Art ?

Well, we already have plenty of threads where you praise your favorite artist, wheter he/she is a musician, painter, poet,...

well, what about another subjective thread, but from another perspective, a more nuanced and critical topic:
Which pieces of "art" deserve the name the least ?

my ideas:

Le Sacre du Printemps -Stravinsky (can somebody tell me what so great about a "revolutionary" piece of music, based on the same chord, played 59 times ??)

Enchanted Forest - Jackson Pollock


key words are: "5-year old" and "vomiting"

Guernica -Picasso

BAH

Originally Posted by Taxandrius

Well, we already have plenty of threads where you praise your favorite artist, wheter he/she is a musician, painter, poet,...

well, what about another subjective thread, but from another perspective, a more nuanced and critical topic:
Which pieces of "art" deserve the name the least ?

my ideas:

Le Sacre du Printemps -Stravinsky (can somebody tell me what so great about a "revolutionary" piece of music, based on the same chord, played 59 times ??)

Enchanted Forest - Jackson Pollock


key words are: "5-year old" and "vomiting"

Guernica -Picasso

BAH

Both of those are beautiful. The guernica shows the pain and anguish that one suffered during that war, the grotesque violence as people were bombed from the luftwaffe planes, the jagged sharp angles show absolute pain and most of all anger over what happened. That painting is amazing.

The first one i have never seen but it tells its own story depending on ones perspective. It is also an incredible work of art.

I think the "simplest" form of art (in the current sense of the word) possible is found art. Most famous of all found art is Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain"


Any discussion about what really is art would be very dishonest if it didn't include Duchamp's attacks on the art world. The question was which piece of art deserves the name art least. Despite it's revolutionary and historical signifigance I think the Fountain deserves that title, while still remaining undeniably art.

Originally Posted by Taxandrius

key words are: "5-year old" and "vomiting"

BAH

As Eire said above, it depends on a person's perspective when he's judging a piece for its artistic value. A photographer who takes pictures of sand may not be an artist according to some people who desire something more multifarious. Similarly, when a five year old boy creates something out of his own imagination, we need to take into consideration the fact that he's not had much experience in this world. And if an artist creates the same piece that a five year old is capable of making with a few crayons, maybe there's some importance attached to it that non-artists cannot recognize.

Originally Posted by Vɛrbalcartɷnist

As Eire said above, it depends on a person's perspective when he's judging a piece for its artistic value. A photographer who takes pictures of sand may not be an artist according to some people who desire something more multifarious. Similarly, when a five year old boy creates something out of his own imagination, we need to take into consideration the fact that he's not had much experience in this world. And if an artist creates the same piece that a five year old is capable of making with a few crayons, maybe there's some importance attached to it that non-artists cannot recognize.

I think the quality is judged by individual perspective, but the title of art itself is determined by the artist in question.

Child art as a post-modernist phenomonon is quite interesting as it deals with what the basic instinct of mark making really is at it's purest/least-corrupted level, it's almost a scientific demonstration of why we do what we do.

this could be a bit more objective:

Cloaca -by Wim Delvoye

a machine that litterally produces dung

Originally Posted by Taxandrius

this could be a bit more objective:

Cloaca -by Wim Delvoye

a machine that litterally produces dung

Is that not the objective of all artists? I can't think of a more meaningfull self-critical metaphor.

All originality is a witty form of recycling, repeating this proccess will inevitably lead to a consitency similar to excrement.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

J/K

Probably anything from Jackson Pollock

Originally Posted by Taxandrius

Le Sacre du Printemps -Stravinsky (can somebody tell me what so great about a "revolutionary" piece of music, based on the same chord, played 59 times ??)

Here's a question: How would having the chord change regularly throughout the piece qualify it any more as art?

Originally Posted by Taxandrius

Which pieces of "art" deserve the name the least ?

Without going into a large essay concerning art and a discussion of it's various definitions, everything is art. All else is just a matter of taste.

It seems like people are thinking about the aesthetics too much. It is a very relative thing. Those paintings are famous because they bring out the emotions that words can not explain. I mean since I was very young, many of the painting, especially that of Picasso's made me feel weird. I think that is the most important thing about them.

What about art as an intelluctual pursuit?
For instance Pollock's drip paintings recording his fleeting ethereal thoughts on nature: much the same way as a polygraph records fluxuating emotions.

Surely that's a more moving sentiment than Picasso's politically inspired plagaristic form of analytical cubism??

I have a problem with people who search elaborate explanations for things that don't need such an explanation

I think a lot of precious life is wasted analyzing things that don't need to be analyzed.

One could say to the contrary, a lot of precious things are wasted because they are not analyzed and therefore not valued enough.

Originally Posted by Blau&Gruen

One could say to the contrary, a lot of precious things are wasted because they are not analyzed and therefore not valued enough.

God damn, you worded that well. + rep

Originally Posted by Arch-hereticK

God damn, you worded that well. + rep

Thank you.

I know little about art, but I find that 16-18th century art is a favourite, particularly religious frescoes. I'm an atheist, but there is something about them that is absolutely awe inspiring.

Originally Posted by Octy

I know little about art, but I find that 16-18th century art is a favourite, particularly religious frescoes. I'm an atheist, but there is something about them that is absolutely awe inspiring.

Why are they awe inspiring?

Originally Posted by Arch-hereticK

Why are they awe inspiring?

If I knew what it was, I would have said it instead of "something".