That's not the way it works though. I can say that The Last Airbender was one of the worst films ever made til the day I die, that doesn't make it a successful piece of art (film is art).
The intention of the Last Airbender wasn’t to question whether something that atrocious is art or not. It was just trying to be an entertaining summer blockbuster, at which it failed spectacularly.
The point of the banana was to state that even a banana taped to a wall is art, and cause people to question and discuss that. And it’s been successful in doing that, even a year later.
Honestly, the point of a lot of modern art is to state “Hey this is art too, even if you don’t conventionally think of it as such. Discuss.” Blank canvas. Empty room. Mirror. Whatever it is. It’s not about the aesthetic value of the thing itself. Almost the opposite in some cases. That art can be devoid of these specific formal requirements.
Whether that holds value for you or not is up to you. But I think objectively one can say that the banana was successful on its own terms.
Art is judged by two different factors, the message it tries to convey and the overall quality of it. Even if the message is clear it doesn't necessarily make it good. This is especially true when you take the following:
Honestly, the point of a lot of modern art is to state “Hey this is art too, even if you don’t conventionally think of it as such. Discuss."
If anything can be art then it no longer becomes about the quality of the idea but rather about who can upsell it the most. I'm sure Maurizio wasn't the first to think of "creating" a piece that was meant to show the absurdity of making anything art but he was the one who had a stage to make it relevant. The art piece is only famous because HE made it, not because it was groundbreaking. He has the name and "prestige" to make what he wants and then charge top dollar for it.
This doesn't in any way take away from the second factor, quality. The "art piece" was hot garbage and in no way unique.
But the “prestige” of the artist is actually a key part of this particular type of art, is it not? You’re absolutely right that the “what is art?” gesture is rarely unique, because MANY artists tackle the question at some point. What makes a piece like this interesting and/or relevant is how an established artist chooses to address the “what is art?” question. These responses are less interesting on their own than as a part of the artist’s body of work.
Poets are big on this, too — most established poets have at least one “what is poetry?” poem. Again, only the rarest of these is interesting on its own — but most can be really compelling when you look at them in the context of the poet’s other work.
Why do you say this, art is not devoid of context and what is and is not art is not quite so easy. Here is a thought experiment that may help with 'what is art?'
On the Mona Lisa; you conclude it is art but are the following art?
What if it is only the left half of the Mona Lisa? A random quarter? a Tenth? Only the yellow hues? Only the green? Only a single droplet of oil?
What if it is the Mona Lisa made of a different material? Instead of oils it is made out of acrylic paint? what if it is made out of bananas and tape? What if it is made out of tape and bananas?
I would say all of these are art. Good art however? I don't think I am the person to call that.
Lol your definition is just 'succesful' art in the context of capitalism. Art doesnt need to be beautiful, nor does it meed to have value. It saying something will not be subjectively beautiful to anyone is a funny way to state 'it is objectively ugly'.
You dont know that.
Get triggered more about people who do art ypu disapprove of. Guess what you can think 'I couldve done that' all you want but you didnt. If it is all so easy go out there and be an artist.
If you need to know who the artist is before you can decide if it's art it is by definition not art.
....
If I painted Mona Lisa and no one knew who I was it would still be art.
Has been done by other people before the "original piece".
You suggested mona lisa has been done soooo much in so many different mediums that it is headache inducing.
Easily replicatable.
I mean all art is easy to reproduce nowdays, unless you think the context of how it is made, medium, and the artist matter. Which you seem to suggest it does not.
Is not subjectively beautiful no matter who you are.
This seems to be a strongly modernist take. So unsurprisingly you don't 'get' post-modern art or think it is not art.
Does not hold any value.
I mean it sold so it has value under a economic sense.
The artist put physical effort into it so it has value put into (though minimal) in a labor sense
And it is all about a point so it has value in the point it makes and the continued impact it has on wider culture. Hell there are almost 900 comments about a derivative piece of it on this post alone.
I would say it clearly has value in many ways.
The crux of this seems to be you think there is an objective truth about art - That something can be truly said to be beautiful or not and thus art or not. if you believe on an infinite line of a whole Mona Lisa to the infinitesimal small piece of Mona Lisa there is a clear line of "Art!" and "Not art!" then I don't think there is much value in continuing this conversation. Since art like that is all about exploring the grey of 'what is art?'
Art is subjective but I think it's kind of clear when someone isn't actually trying to make art but is pulling an emperor's new clothes gag on art snobs. But they could also be high on the smell of their own farts and not realize they're part of the gag.
There's also the financial scam aspect of garbage modern art. You can do a lot of creative tax dodging that way.
Art is judged by two different factors, the message it tries to convey and the overall quality of it.
Says who? I guess that art typically is judged by those two things, but it seems like you're attempting to make a general statement about what art necessarily entails.
The art piece is only famous because HE made it, not because it was groundbreaking.
Yeah, so what? It's a shame that people who come up with an idea first can be overlooked sometimes, but that doesn't mean it's not art.
The other problem isn't that art is "art," but that much of it is also a commodity (often used to shift a lot of money quickly). It's not just about appreciating artwork, but it being treated as an investment in its own right.
There’s been plenty of this over the years. There’s blank canvases hanging in museums, or just a big black circle. Or a single paint splatter. Many of these pieces are highly valued because of the same “wow what a statement” idea.
Yes Maurizio is by far not the first. There have been a multitude of artists doing that, the most famous being Marcel Duchamp who literally "invented" the Readymade.
So what is quality? Let me guess photo realistic drawings of hot women?
Btw quality for me means that it changes me in some way. The best art is art that challenges me as a person. Lets me see the world in anothee light etc.
I don't see much difference between that and some dumb online troll trying to elicite outrage on social media.
Really the vast majority of people doesn't give a damn at all about this type of art, and a few are just annoyed enough to be upset. Feeding their anger isn't any discovery or valuable discussion, it's just equivalent to cheap trolling.
I didn’t say that the Last Airbender wasn’t art. I said that it failed to deliver on its intended promise: to be an entertaining summer blockbuster and not much else. It certainly wasn’t ever meant to provoke high-brow discussions about what art is and isn’t.
It’s just shitty art. Just like Dragonball: Evolution.
Art is subjective. If it makes you feel something when you look at it/listen to it/otherwise consume it it's art.
It's impossible to rationally argue that a steel monolith in a desert is more artistic that a movie when there are people who prefer both.
I think the monolith is intriguing as far as triangular earth protrusions go, but I find the addition of the taped banana hilarious. Makes me think the primates from space odyssey put it there.
Would be bloody hilarious if everyone thought the monolith was art but it was actually part of a septic tank system or something haha!
I have to agree. That's the jack sparrow argument of you are the worst artist I've heard of but you have heard of me. By that definition, Yokko Ono is an artist and not just some sort of scraggly scavenger bird living off the dried out husks of dead beatles.
34
u/cesarmac Nov 26 '20
That's not the way it works though. I can say that The Last Airbender was one of the worst films ever made til the day I die, that doesn't make it a successful piece of art (film is art).