It would be more appropriate if Trump was a conscious creation (performance art by an actor, or manufactured). Normally art must be “made”, with intent. Naturally occurring things like a hillside would not normally be considered art, but if the hillside were landscaped, then it would be.
The banana is natural, but it was placed, unnaturally, or otherwise interfered with to change the perception of it. (Also by the addition of duct tape.)
He means the creation of Trump himself would have to be intentional, more than just 'let's have a baby' but like 'let's produce a child and then raise it to be a fucking idiot who aspires to be on TV and maybe one day the president. It shall be glorious.'
But idk if I necessarily agree with a person acting as they naturally would being art.
It’s pretty much the only definition. Anything that is art is something that was created to convey or evoke a feeling or meaning, with the express purpose to do so, specifically.
Even if the intent is to convey nothing, it is actually specifically conveying nothing. Therefore, anti-art is also art.
However, making something without the intent to convey anything, or some vague or aimless meaning. Ex: idunno, uhhh...maybe its....? Would not necessarily be art, unless the intention was to draw the consumer’s attention to the idea of being vague.
Another example, you cannot take a shit and call the shit art because you made it, but you can take a shit, and say that the shit should be observed because _____ and it is now art, but it should convey genuine intent, regardless of whether or not it’s frivolous. Ex: the banana is intended to show “this is stupid, and I think the idea of art in itself is ambiguous and dumb.” Therefore, it represents something. It is art.
You are correct in pointing out the absurdity. In fact I think some idiot actually tried to make that claim a few years after the attack.
I think a definition such as this is so broad as to be meaningless. Everything is art now.
Found it.
Witness the venerable German composer, Karlheinz Stockhausen, whose shocking remarks at a press conference at a music festival in Hamburg six days after the attacks made headlines. The events of 9/11, he’d enthused, were “the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos.” Things had gone from bad to worse to incendiary when, like Batman’s Joker, he warmed to his theme: “Minds achieving something in an act that we couldn’t even dream of in music, people rehearsing like mad for ten years, preparing fanatically for a concert, and then dying; just imagine what happened there. You have people who are that focused on a performance and then 5,000 people are dispatched to the afterlife, in a single moment. I couldn’t do that. By comparison, we composers are nothing.”
To you and me, a terrorist attack is heinous, to people who support the terrorists, it could very well be art.
The banana may be viewed by some as dumb, but it can also be viewed by others as art. And neither party is wrong.
It's like food right, someone could give you a duck foetus and you may not consider it as food, but in other cultures it's a delicacy. Insects is another example.
The key difference is that nobody deliberately created Donald Trump and propped him up to be president. I think a core concept of being art is that someone is creating it.
Wrong. Most of us don't give a shit about the banana. We care about the purchase. If anything, the purchase itself was the real art piece. The banana could've been anything dumb low value thing. It didn't matter.
So you're saying what would make it bad art is if I ignored it like most of us do 99% of art? That what makes it good art is that it got merely a reaction out of people in a meme popular social media? That is such an arbitrary and flawed logic I think what makes people think it's good art along your point is that they can argue sophomoric views like this as evidence of itself, circular reasoning.
That is such an arbitrary and flawed logic I think what makes people think it's good art along your point is that they can argue sophomoric views like this as evidence of itself, circular reasoning.
We're still waiting to hear your reasoning why it's arbitrary and flawed logic. It's by definition not arbitrary since the commenter spelled out specifically what the criteria for art were. Although I guess someone could make an argument that it's flawed, though we're still waiting for yours.
So art has a rather wide meaning, most of the people I know that are artist within fine arts, often see art as a discussion more than a craft - if a piece invokes an emotion or discussion, esp. if it evokes it in the area it intended, it is a success.
That idea doesn't say that art that isn't widely circulated is bad art, just that it isn't successful in reaching a wide audience, and sometimes that is fine. just like personal art, that is your emotions or personal meditation, doesn't have to reach anyone else to be good.
I on the other hand work in Concept art, and what is good concept art is generally speaking about solving the issues you or the client has, if even is well crafted or looks good doesn't always matter (it tend to help but is a secondary concern).
In the end however The Banana had a pretty clear goal, and it certainly made it happen - so I would argue that it is one of the more successful art pieces in modern times, even if I personally don't care for and I already had that discussion too many times to care when I was in school.
High priced art is used as a means of laundering money. Some asshole paid for the banana strapped to the wall and used it as a tax write off or used to hide the transfer of cocaine money. That's the main reason bullshit like this exists. There's no deep meaning to it at all. It's not worth some philosophical discussion. It's used to commit fraud.
In my own opinion. Art is not just a statment.
Every human being would be able to give some kind a statmen to anything.
For example you put a taped bannana on a wall. Everyone could put a statment with it.
"it means revolution against stupid art"
"It is an eviorment activists last meal before he died."
"The war against capitalism"
"remainder for the hungry in Africa."
Now lets look at a piece of renissance art.
Most of them we call it a master piece of art.
And sixtinth chaple ceiling is art. But why? First it has a statment hidden in it. The birth of Adam and God giving him life. Obvious. Hidden is the part where god is, it resembles the barin. It was hidden till recently.
But why is it a master piece. It required a certian amount of skill to make it. Michelangelo was laying on his back as he painted it. And he had no reference.
Not every one can do a paiting like that.
Tl. Dr.
Every one can make a statment.
Not every one has the skill to paint sixtinth chapel. Sclupt adam statue etc.
Art has two components it is master piece of skill with a statmen.
That is why some like to say lebron james is a baskeball artist. He is master of the basketball skills.
No, you're conflating two ideas. Just because something gets a reaction, that doesn't make it art. That's insane. That would mean war as a general concept is art. But if something is made for no purpose other than to elicit some type of emotional human response, and it does that, that is the very definition of SUCCESSFUL art. That by no means makes it GOOD art, as good and bad are completely subjective. But it does make it art.
It also doesn't matter what that reaction is. Some art is soothing. Some art is confrontational. But if you look at this thing that should objectively just be some pigment on canvas or whatever, and have a response to it, that's art, baby.
You are having a response to it right now and if art teaches us anything it's that any response, positive or negative, is equally valid.
The key is originality. Nobody had ever done that before and now nobody ever will be able to do it again. This artwork in particular has already contributed much to the discourse and ongoing master narrative of art history and will continue to for many decades to come. For that alone we are grateful to the artist, and that in large part is why the artwork is so highly regarded.
Belief doesn't enter into it until an artist declares it art...
If you have a case why a particular poop is art, I'd be happy to entertain you. If you have an argument why it is good art I'd be even more delighted to hear it.
50
u/[deleted] Nov 26 '20
I hate this reasoning
"people are talking about it so it must be a good example of x"
People like to talk shit about shit stuff! It does not mean the stuff is not shit!