Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Given the computers ability to create images and how we use new technology: What constitutes art?

Do forum sigs and animated gifs count as art or are they merely industrial expression.

Are blogs art? Can a blog be art?

Are the emo contributions of teenagers for the last ten years on deviant art- art?

Is Flickr art?

What is art now?

Andy Warhol? On my KMC? Wow!

Art was never a well defined concept. If you declare something to be art then it is, it just might be stupid art.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Art was never a well defined concept. If you declare something to be art then it is, it just might be stupid art.

In 2007 Guillermo Vargas Habacuc tied a dog to a wall and let it starve; called it "art". So yeah, what you said.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Andy Warhol? On my KMC? Wow!

Art was never a well defined concept. If you declare something to be art then it is, it just might be stupid art. Pretty much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(1964_film)

Warhol's film "Empire" seems like a relevant example, especially since he's gracing the thread with his presence and all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Andy Warhol? On my KMC? Wow!

Art was never a well defined concept. If you declare something to be art then it is, it just might be stupid art.

Andy is a good man. He and I talk a lot, he saw art as measured in success- I of course had no success as an artist in my lifetime, however, I am considered by some the greatest. This leads me to think; When something is created, it is not art. It only becomes art when it is appreciated by someone other than the artist. This is only my point a view and i am sure many artists would disagree.

Art to me is when someone can draw or paint something in a beautiful way, accuracy to some extent also has to be present. Not this modern art "pile of bricks" crap.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Art to me is when someone can draw or paint something in a beautiful way, accuracy to some extent also has to be present. Not this modern art "pile of bricks" crap.

But, a pile of bricks challenges you... doesn't it?

Modern art is shit and has been shit ever since Monet's paintings declined in quality.

What is art?

No seriously, is there one coherent definition or is it a thing like terrorism that has no true agreed definition but that people "know it when they see it"

Originally posted by Lucius
Modern art is shit and has been shit ever since Monet's paintings declined in quality.

My painting's never declined in quality, they merely 'changed' with my eyesight. I saw colours differently. Hence my colour chart of periods. I always saw art as a process, rather than an object. I know Andy and Vincent have different opinions but this is how I see it. The use of imagination!

Apologies for the edit, I was never happy with how I painted my bridge so I kept trying to improve it. Perhaps my postings are the same.

-Claude

Originally posted by Claude Monet
My painting's never declined in quality, they merely 'changed' with my eyesight. I saw colours differently. Hence my colour chart of periods. I always saw art as a process, rather than an object. I know Andy and Vincent have different opinions but this is how I see it. The use of imagination!

Apologies for the edit, I was never happy with how I painted my bridge so I kept trying to improve it. Perhaps my postings are the same.

-Claude

I like your technique, and your paintings looked like things.

Originally posted by Claude Monet
But, a pile of bricks challenges you... doesn't it?

No, not at all. Niether does a "made bed" or a turd in a glass box.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
I like your technique, and your paintings looked like things.



No, not at all. Niether does a "made bed" or a turd in a glass box.

Thank you Bicnarok.

May I say though art is in the eye of the beholder, for example if the beholder interprets the pile of bricks as a statement of mans need to build or the made bed as mans need to create order or the turd as a metaphor for the carbon cycle or recyling or even consumption; has it not challenged.

Someone should get Mapplethorpe in on this convo

I hear Rubens is a pretty good guy when he's not trolling the Sig Forum.

http://sexualityinart.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/li-lly.jpg
http://static1.slamxhype.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/1_PhillipPrioleau-789x800.jpg
http://post.queensu.ca/~varadhar/eng393/Mapplethorpe.jpg

leave it to inimalist

Porn

I always wonder: Jack Kirby + computers = ?

Originally posted by inimalist
akt pictures

If you like that sort of thing, go here..

http://www.photoforum.ru/photos.0.42.0.0.0.award.desc.a.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.en.html

Originally posted by Claude Monet
Thank you Bicnarok.

May I say though art is in the eye of the beholder, for example if the beholder interprets the pile of bricks as a statement of mans need to build or the made bed as mans need to create order or the turd as a metaphor for the carbon cycle or recyling or even consumption; has it not challenged.

In that case what would be the point of art, if we can see or "behold" something in something else. Might as well look at clouds or a pile of pidgeon droppings and deduce a statement out of them

As for what is art in the computer age? I would say, art is the expression of a gestalt through the medium of the artist, and the computer is just another tool for aiding that expression.

Yes. I would say that. And so I did.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
leave it to inimalist

this forum has no class

Originally posted by Bicnarok
If you like that sort of thing, go here..

http://www.photoforum.ru/photos.0.42.0.0.0.award.desc.a.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.en.html

I'd say, look up "Lou" by Mapplethorpe

Originally posted by inimalist
this forum has no class



I'd say, look up "Lou" by Mapplethorpe

Some nice stuff and some wierd shit going on there, thx for the tip.

Mapplethorpe = <3<3<3

Originally posted by inimalist
Someone should get Mapplethorpe in on this convo

Mapplethorpe just wanted everyone to know that he could shove a bull-whip handle up his ass, so he did, by calling it "art."

Originally posted by Robtard
Mapplethorpe just wanted everyone to know that he could shove a bull-whip handle up his ass, so he did, by calling it "art."

lol, call it what you want, no denying it has an effect on you

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, call it what you want, no denying it has an effect on you

Some of his photos are well done, but just a picture of a cock, well, it's just a cock, doesn't matter if it's in B&W.

yes, and most often those shots are juxtaposed to the sex organs of plants, which just happen to look similar to those of humans

I have one of his calla lily shots at home whose petals look like labia folds, with the pistil looking a lot like a clitoris

also, it just being a cock is the point

But why is there a photo of someones foot up an arse, Is that really art?

I don't see a lot of value in the "what is/is it art?" debate

if you don't like it, appreciate it, or see any value to it, that is fair enough, but a lot of Mapplethorpe's work was deliberately transgressive. the foot or the bull whip in the ass, the Lou picture, etc, aren't supposed to be a deep or meaningful, but rather to shock and disgust. The fascination with the obscene as a subject.

I'm sure in the modern hyper-porn world, these things aren't as "shocking" as they might have been in the 80s, but like, its art for a different purpose than is someone like Picasso or Monet. It of course talks about the world Mapplethorpe inhabited, but it also spoke to the greater context of this world through the eyes of a gay man in New York. lol, idk, I really like the stuff. Serrano and Pepe Smit are also really good, though they sort of hit way more taboo and provocative themes than just simple obscenity.