Comment by throwaway_pdp09 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway_pdp09 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

throwaway_pdp09

So my post was downvoted and flagged. And without any reply, ok, here's why I said you'd swallowed the bullshit.

> the simple fact of calling this art was a profound statement,

A statement of what? Why is it profound?

> one worth considering within its context.

Why is it worth considering? Why is it worth doing so within its context? Its context is its siting within an art gallery, so does the re-siting it into an art gallery de-facto make it art? If so that's a pathetically shallow achievement.

> Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression

What effing perspective? What context particularly? What expression - what does 'expression' even mean here?

This trademark nebulousity characterises self indulgent bullshit that props up 'art' and the people who 'consume'[0] art.

(not knocking art, far from it, but lack of rigorous thinking is dangerous. Think for yourself, don't let others do it for you).

[0] Damn, I hate that word.

I would like to know why some people get so extremely angry about something being in a museum that they don't think should be in a museum.

I'm not with @odshoifsdhfs on the taxes (well, maybe) but on all else he is IMO spot on. If it was wrong enough to downvote and ultimately kill, why has no-one bothered to point out exactly why it's wrong?

>so does the re-siting it into an art gallery de-facto make it art? If so that's a pathetically shallow achievement.

Yes it is art. There is no barrier to turning into something into art. You don't need to go to a government office and license your work as art. You don't need to go to an established committee of artists to approve your work as art. Art can be bad, otherwise good art couldn't exist. Every good artist started out as a bad artist. People started to think all art must be good because that's the only form of art they see and the only way to counteract that is by showing them bad or ugly art.

> There is no barrier to turning into something into art.

Then what divides art from not-art? Is there even a difference?

> Art can be bad

Then why do people look at it? Are you saying they can't distinguish good art from bad?

Isn't at least one of the purposes of an art gallery to exhibit good art and not bad? If not, what is an art gallery for?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 it was made in 1917. If it was bad art as you imply, it's been over a century and no-one's officially dismissed it as bad (or is it described officially as bad art?). What does that say.

"Fountain was not rejected by the committee, since Society rules stated that all works would be accepted from artists who paid the fee" - ah,. so money changing hands was a requirement for it to be treated as art.

"The work is regarded by art historians and theorists of the avant-garde as a major landmark in 20th-century art."

Apparently it's good art then. I guess. AFAICT. Who can say?

It's like nobody's even thinking about this, just "it's art so it's art", whereas "am I being suckered" doesn't come into it.

>A statement of what? Why is it profound?

I view it as part of the wider conversation at the time, where many artists were challenging the standards of art. The Fountain is a little more on the nose than - say - Paul Klee intentionally using imperfect lines to give his art more feeling (which brings to mind J Dilla's slightly off-beat drum patterns). On the nose works better for some people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com