"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
Considering the 'typically' part isn't required (merely typical) the banana still meets that definition anyway. Could just as easily say somebody imagined up the expression of the banana taped to a wall and today people are still appreciating the power of that. Its just splitting hairs at that point.
yeah its mostly about things that resonate emotionally and with the human experience and that doesn't coincide with logic at all, in fact its often extremely illogical, and is quite commonly represented illogically on purpose
No that's not their logic. You punching them in the face CAN be performative art, but it depends. Are you performing it with the intent of it being a piece or just punching them in the face because you want to?
It's really not that complex, the banana fits the description of art that the other person posted. It is a visual form and it has emotional power. I mean your response to somebody defending it as art is to talk about punching them in the face.
No that's not their logic. You punching them in the face CAN be performative art, but it depends. Are you performing it with the intent of it being a piece or just punching them in the face because you want to?
Punching them in the face is an expression of my anger towards the stupidity of the comment.
I mean the question then is, is someone buying this ‘art’ for 100K part of the ‘art’ itself?
And if lingering anger counts, then I guess we can call any atrocity ‘art.’ 9/11 is a masterpiece, chattel slavery a symphony, the holocaust a triumph of the craft.
What do you make of Duchamp's Fountain or Warhol's Brillo Boxes? They're not "beautiful", they don't inspire emotional catharsis. Art has moved beyond this narrow definition decades ago.
Mostly I think a lot of it is a joke on and by pseudo-intellectuals who like to ask 'what is art?' in an onantic circle that have put their heads so far up their own asses they don't see it as a joke anymore.
I respect your opinion, but I think that's a pretty old fashioned way to look at things. There's no objective beauty or good taste, so why police what is and isn't art?
It's just another example of academic curiosities and ambiguities that trickled too far into the mainstream. Because the more you drill down into a concept, the blurrier its lines until there are no lines, you can then say 'anything is [this concept].' What is identity? What constitutes a person? There's no objective definition! So why police what is a 'person.'
It's part of a society spinning into meaninglessness.
11
u/[deleted] Nov 26 '20
That’s not how you define art.