I think it isn't. Art should make a statement, whereas this is just:
Look at my body, I'm an ideal woman shape.
Big is not art. Fuck it. Let's have a shit public art thread. Shittiest public art wins the thread. Political? Who do you think shoehorned that nude statue to appear at a transit hub? You? Hahahahahahaha!
By definition it is art. You can dislike it, but it is still categorically a work of art.
Is this art?
If it's ugly and gay then the answers always yes.
Is this art?
I think it isn't.
Ofc it isn't, and they don't even pretend it is anymore. Any "public (financed) art" for the past 25 years have been nothing but political statements & humiliation rituals. With a big pinch of money laundering & tax evading.
Someone post the fat bronze sheboon for comparison
Denver Airport
Communist Goals (1963)
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
Why are American posters on this board consistently the most retarded humans I have ever interacted with? Your own subjective analysis of the qualitative value of a thing does not disqualify it from being a work of art.
The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words
the scariest thing about the denver airport is they have an entire underground subway system just to take you from the check in area to your gate. there really is a massive complex under there.
We have a contender.
But also at the Denver Airport is Blucifer (real name Blue Stallion), an actual work of art that killed the artist.
Look at my body, I'm an ideal male shape
Absolutely nothing new
Ugly
And
Gay
You don’t have any more right to subjectively chose what is art than he does
Your blood estrogen levels are so high they approach toxic levels
The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words
The statue in question is a 3D scanned woman. It's essentially a large photocopy. Perhaps art is in the scaffolding and mesh. Far too nuanced for my smooth as a baby's butt brain.
marcocochrane.com
Honestly, it's soft porn. Is soft porn art? I'm lost.
Where else would you build a bunker? You need a landing strip. Asteroids start hitting 2030.
But you don't enjoy the prepotent action of criticism
Always under informed compared to the creator
Is soft porn art?
yes
They even make those stylized edges.
Exactly, neither of us get to affirm or deny what constitutes an artwork based on qualitative judgement. I am conforming to the very definition of the word, which relies exclusively on the intentions of the creator.
That's not a real person, but purely from the imagination. R-Evolution is a 3D scan, not from imagination. Therein I draw the line. Perhaps the ghost of Andy Warhol would offer debate, but at least he shook things up a little more. Turned things on their head and what not.
UGH you don’t EVEN enjoy the prepontent action of criticism VGHHH....
Why is someone who ENJOYS yapping about nonsense more valuable than someone who doesn’t? You kinda forgot that axiom in your logic. If anything they’re less valuable. Inferior.
People like you know this and gave a big inferiority complex, so you try all you can to try to appear more valuable than you are, which is not valuable at all. But you fail. You just sound like a doofus who’s trying too hard. You’re too stupid to balance a public image too. You’re just trash. But you turn into clowns. People don’t kill you because you’re entertaining. Your betters are laughing at your attempts to paint yourself as less of a worthless mess than you are. This is your role in society. You are the jester. All your jokes are at your expense.
I am conforming to the very definition of the word,
wow wow there memeflag, who claims to have the authority to decide what the definition of the word art is? And on what grounds?
Memeflag was an accident. Art is a descriptive term to refer to, in essence, the phenomenon of a creation by a human intended to express an idea or feeling or form. Language simply labels things and ideas. There is no authority in the sense you seem to claim, if we all decided tomorrow that the definition of art had radically changed to mean "a red beetle on a tree", then it would be so.
I love OP one.
Here is a new statue in my country. Looks meh.
HH!
This one DOES make a statement.
Olympia by Edouard Manet
She's a whore.
She's guarding her coochie. She is in control. This is the statement.
Her facial expression is distain.
In sharp contrast to other "venus" style paintings. Yes, that is art. And far more than soft porn.
Example of what this painting rebels against,
by Tizian. But we are here to discuss shitty art. Stobbit!
Art is a descriptive term to refer to, in essence, the phenomenon of a creation by a human intended to express an idea or feeling or form.
Says you. Art is 3 letters. Art is a sound. Tons of different ideas about how it should be defined. This definition is your opinion not a fact.
There’s only opinions when it comes to concepts. No facts. Which brings us to the inescapable conclusion that art is a made up concept not grounded in reality. A fork at least you can design experimental test to see if an object is a fork. Art is not like that
Art is made by humans, everyone seems to agree on that
It’s the result of human action, and it’s sonde thing that isn’t created for a practical reason.
Beyond that it can mean anything, and it’s such a useless thing, who cares about the emotions you feel in your head?
Difficult, the Denver painting is pretty bad, but a combo generic tits with a poorly sculpted AK is in the lead. Holy shit, this may beat the bronze fatty sheboon referenced in
If it's ugly and gay then the answers always yes.
Art should make a statement
Why?
I think art should simply provoke an emotional or intellectual response of some kind. Something that may be difficult to explain and may be difficult to reproduce with words alone (or with only so many of them anyway). The response may be positive or negative, it may be rather superficial or more "deep", political or not, be ambiguous, be similar to responses you might get in certain real circumstances, or more alien, try to expose contradictions and lead to doubt, or reaffirm important values and bring confidence, etc... It's all art if it has an impact. "Making a statement" sounds like a narrow view to me, and not a particularly interesting one in general.
But anyway, for art to be appropriate for a public place where many people will have to look at it (whether they want to or not), you probably want something that most people can appreciate (at least to some extent) and that does not leave a negative mental impression. Anything else is pretty disrespectful towards the public I believe. Doubly so if taxpayer money was used for it. And in a healthy society, beauty should generally leave a good impression. It's simply a human thing. Displays mastery of skills also leaves a good impression on most people. Art can be "deeper" than that it you want, but if it's fucking ugly it belongs in a museum (or most likely, a garbage dump), not in public view.
In societies that have common values and history it can be appropriate to have public art depicting this to promote unity/solidarity and a sense of common purpose, etc. But we can't have that anymore can we.
Anyway those are NIIIIIIIICE proportions so it's art to me just like my hentai. If it should be in a public space though I dunno.
I can't be bothered to deal with your deconstructive semantic bullshit. We use words in specific ways to label specific things. Yes art is an abstract thing, yes it is not tangible. However we have agreed that it means a specific thing, the definition I already sent. Unless you wish to throw all language out the window and cease speaking. You can personally disagree with the definition, that does not change the mass consensus use of the word (basis for definitions of language)
Beyond that it can mean anything
who cares about the emotions you feel in your head
This is literally exactly what I already said
Your own subjective analysis of the qualitative value of a thing does not disqualify it from being a work of art
Fair. Art is difficult to contain, and public sensibilities must be taken into account. For instance, Body Worlds probably isn't family friendly.
Picrel
But a non statement is really nothing, I thought it might be common ground.
Some more explanation
She is touching her coochie, not guarding it.
Her facial expression is inviting.
Lap dog so cute.
Flowers in hand, signifying fertility.
In contrast, Olympia:
Guarding her coochie
Her facial expression is NOT inviting.
Black cat is so evil.
Lover bringing flowers is ignored.
Because the painting are old, symbolism must be explained, which detracts from the art I think. It should be timeless. But a bare breasted women with an AK is mystifying out of context.
Forgot pic.
But you're austrian. Your opinions don't matter.
I can't be bothered to deal with your deconstructive semantic bullshit.
Yeah because you’re retarded
It’s too much work for you just trying hurts your brain
If you looked at everything correctly you would get a very accurate understand if everything, but you can’t, your brain is underspecd, it’s an older model, so you build your worldview of approximations, concepts and things that "sound good", and in the end your beliefs end up being less coherent than early AI chatbots.
Another Negress Statue?
I guess the confederates statues were protecting us from that kind of shit more than we thought we knew.
We use words in specific ways to label specific things.
Things? Define things
Give me an experimental setup that can tell if a thing is an art
Yes art is an abstract thing, yes it is not tangible.
What? No? Art is tangible, is a statue not tangible? Are you superstitious perhaps?
However we have agreed
Who the FUCK is "we"?
that it means a specific thing, the definition I already sent.
Again that definition was written by one person and it’s one of hundreds of definitions for the word art, not a particularly notable or valuable one either. You can try to use appeals to non existent groop consensus maybe if you go to Instagram or Reddit but it’s not gonna fly here
Unless you wish to throw all language out the window and cease speaking.
Several fallacies here
You can personally disagree with the definition, that does not change the mass consensus use of the word (basis for definitions of language)
But that’s the point
Art is one of the few words where there isn’t even a mass consensus! At all! Everyone has a different opinion on what art means and nobody agrees! And you’re trying to push your little worthless opinion as a statement of fact using a bunch of fallacies thinking no one would notice!
no pussy
pathetic
It has precedent.
itt white men seething they are not the center of attention anymore
the bimbo of rhodos, the 69th world wonder
The sheer size of it alone makes it instantly avant garde. The imposition of her snapper tip nearly perching atop the tip of the tower behind... not to mention the view from behind! Incredibly brazen I say!
Sculpture is art, yes, but that's a jpeg.
Art is objective.
The criteria is limited and most anons will never understand anything about anything.
It's physical, created as art, by a human being, has form, etc. Idk why you'd deny reality.
(Digital) sounds, spoken words and language are not art. These things are totally mutable and may not exist.
Funny thing about Marble statues is they were always painted. They only time you would see a white one in the ancient world is if it was un finished.
Now we try to copy Rome by making white statues because the paint wore off. If they saw them today they would think we were putting up half finished mannequins.
If Hitler had made that they would have said the cold, lifeless stiffness and lack of facial detail serve as a window into his lack of human empathy, but I'm sure some low-effort faggot made it so I guess it's a tribute to powerful women or something like that.
Funny thing about Marble statues is they were always painted. They only time you would see a white one in the ancient world is if it was un finished.
This is completely false some were painted some weren’t
Marble is the most expensive stone usually marble ones were not painted
You should see the statues of the fat nigger women looking at their phone that have been popping up everywhere
Is this art?
Have you seen what they substitute for art the last 40 years on public property? Randomly shaped pieces of metal meant to be inoffensive (Because it isn't anything) and unaesthetic so it doesn't offend troglodytes. That one's not half bad.
At least not fat
Low effort as fuck
would
wouldnt
wouldnt
would
Like all women sculpturea recently, it is a vulgar showcase of open obnoxiousness. It is meant to be uncomfortable to men. It doesnt show dignity: its purpose is to insult men.
How did men become such easily gaslighted cucks?