Can anything be art?

Was there a better time?

Ask Biljana Djurdjevic

Attached: 10C80178-1DC8-4AAF-B4DB-7191DE4C7414.jpg (563x850, 63K)

Anything can be "art"
Only somethings are Art

Shitty art is still art

The painting is very Jewish, as it takes nothing from the imagination and purely from the senses. Barbaric in its inception and product. Its topic does not lift the soul and the colours to nothing to warm the heart.

I don‘t think the intention of this picture was to lift souls or warm any heart.

Duchamp couldn't have said it better!

Quite right, it makes a lovely piece of evidence where the "artist" is hung, drawn and quarterpounded.

I think the issue is that you only consider good art art. And unfortunately, that‘s not the case. Shit art is still art, which means everything can be art.

A most Jewish argument if I ever hear one. He who cannot do, must argue that his lack of skill is actually skill in itself.

I hope you do pic related user.

Then give me your definition of art, so we‘re on the same page. Otherwise, this discussion is futile.

Attached: 1F2790D5-CF23-41F1-8F33-E44C4F2FF1E8.jpg (670x847, 86K)

A prank and art are two very different things. If you cant tell the two apart perhaps you should stop reading Anti-Empiricists such as Kant and go back to basics with Plato.

My intention wasn‘t to imply this is art. The intention was to imply antisemitism in your arguments.

I dont care what your intention was, Im telling you what is.

yes as long as you personally define it as such

Since you know what is and what isn‘t?

Yes, because Im not a devout follower of Kant, and I dont follow a book written by baby cannibals who sacrifice children to their volcano god.

Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Aquinas, Nietzche, Aristotle, Schopenhauer and Tolstoy have written about art

That was anti-art, not art.

And what makes you think that i belong to those?

Attached: D273C5BA-4E4C-46C3-82A8-D446D0EBF42A.jpg (605x1770, 147K)

apparently

Attached: piero-manzoni-merda-dartista-no.064.jpg (480x460, 138K)

deep

You have this picture stored on your computer? And you dont celebrate the death of a king by eating his ears? Surely you are jelly in the hand.

This is the same thing

Attached: 96070290-8072-41B4-9B1F-D033E90E180F.jpg (996x1496, 133K)

Even worse, i post from my phone.
It‘s still nothing compared to what you have stored in your brain.

Attached: 817673BF-A3C2-4AC0-B68D-9C649F243934.png (796x1469, 760K)

I have won this battle, but I know, as the sun will rise again, so the tribe will forget its loss and renew its struggle.

That work elicited this reply. It is a work of art after all.

And all of these works are confusing and not helpful

except this one i want to drink

What's art for someone is relative, but what makes something art for someone isn't.

No. art requires a degree of ingenuity and skill. Shitting in a brown paper bag and setting it on fire is not art.

Says who?

Says me.

No you're just an idiot

Why not read works that actually give you knowledge in the field that matter?

>it’s Jewish, therefore it isnt art

Ask me how I know you masturbate to hentai?

Do you perhaps enjoy fantasizing that you belong to a tribe that was wiped out by the Phoneticians?

so is your existence you insignificant piece of utter garbage

Not as often as you imagine having sex.

There is no such thing as art #woke

One of the saddest statements I have read on here. I pity you.

absolutely

Sure anything can be art, but only some things can be good art

Attached: 4D1AD990-155D-4FD7-9E45-F870003CBA13.jpg (1080x1350, 134K)

any good book reccs for art theory/ history from 1980+?

Least worst answer in the thread.

this post is art.

this art is post.

personally I think not, but most people I would imagine will say yes
the issue is that there is no set definition of the actual concept of art
and there probably never will be one
because presently a lot of people probably consider stuff they like or find to be 'good' to be art, while whatever they dislike or does not fit their categorisation of 'good' to not be art
I would like for there to be a definition
I already live by a certain personal definition, which ignores what I like or dislike

Kant after Duchamp

this post is not art; it is compost

There can never be a definition, no one has the right to define what is and isn’t art.

No.

Define art?

It has to be intentional, and it has to provoke a conversation. The actual content of art can be anything.

Everything and anything is art

ASS

youtu.be/thbMaR6nyxY

If 'art' dissolves into everything the catagory can be dispensed with

The category is only the declaration by a someone.

The expression of perfection in the tangible.

Shitting in a brown paper bag and setting it on fire is a complex perceptuomotor task and if an individual does it particularly well or quickly (with a kind of flow-state virtuosic athletism) then I feel that it qualifies as art.

Or just some random retard burning his turds. It is beautiful to me who is he to tell me it's not art I'm seeing

>Shitting in a brown paper bag and setting it on fire is a complex perceptuomotor task
For a paraplegic maybe

Your post is artless but mine is artful.

Attached: 1564970380189.jpg (1102x698, 115K)

yes, before the big bang

No, not the things that can't.

based

the only people who care about this question are pseuds

Just read Baumgarten

>Barbaric in its inception and product
Well, I agree the piece is definitely the barbaric, but maybe the artist made it with that intention? We cannot easily determine what the artist's true intention is. Granted, I agree that if the artist were into bad stuff, like pedophilia or other subversive activities, then I would be against her. Granted, you have to understand, many greater European writers and artists have dealt with dark subject matter, but that doesn't mean they themselves necessarily reveled in it. I think you are being kind of overly emotional and short-sighted to think people who created dark and disturbing art are necessarily depraved themselves.

BUTThurt

Aesthetic Theory by Theodor Adorno
The Critique of Aesthetic Judgement by Immanuel Kant
Letter to Can Grande Delia Scalla by Dante Alighieri
The Poetics by Aristotle
On the Sublime by Longinus
Epistle to the Pisones by Horace
An Apology for Poetry by Sir Philip Sidney
An Essay of Dramatic Poesy by John Dryden
An Essay on Criticism by Alexander Pope
Preface to Shakespeare by Samuel Johnson
Preface to Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth
Contemporary Art Theory by Igor Zabel
A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful by Edmund Burke
The Art Spirit By Robert Henri
The Return of the Real by Hal Foster
Biographia Literaria by Samuel Taylor Coleridge
A Defence of Poetry by Percy Bysshe Shelley
The Birth of Tragedy by Friedrich Nietzsche
The Critic As Artist by Oscar Wilde
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin
The Art of Fiction by Henry James
Lectures on Aesthetics by G.W.F. Hegel
In Praise of Shadows by Jun'ichirō Tanizaki
Art and Answerability by Mikhail Bakhtin
Heteroglossia in the Novel by Mikhail Bakhtin
Aesthetics and Politics by Ernst Bloch
Lectures on Art by Alphonse Mucha
Lectures on Ethics by Ludwig Wittgenstein
Strange Tools: Art and Human Nature by Alva Noë
On the Aesthetic Education of Man by Friedrich Schiller
The Transfiguration of the Commonplace by Arthur Danto
After the End of Art by Arthur Danto
What Is Art? by Leo Tolstoy
The Poetics of Space by Gaston Bachelard
Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics by Mikhail Bakhtin
When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-Vision by Adrienne Rich
Structure, Sign, and Play by Jacques Derrida
The Archetypes of Literature by Northrop Frye
Ways of Seeing by John Berger
Against Interpretation by Susan Sontag
What Is an Author by Michel Foucault
The Deconstruction of the Linguistic Sign by Umberto Eco
Representing Ophelia by Elaine Showalter
Shakespeare and the Exorcists by Stephen Greenblatt
A Hound, a Bay Horse, and a Turtle Dove: Obscurity In Walden by Barbara Johnson
Aesthetics Volume I and II by Dietrich von Hildebrand
The Relevance of the Beautiful by Hans-Georg Gadamer
Aesthetica by Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten
A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful by Edmund Burke
Philosophical Thoughts by Denis Diderot
The Relevance of the Beautiful and Other Essays
by Hans-Georg Gadamer
Lectures on Aesthetics by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Laocoon by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
The Inhuman by Jean-François Lyotard
Dialectic of Enlightenment by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno
History of Beauty by Umberto Eco
Aesthetic ideology by Paul de Man
Thoughts on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and the Art of Sculpture by Johann Joachim Winckelmann
Corpus by Jean-Luc Nancy
“The Origin of the Work of Art” by Martin Heidegger
“Of the Passions,” “Of Tragedy,” “Of the Standard of Taste,” from Four Dissertations by David Hume
Art as Experience

Yes, but it is entirely dependent on how the piece is framed, exhibited, marketed, privatised, etc.. Something becomes "art" when it is looked at from the right angle, when it is transformed from a mere an arrangement of molecules in space into something penetrating and unfathomable. The act of displaying or exhibiting art is the same process as naming something as art.

This might be the worst list I've ever seen

ESO ES HAMPARTE

Share yours then, asshole.

Yes, and today it is largely dependent on the institutional context of the artworld.

Honestly, I think you're right.

You need to go back.

Attached: ASS.png (513x431, 93K)

This would be the total opposition to beauty relativism.
Art is our communion with time through libations to the Muses - those who guide us into being as we follow their memory towards the edge of human dominion. A bridge of the future and its reconciliation with the past; a great image of the world's humility before necessity; a deathless moment. And only within the occasion of return to simple living does art appear as an eternal material undivided from nature. Thus the uncertainty of its crystalline object, and its lingering resonance between music and silence.
youtu.be/EXA8FkQPqAU
youtu.be/LEOUmeUxsQY

Attached: 2019-04-10.triumphofvenus.jpg (1200x829, 642K)

The fountain was more a form of performance art, a reaction to the art scene of the time and the beginnings of a concept, now it is just a historical document of a movement and not even the real deal. The original fountain was lost, thrown in the trash after the show, years later Duchamp was commissioned to remake it, if memory serves he me made three, one went to the Louvre and two to private galleries.

The history and story of this piece is interesting and most who use it to question the value of "modern art" do not know this story or much of the movement and the importance of that movement. I do not think a more fitting symbol of the movement could have been found, there was a great deal that would be more accepted, seen as "art" proper by a much wider group of people, but nothing that would continue to provoke the same responses and questions to this day as it did at its debut, it has a weird sort of timelessness that few pieces ever attain, most become purely aesthetic or just reminders, the fountain has retained its controversy over the years and is renewed every time the Louvre spends a small fortune to restore it after someone takes a piss in it or goes at it with a hammer, the performance is still going on and still evoking strong reactions after more than a century.

I have no idea if it is art, for years I thought of it as a joke played on the world by Duchamp, but the more I learned about it and its progress through the generations the more I loved it.

No one gives a fuck about it apart from pseuds.

Art is a dedicated approach to perception and its manifestation

>t. has the poster above his bed.

Hmm, why?

Do I need to quote a goddamn Pixar movie at you?

Not everything can be art. But art can come from anywhere.

I didn't, but I do now.

Gadamer's first part of truth and method

>Ids art if ppl talg aboud id!

Brainlet-tier concept

Attached: fad.jpg (1920x1541, 121K)

All art must live up to this
youtu.be/jC1vtG3oyqg
Prove me wrong.

art is just expression so yes

So if I tell you to fuck off, that's art?