NikonJohn Loc: Indiana U.S.A.

Not sure what my excuse is for being warped... :lol:

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Hello, The one thing to consider here is the fact that this person has an opinion, he is thinking. There was a choice made as to how to make a statement. At least the piece has been created and there is an explaination by the artist and it was not done lightly. The artist is making a comment and for this he should be applauded.

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

I certainly agree that the artist must have been thinking. In judging a piece of art, however, I seem to be stuck on standards elicited by a 19th-century literary critic -- Saint Beuve, I think -- which I have always remembered, despite the fact that my recollection of its attribution may be incorrect. Whoever this critic may have been, he had three considerations he found useful in judging the value of any work of art. They are:

1) What was the artist attempting to do ?
2) How difficult was it to do this ?
3) Was it worth doing ?

Perhaps (1) is make a statement about the impermanence of cell-phone photos. (2) Doesn't seem to me to be at all difficult. All that is necessary is a shovel and several hours of scooping. (People do this in horse stalls all the time, expressing their conviction and making the "statement" that a horse stall should be clean.) And (3) If a statement that cell-phone photos of whatever they are are impermanent is a deep philosophical observation, it has been made about art many, many times before. I would be more inclined to see value in a statement that revealed something new that we all (especially in this forum) didn't realize.

As for the technical wizardry and skill used in making a photograph itself of all these discarded photos, I don't see any.

But you know what ? Perhaps my contention that this isn't art and isn't worth anything is undermined by the fact that the artist certainly has caught our attention and made us think and express ourselves. Interesting paradox.

But I stick with my view that worthwhile art necessarily involves skill in the media in which one is working. This heap of photos was all too easy.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

1-What was the artist attempting to do? Answer- make a statement about society.
2- How difficult was this to do? Answer-Not very because there is so much garbage created by society.
3- Was it worth doing? Answer- Is thinking worth doing? Is making a statement worth doing? Is creating something that makes us think worth doing? I rest my case.

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

Making a statement about society does not necessarily make it "art." Philosophers do this all the time and we don't call it "art." Political pundits on TV think and make statements all the time and we don't call that "art." Your proposition seems to be that making a statement somehow qualifies something as being "art." I have just shown you examples of statements that don't qualify as "art," so I think that negates that particular one of your contentions.

Your second statement that it wasn't very difficult to do because there is so much garbage produced by society is illogical. The reason it wasn't difficult to do is because it didn't require any SKILL IN THE EXECUTION, not because society produces lots of garbage. Rembrandt's drawings required skill. Shoveling doesn't require skill or we might call every worker in a horse stable an "artist."

Your third statement makes worthwhile but irrelevant points. Yes, thinking is worth doing. I agree. Yes, making a statement is worth doing. I agree. Yes, creating something that makes us think is worth doing. I agree. But these three things do not make it "Art."

Art involves SKILL in its execution.

patrick28 Loc: Port Jeervis, NY

I first saw this as photo-journalism reporting how far we have pushed the envelope of profligate waste.

I can, however, also view it as great art. How?

For anything to qualify as art for me, it must communicate something <and> must involve me emotionally. <Great> art should change my life forever.

For me, this item evokes a similar emotional response as did "The Scream".

. . . . patrick

leadstory

I only agree with the words in quotation marks. We don't ALL agree on the value of that artist's installation.

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

Interesting quotation. Where did this come from ? Maybe this is a better definition of "art" than the one I have been using all these years. But I still think art involves skill and effort.

leadstory

:thumbup:

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

Perhaps my definition of "art," the one I have been using for years, has not been a good one. Or should I say it ? PERHAPS I HAVE BEEN WRONG.

patrick28 Loc: Port Jeervis, NY

I hope it wasn't the early B-17 where the ball turret gunner could not escape.

. . . . patrick (20year man)

leadstory

Thank You Silver! I accidentally gave English_Wolf credit for your words. I agree with YOUR take on it, not English_Wolf's.

leadstory

:thumbup:

leadstory

I agree with Silver

:thumbup:

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

OK, First of all you posted the conditions, not me. In your way of thinking nothing can become art unless it makes an important statement and it shows a mastery of a medium. I totally disagree. Who is to say what is art? What one person considers art is another's trash. We place too much importance on the conditions of art. Art has no conditions. If I took photographs of dog poo that I find on piles all over the city and I do a definitive study of them and create an exhibition of photographic prints and I think that they are important then they are important even if they are only important to me and nobody has the right to say otherwise. How do you define art. You are getting into philosophical definitions of art and you cant define art that way. When Robert Maplethorp exhibited his homoerotic images the critics went into an uproar about them. Who is to say what is art and why does there have to be conditions? Of course there is no technical wizardry involved, does there have to be a technical accomplishment for something to be art? Maybe we have to re define art for arts sake. Since when does art involve skill? Have you ever watched a child do finger painting and the wonder of the beginnings of the creative process? Yes there are people that are very skilled at what process they use but does that make them a great artist? Is skill what art is based on? I think that this whole thing is totally being blown out of proportions.