http://academics.adelphi.edu/honcol/...p-fountain.jpg
Disregarding any historical knowledge you may have of this item do you think it is art?
Printable View
http://academics.adelphi.edu/honcol/...p-fountain.jpg
Disregarding any historical knowledge you may have of this item do you think it is art?
Yeah. But only in context.
It's as much as art as a bed is.
Oh, wait.
Well... guys can pee in it? :oscar:
...It looks like a urinal mixed with a crotch-cup.
It's art, but it's not very good
It is a urinal :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Genji
With a name on it.
Authorized by R. Mutt.
IT IS THE STATE OF THE ART. :bigsmile:
I think it's the kind of art that people pretentiously call art and then when they get refuted by others they give long-winded pretentious explanations about how art is something something but by then I've fallen asleep.
Then they throw their beret on the ground in frustration and go to the coffee house to vent in the form of beatnik poetry and a cop picks me up because I fell asleep on the street for the third time and he says if it happens again he's going to put me in holding for a day and give me a ticket.
It is art because it questioned art. It was placed in the gallery (I forget the exact one) as a statement on the status of art and questioned what art could be, and what could be art.
If it is in the museum alongside other artworks in 1917 then it is a piece of art. Not aesthetically pleasing but mentally stimulating (like a lot of art from the last century).
There's lots of stuff about it.
How the hell do you piss in that?
It's art, not a urinal :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Genji
What do you do like, stick your tool into that little tube? Is this urinal made for like, gnomes? Or little people?
In my opinion, that really can't be called true art...
Some art deserves to be pissed in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergyration!It's art, not a urinal :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Genji
I say no.
You have your own standards of what is to be considered art and then there are generally accepted views of what art is. In this case I believe one could make the case that a urinal is not art. By my own standards an artists should not only have a vision, but also the technique to fulfill that vision. Getting a wrench and yanking a urinal out of a wall doesn't take much technique.
Now, must it be considered "art" in order to have value beyond its purpose as a urinal? Or who's to say that the person who designed or even created the urinal is not an artist too?
I think under normal circumstances it's better to leave a urinal alone.
Art requires creativity. You cannot take an item and call it art. You must create art with that item.
Not art.
I'll give a little context.
The work is actually by Marcel Duchamp.
And actually it didn't show in a gallery.
What happened was that Duchamp (brilliant artist and master chess player) submitted it to a Society of Independent Artists (under the pesudo name R. Mutt) who put a call for submission and claimed they would accept any work submitted. Funny enough Duchamp was on that board of directors of this Society of Independent Artists... even funnier... was that the 'work' was rejected.
And to answer your question Genji... you would just pee in it if you really wanted to... but the artwork was strategically placed so that the piping points at you... consequently if you chose to pee in the urinal you'd end up peeing all over your own shoes.
This urinal now exists as a piece of artwork. Not as conventional, aesthetically pleasing, stereotypical paint on canvas art but as Conceptual art where the ideas and self-reflexive nature are more important.
It forces the questions. What makes art? What is art? What is 'true' art? Who defined true art? (the answer is uperclass white people) Why can't this be art? And further more it placed the critics in an insulting and degrading position where they were exposed to piss all over themselves with their own self-righteous conservitism. They fought for the freedom of art but clutched onto its conventions so desprately.
PS.
HSU: your stereotype hurts my brain. I'm a Fine Arts Major in Criticism & Curatorial practices. It's no longer 1975... beatniks are all in old age homes and Post-Modernism is dead.
I think the picture looks kind of neat. As such, it is art in my eyes.
Yeah we had this in a lecture but I wasn't paying attention for a change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemical
I'm an Art History major but I don't hold much interest in the last 200 years of art. The 300 years before that is what I'm (reasonably) good at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
To preppies or townies this would be an art better than the Mona Lisa...
it is as artistic as this post
It is as artistic as this post.
http://www.freeplaynetwork.org.uk/graphics/pccgsn7.gif
A lot of art in the 20th Century relies heavily on context. The surroundings in which a work was placed became vital in defining the work as a work of art. It encourages the viewer to think on a broader scope to be able to understand the work. There is creativity in this as it was groundbreaking. When looked at today it is not impressive because all we see is a urinal turned over. However the placement of this object as a work of art is what made it art. It was a time when the boundaries of art were being stretched (and would eveantually be destroyed) to the point where the traditional view of art became incorporated with aspects of life that were not considered artistic before then.
Because the work relies on context, maybe it is safe to say that it is not a work of art now. But when placed and though of in context it becomes a work of art because it complies with aspects of the state of art at the time.
art is in the eye of the beholder. If someone finds something to be artistic then for them it is but for others it may not be. It all depends on your perspective. other people have no right to tell others what is and is not art just because they do/dont see the same thing in that the other person might see.
It's a...urinal. xD Okay. I'm glad that some guy decades ago was 'creative' because he thought he'd be funny in sending in this as a piece for a contest because they'd accept anything. But when it comes right down to it, it's a urinal. If anything, I'd think the guy is more twisted than creative. I wouldn't consider art no matter what time it was produced in. But hey, what do I know? :cat:
That's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeromus_X
Sometimes I do this thing where I start typing something and realize I don't actually care about the point I'm trying to make, so I just start overblowing it until the point where no one actually can take it seriously anymore. I guess I'll have release the Director's Cut version with more Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock references as to not lead to mishaps like this in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemical
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.
It seems like a toilet to me O.o original toilet
Art is so wierd that you can count this simi-picture as one.
Any human creation could be considered art, in my oppinion.
Yes, it's art. It is an expression with subtext, meant to make the viewer think and feel something specific. Just because it's hard to get, or easy to get, doesn't mean it's not artistic.
A big part of any artistic expression is to make people step outside of themselves and question their values and beliefs.
I don't have a single drop of artistic interpretation ability, knowledge, or talent in me, so I tend to leech off the opinions of others with this kind of stuff and pretend I know what the smurf I'm talking about.
So sure, why not.
You asked what we thought, and I told you, based on what has been my experience with the people who have generally done and said these sorts of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemical
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.
I think that art should be primarily pleasing to look at, and not psychological or philosophical mind games. You're free to offer your experience in attempt to make people think, but I don't think it's art, and I think that it pretty much usually is elitism to say that it is. Perhaps you are different, I don't know, no. From what I've seen of your other posts, you do seem to have a tinge of elitism to you, but so do I, and perhaps your motives are pure in this regard. Howeve, the majority of what I've seen that has stemmed from this man's work, apparently, is an attempt to broaden the boundaries of what may be called art for that specific purpose only.
and now I think I've talked myself in a circle, so I'll stop xD
That's pretty damn artistic. Seriously, those birds are damn cute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genji
If that's art, what isn't?
That's the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaisa
I've always felt strongly that life is art.
Breathing is art, walking is art, love is art...
Everything is essentially art when you look at it the right way (or the wrong way?).
Rubah:
I just didn't like being called a snob, your oppinion is valid... but I feel violated when people say those kind of things about "artists" and art scholars because of a difference of oppinion. That's all it is, a difference of oppinion... I'm not trying to claim I'm better than you; though I am trying to persuade you that my oppinion is right, that's part of a debate or arguement but essentially you're doing the same.
And I'm not actually an artist, I create stuff... but I consider myself a student of life.
Life shapes art. And all that jazz.
I found this, I thought it was funny.
http://www.dorkinglabs.com/fim/74.jpg
(not all information in this cartoon is true... the urinal wasn't exhibited until 1918)
It's not art, in or out of context. Out of context it's simply a urinal. In context, it's a statement about art. But no, in my opinion that urinal itself is not a work of art.
All art is a statement about art (amongst other things).Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
- Rennaisance art was a response and a statement about Medeival art.
Rennaisance rejected the primitive, uneducated art of its predeccesor. It looked for truth because it accused its brother of lieing.
-Non-Secular art was a response and a statement about Rennaisance art.
Non-secular art (landscape painting, flowers, still life) rejected the religious content of Rennaisance art the sales of indulgences. It also rejected the Rennaisance art as being too upper class and allowed itself to be consumed by a growing merchant-middle class.
-Baroque art was a response and a statement about Non-Secular Art.
Baroque art accused secular art of being against God, of catering to earthly whims and desires and employed theatrical means and moving light to insight passion back into the congress that had been tempted by the Non-Secular art. Art should only exist in a church because God is the only work of Art.
-Rococco was a response and statement about Baroque, Non-Secular and Rennaisace
-Romanticism was a response and a statement about Rococco and Baroque
-Impressionism was a statement and response to Romanticism
-Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Avant Garde, Fauve, Expressionism, Abstraction, Abstract Expressionism, Conceptualism, Post-Modernism... each and all have been statements and responses about the condition under which we accept and define art.
I will create art.
1. Buy a white rug.
2. Take a big long piss on the rug.
3. Take a picture.
4. Post the pic on this site and call it art.
I never ever said that art can't make a statement. I think that most GOOD art, is the kind of art that does have some sort of meaning outside just the aesthetic value of the piece. But the toilet was ONLY a statement. It wasn't a inspired piece of sculpture or a painting, or even a photograph. It was simply a toilet, and it was simply a statement. I find nothing artistic about the toilet, although I hear the statement loud and clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChemicalAll art is a statement about art (amongst other things).Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
- Rennaisance art was a response and a statement about Medeival art.
Rennaisance rejected the primitive, uneducated art of its predeccesor. It looked for truth because it accused its brother of lieing.
-Non-Secular art was a response and a statement about Rennaisance art.
Non-secular art (landscape painting, flowers, still life) rejected the religious content of Rennaisance art the sales of indulgences. It also rejected the Rennaisance art as being too upper class and allowed itself to be consumed by a growing merchant-middle class.
-Baroque art was a response and a statement about Non-Secular Art.
Baroque art accused secular art of being against God, of catering to earthly whims and desires and employed theatrical means and moving light to insight passion back into the congress that had been tempted by the Non-Secular art. Art should only exist in a church because God is the only work of Art.
-Rococco was a response and statement about Baroque, Non-Secular and Rennaisace
-Romanticism was a response and a statement about Rococco and Baroque
-Impressionism was a statement and response to Romanticism
-Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Avant Garde, Fauve, Expressionism, Abstraction, Abstract Expressionism, Conceptualism, Post-Modernism... each and all have been statements and responses about the condition under which we accept and define art.
I am a Fine Arts student btw. And of course, all this is just my opinion. I qualify art a lot differently than some of my art professors. I've had a photography professor who has claimed that some of my photography work didn't qualify as art because it wasn't dark and painful enough. And according to her, art can only be something that was inspired by hurt or pain. Screw her, I say! :p But yeah, I don't think that toilet is art, and nothing can convince me otherwise.
I agree that you didn't say that art didn't make a statement. I think however that I would like to argue that the toilet is more than a statement. My stance is that the "Fountain" has the potential to be a piece of Art for the following reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
1. The power of the Artist to make it art...
(and not everyone is an artist; Duchamp was a well known 'professional' artist well received for his amazing paintings so he didn't just do this out of the blue. He was respected.)
2. The power of the insitution...
(The gallery and institutional setting transforms this specific article into an object of contemplation that is inseparable from the idea.)
3. The power of semiotics...
(The object and the idea are inseperable. Think of this specifc urinal (dated and titled) and you think of Duchamp and the context of this urinal) (This is also the idea I was trying to explore in the previous post).
4. The power of aesthetics...
(Do you preffer smooth and curvey? or jagged and rough? Mass-produced objects were idealy designed to attract human interaction... similar to art (though art also has the power to repulse)...where as mass-produced obhects must always look good for consumption purposes.
5. The power of function...
Communists had expressed the necessity of art to be useful... So it seems ideal to create a functional object that is also beautiful and artful.
6. The power of oppinion...
Even if I don't think it means art that doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Since art is all and always arguable I can only admit that objects are both art and not art simultaneously. Art only exists in the mind so must have multiple truths. (If Art is art sometimes but not all the time does that still make it art?)
7. The power of market...
As soon as someone is willing to pay for it under the proposed conditions it becomes so. Money buys art; no... money makes art. A market makes art. That urinal... that specific urinal (check out an essay on the aura of objects ... Baudilliard I think) is endowed with value.
I think in the end the problems and issues in art at that time inspired Duchamp to make specific descisions to pick this object. The society around him inspired him to preform in this manner.
Allow me to make a comparison to a field you're familiar with. How inspired can a photograph be in comparison? With a photograph you have the ability to change the lighting and how the image looks but you can't change the object (well you can but allow me to refer to automatic/instant photography; still life), it already existed you're only clicking a button. There's no manual involvement(hands on creation making the actual image; the camera made the image), there's not even a signature on it. Similarily Duchamp is only manipulating the object as necessary and within the boundaries provided.
PS > Miriel
I understand what you mean about your prof. I find the big problem right now with a lot of educational staff is that they are they came from a generation defined by style. We still are. Artists have a tendency to focus on one problem or one style... usually are unflexible. They master one medium (possibly dable in others) but tend to be either a painter, a sculpture... then they're either an expressionist... or a conceptualists... so the students are suffocated by a narrow oppinion.
I'm sure you make beautiful photographs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu
No.
Anything and nothing can be considered art. It all depends on the context and your own perceptions and opinions.
No matter what your perceptions or opinions; a picture of a urinal with your name scribbled roughly on it is not art.
Hey if the guy who made that poured his heart and soul into fullfilling his passionate feelings about urinals by calling that art. then let it be art.:)
That particular peice is of the Dada movement. Which spawned such things as someone drawing as a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
The idea behind Dadaism was to mock art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Marcel Duchamp presnted a kind of art that was not art when he lived! But yes it is art!
"Fight art with art"? Piss off! He was just crappy and pretended it was the soppy form of art that has become known as "modern art" (the modern must mean rubbish) so that nobody would laugh at his pitiful attempts at creativity.
aww gawd, art. I could pull a better masterpiece out of my ear.
Well, if that's art then so am I. ;D I mean, why not? And nothing wrong with everything in the world being art. Art in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
As Chemical said, he was a respected and talented artist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quin 'n' Tonic
Then do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laugh at face of Danger
Respected by fools, and talented to the talentless.
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by Quin 'n' Tonic
Art is a crock of [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img]. I could take a massive dump, and some asshole with a bachelor's degree would call it art.
I hear so many people say that modern art is [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img] and easy and that they could make a masterpiece with minimal effort. What interests me about modern art is why such odd concepts of art become renowned. A pile of [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img] would not be called art, but [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img] put in cans and sold according to the price of gold is- don't ask me why- I've forgotten that lecture (but it was insightful).
We have to accept that art is no longer based purely on talent and tradition. The ignorants out there who can't see this clearly have not looked at it in perspective. Art has always, from the stone ages to the present, relied on current trends for definition. There are many astronomically talented painters and such who do not gain the recognition they would have 400 years ago. This is because art is no longer defined by what is aesthetically pleasing. Humans have reached the inevitiable stage in our existance where the norms must be questioned to the extent where this kind of work is created and appreciated.
So what you're saying is that any no-talent bum with something wrong in the head can pass of some piece of crap (both literally and not) as art just because it goes against the norm?
No.
What I'm saying is the talent has extended from skill witha paintbrush to incorporate things such as context (now, more than ever, it is important in a lot of artworks), social commentary and clever-thinking. If art had stuck to the great Renaissance traditions that everyone views as High-Art, it would be boring by now. Change is inevitiable, just like in music, and even though you may not like it at all, it is considered art.
The first picture of the toilet wasn't that great because It had no emotion..if he urinated in it I think that would give it the emotion to be ..art. :)
I would say it is definitely art, that is, if it was intended to be seen as that. If the photograph is presented in a gallery or whatever then we should see it in an artistic manner. Whether or not it is GOOD art, that's up to you!
Ooh good point Rinoabella. I think I'm happy with that. It may be art, but it's certainly not good art to me. I mean really, how can something you urinate over be art?