@obiwan: yes I have NO LIFE. clinically dead for 20 years now. and I am contributing, if you would bother to actually listen to others, but it seems you are only interested in pissing all over this forum with as much rant as possible.

@abgemacht +1 there's an art installation somewhere where its just a skylight in a roof, and you lie down and look at the sky. The artist did not create the sky, but it is undoubtably great art.

I listened to abgemacht, fielder, and Draugnar, and pastoralan, and Crazy Anglican...

And none of THEM simply popped up to tell me to "suck it..."

We tend to just nothing the points such people make, you see...

oh dont take it so personally. if you want to debate then you have to take criticism, should we all just agree with you?

and what i said (tongue in cheek by the way) is a hell of a lot less personal than you are being. mr glasshouse.

and yes no doubt someone has presented catshit as art. but this does not make it equivalent to shakespear, in my opinion, shakespear is great art, catshit is bad art. other people may have different opinions.

I don't mind criticism, but I took your kind as the sort of foolish, thoughtless heckling that hose who aren't apt to join in a conversation but just want to raise ire and get attention--a troll...which I'm sometimes accused of but at least I genuinely want the conversation, even if I do, admittedly, sometimes enjoy the ire, just a tad--but if that wasn't it, then alright then (and I didn't take it personally, I just wondered why the hell someone was popping up just to, as I saw it, say "suck it" and leave, but whatever...)

Next, while I'm aware he's had his named spelled that way...is there a distinct reason you're spelling Shakespeare's name without that last "e," is is generally seen today? Just curious...

And finally...and the part no one, I'm sure, will like...

People are entitled to their opinions--but an opinion doesn't make something true, and so thinking something is or isn't art, sometimes, just is not feasible.

Again, calling a video no one can see is not a video.
Not painting a picture is not a painting.
Not practicing religion is not practicing religion.
Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

And so on and so forth...

There are LIMITS, built into the very concept, that discount certain possibilities.

(And on another note, to prove I'm not being totally stuffy-stiff-lipped-and-snobbish on the whole "what can be considered art" topic, here's some VERY unconventional art that I WOULD count as being art, as a truly unique filming experience and DEFINITELY a unique vision of filming and photography...pun intended.) ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_en_ot/us_the3rd_eye

@obi: you're missing the point of "4:33." What John Cage created was an environment in which people would be quiet for an extended period of time. It is *exceedingly* difficult to get people in our culture to do this. The elements of the formal performance--the piano, the pianist, the concert hall--all create a situation in which the people present at the "concert" will be strongly motivated to sit still and not talk. They're carefully designed.

So what John Cage created was "a room in which a crowd of Americans would be quiet for several minutes." That's a major achievement...and sitting in that room creates an response--and not random responses either. But realize--it isn't the piece of music on the paper that's the work of art; it's the entire concert hall, transformed into a place for meditation, that is the artwork.

I'd go so far as to say that this is a new kind of art form--art that transforms one kind of space into another kind of space, taking advantage of the juxtaposition of experiences to create an effect. It's like the people who sang the Hallelujah chorus in a mall...the fact that it's in a mall is a key part of that performance, and transforming the mall is in itself a work of art.

But did he CREATE the room, did he build it, manifest it?

Or did he get people to come, sit down, and listen to nothingness?

I am not doubting his ability as a great salesperson, or even as a stager of events, for anyone who is able to get such a crowd for minutes of nothingness is surely a master planner.

But he did not create the silence.

Silence exists de facto, it is noise which covers it and illustrates something, it'd be as if I led you to a dark room which I did not myself create and claim my art to be a representation of Plato's Cave allegory, that now, out of the light, you lack the ability to see and to see truth, and then I took you out of the room and suddenly you saw once more.



What's more...I guarantee you that those in space have experienced 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence--does that make them artists, too?

Or when you are in your room, at night, and you lay silently, and there are no crickets, no ticking clocks, no heat or air conditioning flowing in...nothing, just silence.

Have you, now, created 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence, and thus art--or are you merely experiencing the de facto, what there is in the absence of sound?

If anything Cage's work isn't art but a demonstration of what an absence of art is--and as he wanted complete silence, and silence is about as close as we can equate something to nothingness, I do believe that was his concept, no/

I put blindfolds on a crowd of two hundred to keep out all light, to prevent all sight, and call that "4 Minutes and 33 Seconds Sightless."

Now, does putting blindfolds over people constitute art? It's an ACTON, sure, but if we allow that, then any action may count as an action of art...

Served fries to 200 people left-handed in the snow for McDonalds? ART!
Rode the subway eight straight days on end in a tutu? ART!
Burned a swastika in someone's yard? It's not a hate crime--it's ART!



Art isn't this unbounded, undefined thing so many of you wish it to be...all things must ahve SOME definition, some boundaries, as if they have none, they have no boundaries, nothing that seperates them from anything else...

And then--what is that? Art? All langauge, all meaning, all reasoning, any and all truths, objective or subjective, absolute or bendable, to a slight or strict degree...

Without definition, all gone.

And besides--if this art is so GROUNDBREAKING...well, how can something be groundbreaking if there is no definition of "art" in which to ground the term, so to speak?

(Sorry, would've replied sooner, but hit the pillow like a rock last night, and then had job orientation this morning...)

@obiwan: dude, you should print your last post out and keep it, so when you are older and wiser you can look it and laugh at how much you sound like hitler. LOLZ.

Like Hitler? At least Hitler had a discernible point when he talked, rather than meaningless, navel-gazing psychobabble.

@obi

Here is the 1st definition of art from dictionary.com. Please explain how the Blank canvas does not meet this definition:

"the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

@fiedler

I'm afraid I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's Law and declare that you've lost this argument.

and if you break that down, it means art is whatever someone says is art. its opinion folks, not science. thats why painting isnt a science major. *sigh*

on what authority! ;^)

i maintain the comparison is exceptionally valid in this case, godwin can suck it

@obi, why can't those things be art? Maplethorpe took a picture of a cross in a bucket of urine and they put it in a traveling Maplethorpe art exihibit. So riding the subway in a tutu is art if it was done with an expressive intent and you are not one to judge it as not art. You may say it is bad art or stupid art, but it meets the definition of art.

Yeah, I'm not arguing it's good. In fact, I think both are incredibly stupid. I'll also admit that I'd have a hard time keeping a straight face if someone told me that's what they do for their living. But, that doesn't make it not art.

Before I answer any of those objections--or at the very least try--may I ask...

HOW do my previous comments make me sound like Hitler?

Unless you think my comments mean I'm going to destroy 6 million blank canvases or claim that T.S. Eliot was a genetic superman (he WASN'T) or something......WTF?! XD

Bump for Obi's answers.

And I'm not the one said you sound like Mein Fuhrer so no excuse to not respond to me.

What Cage created was the experience of sitting in a crowd of silent people. As far as I can tell, that meets all your criteria for art. Not music, but the art of a constructed experience.

Come on Obi... No response to how, if pissing on a cross is art, riding a subway for 18 hours in a tutu can't be?

Draug, I wouldn't classify EITHER of those actions as art (and it's Thanksgiving, sir...the day I put philosophy to the side, eat some food for a change, and hope the Dallas Cowboys lose their annual Thanksgiving Day Classic, which they did, so hooray there...however, it must be stated that their stupidly choosing to try and kick a 59-YD field goal on 4th and 10 and trailing 30-27 was NOT a work of art, just a stupid coaching decision I enjoyed watching fail very much--the same way the next best thig to my UTTERLY BELOVED New York Mets--some of you English people might have Manchester United or Chelsea or whatever, I have the New York Mets 24/7/365 second only to lit/philosophy.theatre as my absolute love...oh GOD someone shoot me--winning is the New York Yankees losing, the next best thing to my once-proud San Francisco 49ers winning is the Dallas Cowboys losing.)

Well, then please tell the rest of the world that Maplethorpe isn't and artists and that his cross in urine isn't art...

I'd also like to pose a hypothetical, Draug, and abgemacht:

Since you both seem so keen on the position that ANYTHING can be counted as art as long as someone THINKS it is--God forbid we should actually take people's words differently and treat them differently, instead of all equal, treating the fool like a genius or the man pissing on the Statue of Liberty the same as Pablo Picasso--no, as long as someone thinks it is it MUST be, because we have to be utterly democratic and fair and listen to all points of view...

If art is ANYTHING...really, then does art even EXIST?

After all, it can be argued that without black there is no white, without good there is no evil (I don't believe in either, anyway, but that's another, even longer story), and without any New York Yankees to always win there aren't any New York Mets to always raise hopes and lose (Damn Yankees...those bum Mets...OY...)

So--how can we have art if we have things which may NOT be considered art?

And OK, Draugnar:

ATTENTION, PEOPLE OF THE WOOOOORRRRLLLDDD!!!!

PISSING ON A CROSS MAY BE INSULTING!
IT MAY BE FUNNY AS ALL HELL!
IT MAY BE A SOURCE OF RELIEF WHEN NO PORTA-POTTIES ARE ABOUT!
IT MAY EVEN BE DOWNRIGHT REFESHING, OR A STATEMENT!

BUT IT IS NOT ART...UNLESS THE MAN CREATED SPECIAL PISS COLORED FOR JUST THE OCCASION, IN WHICH CASE IT'S THE MOST DISCUSSING PAINTING IN HISTORY, MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW...

WHAT KIND OF WORLD DO WE LIVE IN WHERE I MUST DEAL WITH PISSING ON A CROSS AS A POSSIBLE FORM OF ART?!?!?!

(I apologize for yelling, folks, but I WAS trying to speak to the whole world there...had to raise my voice a tad...)

You are falling into the trap of viewings things in black and white. Any expression of an idea can be art. The key is in the intent. But art doesn't require non-art ot exist and the idea that there can be no good or eveil or black or white without their converse is false. There can always be black. If light ceased to be, there would be darkness and darkness is what we call black.

Okay, I've read through all four pages of this, and it is irking me. Here is the definition of art by the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"art, also called visual art: a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination"

So to the comments you posted earlier:
"Served fries to 200 people left-handed in the snow for McDonalds? ART!
Rode the subway eight straight days on end in a tutu? ART!
Burned a swastika in someone's yard? It's not a hate crime--it's ART!"

Indeed, these are all art. Now a burning swastika is of course an offensive sign in the general culture, but if you saw a picture of a burning swastika, would it inspire an emotion? I think so.
And thus a blank canvas can be classified as art as long as it was meant by the artist to be blank.

A blank canvas is "a visual object" that was "consciously created" through "an expression of imagination."
Pee on a cross is a "visual object" that was "consciously created" through "an expression of skill."
4:33 is an "experience" that was "consciously created" through "an expression of skill and imagination."

Just because something is repugnant, or disgusting, or not what you like, or really badly drawn, or crude, or too hard to understand for you, it is still a piece of art as long as it is consciously created that way.

So, in the words of fiedler, SUCK ON THAT.

Additionally, 2001 is most definitely a film. (Cite reasons above)

"If art is ANYTHING...really, then does art even EXIST?"

Let me answer this question with another question: If everything in this universe is made of atoms, do atoms exist?

Additionally, there are varying degrees of art. I've said all along that the popularity of art is a perfectly reasonable measurement of how "good" it is. There is art that I love, there is art that I hate. There are even things that I don't think "deserve" to be called art, but I understand (and you do not) that there is no rational justification for actually claiming it is not art.