ANTI-GRAPHITI CREWS BECOME VANDALS

[hooplala]

Interesting ideas being bunted. 

So, what does make art?

A few years back (around 2000) some artists in Toronto captured a stray cat and skinned it alive, while videotaping it.  They said later that it was art.  Some said no, some said yes, for various reasons.  I'm divided on the matter... is something NOT art simply because I find it disgusting and horrendous, morally reprehensible, vile, cruel... etc.  I could go on.  Or, is THAT the art?  I mean, I eat meat... those animals are probably not treated very well... so where does my moral superiority stem from?  Is the killing of the cat art?  Or is the video taping art?  Or is my reaction art?

Or is this discussion art?

Art isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

There may be "art" about that project, but I don't think suffering should be a byproduct of art.  A direct purpose of a work, maybe, but the dead cat wasn't the work's target audience.

As for the video taping, I don't see a purpose to making a new video of skinning a cat when there are likely plenty online..

Well, this was also the guy who's other idea of art was eating only one colour of food for a week and then puking on a famous painting in our art gallery...

[Richter]

I think people who sit around considering whether something is "art" or not are high off their own farts.

The real question is, will people pay to keep it around, or won't they?

Well put.  That could be mistaken fro a cynical view, but it does get right to the heart of the matter - do people see it as worthwile and valuable.  Sidesteps more annoying angles of the aesthetics arguement.

My own take at the moment is a sort of "Everything is art, but there's a lot of shite.", FWIW.

[LMNO]

Hey.... Which people?

[Richter]

Depends on who is observing.  (Art as quantum   )

[BabylonHoruv]

Some of Bansky's stuff is fantastic, and some of it is prosaic bullshit... just like any other artist.  Also: "priceless" is a subjective term.

Some of his work isn't that remarkable, it's true. But, most of it is either pretty great or brilliant.

Most artists go through conventional channels and don't risk their asses to the extent street artists like Banksy do on a regular basis.

And Banksy has pulled off some pranks that Kai and Rumckle don't have the brains nor the balls for.

The image in question was a stencil.  Nothing is easier to copy than a stencil.

[Doktor Howl]

Some of Bansky's stuff is fantastic, and some of it is prosaic bullshit... just like any other artist.  Also: "priceless" is a subjective term.

Some of his work isn't that remarkable, it's true. But, most of it is either pretty great or brilliant.

Most artists go through conventional channels and don't risk their asses to the extent street artists like Banksy do on a regular basis.

And Banksy has pulled off some pranks that Kai and Rumckle don't have the brains nor the balls for.

You're a fucking prick, Net.

Just saying.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I think people who sit around considering whether something is "art" or not are high off their own farts.

The real question is, will people pay to keep it around, or won't they?

Well put.  That could be mistaken fro a cynical view, but it does get right to the heart of the matter - do people see it as worthwile and valuable.  Sidesteps more annoying angles of the aesthetics arguement.

My own take at the moment is a sort of "Everything is art, but there's a lot of shite.", FWIW.

If everything is art, then the term is meaningless.

You're talking nonsense.

a;lsdjfo;ia  hicken poopc l;adfj 38derp 2;j;; 09uderp ;pq

If art is merely any commodity, then again, why change the common usage of the word to mean "commodity"? There's already a word for that.

When you pay your water bill, you're paying for art?

Rubbish. You're sidestepping aesthetics and entering Pineal country.

[Doktor Howl]

I think people who sit around considering whether something is "art" or not are high off their own farts.

The real question is, will people pay to keep it around, or won't they?

Well put.  That could be mistaken fro a cynical view, but it does get right to the heart of the matter - do people see it as worthwile and valuable.  Sidesteps more annoying angles of the aesthetics arguement.

My own take at the moment is a sort of "Everything is art, but there's a lot of shite.", FWIW.

If everything is art, then the term is meaningless.

You're talking nonsense.

a;lsdjfo;ia  hicken poopc l;adfj 38derp 2;j;; 09uderp ;pq

If art is merely any commodity, then again, why change the common usage of the word to mean "commodity"? There's already a word for that.

When you pay your water bill, you're paying for art?

Rubbish. You're sidestepping aesthetics and entering Pineal country.

Translation follows:

*puts beret on, holds cig backwards*

"I'M AN ARTEEEEEEEEEEEEEESTE!  FUCK YOU ALL!  CRETINS!  PHILISTINES!  UNNNNNNNG!"

[hooplala]

I think people who sit around considering whether something is "art" or not are high off their own farts.

The real question is, will people pay to keep it around, or won't they?

Well put.  That could be mistaken fro a cynical view, but it does get right to the heart of the matter - do people see it as worthwile and valuable.  Sidesteps more annoying angles of the aesthetics arguement.

My own take at the moment is a sort of "Everything is art, but there's a lot of shite.", FWIW.

If everything is art, then the term is meaningless.

You're talking nonsense.

a;lsdjfo;ia  hicken poopc l;adfj 38derp 2;j;; 09uderp ;pq

If art is merely any commodity, then again, why change the common usage of the word to mean "commodity"? There's already a word for that.

When you pay your water bill, you're paying for art?

Rubbish. You're sidestepping aesthetics and entering Pineal country.

But, wasn't that the point of Duchamp's urinal?

[Doktor Howl]

EET EES ALL SO BORRRRRING!

ZEE LUMPENPROLETARIAT CANNOT COMPREHEND ZEE GENIUS OF ZEE TOILET ART!

[hooplala]

Now I want to go listen to Nico.

Yes, I know that was a French accent, but... shut up.

[Doktor Howl]

Now I want to go listen to Nico.

Yes, I know that was a French accent, but... shut up.

I WILL NOT SHUTS UP!  YOU WEEL ACKNOWLEDGE ZEE GREATNESS OF ZEE BANKSY!  

[hooplala]

It is a cute name.

[Doktor Howl]

It is a cute name.

CUTE?  CUTE?  EET EES ZEE GENIUS, YOU ARE CRETIN!

HE IS HAVING MORE BRAVERIES AND INTELLEEGENCE THAN YOU, ZEE KAI, AND ZEE RUMKLE EEN HEES LEETLE FINGARE!

[BabylonHoruv]

Interesting ideas being bunted. 

So, what does make art?

A few years back (around 2000) some artists in Toronto captured a stray cat and skinned it alive, while videotaping it.  They said later that it was art.  Some said no, some said yes, for various reasons.  I'm divided on the matter... is something NOT art simply because I find it disgusting and horrendous, morally reprehensible, vile, cruel... etc.  I could go on.  Or, is THAT the art?  I mean, I eat meat... those animals are probably not treated very well... so where does my moral superiority stem from?  Is the killing of the cat art?  Or is the video taping art?  Or is my reaction art?

Or is this discussion art?

Videotaping the skinning of a cat is certainly art.  Carving an image into the skin of a child would be as well.  They're still morally reprehensible works that ought to be punished.  Being art doesn't make it ok.