Is it art?

[Deleted User]

I've uploaded this, because it's funny to me how this is considered to be a masterpiece. Bonus points if you can name it:

 

[Lordvincent 90]

I call it "hotdog close-up with condiments" did I win?

 

[scary alien]

I cheated, but here is the answer:

Spoiler

Mark Rothko, Orange and Yellow, 1956

I'd rather have a hot dog with just mustard .

 

[Deleted User]

Hot dog with condiments is a good guess, but scary alien has got it.
And the original is a lot bigger, with texture, apparently.

 

[lunatic59]

I've uploaded this, because it's funny to me how this is considered to be a masterpiece. Bonus points if you can name it:

FTFY

Spoiler

I have seen the original Rothko's and they are very impressive.

 

[Deleted User]

I can concede that you need to see the original works to fully appreciate them.

 

[lunatic59]

I can concede that you need to see the original works to fully appreciate them.

 

[Unforgiven]

Saws it, was like "that's it?"

 

[bcrichster]

I've uploaded this, because it's funny to me how this is considered to be a masterpiece. Bonus points if you can name it:


View attachment 101113

How's that considered a "masterpiece"?! [emoji39] Looks like something a middle schooler would do!

 

[Deleted User]

How's that considered a "masterpiece"?! [emoji39] Looks like something a middle schooler would do!

Honestly I don't know, but a lot of people will pay millions for this stuff. I can see the value as an investment, because in a few years those people will sell this item for many millions more, so fair play, they made a fortune.
But I fail to see how this can be called a masterpiece work of art, displaying a high level of artistic talent. I've seen a lot of paintings that took my breath away with the level of talent needed to produce them. A work like Orange and Yellow just doesn't impress me. I respect the opinion of people who do appreciate this kind of stuff though, I just don't see on what level it can be admired as a piece of art. It's just not interesting at all to me.

 

[The_Chief]

At least it wasn't a POTATO

 

[bcrichster]

At least it wasn't a POTATO [emoji14]

OMFG.. ..WHYYY??!! [emoji33]

 

[Deleted User]

At least it wasn't a POTATO

You know, I think this is a case where throwing $1,000,000 on a bonfire would be better, as at least you get some heat from that.
What a complete waste.

 

[kct1975]

OMFG.. ..WHYYY??!! [emoji33]

Stupid people do Stupid things with Stupid amounts of money!

You know, I think this is a case where throwing $1,000,000 on a bonfire would be better, as at least you get some heat from that.
What a complete waste.

Absolutely Agree!

 

[Deleted User]

“Kevin likes potatoes because they, like people are all different yet immediately identifiable as being essentially of the same species,” his studio tells PetaPixel. “He has photographed many potatoes. This one is one of his favorites.”

I think Kevin is very smart, or bored, can't decide which. But he's certainly worked out how to put himself in a position to get paid millions from people with nothing better to do with their money.
I've seen TV programmes before about the way uber rich spend their money, and it really is gross what they buy. But there is a raft of merchants who will gladly take their money for nothing, or at best, massively over-inflated prices for goods which are either not worth it, or ridiculously opulent. I mean how could any sane person think that $1,000,000 is a realistic price for a photo of a potato?
I'm in no position to tell anyone how to spend their own money, but I can't help wondering how that money could be used for better purposes.

 

[kct1975]

“Kevin likes potatoes because they, like people are all different yet immediately identifiable as being essentially of the same species,” his studio tells PetaPixel. “He has photographed many potatoes. This one is one of his favorites.”

I think Kevin is very smart, or bored, can't decide which. But he's certainly worked out how to put himself in a position to get paid millions from people with nothing better to do with their money.
I've seen TV programmes before about the way uber rich spend their money, and it really is gross what they buy. But there is a raft of merchants who will gladly take their money for nothing, or at best, massively over-inflated prices for goods which are either not worth it, or ridiculously opulent. I mean how could any sane person think that $1,000,000 is a realistic price for a photo of a potato?
I'm in no position to tell anyone how to spend their own money, but I can't help wondering how that money could be used for better purposes.

Very Well Said!

 

[lunatic59]

If you haven't figured it out yet, I moved this discussion out of the "funny pictures" thread since it was a bit of a topic derailment.

As for the $1M potato, Rothko painting, Michelangelo's David, Van Gogh's Starry Night, Serrano's "Piss Christ", et. al. ... Artists, critics, scholars, patrons, politicians, clergy, gurus, shamans and old ladies have been trying to define "what is art" since the first wildebeest was scratched into a cave wall. More has ever been written about art than art that has been created. It's a moving target and will always be out of reach.

The idea of art as a valuable object is a relatively recent concept and art as expression or existence for it's own sake, especially in abstraction, is even younger. When applying modern beliefs out of historical context, some art becomes misunderstood and often foolish.

Just consider that many works now considered to be great masterpieces were considered crap in their own times, or were created for other reasons than the edification of artist, patron or subject.

Let me throw out an artist (or more to the point, let me throw him under the bus ). Keith Haring. I knew him personally, although not very well. I met him on numerous occasions while in art school and my impression was that he was an ass. His art was simplistic and obvious, lacked much craft and pandered to the pseudo-intellectuals in the artistic community. His images are now being used extensively for their commercial value in manners which conflict with his early ideals, or used as fundraising for organizations that would have condemned him personally before he (his work) was famous. Is it STILL art if it's being used for something other than it's intended purposes? (<-rhetorical)

So there's a penny's worth of my $0.02.

 

[Deleted User]

It's a good question, what exactly *is* art? I suppose people have different viewpoints and of course differing opinions on what they 'like'. I sometimes have heated discussions with my Wife - yeah she's even more enraged by contemporary modern works than I am. I sometimes suggest visiting the Tate Modern, but I fear she would cause a lot of damage
I know some works are trying to say something, and encourage the viewer to think about what they mean, or represent. I tend to prefer a traditional painting or sculpture, where the skill of the artist is demonstrated. Maybe I'm just not appreciating or understanding some of these modern works properly. My brain just doesn't work on that abstract level.
As for Keith Haring, I'm guessing he probably wouldn't be too pleased about his work being (ab)used for different purposes.

 

[AZgl1500]

Art is in the eyes of the beholder, so, is this art to you?

that is from a website I created for a friend at no charge....
he needed something in the cloud, and I needed to learn how to build a website...
so, we both won.

http://jimjamescreations.com/our-work/

 

[lunatic59]

If ...

Art is in the eyes of the beholder

then art is defined by individual rules making it conceptually impossible to identify.

That's not a discussion I'm prepared to entertain. It's not a question of if it's art, but where the art lies. Is a utilitarian object (bowl) able to be art? Is it art because it's a beautiful object even though the beauty is from nature? (Is a mountain or tree art, even if they are beautiful? or must art be a creation of man?) Is the photo art? While it's not a $1M potato, it's nice.

 

[Lordvincent 90]

So, what you're saying is...

 

[Deleted User]

^--- he *actually* said that

 

[lunatic59]

Yes, but is it art?

 

[Deleted User]

I really like the bowl. It's been created by someone with skill and it's a beautiful and interesting object to look at. Yes I would say it's art.

 

[lunatic59]

It's been created by someone with skill and it's a beautiful and interesting object to look at.

Which could be said about Rothko's work. The only difference is you can't put fruit in a painting.