Art for what's sake?

[Bartc]

I know we've had these discussions before about what art is or isn't or should or shouldn't be.

By my own definition, most acts of "creation" are art, so the starving piglets in this piece fit the bill. But in a practical sense, labeling this stuff as "art" does us all a massive disservice. Not to mention what it would have done to the piglets...

Let them eat ... NOT!

How do you like them apples?

 

[txomsy]

Apples are apples, not oranges.

Art is art, not Ethics. That one can do something does not mean one should, or it is right. In that case, the author may claim it was art (which I won't consider) but it certainly was not ethical and it was contradictory: "to protest for animal suffering I'm gonna make animals suffer" does not add well. Picasso was a great artist, and arguably a misogynist. One thing does not bear on the other, and they should not be confused.

Apples are apples, not oranges.

 

[TK H-H]

I personally don't feel like harming living things is "art" or can ever be called art. And I agree with txomsy. It's one thing to make a statement about animals suffering. But to make more animals suffer to make that statement is not the right way to go in my opinion. And this isn't the first time that particular individual has done something like this...

 

[Bongo]

The idea that labeling something "art" makes it special and above reproach is an idea that died as soon as "anything can be art". If anything can be art, then nothing is art. It becomes a distinction without a distinction.

There was a time when I called myself a painter, not an artist - because I felt it was a title others gave you and your work when they deemed it worthy, not a self-assigned label..

I still call myself a painter, not an artist, but the reason has changed. I'm not an artist because I don't want to be associated with all the dilettants, conmen, posers, and the bullshit and flatulence they spew.

Many who are worthy call themselves "artists". That's okay. Out of respect, I refer to them with the designation of their choosing -knowing they mean it in the archaic sense of the term.

Not that there is anything wrong with that - but my choice is to call myself a painter of visual representations.

 

[stevenD]

Maybe you could tape a piglet to a board and call it art? Like the banana artist did..lol

It's fun to hypothesize what Art is, How about this one: "You're not a true Artist until you get someone to buy your work?"

lol

 

[txomsy]

That's a problem too: con men will make you buy anything fake. That (the fake good you bought) by definition is not what it was sold as (Art), although the theatrical performance of the scammer may be. Which doesn't make what they do ethical. They are different things. At a lower level, an ignorant may buy something convinced it is a masterpiece when it is not.

The point is, that someone pay for something doesn't mean anything. The mercantile view of life is as limited as many others. It is something different what defines (in my opinion) Art.

 

[Bongo]

Maybe you could tape a piglet to a board and call it art? Like the banana artist did..lol

It's fun to hypothesize what Art is, How about this one: "You're not a true Artist until you get someone to buy your work?"

lol

By that definition, since anything can be art, if you get someone to buy anything from you, then you're an artist.

 

[Bongo]

By that definition, since anything can be art, if you get someone to buy anything from you, then you're an artist.

I sold a toaster on Ebay. I consider a toaster to be a work of art; therefore, I'm an artist.

 

[stevenD]

I sold a toaster on Ebay. I consider a toaster to be a work of art; therefore, I'm an artist.

Maybe we should vote on that one...lol

 

[Bartc]

Feed the banana to the piglets and let them go.
Tape the toaster to the wall and see what idiot buys it! LOL

 

[Rich53]

Feed the banana to the piglets and let them go.
Tape the toaster to the wall and see what idiot buys it! LOL

But call them a "discerning connoesieur"! (The buyer, not the piglets! )

 

[john]

The definition of art should not be restricted but art should not cause physical suffering of a living thing. Mental offense can be an important part of art. Thus making people think the piglets are being starved is fair game. Actually starving them is not.