Quick question regarding the definition of 'Art'...
 

I know this is a bit different from my poo related vulgarities, but if any of you have an opinion on the following, I'd love to hear your input.

Art, in all of its forms, is indeed subjective. I understand that. However, if a piece of art (Be it a sculptor, a painting or whatever) is displayed, accompanied by an 'Explanation' of it - 'The reason for the yellow is that the artist wanted to represent... etc' then does it cease to truly be art?

In other words, if it needs to come with an explanation, then is it still art?

Art is in the explanation (or rather justification) nowadays. Blame it on Marcel Duchamp.

http://easyscoopapoop.com/wp-content...mccarthy-2.png

Yes, while that is indeed an example of beautiful inspirational art, it still speaks for itself...

It doesn't need a note from the artist attached that reads 'This is a huge pile of shit...'

I think it still qualifies as art. To me, it is no different than if you go see a movie, are a little confused by it then someone explains it to you.

:1orglaugh

If someone calls something art, then it is art. Whatever anyone says otherwise is opinion.

99% of all "art" is not art...it is just "art"...

correct :thumbsup

Who is to say what is art and what is "art"? Like many things in life, art is subjective. A friend of mine and I were looking at a Jackson Pollock and he said, "It's trash, I could do that." I replied, "It's brilliant, and no, you couldn't." I thought it was art, he thought it was garbage.

Art is something that makes you think, or rather forget about your daily problems. It makes you wonder, happy, angry, sad or any other feeling. The purpose is just to make your mind busy with different thoughts for a moment.

I have personally only witnessed true art once...a friend of mine who went to art college made a giant white canopy and took a knife and cut holes in it and it looked like Jesus crucified when he put a lamp behind it...the light kind of popped out to make the Jesus...

It was true art...it destroyed...compared to that 99% of artists are in fact "artists" I would call them painters...makers...but art is truly rare you can not mass produce it...

I guess, this is what I was getting at. Just because you don't think something is true art, doesn't mean it isn't and vice versa.

I like vulvart...

http://www.porjati.net/uploads/posts...u6lio1_500.jpg

https://farm1.static.flickr.com/628/...f034016a_b.jpg

https://media.timeout.com/images/103227827/image.jpg

Agreed, however for the purposes of this thread, we know its 'art' because its part of an art exhibition. It is being presented to us as being art. I just feel that if it needs an explanation, it negates the possibility of it being considered art.

Art should need no explanation, nor apology... :2 cents:

But did it have a little card next to it that said "The artist made a giant white canopy and took a knife and cut holes in it, so now it looks like Jesus crucified when he put a lamp behind it... as you can see, the light kind of pops out to make the Jesus..." ?

If it had, would that have not somewhat devalued the experience for you ?

That's the task of the curator.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...dson-Venus.png