h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

On Friday one of my friends stuck a Double Decker (type of chocolate bar) wrapper to a notice board and declared it art. Of course there was furore, from the "modern art is not really art" quarter, and so on and so forth. In the end, aforementioned quarter could not define art, and I believe (and the result of much 13th century Western philosophy was) that one cannot define something by what it is not. Hence the following argument was produced in favour of it being art.

1. One says that this piece of double- decker wrapper is not art

2. In Spain somewhere, there is an exhibition of Salvador Dali (may he rest in peace), in which there is a room which, viewed from afar, looks like Mae West's face

3. Is this art?

4. If not, then is sculpture art? For it is a representation of life as much as painting is, and here the difference is that non- traditional material is used for the sculpture.

5. Is an individual brush stroke in a painting art? If not, how is the whole art, if the individual things that make it up are not?

6. If this wrapper were in the face of Mae West by Dali, would it be art?

7. What is the difference between this wrapper in space and this wrapper here, pinned to the notice board?

Thoughts welcome.

Yes, the question is: would it be ART if it was done by an ARTIST? And the Other Side invariably fails to Answer That.
Art discussion is dead. Long live God.

Do you mean, would it not be art if it were not done by an artist? Ahh, the other way round is good as well.

Well I haven't had the Art Discussion, and I'm interested.

It also depends which the Other Side is.

I guess the question would be "if it isn't art then what else would it be"

To which I guess the answer would probably be "littering"

I mean, the Other Side, those Fools who do not Think that it is ART; would they think that if, say, Piccasso came and did it? Would it still be ART if someone looking like Piccasso, who they thought was Piccasso, came and did it?

Your first sentence seems to disagree with the second bit:

"those Fools who do not Think that it is ART"

"Would it still be ART...?"



Or I'm being dense.

I said that would those people who thought it was NOT art think it was if Piccasso did it? Would it be art if it was a Piccasso forgery?

Art is truth and truth is beauty.

And seeing as beauty is mainly in the eye of the beholder (and boy am I beautiful when I look in the mirror) it's up to you what art is and isn't.

As far as I go, I often find more value in works of straight abstract modern art than in the works of Van Gough or Rembrandt. While the latter can be appreciated as a skill, I often find realism, even Van Gough's skewed realism, to be little more than exercises, as they rarely affect me. Colour has amazing power over the human psyche, and to utilise that power without unneccessary dilution, as in the work of Mark Rothko, is where I see the ultimate form of art.

As for found object sculpture, or installation, or wahtever we call your friends work, it has to go pretty far to be affecting, like the canned sh*t they used to have at the saachi gallery. So a double decker may not cut it for me, but then we go back to my first statement, If they call it art, then art it is, and it's up to us to prove otherwise.

Mal - I do not think that something is art merely by dint of an artist doing it. I think it is possible for Picasso or Van Gogh to have a bowl of cornflakes or take a cr*p without that being art. And with regards to the forgery, I would say that it is art regardless. If another artist did it, would it be art? So what if the forger is an artist?

Which brings me to tonemonkey's post. And the conclusion I draw from that is, that art does not exist objectively. So it is a mistake to say "such and such is art", but instead one must say "I think that such and such is art" or "Such and such evokes powerful emotions in me".

Which is a bit of a weird way to talk but that's what you get when you start looking at things in detail.

Where does a Picasso painting stop, and a perfect forgery begin? Where does a forgery stop and a print begin? Where do a print stop and "modern art" begin?

I don't know, but on the other hand, I don't think it's particularly important.

That *was* the underlying question beneath all of your superficial tomfoolery...

Ok, ok.

To me, it's more important that a piece of art exists than whether it is original. Certainly, a print will have lost something, texture or whatnot. But just because it is not from the hand of the artist is not important; what is important is that it's from the mind of the artist. It's cool to be looking at an original, something that someone with such a mind created it, but beyond slightly cool there is nothing for me.

And no it wasn't. It was the question of what art was.

Oh, you misunderstood. I was talking about what defines art, rather than originality. All that was just an example.

You ask hard questions.
I can only give my opinion of whether it makes me feel or think or question or want to look again. That's some of what art is to me.

I love the art of structures,buildings,bridges,unique doors. The art of medicine or counseling. Some clothes are wearable art. The design of many useful products. I suppose I have a wide range of what art is but I am not able to explain it unless I react in some way and would want to notice it. I think I see artistic talent and production where others do not.

I cannot explain what it is not.Just hearing about something more than likely would not convince me it is art.

1. double- decker wrapper
Doubt itI'd have to see it.

2. "there is a room which, viewed from afar, looks like Mae West's face"
YEP

3. Is this art?
There are artfully posed questions...dunno

4. Is sculpture art?
Yes- could be

5. Is an individual brush stroke in a painting art? If not, how is the whole art, if the individual things that make it up are not?

Could be, but should be a verrrrrrry interesting line and color and position and emotion portrayed.

6. If this wrapper were in the face of Mae West by Dali, would it be art?
Maybe if you could explain it but i doubt I'd appreciate it.

7. What is the difference between this wrapper in space and this wrapper here, pinned to the notice board?

Time , Emotion and Intention maybe?

A rtist
R eact
T rance

Being that I like to dabble in a lil bit of graphite fine art myself, I thought I'd have a go at posting...

Art to me is something that stimulates one or more of your senses whether it is creatively painted, drawn, acted, orchestrated, chorographed etc.

I think art is very personal and the list is endless.

Nature is art.

vix

What about the "plie of bricks" that cost the Art Gallery £200,000
(Almost the same amount as they would be in house construction)

Smudger.

You know something......

I quite like the pile of bricks. It is designed to provoke reaction, and so it does, and is, like the double decker wrapper, questioning our definition of art.

Forgeries, different, they are a skill, and can be appreciated as such. They absolutely can not be regarded as art, as art itself is in it's creativity, not in re-creativity (new terminoligy (c) tonemonkey ).

I would also strongly assert the right of the simple brushstroke to be a work of art. In itself a brushstroke can elivate a simple painting to the status of a masterpiece (Van Gogh is all about brushstrokes, much as I am unmoved by it I can safely allow it's status as it moves so many others).

Today I heard someone describe art as;
Anything that takes you by surprise and enlists your undivided attention for a time requiring your unique thoughts and or feelings in return to complete it.

"6. If this wrapper were in the face of Mae West by Dali, would it be art?
Maybe if you could explain it but i doubt I'd appreciate it."

In the same way that the bits of furniture make up eyes and lips and things, the wrapper might be a beauty spot, or a speck on her eyebrow.

The intention was the same. Emotion, I really can't say for anyone but myself (blank- but some of the debates ensuing were quite passionate), and well, as for time, is the Mona Lisa today not art, but it used to be when it was painted? Has it become art, being merely a sketch when it was painted?

Again, would the Mona Lisa be art if someone else had painted it?

I'm liking these definitions of art .

(and our double decker wrapper only cost 40p)