/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

I guess it's considered art because someone was willing to exhibit it

>>1459159
Because it looks hilarious

>>1459160
This

>>1459160
but i mean, what is that someone could find into a piece of cheeze and somebody's hair, where's the beauty??? where's the sense????
maybe it's because i'm not into contemporany art but i'm seriously raging at that piece of cheeze so hard

>>1459163

it has no aesthetic merit but at least it provokes some kind of emotional response from you

sadly the creator might have put less thought into it than you do now

Modern art.

I should probably get with the times and exhibit my toe nail clippings and arrange them in a peculiar manner, sort of like macaroni art; and top it off by claiming I have some type of mental disorder just to make things interesting.

>>1459165
>at least it provokes some kind of emotional response from you

this is admittedly a double standard... but yes, great art does evoke emotion but i don't consider this great art for making people rage at its quality (or lackthereof).

You are probably right though, that the creator just thought "what the hell, this will work" when they made.

I knew someone who was family friends with the Chapman Brothers and confirmed to me that apparently with a lot of their work they're just saying to each other "hey, wouldn't it be funny if we did this and that? har har"

>>1459165
>>1459168

you gave me a lot to think about

>>1459168
trolling is a art and some art is just a form of trolling

evoking any emotion is not enough for me personally, there needs to be some skill and sensibility involved in the artwork, otherwise any cunt could do it

>highschool loomisites discuss the merits of art outside of the scope of figure drawing

>>1459159

I saw it in person at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

The sculptor's name is Robert Gober and he made out of beeswax and human hair.

There was another sculpture of his on exhibition titled, 'The Subconscious Sink'.

A quote from the sculptor to get his ideur across,

"Most of my sculptures have been memories remade, recombined, and filtered through my current experiences. Looking back now at why I built sculptures of sinks, I can remember sinks that I knew as a child, a recurring dream of a roomful of sinks with water flowing through them, the fact that a friend was dying of AIDS. But when I was making them, my considerations were for the most part sculptural and formal ones."
2Deep4u bruh

Seeing them in person was cringeworthy and left me thinking how far nepotism can go.

>>1459167
contemporary is not modern, learn to art terms.

>>1459159
Fine art is not illustration - illustration is supposed to "illustrate" an idea quickly, get the point across clearly.

Fine art, on the other hand, is usually there to illicite a more thoughtful response. Maybe the artist is trying to make you think "how stupid, how is this even art?" That could be the point. But then you have to think more deeply and critically. What does cheese represent? What is the origin of this kind of cheese? Why does stringy hair represent? Is this a form of aging? Is this a statement about aging and how cheese is aged and people age?

Critical thinking is essential to understanding fine art, no matter how dumb you think it is. I am not a fine artist, I'm an illustrator, but I do not immediately shit on the work of fine artists.

damn nigga that's funny as fuck

>>1459167
fucking idiot alert

I think it's fucking hilarious and I wouldn't have it any other way. It's not like these artists steal any spotlight of other kinds of art, such as the average concept artist around here.

I think it's stupid and I don't like it, but it's conceptual art and doesn't really have anything to do with the aesthetic stuff that interests virtually everyone on /ic/.

It's like going to dinner and judging your soup like it's a ballet dancer. One has nothing to do with the other.

This art, conceptual art, is a different art from illustration, traditional fine art, and entertainment art. It's as different as mathematics is from literature. You can't do a good job judging literature as if it's math, and you shouldn't judge this stuff using an aesthetic art metric.

Just do what I do and let them do their thing in their own world. It's got nothing to do with you or me.

how can you look at this and deny its right to be art? it may not evoke any grand emotions or have a readily available “meaning” but how can you say that it doesn’t make you think? that it has no validity because of its strangeness?

do you not like it because there was seemingly no effort put into it? you can’t see the days worth of brushstrokes you would be able to were it a baroque painting? you can’t see the level of detail painstakingly carved in like on a hellenistic marble sculpture? time and “effort” spent on a piece should only measure the skill and habits of the artist, not the validity or quality of the work.

i like it. it evokes a sense of disgust and curiosity, and apparently, in some people, seething rage.
sorry to sound corny, but, expand your mind and allow yourself to think about the work for a minute, before getting jealous that someone else duped the curators into accepting a hairy piece of cheese as a work of art before you could.

Hello anon,
problem of similar contemporary art is that it has no fundamentals in actual art. Its based only on artist intelligence and mainly possibility of critical perception. Many artists (and critics too) considers interesting things or things that are not usual in this world as the matter of art. Sometimes, they found the same matter in jokes. Here comes the critical perception to play. Most of interesting and unusual things are just only interesting and unusual things, same with jokes. They are not art. Artists unfortunately has this need to turn everything they touch into the art.

If you lack enough intelligence or critical perception, you can then take these things out of the context and interchange them for observers. Many observers lack critical perception for art these days too, so many of them will say "hmm, this ART PIECE is interesting" or "this ART is very unusual" or "Wow, this ART is hilarious" (or they wont get even the joke and will say just "Uh, well, its art").

But in fact, they are not talking about art, but about the thing itself.

Not everything can be considered art, art has its specific "spirit". Its similar to food. You can eat cotton wool and it will make you feel full, but its not food and you wont get nothing of it, other than cotton wool in your stomach. Sure there is a thin borderline between food and poor stomach filler in several cases, but I found better to be wrong and miss some good desert then eat every shit they give me on their golden gallery plates.

And one other thing, many of these "artists" say that art is very individual and if there is anyone who founds it as an art, this makes the art art. Ok, then you should have the right to not be "anyone" and say you don't like it and you find it stupid.

>>1459339
please, shut up, this is to vague and just puts the wrong light on whole conceptual art. Conceptual art is about content, ignores most of the form. I found it wrong, cause art should have both. Im too long...

>>1459186

>Most of my sculptures have been memories remade, recombined, and filtered through my current experiences.

And so the artist becomes the art.

>>1459431
>please, shut up,
How 'bout you get fucked, asshole.
>this is to vague and just puts the wrong light on whole conceptual art.
You don't seem to know fuck-all about the subject, you dumb sack of shit.
>Conceptual art is about content, ignores most of the form. I found it wrong, cause art should have both.
You stupid fuck, nobody gives two shits how you found it or what you think art should have. It's a different type of art, as has already been explained to your stupid ass. Guess what, you numb-nutted little shit, people in the world can get together and do whatever the fuck they want without checking in with you. Your opinion doesn't matter to them, and it doesn't matter to anyone else, either.
>Im too long...
You do go on too long, I'll give you that. Time to shut the fuck up.

>>1459449
It's called masturbation

>>1459454
>implying anyone cares about kids with tourette syndrome

>>1459454

Mad as fuck.

>>1459463
I don't care at all about you, cunt.

>>1459466
Yes, quite irritated. Didn't think that required mentioning.

>>1459159
This is why I can't into most art.

>>1459476
The vast, vast majority of art is not conceptual art. If you can't into most art, that hairy cheese is not the reason.

>>1459479
True that. I think my problem is i just think so much of it is just plain bullshit, and many art fags as pretentious douchebags.

interior semiotics.mp4

>>1459431
>same with jokes. They are not art

>>1459159
Cuz it's in a museum exhibit, you can find a different museum if you are offended by the content of this one.

The fact that the piece addressed you enough to start a thread/discussion about it speaks volumes.

Love me or Hate me but don't you dare ignore me

>>1459168
Try to think about how you would make the sculpture depicted in OP's post. How would you start? What materials would you use? How would you put the individual hair follicles into the cheese? How long do you think it would take you to make it look good and not like you just said "what the hell, this will work" then slapped some shit together?

The instant I saw the sculpture I immediately tipped my hat. I don't do modern art personally, I'm strictly illustrative, but I actually have an understanding of what it takes to do a sculpture like this. It requires skill, it requires planning, it requires clever problem solving, which is what all good art requires.

>>1459431
Although jokes themselves are not art, lymrics, prose, and other kinds of writing (compositions of jokes) are art. And the performance of the joke is a legitimate artform known commonly as stand up comedy or spoken comedy.

Your criticism of the modernism, post modern, hypermodernist, ultramodernist, finalmodernist, etc. movements are partly valid and partly hollow.

Humans evolved the ability to do art as a means of exercising the skills necessary for survival, the way peacocks expend the energy synthesizing the proteins to make their big feathers demonstrates the fitness of their gene expression overall.

If something involves skill/training, novel problem solving, planning, resourcefulness, and efficiency, then it is art. You could say that by this definition a stop light is a work of art, but it's mass produced, that makes it a device or a product, which is what Andy Warhol's work played with the idea of.

This cheese with hair required careful planning, novel problem solving, and skill. It required knowledge of materials that could closely resemble the appearance of cheese so it wouldn't spoil while also able to have hairs stuck into it without any sign that it was made by human hands (the illusion that the cheese grew the hair like it was real).

I don't even see how this is a discussion.

>>1459562
>I don't even see how this is a discussion.
check the calendar

>Humans evolved the ability to do art as a means of exercising the skills necessary for survival, the way peacocks expend the energy synthesizing the proteins to make their big feathers demonstrates the fitness of their gene expression overall.

If something involves skill/training, novel problem solving, planning, resourcefulness, and efficiency, then it is art. You could say that by this definition a stop light is a work of art, but it's mass produced, that makes it a device or a product, which is what Andy Warhol's work played with the idea of.

lol

>>1459159
Have you ever seen a piece of cheese with human hair on it before? I didn't think so. That's why this is in a museum and your drawings aren't. Originality and uniqueness come before quality/skill

>>1459560
>The instant I saw the sculpture I immediately tipped my hat. I don't do modern art personally

Just want top clarify that this is not modern art, but contemporary art, and more specifically, conceptual art.

Pic related is modern art.

Carry on.

>>1459560
>The instant I saw the sculpture I immediately tipped my hat. I don't do modern art personally

I just want to clarify that the hairy cheese is not modern art, but contemporary art, and more specifically, conceptual art.

Pic related is modern art, which was roughly 1860s through 1960s (contemporary and modern overlap a bit, time-wise).

Carry on.

>>1459560
>The instant I saw the sculpture I immediately tipped my hat. I don't do modern art personally

I just want to clarify that the hairy cheese is not modern art, but contemporary art, and more specifically, conceptual art.

Pic related is modern art, which was roughly 1860s through 1960s (contemporary and modern overlap a bit, time-wise).

Carry on.

>>1459560
it's not modern art

well the fact you are raging at this

plus the fact it is so ridiculously stupid

>>1459560
>How would you start? What materials would you use?
With the block of cheese, probably making it out of clay or something, and then casting it in something like silicone rubber or resin - something that was semi-translucent and could have color added.
>How would you put the individual hair follicles into the cheese?
There's a tool for it. I've seen it done on dolls and puppets and stuff, although I don't know the details of how it works.
>How long do you think it would take you to make it look good and not like you just said "what the hell, this will work" then slapped some shit together?
Less than a week, assuming I had more practice with the hair implanting methods, which would almost definitely be the most time consuming part of the whole project.
>This cheese with hair required careful planning, novel problem solving, and skill. It required knowledge of materials that could closely resemble the appearance of cheese so it wouldn't spoil while also able to have hairs stuck into it without any sign that it was made by human hands (the illusion that the cheese grew the hair like it was real).
Not really. All of these materials and skills have been available, they just haven't been used in this fashion.
>I don't even see how this is a discussion.
So you don't understand how people can have a different perspective than yourself?

>>1459640
Neither of those makes something art, otherwise shitposting on 4chan would be considered art. There's always someone mad and there's always someone ridiculously stupid.

>>1459218
Shussh! Your autism is showing!

>>1459159
It represents something and so do you.
"YOU, SIR, ARE A SPACE TOO!"

anyone have the pic of the dragon sculpture next to the dude peeing in his mouth with the creator of the dragon raging about it?

Anything can, and on a long enough timeline, will be art.

Sure is summer in here

that cheese has long hair

Because with art, for some odd reason, you get these too-cool-for-school layabouts who think this is "modern art", and that it's making a political statement about popular culture.

When really, they're just too fucking lazy to do a sculpture or sketch or something which is actually art.

>>1459641
>all of these materials and skills have been available, they just haven't been used in this fashion

welcome to the 21st century.

I see it as a surrealist work. It doesnt necessary have to hide or some mysterious symbolism or some statement.

It's more about absurdity of the visual associtions triggering in the mind of the viewer some kind of meditative state, absent of thoughts.

The artists says he gets inspired with his dreams, thisconfirms the relation of his work with surrealism

>>1460784
Google confirms my thoughts. His work is derivative of Magritte and Duchamp

http://www.lacma.org/magritte-essay<wbr>

This guy right here. To bad /ic/ never has or ever will understand this.

>>1460767
>Because with art, for some odd reason, you get these too-cool-for-school layabouts who think this is "modern art", and that it's making a political statement about popular culture.

Oh, look, another person who doesn't know what modern art is. We should listen to this person's opinion, as no doubt he/she has made an extensive survey of various art forms and movements, and his/her insight will be incredibly valuable to all of us.

>>1460784
you better not think the treachery of images is some wishy washy painting with no statement. it's point is fairly clear one would of thought.

>>1460795
>bellyaching about content on a user-generated site

I don't really give a shit. If you're on 4chan to listen to opinions you've come to the wrong place.

>>1460802
>bellyaching about content on a user-generated site

I don't really give a shit. If you're on 4chan to listen to opinions you've come to the wrong place.

See how that works? Good.

>>1460798

Yeah but his point in this work remains that of a surrealist painter.
He juxtaposes contradicting images and words in order to play on the perception of the viewer, the same way Gober juxtaposes a piece of cheese and long hair.

The main point is the affect it has on perception, not the meaning.

>>1459159
It's just a piece of bullshit that's what it is. Don't think too much about it.

>>1460823
I think I would subscribe to this anon's thoughts on the matter... for now.

Well, since being sarcastic doesn't work, I guess I'll explain it in a proper way without raging myself.

There used to be a time I disliked everything other than illustration too. I wouldn't acknowledge it as art, just like OP.
I can perfectly understand why OP thinks like this, and I have to say I've grown out of that mindset. It's a bit denigrating, but hear me out, OP, and other people who share his opinion.

I don't think the artist started to create this work with a pretentious mindset, that's what a lot of people think about artist. In fact, they know they don't get a lot of appreciation, because the mainstream prefers illustrations and art that's easily understood. It takes a lot of courage to come up with this "shit" that a lot of people don't like.

I personally like this exhibition, because it's pretty funny and surrealistic. That's what art is, they provoke emotions. Not all art have to illustrate a thing. A lot of people like you think art is training yourself till you're able to master it, like some sort of cool skating trick, but it isn't. It's not about showing off what technique you have mastered. If you draw to be able to brag about your skills, then I personally don't think that's a good reason to draw.

Even realism serves a purpose: it's not realism JUST to be realistich. We've got cameras nowadays. If you want a perfect representation of things, just take pictures. Realism is to show things through the eyes of the artist, and let the image absorb you.

The perfection of the limits of drawings have already been reached. Millions of times. People are able to draw perfect copies of subjects. Do you think people will like your art if you're able draw a human perfectly? However, what art DIDN'T reach, and never will, is the imagination of people. A cheese with hair? Where will you ever find that in reallife? That's what drives a lot of artist to create surreal stuff that you find to be shitty.

>>1461234
>A cheese with hair? Where will you ever find that in reallife?
If you leave cheese in the fridge long enough, it'll start growing blue/green hairs.

>>1461237
Really? That's the only argument after the whole text?

>tfw even after all of your studies and countless hours of practice, some guy who makes a fart collection will be way more successful than you are.

>>1461234
dude, is chess... with hair...

>>1461234
i see where you are coming from. and cheese with hair might be "art" in a way, but it is cheap, random way of art. art for the sake of art.

it is not a work that becomes art, no. it is work for the sole purpose of being viewed as art. (and some might argue that's enough.)

but it has no skill behind it, no real technique, no generations of accumulated knowledge of how to apply fundamentals to one's vision and make a captivating piece. a collage can be art, even a whole compilation of different cheeses with different hair to encompass different feelings and archetypes of whatever can be art. but a stereotypical shape of cheese with some strings attached? dude.

>>1459159
I lol'd

>>1461296
>it's art for art's sake
>like that's a bad thing
Have you been paying attention the last hundred years? Also broaden your definition of art, it's not all about representational drawing and the 'fundamentals'. Just admit that it's art you find unsuccessful, when your argument becomes 'If it was two cheeses with hair that would be ok' then you've crossed the line into pure silliness.

>>1461325
god damn you for making me have to explain this to you, you swine

>like art for art's sake is a bad thing
>have you been paying attention the last hundred years?
Motherfucker, have you? Art for art's sake is a disease- one which we have identified as such for over onehundred years now. Allow me to quote Kandinsky as my entire response.

"Imagine a building divided into many rooms. The building may be large or small. Every wall of every room is covered with pictures of various sizes; perhaps they number many thousands. They represent in colour bits of nature- animals in sunlight or shadow, drinking, standing in water, lying on the grass; near to, a Crucifixtion by a painter who does not believe in Christ; flowers; human figures sitting, standing, walking; often they are naked; many naked women, seen foreshortened from behind; apples and silver dishes; portrait of Councillor So and So; sunset; lady in red; flying duck; portrait of Lady X; flying geese; lady in white; calves in shadow flecked with brilliant yellow sunlight; portrait of Prince Y; lady in green. All this is carefully printed in a booklet- name of artist- name of picture. People with these booklets in their hand go from wall to wall, turning over pages, reading the names. Then they go away, neither richer nor poorer than when they came, and are absorbed at once in their business, which has nothing to do with art. Why did they come? ... The vulgar herd stroll through the rooms and pronounce the pictures "nice" or "splendid." Those who could speak have said nothing. Those who could hear have heard nothing. This condition is called "art for art's sake." This neglect of inner meanings, which is the life of colours, this vain squandering of artistic power is called "art for art's sake."

-Wassily Kandinsky, "Concerning the Spiritual in Art," 1911

>1911
>have you been paying attention the last
>1911
>have you been paying attention the last

>>1461472

i've been waiting for the perfect opportunity to post this, here you go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdO9orWQ-Nk

>>1461475
originaltrollcomic.jpg

Jesus christ you fucking people are dense....

What the hell is this "art for art's sake" shit coming from? And you say this artist is pretentious..... Unless you know what the hell you're talking about, don't even comment. Learn that there is an art world out there other than your scribbles in your drawing pad and Loomis....

I personally do not care for this piece, but it has merit and great craftsmanship, and I can say that even though I believe the concept behind is too blazingly obvious for the viewer.

Way too many too hip for school "artists" in here running their mouths about the dumbest shit... 3edgy5me

And yeah, I'm mad... I read the dumbest fucking shit here everyday from people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about spewing it as fact

cheese = milk = breast milk = life = hair

>>1459560
I'm the person you quoted and you've misunderstood me.
What I meant about the Chapman Brothers wasn't that they were half-assed about their work and didn't plan it or that it didn't require planning; I meant that I've been told that their ideas aren't deep or meaningful. If they think a penis on a kid's nose would look funny, then they put a penis on a kid's nose. That's all there is to it.
Once they've decided that would be fun, then they go through that process you described. Which is of course what the artist in the OP did

>>1461296
Good thing you brought up art for art's sake. What do you think the majority of /ic/ is making here?

Lots of people here just make concept art, fantasy creatures, people with guns, women with nice tits, robots, what do you think that is? It's art for the sake of art.

Do you think anyone learned anything after beholding these images? I wouldn't have brought it up if you didn't. Btw, I don't have anything against these kind of drawings, just as I don't have anything against people who like to make weird art.

I think the pretentious artist never really existed as a lot of you claimed to have. Maybe 1 out of thousands of people think of themselves as superiour artist making 2DEEP4U art. But most of them is just all in your heads.

Most of these people who makes weird and abstract art are rebels who really like what they're doing. They know they probably won't earn any money, and are being hated by people like you. If it's really pretentious bullshit like a lot of you claim to be, then they would've quit on the first day. It takes guts to keep doing stuff that people dislike for all your life. Without real passion you can't keep that shit up.

Maybe you don't understand it. Maybe you don't like it. But that doesn't stop them to make things that make them happy, just because it's a hobby. Who the fuck are you to judge what people do?

Don't complain that it's not fair they're in a museum. Drawing illustrations is way more easier than to live as an artist hated by many. At least with illustrations, you know people will like it immediately, you'll have countless of job offers, for magazines, commercials, posters, whatever.

In that sense, THEY should be the ones to complain about the abundance of mainstream art like comics and concept art.

>Having a blast here
The thing itself is just a cheese with hair, about the level of "lol penguin donuts" but artsy.
I don't think it really means anything, but it has a purpose; to make you think about what is art. Picasso, bed sheet prints, tampons? It's different for everyone.

I like it, it is funny and sparks something inside my head.

art is anything that evokes the message the artist recognized. if the artist had no message to recognize, then it's just trolling, which is not an art.

Maybe it's meaningful to the artist
Bare with me.
What if it represents the feelings and emotions the artist experienced when, while making a grilled cheese, the last slice of cheese in the fridge slipped out of their hand into the 'dirt zone' (that one part of every kitchen that accumulates assloads of dirt) and he picked it up, obeying the five second rule, to find it coated in hair and crumbs.
The distressing psychosis he experienced knowing he could not make his grilled cheese and would instead have to eat lettuce or starve. A very hairy situation indeed. Call him pretentious all you want but you'll never know what he went through; he just wants to share his experience through his art

>>1459159
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoubVUSk7h0&feature=share

interesting science about this sort of thing

>>1459159
Read about the Abject and The Formless. That is why, this is good work

>>1461743
well then, he failed to share his experience, because to a normal person this piece means fuck all

>>1461816
Only if you're a pleb

>>1461819
what a well-formed counter argument, really shows who's an actual pleb

>>1461824
>actually taking the original post seriously
I think he's right when he says you're a pleb

>>1459867
Seeing this was bumped, I'm still looking for this image.

>>1461648
>weird and abstract art are rebels who really like what they're doing. They know they probably won't earn any money
>shit "art"
>propably won't earn any money

You know this is a lie.

>>1461824
>saging
>on /ic/
How new

>>1461964
Hmm. Let's see.

Who's bound to earn money? Some illustrator who has job offers all over, because he doesn't take chances and draw the same shit that people like for 100 %, or make art that people like you whine over, because HURDUR I DUN GET IT LOL.

"art"

>>1459186
It's literally just a sink.

Can I put my desk in an art exhibit? Lotta memories with this desk.

>>1462652
Did you make it smart ass?

If you did, do you have a reasoning for showing it? Can you defend your reasoning?

>>1462652
not understanding ready-made art.

lrn2duchamp
lrn2dada

>>1462686
>dada
>art

Dada is anti-art. Lrn2dada.

When I shave my pubes I always drop them on the toilet. It looks like the toilet has a beard. I never realized I was actually making art.

I won't even try into anatomy, perspective, color theory and all that shit anymore. Dis thread has opened my eyes to the endless possibilites of true art.

>>1462758
Get your ass and toilet to LA NOWWW

>>1462562
both, because you can't just reduce two areas like that with false dichotomy?

>>1462758
that's an experience that could spark an idea that could then develop into a work of art. could've even been the case here for all we know, but that's still just step 1.

sage because plebs can't understand the difference between "this isn't art" and "this is art that I don't like".