 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (3)big Hyperflake dariusgriffin ...and 352 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614165 Today 10 Topics 127544 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Picasso Masterpieces Beaten by a Toilet -Poll LONDON (Reuters) - They are two of the most recognized works of art in the world, and they have lost out to an autographed toilet. Pablo Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" and "Guernica" came second and fourth respectively in a poll of what 500 leading art world figures regarded as the five most influential works of modern art in the world. They were beaten to the top spot by Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain," a tilted and signed white urinal which he offered to a shocked art world in 1917. Third place in the survey by Turner Prize sponsor and gin manufacturer Gordon's went to Andy Warhol's "Marilyn Diptych," with Henri Matisse's "The Red Studio" in fifth place. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so there, its official |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
leading world art figures know nothing of art |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well.. art is not about the artist, but the person who experiences the art.. says something about "leading world art figures," eh? I think my next song will be called that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
:) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
five most influential works of modern art that doesn't say the best, most beautiful or most innovative, it says "most influential". and for that matter, "modern art". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe the fountain is the most influential. how would you or i know? i haven't researched data to find out what modern art has had the most influence on other artists, have you? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Art is cool because it is nice to look and and pee in! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok, whatever dude, i still think that a tiltled toilet is not as influencial as some of the works mentioned, who cares what i think though right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if you think about it, it's easy to see why the Fountain was chosen, and i think it's fair enough... after all, it "destroyed"/changed the definition/concept of "art" more than Picasso. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not really, it is still a toilet 'fountain', its just a toilet, its art ok, but it really is just a toilet |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
art is now everything, i get it, but i really dont agree with it in the sense that everything is art. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I love modern art. Its much more stimulating than traditional art. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, please don't take it personally. you can make whatever point you like - i was merely challenging it. perhaps i said it the wrong way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's not just a fucking toilet, it was a defining piece in breaking down what art is and could be about. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe its easy for me to look back on this and say "ok, why would they vote for a toilet" and it is now 2004, and this happened int 1917, but this was recently voted on so that is why its outrageous to me, i guess, and btw not to worry we are just shooting the shit here :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i know this, but come on its just a toilet, the actual art, now the concept it cool, but art is not a concept, at least for me, its not about concepts, its about feeling and basically what d mastah said |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Arrrrgh, sorry if that came off a bit rude, it's generally a bad idea for me to mix a couple of bottles of wine with interweb art threads. Mind you, the other pieces in the top 5 are all 1930s or before (warhol excepted), so i dunno how it seems "outrageous" that fountain was number 1. The whole readymade thing opened up whole new avenues in art theory, but whether or not those "avenues" are a bullshit waste of time and effort is up to you i guess. For the record i'm a bit of a duchamp fanboy, but i suppose you'd gathered that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Art is not a concept... for you. It can be about feeling and expressing emotion and all that, sure (1950s macho angsty posturing here we come), but to invalidate somebody else's work but saying "come on it's just a toilet" is a bit ignorant if you ask me. If it's "i don't like it", fine, but the implication that using a urinal as art is a pisstake is a bit much to bear. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fucking italics. Also, i despise these sort of shitty polls anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That toilet invented all the people who say 'that's not art, it's just a fucking _________'. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wel.. some of the artists seem to have gotten an impression that art is about themselfes and itself.. that art should challenge the boundaries of art, and no longer comment society. The purpose of modern art is to expand "art" as a concept, which just is very stupid... art isn't more or less if you do it with more stuff or more "meaning".. the meaning will never be concieved correctly by the people experiencing the art.. everyone experience things differently, and if an artist connects "love" to the color yellow with poo and ducks on it, he is probably pretty alone in the world, and everyone else will have their own opinion of it. "when the work leaves the artist, the work is not the artists." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm not trying to be ignorant, but i am trying to reason out the artist value of a toilet, now the concept, i totally agree with it, but to give you an example, warhol would put say a washer machine on a platform and call it art, hes rehashing duchamps concept, but the actual physical art of a washer machine is lost on me, frankly it is not artistic, just the concept is artistic |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
concept art? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
doesnt masterbate my mind like actual physical art, ie the art itself |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so you believe that the effort of the artist describes the quality of the art? for instance, you think that found art isn't true art? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well.. there are people who agree with you, and then there are people who don't.. I don't think much of putting a piece of poop on a toaster and calling it art, because it's the "expand 'art' as a concept" school... I'm all for art that is enjoyable as visual candy. I'd like to have my own emotions when looking at something.. no thoughts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"...that art should challenge the boundaries of art, and no longer comment society." but haven't works such as Fountain commented on, and perhaps shaped, the way society percieves art? "I'm all for art that is enjoyable as visual candy. I'd like to have my own emotions when looking at something.. no thoughts. " this is your mistake, i think. you're saying that superficial art with no substance is more desirable than more cerebral art that may be ugly or simplistic? why? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
because the way we work, meaning wouldn't be percieved as it was meant. no-one can understand how I experience an apple, they can only have their own experience. If Duchamp once had sexx on that toilet, he could have put it there to symbolise sex, but no-one saw that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think what you have to do is devide what is "Craft" and what is "Concept". Guernica and Les Demoiselles d'Avignon are increadably "Crafted" peices of art more so than Fountain Fountain is a "Conceptual" piece that changed what was acceptable in the world of art and to compound what he was doing, we are still pondering the question of wheater or not it is "Art". And I do agree that Duchamp's contribution to the art world is more important than Picasso's although they are both essential foundations to our concepts of art today. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course we all experience art different ways. that goes for all art, even when it is spelled out for you. even in realism, when the meaning is on the surface, we will still percieve the art in different ways and to different degrees. so why is it important that meaning be transparent? to me, the idea that you have to be able to "get it" defeats the whole experience of the art, because it forces you to embrace the context the art is presented in, which is a distraction from the work itself. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
therefore, art should be beautiful, and appealing, not made with the purpose of conveying a message. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You have to get it, that is what art is all about. Your personal connection to imagery. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what??? no, no and no. you said yourself that art should comment on society. how can it do that if there is no message? that doesn't make any sense. and where is the panel of experts that decides what is beautiful and appealing? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why do i have to understand a hidden meaning or obscure, secret reference in art to have a personal connection to it? i don't think i do... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
consider this: I like food that tastes good. Everyones tastebuds are different, but most people would agree that for instance ketchup, poo, fish, rocks and garbage tastes bad when mixed (not important point, and example, so don't argue that you like poo or whatever...). If someone made a dish containing these things he'd defintaly expand the concept of "food," but it just wouldn't be good, and it would most likely be an unwelcome expansion of "food." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The idea of art "belonging" to either the creator or the viewer is quite a puzzler, regardless of what it means to either of them. I tend fluctuate between both camps, so i'm not going to launch into any kind of diatribe. Although i'd say that the relationship created between artist and viewer is more important than any kind of conceptual/emotional "ownership". Dividing art from idea is something i've never held with though, it smacks too strongly of ikea prints designed to go with your furniture. If a piece is designed with that in mind then fair enough, i'm not going to condemn someone's work just because it doens't conform to my idea of what art is or should related to (if it relates to anything at all, but that's a whole other wanky discussion.) I can appreciate aesthetic beauty as well as the next fella, but art lacking ideas, no matter how pretty, seems a bit (deep breath) shallow. This is so much like the CONFIELD IS GRATE / NO IT'S NOT fiasco it's untrue. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
d mastah, i think we are on the same wave length here, this is how i enjoy art. "I'd like to have my own emotions when looking at something.. no thoughts. " totally agree with this, i would just add that my emotion is what drives the artistic effect that the art has on me, my emotion however is mine and i cannot think that others will have my same emotion, which you kind of touched on. so maybe, the fountain didnt have emotional effect on me, but what else can it do for me? i see the concept but, now we are on the intellectual (read non-artistic) level here, not purely non-artistic put there is a scientific objective level involved with this piece. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its not that it lacks idea, just connection to the viewer, therefore idea from the viewer, now not all viewers are created equal... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
erh.. I said that some people believe that art should comment on society, and that that was the main purpose of art before a certain period.. I didn't say I agreed with it, but I like it MUCH better than the concept of expanding art. I'm 40% towards that theory and 60% towards candy. the expert panels are nowhere and everywhere.. they most often consist of people who other people think know what they're on about... like.. if you'd have a panel on pop, you'd include madonna no matter what... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's not really a problem, since the artist becomes another spectator/interpreter among with the other interpreters as soon as he's handed the work over to the public. His opinion is just as valid as everyone elses, but it's still HIS opinion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you don't want to take any kind of conceptual thing home with you after seeing a purely conceptual piece, then you won't like it, simple as that. It's true nuff that you take what you want from art, and if you appreciate aesthetics over idea, then you're naturally going to like a different kind of work. I'm not saying at all that you're saying this, but the real thing that pisses me off is the whole "that's not art! i could do that!" school of thought, because it generally revolves around seeing something idea-based in terms of pure aestheticism. Also: beauty can be conceptual, idea and image can't always be separated. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that example really doesn't work. shit isn't food - you can't eat it. yet shitty art is still art - it's just shitty. what if someone made art that was so ugly and disgusting, no one in the entire world could possibly say it was beautiful? what makes you so sure it wouldn't be art? what if someone says that the mona lisa is nauseating and unbearable to look at? it isn't art anymore? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i agree. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
exactly! shit isn't food, but a toilet isn't art either before someone calls it art... hence the link to "expanding art" from "expanding food." as for the other question: i'd say that a general consensus would be required.. not just the opinion of the few, but the opinion of the masses. if one person didn't like the mona lisa, he'd be outnumbered (not wrong, but not democratically right either...). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Now that i can agree with. There's a multitude of ways of looking at art, and that's exactly how it should be. And mistergypsum, i can see that too, but it really depends on what you are looking to take away from a piece. If you want to take something on an ideas level, then you will. If you're looking for something that tickles your beauty-bone, then you'll get something out of that. But i've always thought that aesthetics can actually spark ideas, and vice versa. Personally i wouldn't agree with deliberately trying to separate the two camps, there's way too much grey area, particularly as we seem to be discussing idea vs aesthetics as if they were two camps of artists at perpetual war. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Bollocks, mate! Art isn't consensus-chosen, and nor should it be. If you see something as art, then it is, at least to you. That's at the core of what duchamp was trying to say. Taken to its logical extreme, it could be argued that art is anything, and hence we can see art in the everyday. Which concerns both beauty and idea, negating the whole separation thing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't understand your point. obviously art doesn't exist before it exists. so what? your analogy is flawed. it doesn't make sense. and by making declarations that art is up to the democratic majority, where does that leave the communists? where does that leave the fascists and the individuals? i thought the whole thing is that it is a personal experience? it's the experience of the individual, not the masses. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Duchamp's art is designed to entertain and prevoke this sort of discussion. Before him, the whole, "Is it art" debate was rarely even discussed. Because he proved that art was not 100% craft as it has been in the past. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that makes me think that perhaps he was an influential artist! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
