Guest Alex C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I'm touched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 it's definitely NOT art. Oh wow. You sound like my parents. Can I ask what exactly makes it 'not art'? Because it's not painted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Strangely fitting that the "what is art?" discussion should arise in the crotch kicking thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Because you know, they've made very important, exciting, inspiring, interesting work since the Freeze exhibition (which in itself is something to be inspired by), and have made art something that more people talk about, and discuss. They've created a lot of dialogue about art, and surely that's a good thing? I'll agree with the latter point, and i agree that, indeed, it is a good thing. On the former point however... what can i say? I'm gonna be civil here and just ask that you please allow me to join the Stuckists in saying that, while what they do is very interesting, maybe even inspiring in some cases (in the way that even a pebble on a street could be inspiring to some), and very ingenuous (not ingenious) and endearing (or better said, cute), it's definitely NOT art. You can say that, but I find it quite funny that someone who is posting on a supposedly "experimental" music forum, has such a conservative view of art. Also, YBAs paint too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lady kakapo Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 You can say that, but I find it quite funny that someone who is posting on a supposedly "experimental" music forum, has such a conservative view of art. You can say that, but I find it quite funny that someone who is posting on a supposedly "experimental" music forum, would expect to see a homogenous opinion on what constitutes art. What do you think of that eh, Mr C? *high fives passing pigeon* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I don't expect to see that, I just find it strange that people can impose really quite conservative rules on one type of art, over another. I never said I expected EVERYONE to consider everything art, show me where I said that. It's not me wanting people to like YBAs, I don't even like them all that much, but to say that nothing they have ever done is art is a bit odd, they're a very disparate group, who include painters and sculptures, video artists, and the also very untraditional artists. So I just find it odd that someone is saying nothing they have created is art, purely down to the label YBA. I sort of expected that people who are at least part-way interested in experimental sound, would be more open-minded when it came to art than my grandmother, but that was wrong of me apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lady kakapo Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I don't expect to see that, I just find it strange that people can impose really quite conservative rules on one type of art, over another. I never said I expected EVERYONE to consider everything art, show me where I said that. It's not me wanting people to like YBAs, I don't even like them all that much, but to say that nothing they have ever done is art is a bit odd, they're a very disparate group, who include painters and sculptures, video artists, and the also very untraditional artists. So I just find it odd that someone is saying nothing they have created is art, purely down to the label YBA. I sort of expected that people who are at least part-way interested in experimental sound, would be more open-minded when it came to art than my grandmother, but that was wrong of me apparently. I should have kept my mouth shut, I hate 'art' discussions. But you could probably make the argument that the common identifying feature of the YBAs was a manipulation of the art world, either by the artists themselves or dealers or Saatchi or whatever, and that this negates artistic value to the point where it can no longer be considered 'art'. If you have a relatively high minded or even old fashioned view of art as something 'transcendental' or 'spiritual' and that music in whatever form meets this criterion*, then that pov is more coherent than contradictory. *obviously the existence of the flahbulb completely undermines this. Tycho next, on for the wattem hatrick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I don't see how thinking that art is 'transcendental' or spiritual' is high-minded, or old fashioned, that's just straight up hippy bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I don't see how thinking that art is 'transcendental' or spiritual' is high-minded, or old fashioned, that's just straight up hippy bollocks. What is "art" to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I don't see how thinking that art is 'transcendental' or spiritual' is high-minded, or old fashioned, that's just straight up hippy bollocks. What is "art" to you? Here's your order sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I was merely curious. People seem to be good at explaining what art isn't but not usually the other way around. Do you want me to chew those worms up for you and regurgitate them back into your mouth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theSun Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 1. people who make an appointment for you to come do some work on their computer and it is covered in useless nick nacks and stacks of dusty papers 2. people who make an appointment for you to replace their computer and it is covered in useless nick nakcs and dusty papers 3. people who make an appointment for you to come and replace their keyboard, only to notify of 13 other problems you'd like me to "take a look at" 4. people who want their computer from 1998 to run any 2 programs at once 5. people who do not know what "right-click" means 6. people who do not know what "right-click" means, but want you to explain why they don't have w/e access to the WINDOWS or Program Files folders 7. people who demand a USB extender while not using their front USB ports 8. bosses who think that if you are writing someone an email, you are free to do whatever they are too lazy to do 9. fat manager that makes his underlings go upstairs and get water for his dying plants 10. meg white Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I was merely curious. People seem to be good at explaining what art isn't but not usually the other way around. Do you want me to chew those worms up for you and regurgitate them back into your mouth? Dan never claimed that anything "wasn't art". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theSun Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 i can define art in one word: subjective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Dan never claimed that anything "wasn't art". I don't see how thinking that art is 'transcendental' or spiritual' is high-minded, or old fashioned, that's just straight up hippy bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Dan never claimed that anything "wasn't art". I don't see how thinking that art is 'transcendental' or spiritual' is high-minded, or old fashioned, that's just straight up hippy bollocks. I said that thinking that about art is not high-minded, but is hippy bollocks. How is that saying anything isn't art? It's just calling someone a hippy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Maybe can be learning to reading now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 You attached a derogatory term (bollocks) to the person who thought art to be "transcendental" or "spiritual." Further you attached those rather large subjects to a very specific movement that only really happened for a few years when really they've been around for thousands of years. This to me implies that you don't think much of the idea that art is "transcendental" or "spiritual." So I must conclude that you either don't think much of art or that you don't think art is neither of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Whenver anyone starts throwing words like "transcendental" and "spiritual" around, it's generally a good indication that you can ignore whatever they're saying. 99% of the time it's going to be lazy, cliché-ridden hippy bollocks. I think that's what Daniel was getting at. or that you don't think art is either of those. HURF 10/10 for reading comprehension Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Whenver anyone starts throwing words like "transcendental" and "spiritual" around, it's generally a good indication that you can ignore whatever they're saying. 99% of the time it's going to be lazy, cliché-ridden hippy bollocks. I think that's what Daniel was getting at. or that you don't think art is either of those. HURF 10/10 for reading comprehension Nah, just sloppy typing. Kind of unfair to assume someone is lazy and cliché when they use those terms in regards to art, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 scenesters/hipsters are the new hippy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 scenesters/hipsters are the new hippy. At least the hipsters don't pretend to believe in anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Oh, they are the new Nihilists? Everyone believes in something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 scenesters/hipsters are the new hippy. At least the hipsters don't pretend to believe in anything Smelling bad/not showering, dressing like 80's rejects, listening to horrible trendy music, and being assholes are what they believe in...right? just as bad as any hippy..... perhaps worse.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I don't know if those accusations are being thrown at me but I can assure you I smell amazing, shower daily, and as of today shave my balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.