This is the kind of art that makes the world hate artists.
Printable View
This is the kind of art that makes the world hate artists.
asking "What is art?" like there's some great insight in most of the junk that people that ask that put out is one of the most stuck up and snobby things in the world, I think, really. But hey, that's just me. I don't mind being blind and uncultured.
Also, see above post.
See that was also part of the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeromus_X
Duchamp was a trickster, a real [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img] disturber. He's contributed more. He's the father of Dadaism, of Surrealism, of Conceptualism...
He didn't merely do it to just be funny though. Remember he was on the board of the committee that rejected the work and he submitted it anon... He was tackling serious issues about the institution's power to decide what was and wasn't art.
And Duchamp wasn't twisted. It was strategic. He was also a master chess player... this was a move well calculated and conceived... possibly even a check mate. The fact is that people don't consider the urinal itself to be the art work... but the concept. The idea itself is the art. He created the idea. That's his creativity. He created a scenario and a dialog, he manipulated information and ideas that transformed the urinal into an icon that didn't represent peeing... it represented the hypocritical nature of the gallery, of artists and the elitest conditions under which the bogousie controlled the term "art."
You may find it surprising but it wasn't until after Urinal, when people actually asked these questions, that the works of other cultures and other forms were considered art.
Japanese woodblocks, Ottoman tapestries, African sculptures, Egyptian murals, Chinese caligraphy... even cartoons, photographs, illustrations... none of these were "art" until these questions were asked. It took a urinal to make man see the beauty in objects other than what had been predetermined by the luxury class of Western Europe.
Artists aren't the only people who should ask this question. What we consider art says a lot about our culture. Sure it may be junk, but I would never call it snobby. Isn't it snobby to say its snobby? It's one thing to say you hate it... its another thing to accuse me (and you are accusing me and fellow Fine Arts individuals with elitism) without considering the possibility that I'm just another person with a degree and knowledge that I like to share with others for their contemplation. I don't feel any different from an Engineer who uses his knowledge to build a bridge... my bridge is just a philosophical/cultural/conceptual one with ideas instead of support beams.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
Conclusion. It's hurtful to call us Art freaks snobs because we offer our educational experience.
So stop.
Chemical is pretty much my hero.
Just because I don't like or understand it doesn't make it not art. :)
I'll agree that within the context of the story some sort of artistic value could be derived from the mentioned urinal, but what about the rest of us? As non-artists can we assign artistic value to a work or must one be schooled in a particular brand of expression in order to do such a thing? Clearly there are going to be opposing interests at hand. We (non-artists) look at this and see another men's restroom and don't give it a second thought except for the fact that someone told us to. We look at the Mona Lisa, for example, and immediately associate it with masterful perfection.
To be fair, however, art in general only works within the process of enculturation. We've grown up in the mainstream with nice looking portraits and magnificent sculptures as our litmus test against all those wishing to imbue their works with artistic meaning. Someone in a nomadic tribe might not think the Mona Lisa is art at all according to their criteria. Maybe if we all pissed on canvases instead of urinals it might be easier to accept the work in question as "art". It's just so hard to overlook that minor detail, though.
now i gotta go to the bathroom...
I fail to see how a picture of a urinal is art. I also fail to see why anyone would want own such a piece. Who wants a picture of an old mens urinal on their wall?
Defining what 'art' is and what isn't is extremely difficutl because it is so subjective. But, I wouldn't call that urinal art. I could take a photo of my toliet and I'm pretty sure no one would want to look at it, much less call it art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Quote:
Originally Posted by roto13-ness
Well, on the positive side, the photograph of it is art. I rather like the photo.
I agree with ol' Mister Supper Gyration.
It is art, though I am not one to place such a thing in my home.
Basically all that Chemical is saying and has said is what I myself planned to verbalize.
My art teacher and I argued for three hours on whether or not this type of artwork was in fact artistic expression.
It was designed by someone, so yes.
The only art found in the Men's Room I can think of is grafitti.