee doll


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is spectacularly fucked up. Kurt Vonnegut satirised it in one of his novels, in which he imagines a society that holds an annual art competition in which the winner is chosen by lot - their artwork is praised, they have money showered on them, and all the other artworks are destroyed.



Have you heard of Rescue or Destroy?  They bring two works up and the audience decides if they move on to the next level or are destroyed.  They can also be saved by being bought on the spot.  Hesitate and it gets the ax--literally.



> If this sounds like you, or someone you know, it’s time to get a grip. Come to a Rescue or Destroy event. It’s the antidote to indecision. I’ve seen it firsthand: She who hesitates is heartbroken. This is the place where artwork leaves the market. By the end of the evening, all of the art featured here will no longer be available for sale. Some of it will cease to exist.
> 
> Every piece faces one of three outcomes. It could be saved to compete again in a future event, it could be bought by a passionate, decisive art lover, or it will be destroyed; chopped up into hundreds of tiny pieces by a large, bearded, bald man with an ax.



http://rescueordestroy.blogspot.com/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

Why do they champion decisiveness? What is wrong with not being sure, with being conflicted or a bit confused? Why must you instantly know what to do with something? 

Weird.


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I really like the Chapmans' stuff.
> 
> We live in puritanical times in many respects, in which a depiction of the grotesque is censored, and censured. I wonder how Hieronymous Bosch's work would go down if it hadn't been sanctified by the passing centuries.
> 
> Spineless of the gallery to give in to the complaints.


Would you condone the removal of art from a gallery for any reason at all?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2014)

I recall a few years back an exhibit of photograph got pulled because it included photos of her pubescent daughter in really unacceptable states of nakedness. No peediness was intended but it was pulled regardless.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

Santino said:


> Would you condone the removal of art from a gallery for any reason at all?


It was labelled 'paedo-porngraphic' by a group that appointed itself arbiter on such matters.

Here is the piece:







It's called 'Piggyback'. I see nothing pornographic about it, particularly in the context of their other work, but I'm not the voice being listened to here. I'm sure Mary Whitehouse would have objected as well.


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was labelled 'paedo-porngraphic' by a group that appointed itself arbiter on such matters.
> 
> Here is the piece:
> 
> ...


Would you condone the removal of art from a
gallery for any reason at all?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

Santino said:


> Would you condone the removal of art from a
> gallery for any reason at all?


I have specifically commented on this incident. That is an open-ended question inviting me to think of hypotheticals, rather than this case that has happened. You give me some other scenarios and I'll give you my comments on those - perhaps your imagination is more vivid than mine and you can think of things I can't.


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2014)

What about a sculpture that was a depiction of actual paedophilia? Or an installation that implied Jews like to kill children? 

How would you take into account the aesthetic values of the pieces?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

Hard to pull off a sculpture of 'actual paedophilia' I would think, but what would be the aesthetic of it - would it show beauty or horror, or would it leave those questions open? Dunno. I'd have to see it. 

As for an anti-Semitic installation with no side to it that questions the implication? Well it can fuck off, I would have thought. How does it imply that Jews like to kill children? 

We're already a million miles away from anything the Chapman bros have ever done.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why do they champion decisiveness? What is wrong with not being sure, with being conflicted or a bit confused? Why must you instantly know what to do with something?
> 
> Weird.



I suspect they're trying to appeal to "reality television generation" by making it as much like Big Brother or Survivor as possible.


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I recall a few years back an exhibit of photograph got pulled because it included photos of her pubescent daughter in really unacceptable states of nakedness.


Unacceptable to who? Not to the girl's mother, obviously.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I recall a few years back an exhibit of photograph got pulled because it included photos of her pubescent daughter in really unacceptable states of nakedness. No peediness was intended but it was pulled regardless.



When I was in art school an exhibit by Maplethorpe got pulled because it showed images of homosexuality.  It was quite a stink at the time, but I doubt if it would be controversial now.  Fashions change over time, as much with art as morality.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2014)

RoyReed said:


> Unacceptable to who? Not to the girl's mother, obviously.




to people who thought pictures of a  naked legs spread nine year old girl shouldn't be on public display- intent or not, thats peedo fodder.


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> to people who thought pictures of a  naked legs spread nine year old girl shouldn't be on public display- intent or not, thats peedo fodder.


And that justifies censorship of images in an art gallery?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2014)

yes. Art isn't a precious beautiful thing seperated from context and free to express itself regarldess of consequence. I'm no fan of comitees and mary whitehouse but sometimes we have to say 'no mate, not having it'

if that makes me a bit fuddy then so be it


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 11, 2014)

People of all ages including children visit galleries. Displaying a sculpture of young, pre pubescent girls with penises coming out of their mouths is questionable. I'm finding it hard to defend it as a sculpture and not something that blatantly sexualises prepubescent girls.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> People of all ages including children visit galleries. Displaying a sculpture of young, pre pubescent girls with penises coming out of their mouths is questionable. I'm finding it hard to defend it as a sculpture and not something that blatantly sexualises prepubescent girls.


The only thing that even suggests sexualising the image is the presence of the penis. Take that away and there is nothing there suggesting sex at all. And the penis comes out of the girl's mouth. For whatever reason, she has a penis coming out of her mouth - and it appears to be that, specifically, that causes it to be a thing that sexualises, despite its presence being incongruous - a penis for a tongue. One girl's arms are the other girls legs, and she has a penis coming out of her mouth, as if the girl on top is fucking the back of the other girl's head with her penis, which is somehow going straight through her head.

But substituting a girl's tongue for a penis in that way is not paedo-pornography. TBH that people would think it is says more about them than the artists or the art work.

As for this idea that we need to protect the children, well take a wander around any gallery with old masters in it. Take a thumb through a book on Goya. You will see all kinds of unpleasant things. Art isn't just about sunflowers. 

Hell, take a wander around a church and look at all the images of a man nailed up to a cross and left to die.


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2014)

The only thing that suggests sexualising is an erect penis in a naked young girl's mouth that makes it looks like she might be being fucked in the back of her head. The only thing. 



littlebabyjesus said:


> TBH that people would think it is says more about them than the artists or the art work.


Ok, who had 11.14pm? Anyone?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

puzzling? yes. disturbing? yes, a bit. Porn? No, not a bit of it, unless you're incapable of seeing a penis and not calling it porn, regardless of the place it appears. 

You'd have been calling for Bosch paintings to have been burned, no doubt.


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2014)

No doubt.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The only thing that even suggests sexualising the image is the presence of the penis. Take that away and there is nothing there suggesting sex at all. And the penis comes out of the girl's mouth. For whatever reason, she has a penis coming out of her mouth - and it appears to be that, specifically, that causes it to be a thing that sexualises, despite its presence being incongruous - a penis for a tongue. One girl's arms are the other girls legs, and she has a penis coming out of her mouth, as if the girl on top is fucking the back of the other girl's head with her penis, which is somehow going straight through her head.
> 
> But substituting a girl's tongue for a penis in that way is not paedo-pornography. TBH that people would think it is says more about them than the artists or the art work.
> 
> ...




Penises are well represented in art...but I have to say I've never seen one protruding from the mouth of a prepubescent girl...I would not have thought of your explanation that the penis is coming through the child's head into her mouth. 
Tbh I just don't rate this because in my view, and response to art is personal, in my view it is bordering on paedophilic...if that's a word.
I've looked at plenty of their other sculptures and can appreciate their work..but this for me is a step beyond what I would reasonably want to view as of artistic merit. 
Sorry...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2014)

Santino said:


> No doubt.


listen twat, you're making massive assumptions about me, so I'll do the same. 

Good night, you boring idiot.


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2014)

Unease about a sculpture depicting pre-pubescent children with overtly sexual imagery is the same as burning paintings. The great liberal has spoken.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2014)

tbh the idea that all art is regardless holding inherent value because it is art is problematic to say the least. I saw a ww1 german cartoon the other day that depicted the 'jon bull' figure complete with hat and union jack tie. Only jon was done black, ring in nose, plates in ears, ludicrous massive lips and bulging eyes. Total racist caricature done to make a point about allied forces using conscripts from the african colonies. Is that art? does it have value?


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> tbh the idea that all art is regardless holding inherent value because it is art is problematic to say the least. I saw a ww1 german cartoon the other day that depicted the 'jon bull' figure complete with hat and union jack tie. Only jon was done black, ring in nose, plates in ears, ludicrous massive lips and bulging eyes. Total racist caricature done to make a point about allied forces using conscripts from the african colonies. Is that art? does it have value?


So you want to ban children from reading books, is that it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2014)

It's just like in farenheit 911. Which is banned CTR


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2014)

Santino said:


> Unease about a sculpture depicting pre-pubescent children with overtly sexual imagery is the same as burning paintings. The great liberal has spoken.


You being a tedious cunt whose sole purpose is an attempt to make others look stupid by falling into your traps and 'expose' themselves as 'liberals' who haven't thought things through is fucking boring. It appears to be the main reason you post - in order to try to make others look stupid. There is far less to you than meets the eye. You are an arse.


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You being a tedious cunt whose sole purpose is an attempt to make others look stupid by falling into your traps and 'expose' themselves as 'liberals' who haven't thought things through is fucking boring. It appears to be the main reason you post - in order to try to make others look stupid. There is far less to you than meets the eye. You are an arse.


I wouldn't say it was the main reason.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 29, 2014)

Is this art?

Gold bullion worth £10,000 buried on Folkestone beach
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-28967848
A gold-rush has started at a beach in Kent where a German artist buried £10,000 worth of bullion as part of an arts festival.

Michael Sailstorfer has hidden 30 24-carat gold bars on Folkestone's Outer Harbour beach.

More than 150 people started digging for gold when low tide exposed the beach. Organisers say prospectors can keep any bars they find.

The Folkestone Digs project is part of the town's triennial arts festival.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 29, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Is this art?
> 
> Gold bullion worth £10,000 buried on Folkestone beach
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-28967848
> ...



It certainly makes a statement about our life and times.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 29, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> It certainly makes a statement about our life and times.


Are you sure? What statement?


----------

