This is I suppose a bit of a random question, but what can be art? Can clothing be art? Is Picasso's cardboard sculpture of a guitar art? Where do you draw the line?
Also, how awesome is this dress?! It's Mondrian!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think the dada movement is a prime example of art taken to an obnoxious extreme. I mean if I sign my coffee table and present it as art is it actually art? Also, I think clothing can definatly be art. Clothing designers put lots of time and artistic insight into their work.
I agree with Caroline. Dada did kind of make things difficult. Before art would be simple and distinguishable now we have to think about it and figure things out. This way everyone has their own opinion of what art is and everything in the world becomes art if we combine all the different views. And clothing definitely is a form of art, that's how we have this idea of fashion.
I agree with Manal that Dada changed the role of art forever: from being uplifting and "mind-numbingly" beautiful it went to cause the viewer to step into the artist's role and question the status quo.
About fashion, I will not downplay the artist vision placed into making a garment [everyone has seen Project Runway]. However, I believe that, once the garment is mass-produced, I feel as though the garment has become just that: a garment, devoid of much of its artist value. Going back to Dada, I'm not sure if I thought that Duchamp's "Bottle Rack" (per sey) was art.
Well then is a copy of a Monet lose artistic value because it's not an original?
I would think so Caroline, no doubt the skill required to remake a monet is great, but they should use it to make a original instead of a replica.
it's good to see you back on the blog manal!!
well, i think that clothes, paintings, buildings, nature can all be art. i think intention is what makes more nontraditional forms of art, art like in the dada movement. i also think that some people might not see the art-y-ness of some things while others think the artist behind that same piece is genius.
I don't think something loses its artistic value once it's massed produced. It's art because-- well, for any number of reasons, but it seems here we are specifying that art must be innovative. (Picasso invented cubism, Monet invented impressionism, etc....) But once a Monet or a garment is mass produced, it does not devolve from art. Rather, it no longer stands on the forefront of art. Just as much of cubism has been absorbed into today's art, and impressionism has become iconic rather than revolutionary, mass-produced garments are relegated to run-of-the-mill status-- but they will always be art because of the details of their creation-- the time, place, and atmosphere that made them so unique, extraordinary, and artistic.
Personally, I hate these discussions- they hurt my head. I was in complete agreement with everything said until Nussdorf brought up the mass production, which led to Caroline's question about prints of art. I guess technically it is a form of art, but I definitely think there is a difference between original art and art that is mass produced. While paintings and clothing and such as still pleasing to look at if they are not original, I definitely appreciate it more if it is original. I think that while it is still art if it is reproduced, the person doing the reproduction would not be considered the artist. I don't know- I'm sure someone will bring up some argument about this to confuse me even more though.
Well the person doing the reproduction is a good artist due to the skill they put into the reproduction, but it is not comming from originality or from their own ideas. They are mimicking others and simply following what that person painted.
Well the artistic value of copies may be the same, but the actual monetary value is not the same at all. This kinda shows the general belief that copies are not the same because they do not have the original vision, but that does not change the fact that it is art. If you had a Monet copy in your house would you say you had art in your house, or would you say that you have copies of art that aren't art because they are mass produced?
The line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I think that somewhere between post-impressionism and Dadaism it stopped being art. I wish I knew more so I could back up my claim, but I can't. And I also don't feel like it.
Caroline said...
I think the dada movement is a prime example of art taken to an obnoxious extreme.
I think the most important part of Dadaism was that the movement basically asked the world "What is art? Is this art? What about this? Well... what about this?"
Dada definitely did take art to an obnoxious extreme - but I think that was the point. The Dadaists behind those boundary-pushing "What about this?" pieces like the urinal were basically challenging people to "draw a line" for what art actually is (like Wise did in his post) or to acknowledge that there is no line at all. But whose line is the "right" one? Is art subjective, meaning everyone is allowed their own definition of art? Isn't that the same thing as there being no (objective) "art/not art" line at all?
As for me, I'm still undecided. The definition of art I've been working with in my mind is "Anything created by people that connects with people," but that leaves a lot of room for ambiguity because many things connect (or don't) with many different people.
What is art? There's no easy answer. But for some reason, the longer I think about it, the less I care. At the risk of sounding PoMo, I don't think it really matters what creations we attach one meaningless three-letter word to. If they have value to people, creative or otherwise, then they will get the attention they deserve.
tl;dr who cares
Post a Comment