Whats interesting is that most people would consider the original to be art, and most people would consider just the cocks to not be art, but are the cocks with the statement of intent art or naw? If just the cocks are not art, and the cocks with the statement are, then do the cocks become art if the artist knows about the art that used to be there? Do they become art if the viewer knows about the cocks and infers the missing statement? That’s the interesting question here, because it implies that the piece can be art to one person who knows the context and not art to another person who is only aware of the cocks.
Yeah, it feels kinda like OP is really wondering if what’s there now is just as good as what used to be there because it might still be labeled “art”. Not all art is equal, and I’d much rather have nice looking art than art that says “this used to look nice but now it’s just dicks”. But, given that some asshole decided to just paint over it with monocolour, I’d rather have that “fuck you” than to see it left blank.
I hope the 2nd artist has the determination to put it back if the owners try to get rid of it again, but the patience to wait until they stop watching it so they don’t get caught. Or make them spend money on a surveillance system and someone to monitor it but still put it back one or two lines at a time. Until the owners have an aneurysm and it eventually ends up in the hands of someone more chill.
I find that it makes most sense to me to answer “is this and that art”-questions with a yes by default. Is it made by a human with the intent to convey a message? Art. Any other approach always seems to end in questions of taste.
While I don’t like that particular art form and choose not to look at it whenever possible, I’d say yes.
A lot of art tries to get you to think, feel or do something and I don’t see how this is fundamentally different, even though it seems a little sick at first. From the perspective of, say, the graphic designer for the ad campaign, it might very well be art.
Just because there are many doesn’t mean they are right (I don’t mean to offend). Art, I believe, is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the thought of the creator.
what makes “hehe I’m drawing cocks on the wall” invalid? let’s examine a situation where the person who painted the cocks didn’t know that there used to be traditional art there, but I do. I see the cocks, think about what used to be there before someone “fixed” it, and I receive a message even if none was intended. Is it art in that case? If it is, did the person who just wanted to doodle some dongs create it, or did I?
The clueless case is invalid because it’s strictly a descriptive/self-apparent exercise – lest every single act become art, thus depriving art of meaning.
I don’t have an authoritative answer to your second question, but I’d argue you’ve created an ephemeral, individual piece of art.
Exactly. The message here is more along the lines of “pity this was painted over so boringly, this is what you get”. It is not just a wall, it is the wall with the original artwork still underneath a thin layer of paint. I call art.
Even with just the “hehe”, I’d say it still has the old meaning of any mark made on purpose anywhere: “I was here.” (That seems to be the main point of tagging.)
If it makes you feel any better I only bothered to look because I studied Spanish for a few years and was once wrong about the same thing. Several dialects have words for “cock” that use the feminine article.
To me, what would make it art is a little statement on the side for the viewer to discern who the cock artist was, when it was painted and materials used, and the vision behind it.
The funny thing is that it all began as a revolt against old art for being too elitist, but now regular folks cannot enjoy todays art because they are esthetically awful and would need a full book collection to understand why that piece of rotten banana is art, so just the elite can enjoy it. The rest just pretend to look fancy
It’s the Duchamp problem. He said “You guys are so far up your own asses that you’ll piss in a urinal if it’s in the bathroom but you’ll praise me as a genius if I move that same urinal to the gallery” and the art world was like “Joke’s on you, fucker, I’ll start the bidding at $1.2 million for the pisser!”
Whats interesting is that most people would consider the original to be art, and most people would consider just the cocks to not be art, but are the cocks with the statement of intent art or naw? If just the cocks are not art, and the cocks with the statement are, then do the cocks become art if the artist knows about the art that used to be there? Do they become art if the viewer knows about the cocks and infers the missing statement? That’s the interesting question here, because it implies that the piece can be art to one person who knows the context and not art to another person who is only aware of the cocks.
it’s art but not aesthetically pleasing art
That’s the kind I make.
Yeah, it feels kinda like OP is really wondering if what’s there now is just as good as what used to be there because it might still be labeled “art”. Not all art is equal, and I’d much rather have nice looking art than art that says “this used to look nice but now it’s just dicks”. But, given that some asshole decided to just paint over it with monocolour, I’d rather have that “fuck you” than to see it left blank.
I hope the 2nd artist has the determination to put it back if the owners try to get rid of it again, but the patience to wait until they stop watching it so they don’t get caught. Or make them spend money on a surveillance system and someone to monitor it but still put it back one or two lines at a time. Until the owners have an aneurysm and it eventually ends up in the hands of someone more chill.
I find that it makes most sense to me to answer “is this and that art”-questions with a yes by default. Is it made by a human with the intent to convey a message? Art. Any other approach always seems to end in questions of taste.
So is marketing material art? Is it art if the message is “give me money” or “buy this product?”
While I don’t like that particular art form and choose not to look at it whenever possible, I’d say yes. A lot of art tries to get you to think, feel or do something and I don’t see how this is fundamentally different, even though it seems a little sick at first. From the perspective of, say, the graphic designer for the ad campaign, it might very well be art.
There’s nothing more avant-garde than embracing surface-level materialism
“Art is what you think it is.”
Never lost an argument with that one.
But there are so many people who are so confident in saying things that easily fit the definition you propose are “not art”
Just because there are many doesn’t mean they are right (I don’t mean to offend). Art, I believe, is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the thought of the creator.
“Art is art because is is art and not because we say that it is art.” - Hoid, Words of Radiance, Brandon Sanderson
deleted by creator
Naw
It’s art as long as the one who draws them has a message to deliver (besides “hehe, I’m drawing cocks on a wall”)
what makes “hehe I’m drawing cocks on the wall” invalid? let’s examine a situation where the person who painted the cocks didn’t know that there used to be traditional art there, but I do. I see the cocks, think about what used to be there before someone “fixed” it, and I receive a message even if none was intended. Is it art in that case? If it is, did the person who just wanted to doodle some dongs create it, or did I?
The clueless case is invalid because it’s strictly a descriptive/self-apparent exercise – lest every single act become art, thus depriving art of meaning. I don’t have an authoritative answer to your second question, but I’d argue you’ve created an ephemeral, individual piece of art.
deleted by creator
Exactly. The message here is more along the lines of “pity this was painted over so boringly, this is what you get”. It is not just a wall, it is the wall with the original artwork still underneath a thin layer of paint. I call art. Even with just the “hehe”, I’d say it still has the old meaning of any mark made on purpose anywhere: “I was here.” (That seems to be the main point of tagging.)
I too just listened to the podcast on post-modern art
^^^ This cock is not art
Ceci n’est pas une cock
If there is anything in French I am confident of without consulting a dictionary is that the male genial will come with a male definite article.
https://en.bab.la/dictionary/french-english/bite
Examine your assumptions. Don’t be une bite.
I stand corrected and am, once again, confused by the French.
If it makes you feel any better I only bothered to look because I studied Spanish for a few years and was once wrong about the same thing. Several dialects have words for “cock” that use the feminine article.
I prefer learning a thing over being right :)
Would you mind sharing a link?
Oh it’s just “stuff you should know” on postmodernism.
https://podcastaddict.com/stuff-you-should-know/episode/138840530
Thanks!
To me, what would make it art is a little statement on the side for the viewer to discern who the cock artist was, when it was painted and materials used, and the vision behind it.
It would be honestly pretty great if all these had really neatly stenciled little signatures under them all.
This is just as modern art works today.
The funny thing is that it all began as a revolt against old art for being too elitist, but now regular folks cannot enjoy todays art because they are esthetically awful and would need a full book collection to understand why that piece of rotten banana is art, so just the elite can enjoy it. The rest just pretend to look fancy
It’s the Duchamp problem. He said “You guys are so far up your own asses that you’ll piss in a urinal if it’s in the bathroom but you’ll praise me as a genius if I move that same urinal to the gallery” and the art world was like “Joke’s on you, fucker, I’ll start the bidding at $1.2 million for the pisser!”