Is it art?

[basic 101 user]

Spotted in a (kinda' mid-range) furniture store.
Acrylic (?) on sheet metal, with assorted metal components applied, significant relief.

$ 400

As I have said before, there is no substitute for being in front of the original: I could feel myself slowly going mad as I stood there, mouth agape.

Don't look directly at it too long, you may never be the same again. I know I have been permanently warped.

Spoiler: Tread carefully, you have been warned. ;)

 

[The_Chief]

The more I look at it, Basic, the more my mind screams "Yo Quiero Taco Bell"

I guess we're both permanently warped

 

[lunatic59]

I like it!

Art needn't be serious or provocative to be art.

 

[basic 101 user]

Paraphrasing the old expression:

I don't know much about art; But I know what I (don't) like.

 

[psionandy]

Art is the one on the left..... Problem solved.

 

[basic 101 user]

Agree to disagree, Art is on the right.
It's all a matter of perspective; Which side of the mirror you are on.

Up stage, center stage, downstage........ Wherever you worship; Behind the band, or in the congregation, way out at the vanishing point; It's all scrambled up........


But from Paul's perspective............ Art is definitely on the right.

 

[psionandy]

I don't know much about art; But I know what I don't like.

Isn't that what Paul said?

 

[basic 101 user]

^^^^^^^Took me an extra second to follow
Unless I am very much mistaken, I believe what Paul actually said was "I am the walrus".


Also: Who knew I had a long lost, half brother, documented by Diane Arbus, circa 1962!!

 

[basic 101 user]

Looking forward to the second debate tonight; Who knew, Diane Arbus also did a series capturing the essence of a significant portion of our electorate.
It's very prescient, But can you really call it art?

 

[mikedt]

Art is the one on the left..... Problem solved.

..and Paul is the one on the right.


This is the one I like, The Bricks, on show at the Tate Modern in London.

A type of art that I do take an interest in, is Chinese propaganda images.

One school I taught at had this 10 metres high, overlooking the playground.

"I want to be an amazing Chinese person"

"Warmly love the teacher"

 

[lunatic59]

I don't know that I'd call that "propaganda" Mike. Maybe inspirational would be a better term. Maybe in the same genre as "Rosie the Riveter"

Of course, if you make that gesture in an Italian neighborhood you're likely to get your nose broken.

And yes, it is art. Art vs. illustration is a common discussion in the creative community, but you have to understand that art for art's sake is a relatively modern concept. Prior to ... oh ... let's say ... the Italian Renaissance, art was primarily illustrative for either political or religious purposes. You could probably go further back if you include the decorative arts, but I would tend to think of that in terms of the contemporaries and consider it more craft, than "art".

 

[basic 101 user]

art for art's sake is a relatively modern concept.

art was primarily illustrative for either political or religious purposes.

Lascaux caverns.
(Estimated 17,000 years old).

Is it art?

 

[Dngrsone]

Lascaux caverns.
(Estimated 17,000 years old).

Is it art?

My art appreciation teacher noted that these people had skills that had been lost and forgotten until Picasso; so I am going to say yes.

 

[basic 101 user]

religious purposes.

Without question, and thank goodness; Look at all the great stuff we got as a result, over centuries.......much of it "fall to your knees and weep" category good stuff.

Took refuge the other day, in our local museum; Fleeing the plague of "deplorables" visiting other family members in our house for the afternoon.

The museum is under serious construction / renovation, so the displays at the moment are "eclectic" to say the least, the hours are irregular.
Regardless, any institution which takes itself seriously, (regardless of size or horsepower), can put some good stuff out there at the end of your nose, on any given day.

Spotted by the main entry, all by itself, and with nearly zero fanfare was this:

Barely any signage, and zero encouragement to "lift the tab"........(but you are free to do so if you desire).........

"The Seven Angels Sounding Trumpets From The Apocalypse"
Albrecht Durer
(1498)

OK, so it's not an "original".........woodblock prints could be made by the thousands, once some clown carved out the "cookie cutter" stamp.
But this is one of the copies that has survived, against all odds.
It lives most of it's life in a temperature and humidity controlled environment, in total darkness. WHY? Because it is completely self evident to anyone with a half a soul, that it must be preserved for as many generations to come as possible, despite it's fragile and transient nature.

And once in a blue moon, they roll the dice, and let it do exactly what it was meant to do, exercise it's primary purpose in the cosmos; Possible consequences be damned.

They hang it on the wall, and let any Tom, Dick, and Harry gaze upon it's radiant glory......For a brief moment, before returning it to the vault for safekeeping.

(My lousy photo and glass glare aside), you damn' well better believe I took advantage of the moment; "There is no substitute for standing in front of original artwork".

As I slowly return my silly agnostic ass to a standing position, compose myself, and wipe the tears from my eyes...........I defy you to tell me it isn't art.

 

[basic 101 user]

Who can tell the group something about Ralph Albert Blakelock?

I never heard of him before an hour ago, and now I'm looking at a 1/4 page ad, promoting a show of his work in a NY gallery.

The show is being tagged "The great mad genius returns", and the ad carries several quotes from multiple trustworthy outside sources, terms like "greatest", "strongest" "....in the history of art".

That's some build up, I should check this out, see what I'm missing.

 

[lunatic59]

Blakelock (if I remember my art history correctly) was a self-taught painter influenced by the Hudson River School who followed Horace Greeley's advice and went west as a young man. I can't say that I've ever seen his work in person, but anything that came out of the Hudson River School has to be interesting and worth a look. Very romantic stuff (but not in a boy-girl mushy way ... it's emotionally inspiring.)

They painted a lot of distant landscapes like this ...

But is it art?

 

[basic 101 user]

The gallery has a short video up answering many of my questions.

I'm really ambivalent regarding how I feel about the video. It's very well done, but seems kind of heavy handed, deliberately fanning the flames to whip the public into a buying frenzy; A craven promotional piece for no purpose other than to increase auction sales commission.

On the other hand, where there is smoke, there may already be fire; People don't say these kinds of things over 100+ years if there is nothing to it. And clearly there is something worth looking at there.

I see the Hudson River connection now for sure, you are of course correct. But you don't have to squint very hard to see the darker side. Seems like he shared a "Starry night / Sunflowers" "program bug" or two with Van Gogh; It makes him that much more appealing, very relatable, IMHO.

I can't say I "like" all of the handful of his works I have now been exposed to, but a number of them have a great deal of appeal.......And as ever, there is huge benefit to major retrospective gatherings of any artist's work. (100+ works is nothing to sneeze at, and background biography info always makes the man or woman more interesting)
Major gatherings allow you to be exposed to a lot of works, perhaps painted over a half century of artist development/ maturation. The three or four that you really dig, then suddenly inform your opinions of the ones you really don't care for at all; Like 'em or don't, they all become more interesting when set in that larger context.

Heck, I'm betting the landscape posted above is by a big name, a well known work; But just seeing only that one, out of context, I would probably go "Meh....It's nice, just not my cup of tea", and move to the next canvas. A little too bright, uplifting, and just as you say "romantic".

P.S. The above image reminds me of a recent "random thought" that didn't make it to the "random thought" thread........"I've lived my entire life in California........I really don't know the first thing about "Fall", I've never experienced a proper Autumn season, with the leaves and whatnot.
And I'll certainly never experience one in the 1800's, thank goodness there was an artist there to capture it for me.

 

[lunatic59]

A heavy handed narrative to say the least. I find it amusing how the 'reviews' are only positive a century later. I'm sure that in his time he was met with an equal number of "it's crap" and "don't quit your day job". I'm not sure I'd use him in the same sentence at Van Gogh or Eakins, but history is written by those in power so who knows what they would have thought of each other.

Hell, Van Gogh and Gauguin lived together for a year and we don't know what they thought about each other's art.

 

[basic 101 user]

Yeah, I didn't mean to say "as good as" Van Gogh......Just that I see some elements that seem similar.....If I learn that neither was aware of the other's work, it would be just that much more interesting to me; What mental condition manifests itself in a compulsion to make brush strokes like this, or causes people to "see" the world in similar ways, lead to similar outputs?

Where the "software" ends and the hardware begins, to lead to a particular work of art is a longtime fascination.
Just an anecdote, I'm sure I have it mostly wrong, but never stopped me before, here goes;
I have some memory of a (suspicious origin, no provenance, "discovered" orphan) Jackson Pollock painting. They had a lot of experts looking at it, trying to determine if genuine or not. One expert was more doctor than art historian, his opinion something to the effect of: (More than just a snarky joke, there was medicine behind the opinion) "I can't say it was him or not, but I can say that whoever painted this was drinking as heavily as Pollock was during this time; You can't fake the kind of "out of his mind, blackout drunk" condition that I can point out in the technique here."

And as heavy handed as the video is, I still find myself drawn to that narrative of "unknown in his own time", it took the rest of us a generation to figure it out.......Then suddenly the switch is flipped, and the majority go "Oh, of course, we can all agree this was outstanding."
I can think of any number of instances in my own life, where I just didn't "see it", completely missed the point for a decade or two. Then one day it clicks, and I go "How did I even live without this before, this is so cool!"

Of the (many) ways I have found so far, that's one of my favorite kinds of being wrong.

The quotes may have come late, but they were from pretty good sources, and were not wishy-washy in their praise.

P.S. I have a small file of / am a sucker for the "glowing, unambiguous endorsement".

I can't find the one I have in mind this minute, so I'm paraphrasing again; It comes from another world of "vastly overpriced works of art", and speaks directly to "falling all over ourselves in praise of..."
It's a single sheet of paper, with little more than a "cavallino rampante" as the letterhead. Below (translated from the Italian), is something to the effect of:

"Gioacchino Colombo will live forever in my grateful memory as the man who gave birth to my dreams, form to my ideas" - Enzo.

How fun would it be to go into a job interview armed with a piece of paper saying effectively:

"This is the guy for the job" - Yours truly, God.

 

[lunatic59]

"This is the guy for the job" - Yours truly, God.

That didn't work out so well for Jesus.


(I'm already going to Hell ... that's why they call it "hell")

 

[basic 101 user]

(Admits defeat, hangs head, figures out he knows nothing of Eakins..........)

Time to do some research and get better at this!

 

[basic 101 user]

So, in the ongoing tradition of me being wrong, and needing to take a third or fourth look:

I've never been very fond of "conceptual art".
I generally think it's pretentious, and in some ways makes a mockery of "real" art.

What next, some guy is going to nail a urinal up on the wall, and call it art???

But I had to revisit my feelings about conceptual art when I first learned of Caleb Larsen's "A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter". (Approx. 2010)

In short, it's a black plastic cube, containing some hardware and software, and an ethernet cable. Connect it to the internet, and it automatically logs on to E-bay, and puts itself up for sale. Upon receiving the work, the winning bidder is bound by the terms of the sale to plug it into the web, and the cycle repeats, the current owner is obliged to ship the piece to the new owner.

My fascination with this piece is nearly boundless; If the job of "conceptual art" is to make you think, start asking questions, and challenge your sensibilities......I say well done.

The list of questions it raises are endlessly fascinating, IMHO, and span an enormous range. More than just questions of "Is it art", there are questions of philosophy, the nature of a contract, hardware and software, the nature of "ownership", the nature of the auction world, the idea of "forever" and infinity......On and on.

(IF) you grant that it is art, just a few of the questions I would ask include:

Is the "art" primarily in the "having the idea" for a piece, and significantly less about the actual thing produced? Art vs. craft comes up often, with good reason, there is barely even much craft here.

(IF) you grant that it is art.......Does it stop being "art" the instant someone "breaks the contract", decides they want to keep it for themselves, and fails to "plug it in"? If it isn't "doing it's thing", performing its primary mission in life......It really is just a silly black plastic cube, with a wire coming out of it.....Hardly art.

(Particularly with regard to significant works).....Does one ever truly own a work of art, or are you merely its current caretaker; Temporarily enjoying it, while guarding it for future generations to enjoy?

All art ages, nothing lasts forever. Cadillac Ranch is going away, Spiral Jetty ebbs and flows, comes and goes; Michelangelo's "David" may well break at the ankles some day. So when the day comes that the RJ-45 ethernet port is an obsolete pattern; When the software in Caleb Larsen's piece is no longer compatible with "current" internet protocols.......Will it still be art?

Is it art now?

 

[Deleted User]

So, in the ongoing tradition of me being wrong, and needing to take a third or fourth look:

I've never been very fond of "conceptual art".
I generally think it's pretentious, and in some ways makes a mockery of "real" art.

What next, some guy is going to nail a urinal up on the wall, and call it art???

But I had to revisit my feelings about conceptual art when I first learned of Caleb Larsen's "A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter". (Approx. 2010)

In short, it's a black plastic cube, containing some hardware and software, and an ethernet cable. Connect it to the internet, and it automatically logs on to E-bay, and puts itself up for sale. Upon receiving the work, the winning bidder is bound by the terms of the sale to plug it into the web, and the cycle repeats, the current owner is obliged to ship the piece to the new owner.

My fascination with this piece is nearly boundless; If the job of "conceptual art" is to make you think, start asking questions, and challenge your sensibilities......I say well done.

The list of questions it raises are endlessly fascinating, IMHO, and span an enormous range. More than just questions of "Is it art", there are questions of philosophy, the nature of a contract, hardware and software, the nature of "ownership", the nature of the auction world, the idea of "forever" and infinity......On and on.

(IF) you grant that it is art, just a few of the questions I would ask include:

Is the "art" primarily in the "having the idea" for a piece, and significantly less about the actual thing produced? Art vs. craft comes up often, with good reason, there is barely even much craft here.

(IF) you grant that it is art.......Does it stop being "art" the instant someone "breaks the contract", decides they want to keep it for themselves, and fails to "plug it in"? If it isn't "doing it's thing", performing its primary mission in life......It really is just a silly black plastic cube, with a wire coming out of it.....Hardly art.

(Particularly with regard to significant works).....Does one ever truly own a work of art, or are you merely its current caretaker; Temporarily enjoying it, while guarding it for future generations to enjoy?

All art ages, nothing lasts forever. Cadillac Ranch is going away, Spiral Jetty ebbs and flows, comes and goes; Michelangelo's "David" may well break at the ankles some day. So when the day comes that the RJ-45 ethernet port is an obsolete pattern; When the software in Caleb Larsen's piece is no longer compatible with "current" internet protocols.......Will it still be art?

Is it art now?

It's a good question - can a piece of technology be art?

I've seen the custom circuit boards we produce here at work, and sometimes thought they were quite artistic, in the symmetry and placement of the components.

I'll probably shock you with my geekness even further here (if that's possible), when I say that I've seen (and written myself) pieces of software that I considered to be very satisfying, and yes quite artistic, in terms of structure, and efficiency. I have to admit that I do find the process of writing software very creative, and sometimes has a kind of beauty. I've heard people talk about beautiful code before, and I certainly know what ugly code looks like. Is it art?

 

[basic 101 user]

^^^^^^^^^^^
I have no trouble believing you might see the kind of beauty in code that would cause you to consider it art. And as ever, what a personal experience; We might be standing shoulder to shoulder, looking at the same code..........One of us is never gonna' get it.
My gut tells me that you are responding more to craft, I'm not sure "art".
While I would never suggest that (for instance) Shakespeare or Mozart aren't art; It's just that often what we discuss as "art" is something you can hang on a wall, or mount on a pedestal.
The Caleb Larsen piece referred to above has that very tenuous link; The object itself really only amounts to craft; I like it, but I'm still struggling to actually call it art.


Is it art?

I ask for several reasons. @rootabaga lead me here, without knowing it.
I havn't seen this episode in years, but I recall that within the context of the show, there was an exchange between an older couple. They were standing in front of the painting, exchanging their thoughts, analyzing the work as if they were mesmerized, and it worthy of such thoughtful scrutiny. My memory was it was quite funny, and it spoke directly to how thought provoking a work can be, what a personal experience appreciation can be...........And also just how pretentious the explanation of that experience can seem.

Also, the "original work" must exist somewhere, yes?
The guy who created it is no hack, it was undoubtedly his intention that it have a particular "look". But it was probably just something he dashed of rather quickly, to be used as a prop on a TV set for a few days, then never be thought about again; He maybe went immediately back to doing landscapes (for instance.)
But now, due to its intimate association with an iconic television series, I would imagine the original may have surprising value, if it came up to auction. Perhaps for all the wrong reasons, but just the same.......

An original work, interesting technique, highly recognizable, appeals to the masses, (for one reason or another)......And possibly increasing in value over time.
I wouldn't mind seeing it in person, just for the fun of it; I wouldn't be surprised if it is hanging in the front lobby of the studio or network headquarters.

Is it art?

 

[basic 101 user]

Is it Art?
I'm still undecided, but suspect my answer will be a definite "no"; Numerous things about it make me uneasy;

Convince me otherwise.

Spoiler: Blah, blah, blah.

The Museum of Modern Art seems to think "yes", and appears to view the decision to add the emoji set to their collection as (paraphrasing) "Freeing curators to collect objects too large, distant, or ephemeral to fit within the building, or hang on a wall".

(Setting aside the fact that in this case, we aren't even talking about a physical object); No one here is suggesting that because an object is large, distant, or ephemeral, such that (MoMA) can't possess it, it isn't art. It can live elsewhere, and still be art.
And I think it's a bit presumptuous of the museum to assume that their stamp of approval immediately confers the status "art" to an emoji set.
I feel like a crop of young administrators at the museum are determined to make their mark on the institution, to deviate from the museum's prior mission, in a deliberate effort to appear somehow more relevant, shake things up a little.
I'm all for the definition of art evolving over time, and the museum adjusting to suit; But what I see is a redefining of "art museum", which necessitates a redefining of the term "art". The tail, wagging the dog.

I fully recognize a degree of cultural and historic significance to the emoji set; And I understand the desire to preserve them, the thrill of looking at the first example of anything; But any number of existing institutions seem like the more appropriate venue to collect them. The Smithsonian's Science and Technology department, or the Computer History Museum in Mountain View are just two which leap to mind. If neither of them saw fit to include the emoji set in their collection, that would be quite interesting and telling. And as ever in the world of art, someone else might well point to some antecedent, unknown to most of us, as the more valuable artifact to be preserved.

I wonder if some of the drive to preserve is little more than "premature nostalgia" for the early days of what may yet prove to be a short lived, and otherwise little remembered technology, destined to disappear entirely in another decade or two. I am lead to believe that no "modern" device is even capable of rendering the emojis in the set, only 15+ years after their creation; They are just that insignificant, in the big picture. Just because something is the first "flash", doesn't make it anything more than a "flash in the pan", time will tell.

As far as the artistic merit of the designs themselves; A few are cute, a bit clever; But none terribly impressive, and many are inscrutable, completely useless without description; A fatal flaw for any pictogram. How this emoji thing ever caught on, I'm still not sure. Really, not art, IMHO

Finally, I have to wonder if someone (like our host) would see any beauty in the code? Or were they just utility grade "cocktail napkin doodles" by bored programmers? Is it a simple trick to "crack them open" and study such code, or more trouble than it's worth, even for someone with the skills to do so?

Willing to be convinced, but "is it art?".......Mehh.