Modern "Art" destroyed in Germany by cleaner

[sapphi_snake]

HappySqurriel said:

I'm a libertarian in nature and I am willing to accept/ignore things I find distasteful as long as it has no impact on me; unfortunately, well intentioned fools have the government involved in (practically) all areas of life and as a result things that shouldn’t have any impact on me do have an impact on me.

 

With that said, there are certain conventions in all mediums which define whether they're considered a creative work in that medium; and there are certain qualities of creative works that tend to be required for them to be considered art. For example, in music we require far more than a random assortment of sounds before we consider something to be a piece of music and we set a much higher standard for which music becomes a work of art. We don’t praise the work of a 2 year old who is banging a spoon on a metal pot while screaming his favourite 4 letter word at the top of his lungs as being a great piece of art.

In literature it requires more than just a random collection of characters on a page before we consider something to be a poem, novella, novel, or play; and we don’t consider all works to be art/literature. No one would argue that the dirty limericks written in a bathroom stall were works of literature.

In visual arts today there are rules, but the rules have very little to do with talent, aesthetics, originality, or depth of message; and I can`t believe that artists that were working before the 1960`s would find any kinship with these shallow hacks.

I think you should read a little something about art theory before making such ridiculous statements.

Conventions in art are just that... conventions. They change every time a new movement appears. They aren't strict rules that artists throughout the ages have had to follow. It's funny that you say that 'can`t believe that artists that were working before the 1960`s would find any kinship with these shallow hacks'. I'm absolutely sure that Rembrandt wouldn't have found any kinship in the works of those artists working before the 1960s. He would've looked at a picasso, or even something older like a monet, and said to himself 'WTF is this?! This is junk!'

Also, you are aware that the people who praised the artist guy are actualyl people who can be called experts regarding art, no? They most likely know more about art than pretty much every single person on this forum.

And I'd really liek to know why people like throwing arroudn the word 'shallow' when talkign about this works. Seems to me like most of the peopel here fall into the second categpry I mentioned in my previous post.