I am an Artiste: El Perrito Vive

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understand your wide interpretation of the word art, but I was using the narrow interpretation that requires a person to manipulate objects or materials to create a new idea that is not exclusive to the objects or materials in question.

alright, have at thee!

person manipulates objects - must they have an intent when manipulating? can the intent be utilitarian? must it express an idea? must materials be used? is there a limit on what materials are artistic?

not to press the issue, but you are saying art cannot be spontaneous, cannot be accidental, must express specific meaning and must be novel. I'd argue that modernism challenges most of these exceptionally well, even without arguing that art doesn't require a creator. Unfortunately, given that it is art and not science, when tearing down these barriers, other barriers must also be brought down, for there is no fundamental or objective reason that "art" must have them.

It is for this reason that I feel art is defined not by the artist, but by the observer. For instance, the work in question involved all of the steps alluded to above, so by your own definition, this person is creating immoral art, which is therefore valid art because humans have different views on the treatment of animals. However, as I understand it, the man is not an artist, but, allowing art to happen in a controlled environment. In this way he is ring-leading essentially torture, though the expression in the act he is showing off still exists.

An artist or art should have some measure of skill or mastery, setting it apart from others. Otherwise, someone can take a shit on the floor and declare it art, by their own views. When all it really is is a turd on the floor, no more, no less.

Originally posted by Robtard
An artist or art should have some measure of skill or mastery, setting it apart from others. Otherwise, someone can take a shit on the floor and declare it art, by their own views. When all it really is is a turd on the floor, no more, no less.

Well, if the turd was one of those spiral kind pointed at the tip, then spray painted gold after it dried up, that could arguably be art.

Originally posted by inimalist
alright, have at thee!

person manipulates objects - must they have an intent when manipulating? can the intent be utilitarian? must it express an idea? must materials be used? is there a limit on what materials are artistic?

not to press the issue, but you are saying art cannot be spontaneous, cannot be accidental, must express specific meaning and must be novel. I'd argue that modernism challenges most of these exceptionally well, even without arguing that art doesn't require a creator. Unfortunately, given that it is art and not science, when tearing down these barriers, other barriers must also be brought down, for there is no fundamental or objective reason that "art" must have them.

It is for this reason that I feel art is defined not by the artist, but by the observer. For instance, the work in question involved all of the steps alluded to above, so by your own definition, this person is creating immoral art, which is therefore valid art because humans have different views on the treatment of animals. However, as I understand it, the man is not an artist, but, allowing art to happen in a controlled environment. In this way he is ring-leading essentially torture, though the expression in the act he is showing off still exists.

Spontaneity or randomness maybe the idea, but before the academic world will recognize something as art, it must be a manipulation of icons that create a new idea. At least that is what was drilled into my head over and over again when I was in college. And yes, I have an art degree.

You are correct that something can be immoral, disgusting, and even down right bad and still be art. However, artists are humans first and should be subject to international law that forbids miss treatment of animals.

Originally posted by Robtard
An artist or art should have some measure of skill or mastery, setting it apart from others. Otherwise, someone can take a shit on the floor and declare it art, by their own views. When all it really is is a turd on the floor, no more, no less.

That would be considered a craft, not art. 😆

Art is sooooooooooooooo subjective, arguing about what is or isn't art is rather pointless. Whether what he did was art or not, who gives a shit.

Porn is art....no argument.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Porn is art....no argument.

Only if you put couples into new positions. 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Only if you put couples into new positions. 😆

Let's see...Art is suppose to bring out our emotions.....well, Porn can make either disgust or horny....

....Porn is art. 313

Originally posted by Robtard
An artist or art should have some measure of skill or mastery, setting it apart from others. Otherwise, someone can take a shit on the floor and declare it art, by their own views. When all it really is is a turd on the floor, no more, no less.

well, as embarrassing as it might sound, yes, I actually believe that. If someone is emotionally moved by the work (I'd say being pissed that someone shit on your floor does not count) then why not? What distinguishes that emotional power from the emotional power of something more "academic". Andy Warhol did a piece where he and some friends continually urinated on a piece of metal to make it rust.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Spontaneity or randomness maybe the idea, but before the academic world will recognize something as art, it must be a manipulation of icons that create a new idea. At least that is what was drilled into my head over and over again when I was in college. And yes, I have an art degree.

I'll gladly continue arguing my point if you want, but I do understand this is a matter of subjectivity. I also understand that my opinions are not that of the art world, and I'll gladly express my opinions about that too. I think its awesme you have an art degree, and so clearly you would know the matter of "high art" more than I, so ya, I'm both technically out of my league and admitting its all subjective, but ya, I hold by my claims, regardless of whether the art world does 🙂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are correct that something can be immoral, disgusting, and even down right bad and still be art. However, artists are humans first and should be subject to international law that forbids miss treatment of animals.

I never argued he should be above the law, only that he is more of an exhibitor than an artist.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Porn is art....no argument.

no argument

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is such a thing as BAD art, and letting a dog die of starvation is defiantly BAD art.

if he was truly bold and determined to make such a statement he would have done that himself. there is no creativity here. no provocation of thought besides "disgusting". just a cruel and vile act under the guise of sincere poignancy, with the typical pretentious self loving epitaph of the failed 'artist'. he may as well have just taken a shit on the floor. oh wait i think someone already did that.

Originally posted by Schecter
if he was truly bold and determined to make such a statement he would have done that himself. there is no creativity here. no provocation of thought besides "disgusting". just a cruel and vile act under the guise of sincere poignancy, with the typical pretentious self loving epitaph of the failed 'artist'. he may as well have just taken a shit on the floor. oh wait i think someone already did that.

"That" has sort of been done already. Putting a human on exhibition for everyone to observe as "art". They put a model in a glass room on the side of a busy street and she was paid to basically live there, etc. This gent may have wanted to push the envelope even further.

I think abstract art can be lame as f**k.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, as embarrassing as it might sound, yes, I actually believe that. If someone is emotionally moved by the work (I'd say being pissed that someone shit on your floor does not count) then why not? What distinguishes that emotional power from the emotional power of something more "academic". Andy Warhol did a piece where he and some friends continually urinated on a piece of metal to make it rust.

I'll gladly continue arguing my point if you want, but I do understand this is a matter of subjectivity. I also understand that my opinions are not that of the art world, and I'll gladly express my opinions about that too. I think its awesme you have an art degree, and so clearly you would know the matter of "high art" more than I, so ya, I'm both technically out of my league and admitting its all subjective, but ya, I hold by my claims, regardless of whether the art world does 🙂

I never argued he should be above the law, only that he is more of an exhibitor than an artist.

no argument

The problem is the definition of the word "art", and I understand what you are saying, and am really not disagreeing with you. I just wanted to give a more academic angel on the topic.

Art = beauty in the eye of the beholder. Is this really subjective, or do I have my definition wrong...paraphrased of course.

If this is beauty in his eyes then he must be a masochist. Is that beauty? Maybe it's just expression. Sick expression.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Art = beauty in the eye of the beholder. Is this really subjective, or do I have my definition wrong...paraphrased of course.

If this is beauty in his eyes then he must be a masochist. Is that beauty?

😆 Beauty in the eye of the beholder? I love this typo. 😆

You eat cats....so there. 😛

Originally posted by Deja~vu

If this is beauty in his eyes then he must be a masochist.

sadist

a masochist would string themselves up for people to see

He might be a a very compassionate masochist.

Well he took pictures of it for people to see...sort of the same, isn't it? Maybe he played with it after it was dead...necrophilia joys.

He might be a a very compassionate masochist

LOL