Some things JUST AREN'T ART?!, Or are they? Options

[Sam O]

I am a huge fan of art. I am interested in anything from DaVinci, Turner, Constable and Van Gough to Warhol, Lichtenstein and Wesselmann. I am very open minded about art, and I like to look at different pieces in different lights. However...some things just aren't art!
For example, calling a sky blue canvas called 'Blue' art, or calling a Pigs Intestines intertwined with a lock of golden hair art. Please, does anybody agree with me? Art must have limits?! Can somebody explain this? Im irritated by it...

[Helena T]

well, I agree with you sam, some things are not what art is supposed to be.
Then again, the word "art" has become a descroption of so many thigns that it is quite impossible to put limits.

I went to the thyssen museum in madrid with my dad last holidays, and when we got to the contemporary section, my dad wouldn´t stop shouting : "what´s this!" "well he is actually smart because he actually achieves to sells this things!"... I told him to shut up obivously, even though it was funn. But then I realised something, these pieces of art MEANT something to those artists. We don´t understand them because they´re nto obvious at all! (there was a bench with three towels on it... now, how can that be a piece of art?). But maybe that´s because we still have the conservative idea of it, maybe we haven´t modernised as much as art has.

Miró for example ( im sure you´ve seen some of his pieces, I find them horrible, they´re just random dots), I didn´t understand him at all, I used to think that it was outrageous the fact that it is so famous and so expensive and considered so "revolutionary". But then I met a professional painter ( painting since she was 13, did fine arts.. now she is 57 and she has decided to stop painting because she hates what the art world has become, specially how corrupted art galleries are) that loved Miró and she made me realise that what Miró painted was just simbols, now days we have things such a as cameras that just copy the image of someone, so we don´t need portraits (which what art was suposed to be)... surrealism was the result of it. I´ll explain it better, when the camera came out for the first time, we still only painted countrysides or portraits, but now that this new revolutionary invention came out, artists such as Dalí (my favourite..always), Picasso, Miró etc.. took art to a next level. They didn´t see art as a bunch of paintings of people or countrysides, they saw it as something more, something that could just express feelings, and feelings are abstract (see where I´m getting at?) I mean, how do you represent fear? I would represent it by a huge painting, a black one. Nothing else... but then so did that guy with the blue painting that he called "sky"...you know?

This professional painter told me she hated Dalí´s work, and that he was a terrible painter... I´m still meditating on it, maybe when I´ll mature a bit more and learn even more about art I´ll understand what she meant.

I guess I haven´t really answered your question, but that´s what I felt after I thought about it ages ago...it´s the only thing that cannot be censored, the only free form of expression (i mean, ok, books, but an image is so much quicker to get shocked by...same with music, half of it is censored in the radio,tv, etc...)

It´s impossible to put a limit.

[Mr Jones-Nerzic]

[Mr Ardley]

Mondrian great. Do not like Picasso - never did!

[Mr Jones-Nerzic]

[Mr Ardley]

Both

[Abbie H]

This is Abbie and Allison (Y8A)

We think that art has to tell a story. Art is something that a someone feels and thinks about in different ways. Does it matter that we don't think the same? Art is something personal for an individual. Art is to be interpreted not understood.

[Mr Ardley]

Does Art have to tell a story or just capture a personal moment/time frame of expression or interpretation?

[Chris C]

Does Art have to tell a story or just capture a personal moment/time frame of expression or interpretation?

Art can do both, the Mona Lisa captures a personal moment between the artist and the picture in his mind; however the Goya's paintings told the story of the Spanish Revolution... well, that's my oppinion.
Things like that russian black box, which is a totally black canvas symbolising our insignificance in the vastness of space was sold for about $3 million, but it wasn't art! it was a picture! which is different, art is creation, it inspires and tells a story, it let's us use our imagination, why was Lisa smilling? we don't know, but we can all imagine. The black box is just a black canvas telling us how insignificant we all are, no imagination needed, no inspiration (more like depression), and no creation, just a sudden idea which leads only to 3 million dollars and a depressing thought!

Can anyone justify this as art?


(i'll show the pictire as soon as i find it...)

[Salem A]

Actually, anything can be art! it just depends on what kind of art it is.

because people's impressions, the feelings that go into it, whether or what kind tell a story tells, and the image it capture a personal moment/time frame of expression.