I was being a little tongue in cheek because you were having a laugh about what you think of that art movement.
Postmodern art is better enjoyed with context. A urinal signed and put on a pedestal doesn’t mean or look like much of anything, but it’s more impactful when you understand the intention behind it –Duchamp and his fountain are worth reading about even though he pre dates the movement so it’s a little beside the point but he’s kinda the grandfather of the movement, so whatever he’s cool.
Classifying something as postmodern art isn’t about a shared aesthetic like renaissance, cubism, or pop art. It’s focus is typically less about the craft and more about the message. A lot of the time it’s mocking the status quo or the art world in general, other times it’s making a challenging statement in a challenging way.
“Comedian” or the banana taped to canvas seems like an artist phoning it in because their name has the value not the art anymore. Maybe it is just being silly and that’s all there was to it from conception to execution. On the other hand they worked on that for months, obessing over the type of tape and placement, chose the banana because it is iconic while also high risk to be wiped out from climate change and unveiled it in a studio in Miami.
If it’s only the former and this is a meaningless money laundering scheme like you suggested (most people laundering money don’t want global attention for only $150k). Even if that’s the case, we’re still talking about it 5 years later. So the purpose if art is fundamentally creating something greater than the sum of it’s parts then they fucking nailed it.
The best part of this former art is how it makes me smile without even seeing it. I wonder how the value would’ve adjusted if they hadn’t lost or museum hadn’t sued to begin with. Not surprised the court ruled for the museum, though. The art world’s weird; a Banksy gets shredding and becomes more valuable because of it.
I mean it captures the antiestablishment spirit that’s in a lot of it, but this artist essentially commited fraud, so not the fairest light to shine on the rest of them.
I agree, the Emperor looks stunning in his new outfit once you know the tailor’s backstory.
You see, he was orphaned at a young age, and to make ends meet he took up sewing.
Unfortunately, his store burned to the ground and after collecting the insurance payment he was forced into a life of conning rich idiots out of money.
However you want to enjoy art is cool, but narrowing the definition seems like an arbitrary reason to limit what you can be open to enjoy. Context≠explaining it, though.
Didn’t mean to art-splain at you by the way, no offense intended.
Good question with a pretty ambiguous answer for anyone that’d try to answer.
For me it’s a combination of skill, intention, and impact. Like a shaky handed sharpie tag on a bus stop isn’t much of anything, but when it says, “kill your local heroin dealer” that’s impactful. The shaky lines start to show the styling they had intended but can’t capture anymore. I’d call that art even though it was painted over a week later.
For me skill has nothing to do with it (within reason I guess), it may probably just produce better or worse art.
Impact, that’s the same thing, I shouldn’t have to care about how others perceive my art, should I?
So I guess for me the intentent is the thing, but it must be that, real intent. If my intent is to express my horrors over heroin dealers, I cant just paint a box in blue and then “explain” myself out of it.
Now if an ex heroin addict paints blue boxes because he lived in blue boxes for years, then that’s probably a real expression though and thus art. And I bet he wouldn’t feel the need to explain even if he can.
I’m not sure I’m very clear here, but intent it is I think, so hard to prove.
![The Critic [Toonhole Chris]](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/210ec03d-896b-45cd-b875-40eda75a252d.jpeg){kind=link}
I was being a little tongue in cheek because you were having a laugh about what you think of that art movement.
Postmodern art is better enjoyed with context. A urinal signed and put on a pedestal doesn’t mean or look like much of anything, but it’s more impactful when you understand the intention behind it –Duchamp and his fountain are worth reading about even though he pre dates the movement so it’s a little beside the point but he’s kinda the grandfather of the movement, so whatever he’s cool.
Classifying something as postmodern art isn’t about a shared aesthetic like renaissance, cubism, or pop art. It’s focus is typically less about the craft and more about the message. A lot of the time it’s mocking the status quo or the art world in general, other times it’s making a challenging statement in a challenging way.
“Comedian” or the banana taped to canvas seems like an artist phoning it in because their name has the value not the art anymore. Maybe it is just being silly and that’s all there was to it from conception to execution. On the other hand they worked on that for months, obessing over the type of tape and placement, chose the banana because it is iconic while also high risk to be wiped out from climate change and unveiled it in a studio in Miami.
If it’s only the former and this is a meaningless money laundering scheme like you suggested (most people laundering money don’t want global attention for only $150k). Even if that’s the case, we’re still talking about it 5 years later. So the purpose if art is fundamentally creating something greater than the sum of it’s parts then they fucking nailed it.
Ok but the guy who gave them “Take the money and run” got sued.
Did they pay out? How much money did he drop while running?
It was an artist who took 67,000 euro or something to provide a set of paintings for an exhibition, gave them blank canvases and called it that.
Thats interesting, do you have a link?
Wikipedia entry here
The best part of this former art is how it makes me smile without even seeing it. I wonder how the value would’ve adjusted if they hadn’t lost or museum hadn’t sued to begin with. Not surprised the court ruled for the museum, though. The art world’s weird; a Banksy gets shredding and becomes more valuable because of it.
I know, I took it to be a perfect representation of this part of the artworld.
I mean it captures the antiestablishment spirit that’s in a lot of it, but this artist essentially commited fraud, so not the fairest light to shine on the rest of them.
I agree, the Emperor looks stunning in his new outfit once you know the tailor’s backstory.
You see, he was orphaned at a young age, and to make ends meet he took up sewing.
Unfortunately, his store burned to the ground and after collecting the insurance payment he was forced into a life of conning rich idiots out of money.
That’s that sweet sweet anti authoritarianism I’m talking’ about!
In my book, if you have to explain it, it’s not art, but eveyone can obviously have their opinion. And yeah I know about the toilet :-p
However you want to enjoy art is cool, but narrowing the definition seems like an arbitrary reason to limit what you can be open to enjoy. Context≠explaining it, though.
Didn’t mean to art-splain at you by the way, no offense intended.
Yeah no offence taken!
And well if someone says aah say wine is art or running is art, I’d still enjoy it ;-)
What’s art? Vast debate.
Good question with a pretty ambiguous answer for anyone that’d try to answer.
For me it’s a combination of skill, intention, and impact. Like a shaky handed sharpie tag on a bus stop isn’t much of anything, but when it says, “kill your local heroin dealer” that’s impactful. The shaky lines start to show the styling they had intended but can’t capture anymore. I’d call that art even though it was painted over a week later.
Intetesting.
For me skill has nothing to do with it (within reason I guess), it may probably just produce better or worse art.
Impact, that’s the same thing, I shouldn’t have to care about how others perceive my art, should I?
So I guess for me the intentent is the thing, but it must be that, real intent. If my intent is to express my horrors over heroin dealers, I cant just paint a box in blue and then “explain” myself out of it.
Now if an ex heroin addict paints blue boxes because he lived in blue boxes for years, then that’s probably a real expression though and thus art. And I bet he wouldn’t feel the need to explain even if he can.
I’m not sure I’m very clear here, but intent it is I think, so hard to prove.