[KoreanDream]

Oh sorry let me bring my interpretation down to an "ATRL level". Some guy decided to use his violin as a popcorn bowl.

[BLaCKPoWeR]

Maya her POWER.

[MikeFenty]

Originally posted by KoreanDream

To me it's about how entertainment has changed over the years. Before it was about violins and classical music and now it's about movies (hence the popcorn) and the media. You could discern some social criticism from that - the idea that our culture has lost sophistication over time (the juxtaposition of the violin being one piece and the popcorn being everywhere alludes to this) - but ultimately it's really up to the viewer what that social commentary means. Have we just evolved or have we lost sophistication and intelligence in our entertainment? And that idea could introduce commentary and possible criticism on other aspects of life as they've developed over time because entertainment and leisure are linked to professional life, etc.

Just my interpretation.

[Kang.]

OMG!

Homeboy drunk as ****. He want some popcorn. But in his state, he misses his stash, instead picking up the violin. It tastes disgusting obviously so he puts it down — slightly askew — but there's still such a bad taste left in his mouth that he knows he now won't be able to enjoy the popcorn. He walks out. End scene.

It's symbolic or some ****.

[J03Y]

it's called minimalist art and it's message is basically you can make something from so little effort.

that's literally the message in every piece.

and these aren't the only ones, there's a "painting" that's literally just a blank canvas. like there's nothing on it, it's just blank and it's worth millions of dollars like

and some dude makes these smaller canvases with a bunch of leaves and others with like wet paper and **** like there's no continuity or depth behind them they're so stupid.

personally i don't find any depth in minimalist art, but i've seen more beautiful things and i've traveled to France and ****. so like my mind is already biased on the matter Dx

[SixWholeYears]

Some of them have clever meanings behind them though. If you know their story they become interesting.

But sometimes they're just boring and basic.

[Xorev]

Originally posted by genetic fail

I guess. But their creators should definitely not be called artists.

+1 the piece can be called art by some but I wouldn't call the people who does those pieces artists, otherwise literally every single human being capable of pouring corn inside an open violin can be called artists aswell, I'm unable to admire a piece of art by itself, I also admire the time and passion behind it's creation. If it's just putting corn inside a violin or writting a name with a sharpie over a urinal, then I can't understand it neither appreaciate it but the beauty is in the eye's beholder.

[Maybe]

Originally posted by JonnyϟLightning

Proof?

And I'm an Art History major, please. Art requires talent, not pouring corn on a violin.

Did you not pay attention in class? Your inclusion of Fountain invalidates this whole thread.

[Digital_Fossil]

People can have extremely specific, personal definitions of art. Those who do, with that kind of discerning taste and eye, REALLY know art when they see it. I rarely see real art.

My avi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(Linder Sterling)

[toanythingtaboo]

If you're going down this road, you have to ask and explain what "art" is.

Is "art" a product of craft in conventional format?
Is "art" a message or concept manifested in visual form?

I bet most would have absolutely no problem labelling a beautifully painted landscape as "art", but can they convincingly argue that there is more conceptual thought and message behind it than Duchamp's Fountain which involved no conventional craft?

Times change, and with it our standard and understanding of "art". Throughout history boundaries are pushed. Expressionists were highly radical in their era, surrealist work confusing and distasteful and Pop Art was considered a mockery. All pretty bog-standard and inoffensive today, but what does get people outraged and intrigued is pushing "what is art?" to extremes. An artist can scrunch up a ball of paper in a room and there you have it.

The "problem" with this of course is that literally anyone can have a go and you get inane and hollow attempts of questioning art. I went to art college too and there were certainly a lot of chancers who got away with ballsy laziness and irreverence.

[theo.]

Originally posted by VANdeliciousss

Because in the age of the camera one has to reevaluate what "art" is for the 21st century and begin to redefine it.
Why try to paint photo-realism when people have cameras?

The dramatic changes in what art was began around the time of Picasso
and progressed with people like Andy Warhol and has continued till today.

I'm sure people didn't consider this art back then.

This pretty much. Art changes and fluctuates along with the values and ideas of society.

[theo.]

Originally posted by KoreanDream

Oh sorry let me bring my interpretation down to an "ATRL level". Some guy decided to use his violin as a popcorn bowl.

[MadelineXPepito]

I am a Duchamp stan, but I will remain silent and laught at the ignorance in this thread

[GagasProlapse]

I guess they make sense within context?

[Signs]

Originally posted by FelixMonster

also, performance art.

the girl Gaga hired to throw up on her makes a living out of drinking colored milk and throwing it up

EW. Thats nasty. Vomit is vomit despite what colour it is.

[SyntaxError]

But Duchamp's Fountain makes sense in context

[Sloth]

[J03Y]

Originally posted by Maybe

Did you not pay attention in class? Your inclusion of Fountain invalidates this whole thread.

YES

[Javan]

art/ärt/
Noun:
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
Works produced by such skill and imagination.

Your pretentious for thinking that you have a say what in is art and what is not.

[Digital_Fossil]

Originally posted by Stonem

Exactly.