To me the un-defined understanding is this... if you are a known artist then whatever you do is good, including just throwing paint on a canvas randomly without a care in the world. However, if you are an unknown then it means you need to improve big time.
QUOTE (JB@Trinidad @ 5-Apr 06, 10:25 PM) |
if you are a known artist then whatever you do is good, including just throwing paint on a canvas randomly without a care in the world. |
Dimavo, although I understand what you are saying with that definition, an unknown artist or let us even say the 'average Joe' could throw paint on canvas with a plan and then call it 'abstract art' when in fact it is just plain and simple nonsense on white.
I guess I was assuming that "nonsense" meant unplanned.
I think that art means there is skill involved, whether it is simply in making things that look amazing, or in creating the in-depth concept that is noticable behind the work. There are some things, for example Marcel Duchamp's "fountain," that are merely referred to as art because the artist was famous and the concept was revolutionary. This, to me, is a different form of "art," probably in the same way that you are saying that not all abstract art is on equal footing. Am I understanding you correctly?
I think one could argue that all art is nonsense. After all, what is a painting? An artist takes a piece of perfectly good cloth, that someone else could have done something useful with, smears oil mixed with ground-up dirt all over it, and nails it to a wall! What good is it? You can't eat it, you can't wear it, it doesn't make the wall any stronger, it doesn't benefit anybody in any tangible way. And yet we cherish these things, buy them at great expense, and, in some cases, treat them like sacred objects.
This is clearly insane behavior.