/lit/ - Literature

Because I say so.

It's definitely not literature, so GTFO

Describe it in your own terms first.

It's literature because I say it is.

Why is it not art?

>>1810456
I am singing in my shower. Is that art too?

>>1810464

If I hear it, it is.

>>1810464
yes

>>1810464
With a voice as beautiful as yours yes.

is a tree that falls in the woods which a faggot calls 'art' with no-one around to hear it still 'art'?

>>1810464

"Art" is very loosely defined. My personal definition is the intent of the creator of a work to express some facet of his unique human experience. So, sure, singing in the shower is art. You were expressing either boredom, jubilee, a mixture of both, or perhaps an emotion much more personal and only knowable by you.

Why do you wish to deny others' art? Others' emotion? Because you don't personally understand or relate with it?

>>1810473

Art confirmed.

>>1810479
yes. in saying that you already presented a tree

>>1810481
sing for me and i'll judge.

>>1810502
Stop trolling poor D&E at once.

>>1810504
hmm.

Why not?

where is it

>>1810575

Check mail. Excuse the shitty recording quality for amateur efforts.

>>1810599
well for a guy with a name like jamesbond you have a soft and sensual voice. pretty good.

>>1810609
>with a name like jamesbond you have a soft and sensual voice
you can tell from his posts too

>>1810621
jeez

so what did he sing?

>>1810679
more importantly, was it ART?

>>1810679
100 miles, original song i think?

>>1810694
sure

>>1810424
Baby's first modern art.

>>1810696
hm, actually it is http://www.lyricstime.com/richard-anthony-five-hundred-miles-lyrics.html

>>1810703
So... 13 year old confirmed?

>>1810713
meh, i liked it.

>>1810722
Still he can be 13 yo.

>>1810722
Why, thank you!

don't mind me, just being praised by the international art community

So was it art just because it was good for you onionrings? Or was there any other quality?

Artschoolconfidential?

>>1810769
idk. i can appreciate art without using the word at all.

i mean, if you want to force me to make a definition, i'd say that art is a crafted [] for/expressive of aesthetic experience.

>>1810785
is this art:

f f f f u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

because photography was invented.
Story:
>in art of 20th class
>realize that 'Art' is social construct, elitist and dominated by white men
>think its still pretty cool
>Class contains weebo, all assignments are characters from SuperSmashBros. Can't draw for shit
>Weebo admits he doesn't like any art except anime, just took class b.c. needed credit thought it would be easy
>everything turned out same as expected

>>1810806
idk. don't try to annoy me i don't care.

bump

So...normal people actually like modern art?
My mind = blown

>>1810807

>weebo

>>1812213

What

A lot of philistines fail to notice that every single thing I do in my life, down to the most miniscule twitch of an eyebrow, is art.

I am the perpetual performance artist.
deal with it

>>1812221

Fuck off, VDub, or do we have to get some guy from /mu/ to teach you your place again? I thought you were going to take some time off and think about the 'damage to your persona'

You need a persona because you don't have a personality

>>1812220
It is not art.
One can, with some good will, say it's pretty.
It is a piece of art in the same sense as say...nice curtains found in Ikea are art.

>>1812221
yea but you are not very good at it sometimes.

>>1810768
Rothko's art annoys the fuck out of me. His paintings were supposed to deal with human emotion on a very personal level - the actual technique and colour choice were irrelevant. I want to accuse him of spouting bullshit, but he is universally praised, and people have frequently broken down into tears upon viewing the majesty and supernatural elements of his work.

But I just see a poorly painted canvas. It's like I'm watching an inside joke.

>>1812224
I went out to the desert with some printed off transcripts of all I typed that day and I stared at the words for hours as the sun burned and blistered my pale naked body. At some point my spirit animal (a jigglypuff) appeared and showed me all which was wrong with what I'd been doing. Now I'm more powerful than ever before.

I am Vdubby
I am Vdubby reborn.

>>1810768
jesus christ

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA I SOLVED IT

>>1812235

And it seems you've been reborn an even bigger cunt, with even more of an unwarranted sense of self-importance.

Nice. What is your spirit animal, a Twat?

>>1812243
> a Twat?
No I said it was a jigglypuff.

>>1812227
R u 'n JB gonna have a babby?

>>1812247

>a jigglypuff.

I don't know what that is. Is it some kind of twat? Because the only thing which seems enhanced in your rebirth is the ability to talk like a cunt.

>>1812249
bro you haven't even seen me perform any miracles yet. DAAAAAYYYYUUUUUMMMMMMMMM

>>1812252

And I never will, except the miracle of the cunt who will not shut up no matter how unfunny and boring he is. Tell me, do you ever re-read your tedious self-obsessed shit?

>>1812257
>do you ever re-read your tedious self-obsessed shit?
more than you know

>>1812261

How can you bear it? Don't you ever just think to yourself "Wow, I really am a cunt, they're right".

You're one of the lamest tripfags around - you're not the jester, you're the butt. In a thread with you and fucking Onionring, it's hard to tell who's the biggest twat.

it's always Onionring, but you run her fucking close, you indescribable prick

>>1812257
>unfunny and boring
>vdoobie

no, actually

>>1812268
Oh yeah? Well you're not very nice, so deal with that.

>>1812273

I never claimed to be nice - I'm a right fucking bastard actually. But I'm not an attention seeking fucktard with all the wit and intellect of a bowl of lime jelly.

>>1812272

White knighting this faggot, you wretch? What the fuck is your problem? Shouldn't you be off peddling some incorrect and poorly thought out opinion on literary theory somewhere? Is wikipedia down and you're all out of ideas or something? Fucking spastic.

>>1812279
If you keep talking like that, I'm gonna start to think that you might not like me very much.

>>1812279
you're trying way too hard

>>1812283

I can't abide you. It's shocking to admit that I miss BumBear - at least he usually has an answer, and seems to have a brain of sorts. You're just a fucking parody.

>>1812285

I'm not trying at all - handing this prick his teeth in a bag is cruise control.

You're not trying hard enough.

>>1812289
no, really, you're trying way too hard

>>1812286
It's been great but there will be guests arriving in any moment. You hold on to those thoughts until next time, buckaroo.

>>1812291

No, really, you're not trying hard enough.

>>1812303

>>1812308

>>1812319
>>1812319

>>1812325

>>1812326
>>1812325
>>1812323
>>1812319
>>1812314
>>1812308

>>1812326

>>1812323
>>1812314

>>1812329

>>1812331
LEAVE THAT FUCKING PIG ALONE YOU FAGGOT, WHAT DID HE EVER DO TO YOU? I SWEAR TO GOD, IF I WALKED IN ON YOU POINTING YOUR FINGER LIKE THAT AT THAT POOR PIGGIE, I'D BE POINTING MY FINGER DOWN YOUR THROAT.

>>1812334
AND I WILL FUCKING BITE IT OFF. AND DRINK YOUR BLOOD UNTIL YOU DIE!!!

>>1812334

I JUST SAW THE POOR DEFENSELESS PIGGY AND I KNEW, I JUST KNEW THAT I HAD TO ACT.

NOW HE IS FREE WITH HIS FRIENDS.

>>1812334

please stop doing this

So back to OP.

Is that Art? If yes: Why? If no: Why not?

>>1812361
How childish and moody is this person?

>>1812365
Very.

>>1812365
>>1812379
i really like D&E but he can take a joke too far sometimes

So why is it art?

>>1812457
because there are many people who say it is art

>>1812459
And what is their justification?

>>1812385

He's funtionally retarded and possibly autistic, and about as funny as polio. What the fuck's to like?

>>1812463
That its Art.

Because I can see it.

>>1812286
>>1812286

>BumBear
heyy that's not very nice cut that out okay?

>>1812674
Pyramids is a decent album but unfortunately its remixes are all much better due to being done by more talented acts.

>>1812674
How about Brownbutthole?

>>1812678
>>1812678
i just listened to it the other week for the first time and this image was saved because i posted it in a thread (it wasn't saved it was cached in my temp internet files but you know what i mean) so i posted it.

i thought the album was okay but nothing special really.

i liked the album pictured a lot though

>>1812682
>>1812682
that's not nice either if you want to lavish all your attention on me like you are doing now keep it nice okay?

but i guess it's better to be feared than loved and it's pretty obvious that you're trying to bring me down to your level because you are, unfortunately, unable to reach mine.

i dont see why you get so mad over some pixels

I am probablyh the only funny person on this board.

>>1812689
Hi there.

>>1814248
A monster who was never meant to live. Put it out of its misery.

>>1812329
>>1812329
worst tripfag.

Art is the product of creation.

People attach far too much pomp and grandeur to such a simple concept.

Authenticity is a commercial illusion used to turn art into a competition.

>>1812463
They all have different justifications, some might have none and all are irrelevant. What is important is the outward agreement of signs.

Art is human life.

>>1816983
That only means it's self consistent.

Earth without art is "eh".

>>1812268
>indescribable
>prick

pick one

>>1817021
I like that

Because you don't understand it.

Essentially, anything can be art, there's no pure definition.
The kind of art that makes it into museums is purely defined by the people who praise it and put it there in the first place. The idea of art is as fickle as the people who look at it. A famous example here is Van Gogh, who only ever sold one painting in his lifetime and was mostly ignored or ridiculed for his work.
Some time later people start thinking and looking differentl, find his stuff (or maybe it was the other way around), and before you know it the entire face of the following centuries is changed because of it.
So, art is anything people say it is.
OP's painting is to art what perhaps a book by Max Adler is to literature. While philosophy never seems to have an actual answer to anything, it does broaden your way of thinking. A painting in the style of futurism might not even look pleasing, but once you really examine it, and learn what the painter was seeing and thinking, it might broaden your way of looking at things.
Others might also add that a certain amount of skill is always involved in making art, either natural or learned. This was in fact the only way to define art prior to the modern periods. Even further back in history artists as such don't even exist, they're craftsmen, who simply make things. Only now do we look back at the influence some of these craftsmen had on our modern society and call their work 'art.'
Nowadays even 'skill' is an uncertain term.

>>1817100
When looking at some abstract painting people will often remark: "My ten year old niece could have made that."
To which I answer: "Yes and no."
She could have produced a beautiful abstract painting, but she wouldn't be trying to change our way of looking at things with her experience, vision, or skill.
What sets the work of someone's ten year old niece and that of an 'artist' apart is mostly the ambition behind the work. That said, your ten year old niece is very welcome to create ambitions of her own.

Of course someone will disagree with me on this, because we all look differently at things. That's how you get art movements and styles.

>>1817102
People always big up their own relations.

>>1810424
Dunno really, but I like it.

>>1817106
You make me so mad!

>>1817102
this is one of the most obnoxious intentional fallacies I have ever seen

>>1817102
>She could have produced a beautiful abstract painting, but she wouldn't be trying to change our way of looking at things with her experience, vision, or skill.

Though experiment: you are presented with two paintings of apparently similar styles and are ignorant of their authorship. Could you not invent the same themes, motives and ambitions behind each painting regardless of which one is made by my 10 year old niece? Is knowledge of an art's authorship that integral to the art itself?
The value of art is determined separate from the value of the creator.

>>1817146
Short answer: 'no.'

Long answer: The value of art is 9 times out of 10 determined by the viewer, not the creator. But the creator of a piece of art CAN influence the viewer in a way he wants. That's where a certain amount of experience with the subject comes into play.

I actually teach art classes to a lot of ten year old nieces at a local community center. I value their work depending on how much they enjoyed making it, and the amount of effort they put in, hopefully learning something from the process. For me, the viewer, these are the important things about art. For them, the creators, there might be very different things driving their hands. Sometimes I learn something from them as well, that's the creator influencing the viewer.

>>1817102
>What sets the work of someone's ten year old niece and that of an 'artist' apart is mostly the ambition behind the work

>Remember folks, it's not how you look on the outside, it's what's inside that matters :)))))

Ugly platonists really really believe this horseshit

Marcel Duchamp
Nude Descending a Staircase
1912

It's a classic of modern art falling into the cubist and futurist movements. The cubist part: dat geometry. The futurist part: them diagonals.
The reason this piece is seen as important today is because it was recognized as garbage when it was made. The main hubbub was that the title - to most folks - didn't match the depiction. They all said that if you could call that a nude descending a staircase, then you could call anything anything. Also people were uncomfortable with the idea of a nude doing anything other than reclining. Even if only barely depicted.

>>1817521
The painting also shows a kind a vision never before possible to experience or contemplate. The multiple exposure effect - the stroboscopic effect. It had become popular at the time by the hand of Edward Muybridge and Etiene Jules Marey. Both photographers working with multiple exposures to show how things move. They were showing motion in a way that had been technologically impossible before. Which is why they're relevant. Also the imagery was quite striking and lead to a helluva lot of people, including Duchamp, imitating it stylistically.

>>1817528
The thing I like about it is that it marks for duchamp a time where he realized that his ideas were so ahead of their time that he would not be able to join any pre-existing group. (he was fucking kicked out of a show in paris with that painting and when he showed it in ny he was ridiculed by the entire world.) so you can see this event as a seed that started him thinking about 1) pulling away from the faggot art world at the time and 2) starting his own movement - Dada Surrealism.

>>1817536
Dada is important because it was the first movement where there were no rules, aka the first movement founded on artistic freedom aka the first one where art could go in any direction it wanted to. And from it came lots of awesome stuff, my fav of which is the readymade. The mother-piece that primed the worlds psyche's for conceptual art. The first art primarily of the mind. It gave merit to thought over aesthetic. It posed that it was possible to have a piece that existed purely in the mind and had no physical form. And after it it was never enough for an artist to merely make pretty pictures - they had to be thinking too. (I mean sure there are exceptions but..) And that's where we are today.

So yeah, this kind of isn't art. Like, I don't like it very much aesthetically. But it marks an important nodal point and depicts historically relevant stuff (humanity coming into the age of modernity). And that's important because it shows a large link between the state of the human experience now and a vastly different one just 150 or so years ago.

>>1810768

I hate Mark Rothko. I'm quite tolerant when it comes to art, but fucking Mark Rothko. Bad, bad, bad, bad art.

I hate his fanbase as well. Stupid pouseurs.

why is this---

oh wait, no-one has to ask

>>1817538
>no rules

how is that not a rule

>>1817553
because the tradition of it is so long lasting

>>1817550
have you ever seen the actually paintings in person?

>>1817558
Yes, just like the tradition of eating with knives and forks.

>>1817536
>2) starting his own movement - Dada Surrealism.

He didn't found dada, he only formed or co-formed (can't recall) a branch of it. I'm not certain he was strongly influential to Hans Arp and Hugo Ball and Tristan Tzara and that bunch either, that founded dada in Zurich.

>>1817538
I believe Dada had more of 'rules' than people are giving them credit for. Not 'rules' as in the traditional sense, but exactly 'no rules' is (as the above poster pointed to) is a rule in itself. Its rules was obscenity, originality and insanity. Its boundaries just was very unstrict. But you see i.e. Kurt Schwitters that wasn't allowed to join the Dada group due to his aesthetics and philosophy around his art as opposed to Dada's.

I think Nude Descending A Staircase is wonderful, aesthetically and conceptually. I think it is beautiful.

>>1817572
what?

>>1817575
Yeah, one is a long tradition formed through dominant continued, repeated behaviour, just like the other is. Is that, like, meant to be surprising or something?

Yeah most "enlightened" "interested in culture and art" hipster gaggles say they don't like Rothko. It's cause they've only ever seen them on screens or pages. In person, they're practically installations. He used to paint in this giant warehouse with skylights and canvases so big they were on these giant support structures that took 2 assistans to wheel around. He would obscure the skylights so only a sliver of light would come in. The when people came in to see an maybe buy some of his shut he would
Make them feel so uncomfortable most would just walk out. He would mock them, scream at then or just stare maniacally.

Despite that people would say the work was so incredible they could stand to be around the prick.

>>1817576
why did i even bother...

guys obviously you have to see it in person its just going to look like a complete piece of shit otherwise right

>>1817586

Why aren't I allowed to post here? Why does it say 'parts of your comment isn't allowed to be posted :('?? (testing)

>>1817599
reported

>>1817564

Since I wasn't allowed to post this for some reason, here you have it in fine Comic Sans and a billion time in Paint.

>>1817586

What the hell are you talking about?

>>1817602

Why do you report me? I dunno, my post is in Comic Sans below/above, so if you just assumed I was about to post something really obscene, I wasn't. Except for the Comic Sans that is, but the original post hopefully wasn't in Comic Sans. And Comic Sans is the font-equivalent to Mark Rothko's paintings.

Art is not a quality intrinsic to an object; it resides not on the work itself, but on the eyes of those who see it. Having this in mind, anything, and I mean literally anything, can become art, from a Renaissance painting to an urinal.

>>1817619

>>1817609

And if Rothko's paintings are meant to be seen in context, why are some so much more acclaimed than others? I can actually imagine that they'd be nice if you saw a hundred of them in the same room or something. But I can't possibly imagine that, if I'd see a single one of them alone in original, I'd find it interesting whatsoever. Of course, I shan't say never.

>>1817619
I think you've misunderstood the capacity for the multiplicity of uses of a term with the actual concrete, specific social use of a term

>>1817586
Yeah, pretty much, or at least as a very very high res. print.

This is especially true for oil paint and gilded works. The effect they create can't be replicated by LCD or printer ink. Scale is also a major element of a work's presence. The fact that The Persistence of Memory is so small and Michelangelo's Pieta is oversized changes the viewing experience.

In short: Amerifags complaining about expressionism, go to the Met or the National Gallery. It's free if you don't want to pay, and a great experience. I wish I could go stare at some Mondrian, personally.

>>1817634

What I have given is not one of the possible uses of the term, but a definition of what it is. Sure I can be wrong, this art much to personal and subjective to have a single acceptable interpretation. That seems to me as the most comprehensive definition, but if you disagree with it, I would love to see what you consider to be art.

>>1817637

I've been to a Die Brücke exhibition, and the most 'primitive' works that looks stupid and ridiculous in reproductions looked stupid and ridiculous as reproductions as well. I love Die Brücke, but some of the works that are highly acclaimed, a child could easily better. And I suppose that were the point in some cases, but I can't say I appreciate that idea when taken to such extremes.

>I've been to a Die Brücke exhibition, and the most 'primitive' works that looks stupid and ridiculous in reproductions looked stupid and ridiculous as ORIGINALS as well.

...

>>1817644
>a definition of what it is
>anything can be x
That's not a definition buddy, a definition goes more along the lines of such and such is x", unless you meant that anything is x, and you know the old story about something being anything being nothing. anything can be cats or dogs too, but how signs come to signify doesn't work that way when we come down to brass stacks.

>I would love to see what you consider to be art.

First, subjectivity and objectivity is more or less irrelevant in coming to understand how we use the term 'art'. All we can really use a term like 'art' for is to refer to that set of human works we wish to exemplify or set above the rest, as accepted by the main. What other use could we have for such a term? It's a term used to facilitate communication of a subject; I say "hey dude lets talk about Art" and we will fairly surely have a general idea about what each other is talking about.

Now, with regard to subjectivity in art; this is best represented by the term 'taste'. Everyone has their own tastes which are subjective etc etc. The point is that this doesn't matter when we employ a term like 'art' because we don't use it to refer to subjective tastes, we use to to refer as above. Now, let's take my previous discussion and interpret it like the moron who misuses the term 'art' treats it:
"Dude let's talk about art"
"But art is subjective"
"Yeah but you know what more or less know what I mean when I raise the subject right?"
"sure"
and so discussion continues without a problem
Now, if someone considers something controversial part of that set, there still isn't a problem because all that needs to be done there is to see whether one needs to expand the set or not to suit whatever relevant need is required in that situation. Expand if you need to, contract if you need to.

>>1817663

Even though I disagree with some minor points on your posts, I see that what I have given was, as you said, not really a definition, but the way I distinguish between what is considered to be art and what isn't. Overall, I agree that you propose a better definition for the term.

>>1817651
Oh wow, not every art movement will be everyone's cup of tea. I guess that's why we have different schools of art. If art was supposed to always appeal to what was already liked by the general public, there wouldn't be new movements or ideas, we'd just still be stuck with the neoplatonists, and art wouldn't have changed since Michelangelo.

I don't like the primitivists either (in fact, I find their philosophy pretty short-sighted and idiotic), but I'm not going to say their work isn't art. That's fucking stupid. If you don't like a painting, you can say it's a bad painting, but don't say it's not art. I don't like Twilight but I'm not going to look at it and say "That's not a book!" There's no value attached to the classification "art."

>>1817663
already talking about sets eh

i was just saying to myself the other day, what /lit/ needs more of is really dry unproductive arguments about subjectivity, thank you folks

>>1817736
been meaning to revise that copypasta actually. will probably cut out this 'matter of taste' shit

>>1817688

First off, I wouldn't say 'it isn't art' about anything that other claims to be art. I agree with subjectivity.

Also, as I thought I expressed with that post, I love expressionism, primitivism and Die Brücke, but I don't like it when the concepts are taken to extremes, just to be extreme. It's like a minimalist taking minimalism to the extreme of just playing one note. It's not about ideas, that usually 'drives art forward', but about notions of the extreme. And people calls it 'experimental', while it is in fact one of the simplest ideas in art history. (I like John Cage's 4'33'' though, but that's because of the ideas surrounding it, not just silence but silence with a cause).

>>1819473
>First off, I wouldn't say 'it isn't art' about anything that other claims to be art. I agree with subjectivity.
Subjectivity isn't conformity

>>1812323

counter-sage 24

>>1817584

counter-sage 25

>>1817602

counter-sage 26