Couple mistakes $400,000 art work for participatory art project"...

Question: If you can't tell where the "art work" ends and the "vandalism" begins, then how much creative value does the work have? — Bitter Crank

Seems like it aught to be worth more after the additions. It gives it additional authenticity.

Should we just call it garbage and be done with it? — Bitter Crank

Well, it is art by the @praxis criteria - It is presented with the intention that it be judged on an aesthetic basis.

It also meets my criteria - It is clearly presented to elicit an experience from viewers.

Also - I like it. The colors are pleasing and it has an interesting verticality. It clearly represents the journey and return of a soul - that orange blob in the middle - to a spiritual realm and then back.

I don't have any issues with this work of art. I'd rather see this than some mawkish effort by Norman Rockwell.

It also meets my criteria - It is clearly presented to elicit an experience from viewers. — T Clark

Exactly right.

The painting was a finished work by an American artist whose abstract aesthetic riffs on street art. — New York Times

Question: If you can't tell where the "art work" ends and the "vandalism" begins, then how much creative value does the work have? — Bitter Crank

I mean, it quite literally looks like he ripped off a mural and put it on a painting, even though he does maintain some sort of personal creativity. I'd say to have proof of that sentiment in the public is pretty flattering.

Are petroglyphs more archeological in value, or is this "art"? It doesn't seem like there is much art in this particular petroglyph. It seems like graffiti or "practice" maybe. The 21st century assholes weren't very talented either, though in 3,000 years, it may be considered significant. — Bitter Crank

I don't know...Generally, to deface art is to go against the will of the creator, to denounce it in some form, but it's pretty hard to guess the intentions of the dude who first carved into the petroglyph. Maybe he wouldn't care much. I'd say for this particular case it's fine, but it might be in everyone's best interest if we refrain from doing so again.

It clearly represents the journey and return of a soul - that orange blob in the middle - to a spiritual realm and then back. — T Clark

No,no -- you totally missed the point of the piece: the green splotches represent the sacredness of commercial activity in capitalist economies, threatened by the insidious creep of socialism--performed by the red blotches. I don't know how you could have missed that -- it is so obvious.

It could be staged. This is simply how art valuation works. Now that the buzz is out, I want it, so I can sell it to someone who wants it more.

Well, it is art by the praxis criteria - It is presented with the intention that it be judged on an aesthetic basis. — T Clark

It also conforms to Duchamp's criteria: If the brush holder calls it art, then it IS art. That leads to this:



Or, your crooked snowman is art if you so designate it. (You are required to publish the announcement in the official Art Register, however.) Without proper documentation, millions of snow art pieces are lost forever. Just fucking tragic.

No,no -- you totally missed the point of the piece: the green splotches represent the sacredness of commercial activity in capitalist economies, threatened by the insidious creep of socialism--performed by the red blotches. I don't know how you could have missed that -- it is so obvious. — Bitter Crank

You fucking Marxists are all the same. "Oppression of the proletariat" blah blah blah. "Workers revolution" blah blah blah.

It also conforms to Duchamp's criteria: If the brush holder calls it art, then it IS art. That leads to this...

Or, your crooked snowman is art if you so designate it. (You are required to publish the announcement in the official Art Register, however.) Without proper documentation, millions of snow art pieces are lost forever. Just fucking tragic. — Bitter Crank

Yes, you're right. I'm glad we could finally enlighten you. Commie Philistine.

If it had not been pointed out, I wouldn't have even considered there was "mistake" here.

The artist might care and maybe an avid fan, I don't think others would care much.

Not that it's ugly to me, I like colours, I just have trouble seeing what's artistic about this...

Question: If you can't tell where the "art work" ends and the "vandalism" begins, then how much creative value does the work have? — Bitter Crank

Opinion: That indeed looks like modern art, actually.

There's no F* You's, no "Killroy was here", no universal signs for cunt, or the typical graffiti. In fact where there seems to be something written is in the lower left corner where artists typically would put their name.

Far more telling is the graffiti that US soldiers leaved into ancient Babylon Iraq, fitting to the invasion they carried out in the start of this Milennium.

Col. John Coleman, former chief of staff for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq, told the BBC that if the head of the Iraqi antiquities board wanted an apology, and “if it makes him feel good, we can certainly give him one.”

But he also asked: “If it wasn’t for our presence, what would the state of those archaeological ruins be?”

The Marines spent five months in 2003 based at Babylon, 50 miles south of Baghdad.

Last year, the British Museum said that U.S.-led troops using Babylon as a base had damaged and contaminated artifacts dating back thousands of years.

The German Archaeological Institute said U.S. and Polish troops based at Babylon had caused “massive damage” to the site in 2003 and 2004.

Occupying armies are, well, occupying armies. Perhaps it's fitting that they leave their marks on ancient heritage sites.

I started a thread under Philosophy o Fart about a defaced painting, It won't go anywhere. — Bitter Crank

See. You were wrong. It's a very successful thread. I've had the opportunity to insult you not once, but twice.

Also - I like it. — T Clark

Actually, I find the image pleasant enough to look at. There are many a dismal hallway and dreary tunnel that would benefit from the application of this sort of content. Decoration, however, isn't art, in my opinion.

Decoration - wall paint, wall paper, plaster moldings, wood, miscellaneous objects, floor coverings ceiling treatment, lighting fixtures and light color, furniture fabrics and shapes, murals such as this, and so on contribute to the comfort or discomfort we experience within inhabited spaces. They require craft to create and their use involves careful aesthetic judgement, but the elements are not "art works" in themselves.

Painting a wall color #F0EAD6, otherwise known as eggshell (type of bird not defined) is not art in any way, shape, manner or form. Putting navy blue carpet on the floor is not art. Furnishing the room with goods from IKEA (or Ethan Allen) is not art. The room may be splendid: attractive, comfortable, relaxing, etc. but it isn't art.

Hotels, hospitals, and clinics buy cheap reproductions of recognized art work to hang on the wall. They also buy framed photographs of trees and flowers, hills and mountains, water etc; truckloads of occasional furniture of various styles, even manufactured assemblages of bits and pieces that have a Duchampian 'found art' appearance, but are not. The overall effect is kind of neutral, not bothersome, sort of pleasant. Just not art. Interior designers (not artists) have found that guests, clinic and hospital patients and visitors find the stuff on the walls usefully distracting.

Someone stuck in an exam room will look at the bland photo or painting on the wall because that is the least anxiety-producing thing in the room. "Guernica" would not be good. Bosch either.

I've had the opportunity to insult you not once, but twice — T Clark

Duly noted. At least you haven't slung any more dang ding walla walla I Ching at me.

The occupying allied army in Iraq was probably as nice as the Babylonian occupying army was.

Decoration, however, isn't art, in my opinion. — Bitter Crank

I understand the point you're making and I agree all the way up until I don't. Your standard of art is tougher than mine. I think you're making it more highfalutin than it needs to be. I think it makes sense to say that art is anything that someone presents for aesthetic judgement. Then we get to decide if it's good art or not. For me, that judgement is based on what I experience when I look at it. As you noted, the experience I get from the mural in question is a pleasant appreciation for the color and composition and not much else. Yes, it could qualify as decoration. Can decoration be art? I think it can. I think decoration can even be good art.

Painting a wall color #F0EAD6, otherwise known as eggshell (type of bird not defined) is not art in any way, shape, manner or form. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps not, but it might be if you painted it Cosmic Latte as @jorndoe explained last week:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/636858

Hotels, hospitals, and clinics buy cheap reproductions of recognized art work to hang on the wall. They also buy framed photographs of trees and flowers, hills and mountains, water etc; truckloads of occasional furniture of various styles, even manufactured assemblages of bits and pieces that have a Duchampian 'found art' appearance, but are not. The overall effect is kind of neutral, not bothersome, sort of pleasant. — Bitter Crank

Actually, I find this kind of decoration soul-deadening. Not neutral at all, especially in hospitals and nice hotels where they are supposed to care about us. This type of decoration provides little messages over and over every minute - You are not worth putting any effort into providing a comfortable, attractive place for you to stay. You mean nothing to us.

In general I don't think it is useful to ask if something qualifies as art. If it is presented as an object of aesthetic experience it is art. It's interesting how often if someone doesn't like a work it is either 'not art' or 'something a 6 year-old could do'. The more useful questions are, do I like it or not and why. And are we brave enough to say a work (for instance a Rembrandt painting) is a masterpiece, or is this the kind of metanarrative pronouncement we tend to frown upon in the post-modern era? :joke: :gasp:

I am in favor of a free and open society where people have a right to do what they want to do as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of other people, and if it hasn't been explicitly forbidden for the good of all (like drunk driving).

Raising the bar for what constitutes art, and what constitutes decoration (and they are both valuable) doesn't infringe on anybody's creative activity or enjoyment there of. The bar should be raised and artists should try harder to meet it. If they don't meet a higher bar, it isn't like they are going to be hanged till dead. Except Thomas Kinkaid: His gooey, treacly, cloying sentimental village scenes are a criminal aggravation of the diabetes epidemic.

BTW, @Jorndoe, @Tom Storm, and @T Clark Cosmic Latte starts out as a tiresome shade of pale and goes downhill from there. Yet another way the universe sucks.

In general I don't think it is useful to ask if something qualifies as art. — Tom Storm

Hrrumph. It would make some people unhappy when the answer is "No! Now go to your room and practice perspective drawing."

Cosmic Latte starts out as a tiresome shade of pale and goes downhill from there. Yet another way the universe sucks. — Bitter Crank

Agreed, but, since I put if forward for aesthetic judgement, it's art. The knowledge that it represents a representative color for the entire universe contributes to its significance and, thus, to my experience.

Except Thomas Kinkaid: His gooey, treacly, cloying sentimental village scenes are a criminal aggravation — Bitter Crank

Agreed. He makes Norman Rockwell look like Salvador Dali.

Except Thomas Kinkaid... — Bitter Crank

I just looked him up. Fuck me dead with a lunchbox! I now have the aesthete's version of PTSD. This is a new category of extreme kitsch I was not aware of until now. How dare you!

It's odd that, on occasion, what starts off as bad (for something) ends up being good (for that something) - recall Banksy's artwork that went through a shredder. Who knows?, it could be a fortuitous, unplanned, publicity stunt!

These kinda "art" are precisely what art philosophers have been wondering about; the question "what is art?" remains unanswered. So long as that's the case, all bets are off - anything and everything could be art.

The occupying allied army in Iraq was probably as nice as the Babylonian occupying army was. — Bitter Crank

Oh you mean the former regime "occupying" the grounds of ancient Babylon? Well, the last regime there built a nice palace with great views of the ancient ruins just next to it for it's leader.

Just like in the neighboring country where the previous (not current) regime had a lavish 2500 year -jubilee held at the ruins of Persepolis for world leaders and monarchs. Those who view the ancient relics as part of their own culture don't vandalize them or piss on them. They just try desperately to show that there is a direct continuum from the marvelous past to the present.

Even if they are brutal to their own fellow men.

Question: If you can't tell where the "art work" ends and the "vandalism" begins, then how much creative value does the work have? — Bitter Crank

Or how much monetary value does it have? I'd say not $400,000. I of course recognize that the fine arts world exists almost as a cartel at this point, but it is funny that a work valued at almost half a million could be so easily defaced by it's very nature. I'm tickled. If you leave paint and paint brushes out in front of your "finished" work, who are you to say that no one is allowed to walk up to the work and keep on working? I would think you would need a large, lengthy paragraph affixed to the work stating in no uncertain terms that no one is to continue the painting. With maybe some legal jargon or whatnot. An "artist's statement"of sorts...which no one would bother reading anyway.

These kinda "art" are precisely what art philosophers have been wondering about; the question "what is art?" remains unanswered. — Agent Smith

The hard part; the part that causes real dispute is the answer to the question, is it any good? Someone on the forum once said that aesthetics is meaningless if you are not an idealist. The Transcendentals, the truths by which one might assess art really depend on a metaphysics such as Plato's forms.

I guess it is also possible to develop a shared agreement of objective criteria within a likeminded community (like the Pre-Raphaelites did) and establish some key criteria that determine greatness. The question there might be why?

What's the difference between bad art and not art? Is bad music music?

Yep - those are the questions. Anything is assessed as good or bad in relation to some kind of criteria.

Is bad music music? — Agent Smith

Is there bad music? If so, how is this established.

Is there bad music? If so, how is this established. — Tom Storm

I asked you first.

Oh, there's bad music! And how! And how is it established? Well, a standard has to maintained, despite the constantly changing musical landscape. And the standard has to be maintained by gate keepers who are smart enough to understand how music is changing. Which is often not at all the case.

constantly changing musical landscape. — Noble Dust

:clap:

How about an artist who realizes this simple fact - panta rhea - and creates an artwork that also changes with the times? It's always art because it adapts to people's perception of art. Timeless art...almost like God!