I say no.
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.
Boldly go.
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.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.
:mario::luigi:
To preppies or townies this would be an art better than the Mona Lisa...
想要對妳說的 不敢說的愛
it is as artistic as this post
Kefka's coming, look intimidating!
Have a nice day!!
It is as artistic as this post.
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.
:mario::luigi:
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.
Doc "But I'm a pacifist, I don't believe in violence"
Caboose "Your a thing babies suck on?"
Tucker "No thats a pedophile"
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?
That's the point.
:mario::luigi:
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
