CGTalk > Techniques > Art Techniques and Theories
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-24-2005, 04:51 PM   #31
vesalus
Know-it-All
portfolio
vesalus aka thomas lacroix
France
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 314
the point isnt to become famous make money and get to the moma, the point is to question what is art and perception, i'm not that much convinced by that piece of 1973 as duchamp as settle and close the topic earlier... art isnt about craft nor about politics nor whatever you want to ad... i'd only wich there 'll be more artist able to struck me with a piece of work that is talking to my guts and my humanity related to the universe whatsoever, and as the dadaiste would have said, its a piece of work, not a piece of art.

knick knack could you remind me when art was for the public? as it been once? it is emancipeting from that so call bourgoisie since the late 19' so what? maybe too much conceptual stuff? no pun or anger here, just want to know your point...

keep on arguing guys
its still funny for once not to talk about 3d girl in armor for once...
 
Old 12-24-2005, 05:40 PM   #32
ryusen
Hiten Mitsurugi Ryu
 
ryusen's Avatar
portfolio
Dwida Wahyudi
vertex pusher
-na-
Singapore, Malaysia
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 212
Send a message via MSN to ryusen Send a message via Yahoo to ryusen
i wonder if they ever change the glass and the water.. it's awfully clean considering it was created back in 1973..
__________________
All play and no work make George an unemployed boy.
 
Old 12-24-2005, 06:22 PM   #33
helicopterr
The Original Frequenter
 
helicopterr's Avatar
portfolio
Joseph Yang
Artist
Take 2 interactive
USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryusen
i wonder if they ever change the glass and the water.. it's awfully clean considering it was created back in 1973..


Im sure they dust the piece once in a while and replenishes the evaporated water once in a while. Either that or they keep it very humid in there.

I know duchamp made his "artist shit" back in the 1950s but it is still on exibition and I dont think they changed what inside.
 
Old 12-24-2005, 06:24 PM   #34
umbrellasky
grr argh
portfolio
note here not more not here no more
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,858
ROFL heheh this is fun.

Ok my view: Bascially I think it's all about perception, what you percieve the glass of water to be.

This reminded me of some shakespeare. In Romeo and Juliet (the balcony scene) Juliet said
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."

Perhaps this is what is happening here? He is just giving the glass of water another name...so when you say 'well isn't it just a glass of water then?' he says 'no' because to him it is know as 'an oak tree'

The artist answered this question
Q. It looks like a glass of water.
A. Of course it does. I didn't change its appearance. But it's not a glass of water, it's an oak tree. '

This is just how I see it anyway, hope what I said makes sense...

(Personally Contemporary art does my head in...I know it's all 'thinking outside the box' as my art teacher states but I can't help but get angry at it all, especially the fact that most of it is about making money)
 
Old 12-24-2005, 06:46 PM   #35
NOOB!
yep.
Angelous Ruben
Illustrator/animator
London, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by enialadam
ROFL heheh this is fun.

Ok my view: Bascially I think it's all about perception, what you percieve the glass of water to be.

This reminded me of some shakespeare. In Romeo and Juliet (the balcony scene) Juliet said
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."

Perhaps this is what is happening here? He is just giving the glass of water another name...so when you say 'well isn't it just a glass of water then?' he says 'no' because to him it is know as 'an oak tree'

The artist answered this question
Q. It looks like a glass of water.
A. Of course it does. I didn't change its appearance. But it's not a glass of water, it's an oak tree. '

This is just how I see it anyway, hope what I said makes sense...

(Personally Contemporary art does my head in...I know it's all 'thinking outside the box' as my art teacher states but I can't help but get angry at it all, especially the fact that most of it is about making money)


oooh now i understand it.

but i still hate it.
 
Old 12-24-2005, 07:32 PM   #36
ashakarc
timeTraveller
 
ashakarc's Avatar
Ali Shakarchi
Canada
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 711
What if it was a real oak tree, masterly painted and glorious. Would it trigger so much debate or thinking? I guess not.

This work is not intended to give the viewer the ' wOw ' factor. It's a different breed of work, where the viewer becomes manipulated by the work, challenged, and yes sometimes frustrated.

Do you realy think the artist is insane when he kept insisting on refering to the glass of water as an oak tree. Certainly not. The work, at least how I see it cannot be seen without the accompanying script. This is not a painting, not a sculpture, and it is closer to theatrical act mounted on the wall. It is hybrid art that follows its own internal rules.

Some see it as pretentious. OK, that's cool, and may be ;if not for sure; that this is what the artist intended to do.

Personally, I felt the artist is making mockery of how "art" is defined. In fact, I felt the work is intensely sarcastic.

Do I like the work? Well, aesthetically speaking, NO. However, I find it intriguing and worth debating, and more favorable than a painted oak tree that only makes me feel I am a dumb viewer who needs not to think, but watch and enjoy the greatness of some genius in mastering the technique of painting. That I find pretentious.
__________________

Last edited by ashakarc : 12-24-2005 at 07:35 PM.
 
Old 12-24-2005, 07:39 PM   #37
helicopterr
The Original Frequenter
 
helicopterr's Avatar
portfolio
Joseph Yang
Artist
Take 2 interactive
USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashakarc
What if it was a real oak tree, masterly painted and glorious. Would it trigger so much debate or thinking? I guess not.

This work is not intended to give the viewer the ' wOw ' factor. It's a different breed of work, where the viewer becomes manipulated by the work, challenged, and yes sometimes frustrated.

Do you realy think the artist is insane when he kept insisting on refering to the glass of water as an oak tree. Certainly not. The work, at least how I see it cannot be seen without the accompanying script. This is not a painting, not a sculpture, and it is closer to theatrical act mounted on the wall. It is hybrid art that follows its own internal rules.

Some see it as pretentious. OK, that's cool, and may be ;if not for sure; that this is what the artist intended to do.

Personally, I felt the artist is making mockery of how "art" is defined. In fact, I felt the work is intensely sarcastic.

Do I like the work? Well, aesthetically speaking, NO. However, I find it intriguing and worth debating, and more favorable than a painted oak tree that only makes me feel I am a dumb viewer who needs not to think, but watch and enjoy the greatness of some genius in mastering the technique of painting. That I find pretentious.


If that is the artist's intention, then it is even more reflective of what his target audience is - egotistical rich people who needs affirmation that they are intelligent and better than the common folks who enjoys "dumb paintings"
 
Old 12-24-2005, 07:44 PM   #38
ashakarc
timeTraveller
 
ashakarc's Avatar
Ali Shakarchi
Canada
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicopterr
If that is the artist's intention, then it is even more reflective of what his target audience is - egotistical rich people who needs affirmation that they are intelligent and better than the common folks who enjoys "dumb paintings"


helicopterr, the question is not about rich and poor. The question is do you ; as a viewer; like to be communicated with intelligently or not?

And, back to the rich and poor. Generally, rich people don't give this type of work any ...
However, todays world is full of rich people who are quite intelligent. I would have agreed with you if you referred to the well educated versus those who just don't care.
__________________

Last edited by ashakarc : 12-24-2005 at 07:48 PM.
 
Old 12-24-2005, 07:55 PM   #39
umbrellasky
grr argh
portfolio
note here not more not here no more
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicopterr
If that is the artist's intention, then it is even more reflective of what his target audience is - egotistical rich people who needs affirmation that they are intelligent and better than the common folks who enjoys "dumb paintings"


hehe egotistical, and may I ad, Gullible, rich people
 
Old 12-24-2005, 08:20 PM   #40
helicopterr
The Original Frequenter
 
helicopterr's Avatar
portfolio
Joseph Yang
Artist
Take 2 interactive
USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashakarc
helicopterr, the question is not about rich and poor. The question is do you ; as a viewer; like to be communicated with intelligently or not?



Of course I want to communicated intelligently, but I believe no one with a normal ego would tolerate being told beforehand that they are in fact, assumed to be intelligent and thus being talked to in an intelligent manner. This piece does that for me in its crudeness of expressing that desire(or even coercion) for intellectual conversation between the viewer and the maker.

The one thing that strikes me is its coldness. It is a cup of water on a glass plate. Its intent, as I felt, was not to communicate, but to laugh at the viewer and to be sarcastic, as you mentioned. Because of its lack of aethetics and its commercial success, it constantly tauts the viewer and many succumbs to it ( including me ) and responds accordingly.

But that is really not the problem with this piece. The piece does not communicate via a subtle visual language, like so many great artworks do, but rather, through a crude philosophical verbatim that fits right in an academic setting but is awkward in an artistic one. That is why this piece is ridiculed in this forum, because, like a haranguing housewife, this piece is self-righteous in its criticism of art yet pitifully clueless because it really did not get the point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ashakarc
And, back to the rich and poor. Generally, rich people don't give this type of work any ...
However, todays world is full of rich people who are quite intelligent. I would have agreed with you if you referred to the well educated versus those who just don't care.


Actually, there are lots of rich people nowadays who are after conceptual pieces, and for good reaons which will seem obvious after my previous post. Conceptual pieces is also seen as a good investment because the value on them tends to appreciate faster than traditional pieces, since traditional workers tends to grow by experimentation while conceptual works grow by controversy.

Last edited by helicopterr : 12-24-2005 at 08:28 PM.
 
Old 12-24-2005, 08:34 PM   #41
ashakarc
timeTraveller
 
ashakarc's Avatar
Ali Shakarchi
Canada
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicopterr
Of course I want to communicated intelligently, but I believe no one with a normal ego would tolerate being told beforehand that they are in fact, assumed to be intelligent and thus being talked to in an intelligent manner. This piece does that for me in its crudeness of expressing that desire(or even coercion) for intellectual conversation between the viewer and the maker.

The one thing that strikes me is its coldness. It is a cup of water on a glass plate. Its intent, as I felt, was not to communicate, but to laugh at the viewer and to be sarcastic, as you mentioned. Because of its lack of aethetics and its commercial success, it constantly tauts the viewer and many succumbs to it ( including me ) and responds accordingly.

But that is really not the problem with this piece. The piece does not communicate via a subtle visual language, like so many great artworks do, but rather, through a crude philosophical verbatim that fits right in an academic setting but is awkward in an artistic one. That is why this piece is ridiculed in this forum, because, like a haranguing housewife, this piece is self-righteous in its criticism of art yet pitifully clueless because it really did not get the point.


I agree with the most part except the part about ego. In fact I admire the critical content, and that's what this debate is for, not simply bashing the work from the surface.

hehe, back to ego. Do you think any artist has a normal ego? They wouldn't be artists in the first place if they didn't believe that they could create. They wouldn't aspire to perfect what they do if they don't have a great ego. The ego that is not negative selfishness as it may seem in your words. The ego to be willing to show and tell what he/she could create. The ego that sustain their creativity beyond their life hardships. What's wrong with ego?
__________________
 
Old 12-24-2005, 09:31 PM   #42
adam-crockett
Animator
 
adam-crockett's Avatar
portfolio
Adam Crockett
Animator
United States
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 698
Send a message via MSN to adam-crockett
Why does money always come into it? Was there even anything mentioned about money in the original post?

How is judging a work of art by how much money the artist made any less pretentious than the actual content of the art?

I like this piece. I think its cute. Try not to take it so seriously. Not every piece that every artist ever makes is intended to be a timeless art classic masterpiece with broad appeal that lasts for ages and ages, amen. Some people just make art, its a simple human activity (my apologies to other species of the animal kingdom that make art). I'm drawn to art precisely because it tends to defy definition. How boring it would be if it didn't.
__________________
www.adamcrockett.com
 
Old 12-24-2005, 09:43 PM   #43
chrisWhite
Lord of the posts
 
chrisWhite's Avatar
portfolio
Chris White
Littleton, USA
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,278
Send a message via MSN to chrisWhite
Hey, who told Schopenhauer he could create art while high?
__________________
Chris White
 
Old 12-24-2005, 09:59 PM   #44
umbrellasky
grr argh
portfolio
note here not more not here no more
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,858
I don't take the actual art piece seriously, it's fun, interesting but...it's what surrounds it that bothers me. The fact that if someone is clever enough, perhaps not artistic at all, can come up with something like that, get loads of attention, for well...nothing. To me conceptual art is fake, fraud even.

I like some of it I just don't like how something that invloves little skill (in most cases) can get so much attention. It's just irritating.

I like to know if the artist behind something like this has actual skill, and they haven't just got away with something because it's so 'crazy'.

To be honest I've seen so much 'art' in this style that it bores me and is quite unoriginal (in my opinion)

I guess again, it's just down to taste. To me this work is boring and unoriginal but the old masters paintings and the renaissance paintings are boring to some friends of mine, where as I love their work.
 
Old 12-24-2005, 11:08 PM   #45
6foot5
Lord of the posts
 
6foot5's Avatar
Amin Khan
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 512
art is an open ended word, it means different things to different people...for me art has to have some aesthetic quality. You could argue that the concept is eloquently expressed and that that is the aesthetic. i guess you have to judge each piece individually but for me art has to be grounded in functionality, with conceptual art the beaker of water isnt important its the idea it conveys, and it could easily substituted for a bucket of water or a tray of water. infact the choice of oak tree was pretty arbitary aswell, i dont think any thought has gone into the expression of the idea...its not a skilled peice from that point of view. you see, the medium isnt important and that to me is the antithesis of art. but thats just my opinion, if others love it good for them.
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.