Is this art?

[shade]

I've heard the dog one a while back, fuckin bitch ass artist needs to fuckin die. Someone should tie him up and leave him to starve to death, asshole.

[Dutchmalmiss]

As repulsive as it looks, there's always two sides to a story. Whatever the hell the guy went through to have the mental drive to consider starving a dog being art is pretty damn fucked up. But you know what, I bet it'll be hard to convince those who support it otherwise. I'm very sure 9/11 was a "masterpiece" to some people.

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by Dutchmalmiss

As repulsive as it looks, there's always two sides to a story. Whatever the hell the guy went through to have the mental drive to consider starving a dog being art is pretty damn fucked up. But you know what, I bet it'll be hard to convince those who support it otherwise. I'm very sure 9/11 was a "masterpiece" to some people.

Maybe, but that still doesn't make it right.

With that kind of mentality, me walking up to his mom and shooting her in teh face point blank would be beautiful.

That doesn't mean it isn't any less tragic.

[Dutchmalmiss]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

Maybe, but that still doesn't make it right.

With that kind of mentality, me walking up to his mom and shooting her in teh face point blank would be beautiful.

That doesn't mean it isn't any less tragic.

Exactly, he's obviously not "normal" in the head. "Normal" being everyone that thinks that what he did was disgusting.

On a lighter note, I'd say our treatment to noobs on Zilvia is art.

[Future240]

My idea of art is somethin that expresses your innermost emotions. im my opion a true artist can have a similar with his or her art as they would in a tender moment with a significant other. A true artist cares not about fame, glory, or money, just art.

In the two above examples the dog is not art. That is torture, torture is not art. The artist is more than likely doing it for schock value.

The same goes for the crucifix in pee, I believe the artist chose urine because of the shit it would stir up.

Both of these pieces to me juss say shock value which IMO isnt art.

Some people like art, some don't I for one can appreciate art in a sense of somethn that looks attrative to me, not so much the whole message thing so artists try to pull of.

I dont think the public should have to fund NEA, I think that if a person wanted to fund it they would.

Hope this helps, Good luck with your assignement

[kyoru]

It's hard to label art, but obviously the dog display is not art, like the poster above me said it's just for shock/attention.

[spoolandslide]

it was art every time mike did one of these

[tracks13]

Originally Posted by spoolandslide

it was art every time mike did one of these

hahahahaha that's awesome. +1 rep

[Matej]

Ever since I was a kid I was really into art, I used to love to draw on paper and design on my computer, I thought that's what I wanted to do and study after high school, up until my final couple years.
I started seeing what kind of people were associated with art, and when I imagined I'd have to work with and be around people like that, I slowly lost my passion for it.
Everyone thinks their work is the best, every one of their scribbles has some deep hidden meaning behind it, and they all think so highly of themselves, I seriously couldn't stand being around most artists and soon-to-be artists.
I just wanted to create art that's enjoyable to look at, something that people see and say, "wow, that's kind of cool."
That's what art should be in my opinion, it should be something that people want to look at, even if the subject may be bad or morbid or something, but you can tell that a lot of time and effort went into it and people find it impressive, that's art to me.
Most "modern art" is garbage in my opinion. Anyone can draw on a 3rd grade level, or spit on their bathroom mirror and pee in the shower and call it art, and make up twenty hidden meanings behind it.
I can't stand this kind of "art," or most modern art, where you're supposed to see some stupid hidden meaning behind everything without which the "artwork" can't even be enjoyed.
When you ask what it's supposed to be or say that you do not really like it, the artist or some self-proclaimed art expert looks at you like they're better than you and explain all this garbage about why it's "good" and how you just don't understand "art."
Ugghhhh.

I kind of miss being creative though.

[kognition]

Well said,

Originally Posted by Matej

Ever since I was a kid I was really into art, I used to love to draw on paper and design on my computer, I thought that's what I wanted to do and study after high school, up until my final couple years.
I started seeing what kind of people were associated with art, and when I imagined I'd have to work with and be around people like that, I slowly lost my passion for it.
Everyone thinks their work is the best, every one of their scribbles has some deep hidden meaning behind it, and they all think so highly of themselves, I seriously couldn't stand being around most artists and soon-to-be artists.
I just wanted to create art that's enjoyable to look at, something that people see and say, "wow, that's kind of cool."
That's what art should be in my opinion, it should be something that people want to look at, even if the subject may be bad or morbid or something, but you can tell that a lot of time and effort went into it and people find it impressive, that's art to me.
Most "modern art" is garbage in my opinion. Anyone can draw on a 3rd grade level, or spit on their bathroom mirror and pee in the shower and call it art, and make up twenty hidden meanings behind it.
I can't stand this kind of "art," or most modern art, where you're supposed to see some stupid hidden meaning behind everything without which the "artwork" can't even be enjoyed.
When you ask what it's supposed to be or say that you do not really like it, the artist or some self-proclaimed art expert looks at you like they're better than you and explain all this garbage about why it's "good" and how you just don't understand "art."
Ugghhhh.

I kind of miss being creative though.

[Taniguchi_Is_#1]

art is anything that is created to envoke feelings/emotion/thought/etc.

well, to me. yada yada yada. i like art etc.


was gonna make a long post but got lazy, and such.

[lonelydrifter]

You can not answer this question. Everyone has their own personal definition of Art. Art is not an absolute truth like numbers or gravity so there is no way to perfectly define it in a way everyone will agree on.

[exitspeed]

I can't believe Lisa hasn't posted about this.

[SimpleSexy180]

i find many weak minded people in here..


I could be talking about people who dont like this art or the people who dont mind this type of art, so think about both.

[mRclARK1]

Some of you who say art is something relative and interpertive to the viewer are right.

But remember this. So if suffering can be art? How about I come get your dog, burn him alive in the street, and take photos of my art and let everyone interpert it in their own way? Alright so sure, to someone it may be art. If we must tolerate your art, then you have to tolerate most people think it's only artwork to a sick fuck.

First a dog... maybe you next?

I'm sure the Holocaust was art to Hitler.

Relativity in morality and toleration is fine with most people in theory, it's another thing when you put it into practice when it affects their life or freedom or the same of the people or things they care about. First we accept senseless torture of an animal...

Yes, right now we're just talking about a dog, and a crucifix. It's the precedent of a line being crossed that I find disturbing. Death can be an art, in the sense of a noble or purposeful death... I see no art in suffering inflicted on something for no reason. I'll never see art in disrespecting someone's religion. No matter which it may be.

Finally... I'm just a big dog lover. I'd fuck nearly anyone up for hurting my dog without cause.

[driftphenom]

to me, art is "an exhiliration of the senses" it could be a fresh apple pie that smells delicious and looks tasty. art can be music that expands your mind (with or without drugs). and visual stimulation. something that makes you think "wow, thats awesome" and no, i dont think anyone looked at a dying maingey dog, or a piss soaked jesus, and went "fuckin A, thats baller". i understand that pushing boundaries is part of an artist's repeteur (sp?), but i think that those artist arent even thinking what they are doing is art, they just want the shock affect. but i guess thats what some people consider art. so who knows. to each his own. but its like anything else. if you dont like it, dont look at it. no such thing as bad press right? p.s. i have a teddy bear thats missing an eye for sale, it symbolizes starvation in ethiopia, $30,000 obo jk

[ericcastro]

Originally Posted by mRclARK1

I'm sure the Holocaust was art to Hitler.

maybe not to hitler. think it was more religious to him.

but his fucked up doctors who were cutting peoples arms off and trying to put them on other people without anestetic prolly thought that shit was art.

Originally Posted by DALAZ_68

yes, but hey guess what, hundreds if not thousands of dogs die everyday on the side of the street,

People are raped everyday. incest. beaten . and killed all over the world. Doesnt mean I am going to do any of that stuff and call it art.
But I may mimic it in photography, paintings, movies, to bring the subject manner to light.
If he had taken pictures of starving dogs around cities. Dogs he wouldn't be able to save, then that would be art.
But the fuck doesnt have ANY artistic talent to paint, sculp, draw or photography. so he cant.

So instead, he takes the way of a complete failure and actually does it.

what a HACK!

[lucky7]

all i read was teh first post. i think that guys a sick fuck. i cannot belive a gallerie allowed a dog to starve to death in the name of art? thats the most pathetic shit ive ever heard. it makes me sick.

[ESmorz]

Is three girls finger painting themselves with each others poo art?

Idunno

you decide.

[playthe_part]

most of my friends and some family are artists in many different mediums and influences and all of them agreed that the starving dog was not art. sure, what defines art it always, and will always, be interpreted different among people, but lets see it like this..

if some guy is going around different neighborhoods killing peoples animals, or stealing them and letting them starve to death, he will get arrested and probably get mental help. when children kill their pets on purpose, it is recommended to get them help. it isn't interpreted as art, but as soon as that 'artist' decided to label his starving dog as 'art' people went a long with it and forgot about morals.

i find it interesting that when i was into graff i used to worry about being arrested for spray painting something that takes, at max, $100 to fix and people didn't see it as art, but killing a dog is an acceptable art medium.

[The ROMAN]

Art has no definition anymore, so art could be anything. Whether or not there is any meaning or skill or greatness in any of it can't be defined now either though. The whole modern art movement aimed at tearing down artistic traditions and boundaries, letting "art" be anything...ok so now what?? I guess people just make stupid stuff like this forever.

[wrapmeup2005]

I would say that art can be whatever a person wants it to be. Different things can be considered art...cooking, cleaning, organizing, working, music, drawing, basically anything you do could be considered an "art" and could be considered "artistic" by another person. I think drawing the line would be stay within the laws and within ethics. If it involves killing a dog than its not art. I personally don't think it should be funded as a part of the government. Art classes should be taught in public schools but that should be the extent of government funding towards art.

[tattoo131313]

When it comes to art I don't know good from bad. I only know what I like.

[deolio]

the guy that did the starving dog "art" is a douche bag. the people that consider it art are tools or insane.

art is a representation of life as interpreted by the artist. a starving dog is NOT art. it is real life.

the cursifix in the cup is art. not great art, but still is "art". i don't like that the artist exploited the shock value, but someone else probably would have done it anyway.

fucking artsy people piss me off so much. bag of tools

[keistyle]

i agree.. under ALMOST no circumstance should you slowly kill something. god i feel bad for the dog that had to suffer. did that dog even do anything wrong? if so dog whisperer?! anywho the first picture..if it was just a dog sitting there.. not being starved, it could be better,the composition isnt all that good, lighting could be better, and should have used the rule of 3rds

[Bubbles]

I just created art minutes ago in my very own toilet.

I snapped some pics with the digi.


Uploading them now.

[kdashy]

I was never convinced this is real/the dog died.

[DRavenS13]

This isn't art. It's shock value.

It attracts attention, but nothing about either of those pictures is beautiful.

That guy should have his balls chopped off, put out of his reach, with lemon juice and salt dripping from the ceiling.

[womenbeshoppin]

No, but this is.

[ESmorz]