Woman chews off arms for art.

[Caiada]

I don't count it as art because of the shallow nature of the work, there is no effort involved in understanding it. Art should guide you down a path of self discovery and understanding of an idea. This "art" jumps to the senses, there is no subtlety, it is simply there telling you what the artist thinks. I could elaborate more on theories of art, but not sure I should derail more.

As soon as you mention 'should' when referring to something involving creativity, like art, alarm bells go off in my head.

[Deleted]

i rather like it! the last picture from article certainly stirred something inside me for sure. i think it would look nice as a wallpaper on my computer and would certainly be a talking point for my work colleagues. while people may not like it! Art is as most people would know is subjective! not everyones cup of tea but I certainly like it!

No. Art is mostly objective, the interpretation is the subjective part. Read up on some art theory, there are branches for all forms of art.

---------- Post added 2011-12-01 at 04:42 AM ----------

As soon as you mention 'should' when referring to something involving creativity, like art, alarm bells go off in my head.

I'd argue with you more but I can tell it's pointless, enjoy it because it's what people like right now. Shallow art that you understand with a single glance.

[Kheirn]

No. Art is mostly objective, the interpretation is the subjective part. Read up on some art theory, there are branches for all forms of art.

---------- Post added 2011-12-01 at 04:42 AM ----------



I'd argue with you more but I can tell it's pointless, enjoy it because it's what people like right now. Shallow art that you understand with a single glance.

Honestly, you're the one coming off as very elitist here with this "My art is better than yours"-attitude. You're being very silly about this whole idea.

[Caiada]

No. Art is mostly objective, the interpretation is the subjective part. Read up on some art theory, there are branches for all forms of art.

---------- Post added 2011-12-01 at 04:42 AM ----------



I'd argue with you more but I can tell it's pointless, enjoy it because it's what people like right now. Shallow art that you understand with a single glance.

How disappointing. I was slightly curious. I'm no art buff (like, at all), I just really don't understand the perspective of what's seemingly art elitism.

[Badpaladin]

Would you like to be specific of what movement, and which contemporaries?? I think you would be interested in the study of the subject in modern media since the 1920's. It was during this period that artists became self aware of the fact that art had become a commercial product, also the poetry during the Harlem Renaissance expresses the same idea.

Any movement before the 1920's, no specific artists. Just anybody who was a contemporary of one we recognize as great today. I ask the question because I'm not well-versed in drawn art, but I am knowledgeable about music. Often times the very first criticism of any modern music, mainstream or not, is that it's "crap" compared to what was done in the past for any multitude of reasons and I figured that could easily translate over to art debates.

Not that I'm trying to call you out or anything, it's just piqued my interest because of how often I see similar arguments being made about music.

I suppose I should ask a better question -- what aspects of modern art do you like?

[Deleted]

How disappointing. I was slightly curious. I'm no art buff (like, at all), I just really don't understand the perspective of what's seemingly art elitism.

Look it's not elitism. But this is so simple, so singular in its idea that it's almost ironic without intending to be. There are elements of fine art that have to be present, that being some of what I already mentioned, e.g. subtlety, proper use of imagery etc etc.

[pallydan]

This is retarded.

Scientific studies have proven that the Venus de Milo *had* arms, was painted, and was adorned with jewelry. In fact, current perceptions that Greek classical sculpture was purely done in marble has been a historical misconception.

So basically, statues in ancient times were basically life-sized action figures.

[Caiada]

Look it's not elitism. But this is so simple, so singular in its idea that it's almost ironic without intending to be. There are elements of fine art that have to be present, that being some of what I already mentioned, e.g. subtlety, proper use of imagery etc etc.

Again with the 'have to be's. :/ Is it shallow? Probably. Is it not good art? Probably that too. But not art? I'd call that elitism.

I'll compare it to literature. I'm better at that. Dan Brown versus William Faulkner. Dan Brown's not that great of a writer. He mostly just writes to tell an alright story and entertain people. But Faulkner wrote incredibly deep stories that still affect literature today. However, that doesn't mean that the Da Vinci code is somehow not literature.

[Kheirn]

Look it's not elitism. But this is so simple, so singular in its idea that it's almost ironic without intending to be. There are elements of fine art that have to be present, that being some of what I already mentioned, e.g. subtlety, proper use of imagery etc etc.

No. This is all what you believe has to be within something to be art. Go back and read my post on page 2, then reply to that. I'd love to hear your views on it.

[Deleted]

Any movement before the 1920's, no specific artists. Just anybody who was a contemporary of one we recognize as great today. I ask the question because I'm not well-versed in drawn art, but I am knowledgeable about music. Often times the very first criticism of any modern music, mainstream or not, is that it's "crap" compared to what was done in the past for any multitude of reasons and I figured that could easily translate over to art debates.

Not that I'm trying to call you out or anything, it's just piqued my interest because of how often I see similar arguments being made about music.

I suppose I should ask a better question -- what aspects of modern art do you like?

I like little of modern art. That which I do like is mostly expressionist BUT even in that field there isn't very much that I like. Modern art suffers from consumerism, artists pander to what people want. Again see some of the things I mentioned earlier.

The problem is the intention of art, few artists, at least in the "canvas" category really even exist in the sense that a literary artists exists because of the problem of money. There isn't money to be had in canvas art that is truly artistic, someone will pay thousands for 3 red squares on white, so art critics endourse what people will pay for.

My sentences are crumbling, 5 am here>_>

---------- Post added 2011-12-01 at 04:55 AM ----------

Again with the 'have to be's. :/ Is it shallow? Probably. Is it not good art? Probably that too. But not art? I'd call that elitism.

I'll compare it to literature. I'm better at that. Dan Brown versus William Faulkner. Dan Brown's not that great of a writer. He mostly just writes to tell an alright story and entertain people. But Faulkner wrote incredibly deep stories that still affect literature today. However, that doesn't mean that the Da Vinci code is somehow not literature.

No it's not literature, it's a trash novel. Again I'm not sure where the issue is as Art is a category denoting it's caliber. This is not worthy of the title, so I'd label it a performance piece. Again, my view of art stems of classification of good vs bad according to classical teachings.

[Caiada]

No it's not literature, it's a trash novel. Again I'm not sure where the issue is as Art is a category denoting it's caliber. This is not worthy of the title, so I'd label it a performance piece. Again, my view of art stems of classification of good vs bad according to classical teachings.

Then you've been using a different definition of both literature and art than I have.

[Naturtok]

Err...Huffington post... since when do they post real stories? I was pretty sure they were not unlike the Onion. Cept less absurd.

[Very Tired]

Sorry was watching 127 hours, didn't have time to follow the link.

[Deleted]

Then you've been using a different definition of both literature and art than I have.

So where do your opinions of what art is stem from?

[Maharishi]

Then you've been using a different definition of both literature and art than I have.

Indeed, art has absolutely no qualitative implications to me. That's why terms like high art even exist.

[Kheirn]

Modern art suffers from consumerism, artists pander to what people want.

And you have studied art? Just so you know, most older paintings were done on-demand and payed for. Very rarely were paintings made "just for the heck of it". They provided their client with what they wanted, how would that not be consumerism and artists "pandering to what people want"? Also, what do you know about "what people want"? You're so filled with these claims and statements which hold no actual value, yet you wield them like they are swords of utter truth. Your view and way of thinking is not the only view. You're being insanely narrow-minded for being an "artistic mind".

Again, my view of art stems of classification of good vs bad according to classical teachings.

This is just as elitist as it gets.

[Deleted]

Indeed, art has absolutely no qualitative implications to me. That's why terms like high art even exist.

I suppose you could use high art if you want. But the fewer the categories the better, but if it stops the derailing I'll agree this is not high art, and so may as well be art. But be aware that my opinion of it has not changed an iota.

[Dald]

No way in hell she has the strength to rip an arm off like that. Def fake.

[Caiada]

So where do your opinions of what art is stem from?

Art is creative expression. It's the most broad definition, to allow maximum creativity.

That's the great part about words, especially words with such varying definitions as art.

---------- Post added 2011-12-01 at 12:05 AM ----------

I suppose you could use high art if you want. But the fewer the categories the better, but if it stops the derailing I'll agree this is not high art, and so may as well be art. But be aware that my opinion of it has not changed an iota.

I'm certainly not implying there's anything deep, world-changing, or even mildly good about it (other than perhaps a mildly interesting premise.)

[Maharishi]

I suppose you could use high art if you want. But the fewer the categories the better, but if it stops the derailing I'll agree this is not high art, and so may as well be art. But be aware that my opinion of it has not changed an iota.

I'll address where my ideas of art come from, though you didn't pose th question directly to me. I used to try and declassify seemingly uninteresting pieces as not art. However I took a full sequence of drawing classes, in addition to many design classes, throughout college. I wouldn't claim to be an art expert, as I took the classes for practical purposes, not theory.

I came to realize that try to use art as a qualitative had a couple of issues. First of all, what is "bad art?" That is to say something intended to be art but does not achieve that goal? This is more of a strict technical labeling issue, where art being broad is just useful.

The second issue being that giving anyone the ability to declassify art as art seems, if not dangerous, foolish. Just because someone doesn't like art, does not give them the right to declare the piece unfit for discussion as art. It inherently inhibits the critical process if you refuse to engage in it.