The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Okay you art critics and lovers, is this good enough to call art?:

http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/20/face ... _truncated

PhilX

Edit: I'm adding this Wiki article that pertains:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_world

They are beautiful. A different art form. Photography didn't stop people from producing artworks, neither will this.

Art is not just about the intention of the artist, but about the observer recognising it.

The images you linked had clear elements of human design (arches, spirals), and so are not so devoid of human creativity.
It is due to this that people recognise it as art through elements abstracted from the familiar.



This object was found in context of primitive humans - too primitive to have created it, but in recognising the object as a face, and carrying it around with them, it becomes an object'art.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Art is not just about the intention of the artist, but about the observer recognising it.

The images you linked had clear elements of human design (arches, spirals), and so are not so devoid of human creativity.
It is due to this that people recognise it as art through elements abstracted from the familiar.



This object was found in context of primitive humans - too primitive to have created it, but in recognising the object as a face, and carrying it around with them, it becomes an object'art.

That's very good. I've never thought of it like that. I'm not sure if I agree though. Wouldn't it only be 'art' if they made the 'face' themselves?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Art is not just about the intention of the artist, but about the observer recognising it.

The images you linked had clear elements of human design (arches, spirals), and so are not so devoid of human creativity.
It is due to this that people recognise it as art through elements abstracted from the familiar.



This object was found in context of primitive humans - too primitive to have created it, but in recognising the object as a face, and carrying it around with them, it becomes an object'art.

That's very good. I've never thought of it like that. I'm not sure if I agree though. Wouldn't it only be 'art' if they made the 'face' themselves?

Marchel Duchamp found a piss pot and curated it as a piece of art for a "piss take", it is now widely accepted as one of the world's most important works of art.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Art is not just about the intention of the artist, but about the observer recognising it.

The images you linked had clear elements of human design (arches, spirals), and so are not so devoid of human creativity.
It is due to this that people recognise it as art through elements abstracted from the familiar.



This object was found in context of primitive humans - too primitive to have created it, but in recognising the object as a face, and carrying it around with them, it becomes an object'art.

That's very good. I've never thought of it like that. I'm not sure if I agree though. Wouldn't it only be 'art' if they made the 'face' themselves?

Marchel Duchamp found a piss pot and curated it as a piece of art for a "piss take", it is now widely accepted as one of the world's most important works of art.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

Now there is a whole art context: "The art of found objects".

I don't make the rules.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Okay you art critics and lovers, is this good enough to call art?:

http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/20/face ... _truncated

PhilX

No, it's not art. Art is made by humans.

Pluto wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Okay you art critics and lovers, is this good enough to call art?:

http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/20/face ... _truncated

PhilX

No, it's not art. Art is made by humans.

That would suggest that the artist gets to say what is and is not art.

If I uncoil a turd and call that art; is it?

Surely if a homo erectus finds a stone and the troope carries it around with them over a thousand miles, and through many generations, is that not an artistic act? And thus the object has been made into art by being selected as such.

That would suggest that the artist gets to say what is and is not art.

If I uncoil a turd and call that art; is it?

Surely if a homo erectus finds a stone and the troope carries it around with them over a thousand miles, and through many generations, is that not an artistic act? And thus the object has been made into art by being selected as such.

Yes, if the artist says it's art then it is. An artist makes art, they should know.

You are not an artist, so you shitting is not art.

With Duchamp the act of choosing becomes the art. No longer just making, but choosing an object, like the fountain piece.

Pluto wrote:

That would suggest that the artist gets to say what is and is not art.

If I uncoil a turd and call that art; is it?

Surely if a homo erectus finds a stone and the troope carries it around with them over a thousand miles, and through many generations, is that not an artistic act? And thus the object has been made into art by being selected as such.

Yes, if the artist says it's art then it is. An artist makes art, they should know.

You are not an artist, so you shitting is not art.

With Duchamp the act of choosing becomes the art. No longer just making, but choosing an object, like the fountain piece.

If I choose shit, then it is art. You are contradicting yourself.
PLUS.
I am an artist, so I know. You are not an artist, so you don't know.

One contradiction, and one instance of shooting yourself in the foot, and only two sentences.
Are you sure you are on the right Forum?\

Shit guy, listen to you. Well done genius, you are an artist and I'm not.

Doesn't the public (and the government too) get to decide what is art and what isn't? Isn't that part of the total equation?

PhilX

It's the art world which decides what is art. By showing it and promoting it, they legitimize it, turn it into a commodity, perhaps. The art world has the power to say you are a successful artist, and another not. It's powerful, and run by rich white middle class types. For me, the art world is a problem, but if you don't deal with it, engage with it, become accepted, then it's a long and lonely road, perhaps

Pluto wrote:It's the art world which decides what is art. By showing it and promoting it, they legitimize it, turn it into a commodity, perhaps. The art world has the power to say you are a successful artist, and another not. It's powerful, and run by rich white middle class types. For me, the art world is a problem, but if you don't deal with it, engage with it, become accepted, then it's a long and lonely road, perhaps

Very true...at least until you die and they can make a profit off your art.

That's right, it is interesting to see yet another dead artist being milked by an institution long after they are gone. Some artists are worth more dead, as production has stopped and the work limited.