ANTI-GRAPHITI CREWS BECOME VANDALS

[Kai]

If it's art or not is all determined by it's value. One man's rubbish is another man's treasure. It makes it very easy to tell what is and what isn't art. And like the internet, art has a rule 34 and 35.

People who delimit art by any other means are just high off their own value system, which isn't annoying until they get preachy about it.

No!

This gets to me, really.

I mean, sure, you can have that opinion. Whatever. If you want to define what art means to you whether it has value or not, go ahead. Your loss, not mine.

It starts to bug the FUCK out of me, however, when you dare to generalize those ideas to hold for me. Especially when you claim that it is ME that is supposedly high off my own value system, and that I am the one getting preachy about it?? Fuck that shit.

I don't know what is more preachy, me saying your definition of art may be a personal one (and as personally valid as you like), or you saying that "people who delimit art by any other means" are wrong?

For fuck's sake. Well at least one thing we can agree upon is that it gets fucking tedious and annoying when you "get preachy about it", right?

Just one simple counter example, and maybe then you will learn not to generalize your opinions over all people.

There are loads of expressions that I consider valid art forms that are of no value to me. I still consider them artforms because I know they are valuable to other people. Certain kinds of religious opera singing, for example. I can listen to it, recognize it for its art, its multi-layeredness, whatever. But it's worthless to me, as of yet, right now.

For me, personally, the multi-layeredness in some kind of abstract sense is part of my definition of art. But you won't hear me preaching about that. It's just what I personally know to be art, whether it's valuable to me, or anyone at all, or not.

Wasn't talking about you, Zero. Just sayin.

Art is whatever you make it. I remember in high school I tried to write an essay on art and my art teacher laughted and said, "whatever people call art, that's what it is". It has value to SOMEONE. That's what makes it art. Your art is not his art is not her art. It's a completely (well almost completely) subjective enterprise.

[Doktor Howl]

If it's art or not is all determined by it's value. One man's rubbish is another man's treasure. It makes it very easy to tell what is and what isn't art. And like the internet, art has a rule 34 and 35.

People who delimit art by any other means are just high off their own value system, which isn't annoying until they get preachy about it.

No!

This gets to me, really.

I mean, sure, you can have that opinion. Whatever. If you want to define what art means to you whether it has value or not, go ahead. Your loss, not mine.

It starts to bug the FUCK out of me, however, when you dare to generalize those ideas to hold for me. Especially when you claim that it is ME that is supposedly high off my own value system, and that I am the one getting preachy about it?? Fuck that shit.

I don't know what is more preachy, me saying your definition of art may be a personal one (and as personally valid as you like), or you saying that "people who delimit art by any other means" are wrong?

For fuck's sake. Well at least one thing we can agree upon is that it gets fucking tedious and annoying when you "get preachy about it", right?

Just one simple counter example, and maybe then you will learn not to generalize your opinions over all people.

There are loads of expressions that I consider valid art forms that are of no value to me. I still consider them artforms because I know they are valuable to other people. Certain kinds of religious opera singing, for example. I can listen to it, recognize it for its art, its multi-layeredness, whatever. But it's worthless to me, as of yet, right now.

For me, personally, the multi-layeredness in some kind of abstract sense is part of my definition of art. But you won't hear me preaching about that. It's just what I personally know to be art, whether it's valuable to me, or anyone at all, or not.

I beg to differ, Trip.  Some things that look like art really aren't art.

I hypothesize that, in the future, we will be able to quantify art, and build detectors that will protect us from poker-playing dogs, sad-eyed clowns, and Blue Boy copies.

[Rumckle]

No hard feelings Rumckle?

Of course not.

[BabylonHoruv]

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!

ZEE BANKSY IS SO EAZEE TO EEMITATE WITH ZEE STENCEEELS AND ZEE PAINTZ AND ZEE SILLY PRANKZ!

EEEVEN MY WEE CHILD CAN DO ZIS AND MAKE ZEE ZOUZANDZ OF DOLLERZ!

WEE JUST PREFUR TO LEEVE IN SMALL APARTMENT AND EAT RICE AND BEENZ.

yeah, you missed the point completely.  Banksy isn't easy to imitate well, he is easy to copy.  Any stencil artist is.  You make a stencil, and you spray paint through it, It'll look just like Banksy's stuff, because he did the exact same thing.  Designing the stencil was a work of genius, sure, but a genius stencil is just as easy to copy as a stupid one.  And since Banksy is anonymous there's no way to tell a copy from an original.

I did initially misinterpret Rumckle's post. Then I admitted my mistake. Shit happens.

Does it really matter whether a Banksy stencil is an original or an identical copy though?

I get the sense you didn't read the whole thread in favor of badgering me. No sweat off my nuts.

I read the whole thread.  And I think it matters whether it is an original or not to the same people who were wigging out about the stencil being painted over but happy that some lesser known but equally talented graffiti artist had his work painted over.

[BabylonHoruv]

Copying isn't art, it's craft. A really good craftsman can make a really convincing copy. Stencils are easy to copy because someone already made one, and all you have to do is make a copy of it.

What's the fucking controversy here?

Do you consider Warhol Campbell's Soup cans art or craft?  

(Not picking a fight, trying to keep this thread on art)

A better question is if video games can be art. Roger Ebert says no. Almost everyone else in the world says yes.

According to Ebert's definition World of Warcraft is not a game, since you can't win.

He also seems to be confusing the game in general (IE chess) with a specific playthrough of a game (when he says one of his games of chess could be art) 

[hooplala]

the same people who were wigging out about the stencil being painted over but happy that some lesser known but equally talented graffiti artist had his work painted over.

Who said that?

[Requia ☣]

Copying isn't art, it's craft. A really good craftsman can make a really convincing copy. Stencils are easy to copy because someone already made one, and all you have to do is make a copy of it.

What's the fucking controversy here?

Do you consider Warhol Campbell's Soup cans art or craft?  

(Not picking a fight, trying to keep this thread on art)

A better question is if video games can be art. Roger Ebert says no. Almost everyone else in the world says yes.

According to Ebert's definition World of Warcraft is not a game, since you can't win.

That seems kinda funky to me, none of the oldest games out there can be won.  Winning doesn't really come into video games until maybe the 80s?  Though there's a bit less art to tetris or some early blackjack implementation.  (Could you consider Conway's Life art?  Though thats more of a toy than a game).

I guess you can win levels or whatever that game has, and WoW does the same thing (though why you'd want to 'win' at hauling in Twenty Bear Asses is beyond me).

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I am not sure whether a game itself is art, but that is not relevant to whether components of the game are art. For example, take poker cards. The artist who drew the designs on the poker cards was making art... is it art every time a deck of those cards is printed? Is it art every time someone plays poker or solitaire with them? Probably not. But the original art is still art.

Dok has a point about art detectors... we will never be able to so solidly quantify art that it becomes a cut-and-dried definition. In a way, if we did, we would cease to have art at all.

A lot of my beads are production, hence craft.

[Doktor Howl]

Bump after split.

[hooplala]

This is only related because it is considered art, but I really like this for some reason.

An artist named Marina Abramović has an installation at the MOMA right now which consists of her sitting at a table, and you sitting down across from her (if you wish)... there is no talking, just the two of you staring at each other.  For as long as you want.  That's it.

Some people get very emotional.  Below are some pictures of the people on the other side of the table from Marina:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/themuseumofmodernart/

http://marinaabramovicmademecry.tumblr.com

[bones]

The only thing that irritates me about this (I can't say I give a shit about a single parachuting rat, or even Banksy, though he's done some cool shit) is that they paint a flat colour over "artworks" to "clean up" the dirty streets.

News flash, arseholes! A paint job doesn't stop the rats from scampering around! Graffiti is useful because it lets you know what kind of neighbourhood you're in. It is really pathetic when there is a concrete wall painted grey to cover old graffiti but covered again in nasty tags anyway.

They did apologise...
http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/story.html?id=2961721