Abstract Art

"What the hell? Why would there be a stage in a museum filled with people killing puppies?!

It would be an art for me to kill and mutilate someone, but it doesnt mean its legal or moral."

Wow...that is lame. So basically anything can be considered art? God damn, people are stupid. How is killing something art? It's killing someone, anyone can do it if they wanted too. People try way to hard to be open minded, and they don't realize how stupid they look. "killing someone can be art". That's a bunch of shit. Art is supposed to take talent, killing someone takes no talent, nor does it take talent to shock a group of people. I'm glad I'm not some stupid new age hippy who thinks anything is art.

"So basically its ok for me to say that all people who live in America are dumbasses, homophobic religious freaks since you allowed Bush as your president so because he's an American the easiset thing to do is to classify ALL Americans as dumbasses, homophobic religious freaks?

Because thats exactly what you said in the reply above."

Really? I could have sworn that I never mentioned Bush or America in any way and that I was talking about abstract "art" and how dumb it is that a piece of shit can now be considered art with some sort of sense of validity. But yeah, you can say that if you want. It's true for the most part, as is the fact that most abstract art is shitty. (Keep in mind I said "most" not all. Just wanted to clearify that to avoid you pmsing at me).

Originally posted by yerssot
or people just don't understand it and immediatly claim out of ignorance perhaps that it is shitty

You said it. 👆

Originally posted by BackFire
"What the hell? Why would there be a stage in a museum filled with people killing puppies?!

It would be an art for me to kill and mutilate someone, but it doesnt mean its legal or moral."

Wow...that is lame. So basically anything can be considered art? God damn, people are stupid. How is killing something art? It's killing someone, anyone can do it if they wanted too. People try way to hard to be open minded, and they don't realize how stupid they look. "killing someone can be art". That's a bunch of shit. Art is supposed to take talent, killing someone takes no talent, nor does it take talent to shock a group of people. I'm glad I'm not some stupid new age hippy who thinks anything is art.

You're the one that brought killing puppies in an art gallery (which im nut sure how you even though of) as a subject.

Movies are art, are they not? Movies show murder do they not?

Originally posted by BackFire
Because thats exactly what you said in the reply above."

Really? I could have sworn that I never mentioned Bush or America in any way and that I was talking about abstract "art" and how dumb it is that a piece of shit can now be considered art with some sort of sense of validity. But yeah, you can say that if you want. It's true for the most part, as is the fact that most abstract art is shitty. (Keep in mind I said "most" not all. Just wanted to clearify that to avoid you pmsing at me).

Nothing you say really, can make you avoid me pmsing you, you should really know that by now.

Please re-read the comments by people in this thread, please re-read them and then come back and say that noone is generalizing here.

Second of all, I used America as an example - its the same idea under the different example. Same shit, different pacage.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You said it. 👆

that's it ... gotta stop watching that movie 😖

😂 this thread is actually pretty interesting, there's just so much ignorance here ✅

OK, most of you have come up with something like "I'll shit in a jar and call that abstract art" - and you could probably read that as "This is abstract art and I think it is shit." That wouldn't sell, because people that like abstract art and spend 20k on it, wouldn't want a piece calling it "shit".

Now if the artist had a different meaning behind it, then it has a completely different meaning, and that meaning - that emotion - is really priceless. If someone can express their love for something in an abstract piece of art, and an individual can look at it and feel that emotion, then I don't see why paying £1million isn't worth it. (If the feeling was overwhelming, of course)

Of course, if you don't feel anything towards it.... then don't buy it 😛

As for all this "line" stuff... the first thing we have to realise is that nothing in life is perfectly straight, and if we want something to be picture perfect, then we use a camera folks 😉

Most paintings - traditional artwork - is great, especially if the artist can get his/her thoughts and feelings across using their own methods. But that's what abstract art is about as well.

Random stuff normally is crap, but if the artist has thought about what he wants to portray, and decides a radical abstract piece will convey it sufficiently rather than a standard portrait, then it's all groovy ✅

You're the one that brought killing puppies in an art gallery (which im nut sure how you even though of) as a subject.

Movies are art, are they not? Movies show murder do they not?

My statement about killing puppies was a response to your statement that said something along the lines of "if it gets a reaction then it's good art". To that, I said "so if I killed a puppy and called it art, that would be valid, because it would garner a reaction from people who saw me kill an innocent puppy". Get it?

Movies are art, but snuff films are not. Films have meaning and motive behind them, and they take great talent and skill to create. Just because some movies may have a scene where someone dies does not make it the same thing as saying "killing someone can be art.". It's art in the movie because it's simply one part of the whole.

Nothing you say really, can make you avoid me pmsing you, you should really know that by now.

Please re-read the comments by people in this thread, please re-read them and then come back and say that noone is generalizing here.

Second of all, I used America as an example - its the same idea under the different example. Same shit, different pacage.

I never said no one was generalizing, I'm not going to defend other people, I said that I was not generalizing, I don't care what other people were doing.

I already accepted your america example, and agreed with it for the most part. You could say most Americans are stupid for electing Bush, of course, that doesn't effect me personally, seeing as I voted for kerry. I never said ALL abstract art was stupid, just most of it.

Also, dave, the whole shitting in a jar thing is not a made up example, someone DID shit in a jar and call it absract art, and it was accepted by whoever decides what is and isn't absract art. Something is fundamentally wrong with a piece of shit in a bottle being called art.

imo, that shit in a jar symbolises how insane some people are and how demented some people are to this "art", ... the statement behind it "shit is also considered art now" is just perfect

But it's shit.... thus, it is not art.

that was his point in the first place... that they think everything is art 😖

Settle down and pay attention.

Art isn't about money. If someone sells a blank canvas for $5 or $5million it doesn't alter it's worth. All posts in this thread that mention money are pointless.

If someone shits in a jar and calls it art - that doesn't have anything to do with any other abstract or surrealist or cubist art. It doesn't devalue it - thats like saying if I take a crappy photo and someone pays me a squillion bucks for it then ALL photography is somehow suspect. If a jar of crap means ALL non representational art is poor then by proxy all art is worthless. All posts mentioning a jar of poop are worthless.

If you are going to discuss art as if it were something that can be good and bad, then you have to talk in specifics and you have to be subjective. Art can't be proven - it's not literal enough.

Saying : "a blank canvas does nothing for me and I cant understand why anyone would pay $XXXX for it" is a reasonable statement.

Saying: "BAH! ABSTRACT A KID COULD DO IT BAH!" isnt an argument - its a tantrum.

All of you bitching about how abstract art isn't "Art" and you can't see trees and the moon and things you recognise and blah blah blah... you have become your parents complaining that the loud "rock" music isn't "real" music. Have a nice warm drink, put on your slippers and go watch TV; you have nothing more to say.

Moving back to the value of art - and this applies to any piece of art -

Different people like different things, and different people will pay different sums of money for different things.

Because one person doesn't want to buy a rock album for £15 doesn't mean no one wants to buy it because no one likes rock based on one persons thoughts.

Because one person doesn't want to buy a jar of shit for £20,000 doesn't mean no one wants to buy it. Personally I wouldn't buy it, but if it means something to someone, then that's down to them.

I'm not arguing about what people like. They can like a performance peice of a fat man eating noodles, I don't care.

My point is, there should be a line between calling something abstract ART, and just abstract, period. Picasso, was an abstract artist. That douche who made the color splashes on the canvas, was just being abstract. It wasn't art.

The line between something that is art, and something that isn't has been blurred so much that people don't know when to NOT call something art. People tell me "throwing that football is art, swimming in that pool is art, that family watching tv is art, etc." No, it really isn't. As someone pointed out earlier, a peice of art that you can depict what the artist was trying to portray, without the artist saying "this is what it's supposed to mean" is art. Hell, before I learned to draw, I used to make abstract "art" all the time. Noone could tell what the hell it was that I was drawing, and I had to explain myself every time. I look back on my old stuff and go "Goddamn. I sucked. This really isn't art. What was I thinking?" That "find your own meaning to this peice" isn't art. There should be a name for it, but not art.

Ok, number one - Zero that was one sexy speach. I'll go tell that to myself in a little bit.

Arachnoidfreak, you dont seem to know the basics, which for one is that Picasso wasnt Abstract artist, he was a Cubist.

Should we really listen to you preach to us about what is art and what isnt after mixing up cubism and abstract art?

That just makes my initial generalization stronger. What I thought to be good abstract art wasn't abstrat art at all, and what I thought to be bad abstract art was actually just abstract art. Abstract art=crap, cubism=great.

It still shouldn't be called art.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
It still shouldn't be called art.

Yeah!!! - and why do they have to play those guitars so loud - and why dont they get a decent haircut?

Now there is SOME great abstract art, some if it is simply outstanding. It is wrong to claim ALL absract art is bad. The blank canvas, or the shit in the jar, is blatantly stupid and should not by any means be called art of any kind.

I don't get why shit in a jar should be stupid... I think ti was a rather excellent idea ... he makes a statement that some abstract art is really shitty and people will buy anything these days, you can't make it more clear 😉

What the bloody hell is with everyone and the shitting in a jar?! It wasnt even in the original post, and its not even abstract art.

it's my fave 🙁

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What the bloody hell is with everyone and the shitting in a jar?! It wasnt even in the original post, and its not even abstract art.

Because it's the stupidest excuse for art that anyone has ever heard of, and according to some people (stupid people) it is art.