Holy shit some of you are retarded when it comes to art
First of all, you can't compare art to music. Music has actual structure, and rules to follow by. Art doesn't, which is why you can't say that something isn't art.
Ugh. I had a massive amount to say, but it's just not worth it, because none of you are gonna give a shit either way, you're still just gonna hold on dearly to your stupid belief.
At 2/5/13 01:08 AM, DelRio1991 wrote:
Good, then maybe you'll expire and then we'll have less shit in our museums and more pieces that take effort.
I don't like modern art. I don't like it one tiny bit. But it's still art.
The defense of art being subjective makes sense up to an extent but you really look foolish by saying that I can just do whatever and call it art or music.
Like I said, music has rules to follow, art doesn't. I can literally cut myself, rub the wound all over a canvas, and it would be art. It required no effort (other than the will power to cut myself and bleed that much before bandaging the wound) and I spent about 10 minutes on it, but it's still art. I could glue googly eyes onto a rock and call it art, and it would be art. The entire purpose behind art is to please our sense of sight, and if someone whips something up with the intent of pleasing someone's sense of sight, then it's art.
Which is why it's subjectivity is limitless, because the human imagination is (pretty much) limitless.
Saying that a bunch of haphazard circles on a piece of paper is art because you said so means that anyone can call anything whatever they want because they said so.
If it's purpose is to please the eyes, then yes, it is art. You might not like it and it might not please your eyes, but it's still art.