If noise made by people like Merzbow is art, can it be argued that your television or radio produce art when tuned to static?
I'd say no. The difference between the two is that noise artists actually intend to make art, while static from a TV or radio is just incidental.
>>62417477
Is an old urinal laying on its back art?
>>62417525
The builder is the first artist, Duchamp was the presenter, the secondary artist.
>>62417525
I guess? I'm no expert but I'd think that if someone presents something as an art piece and it sits in an art museum or exhibition I don't see how it couldn't be art.
>>62417682
>>62417633
If someone records ten minutes of white-noise and calls it art, is it?
>>62417783
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN2zcLBr_VM
>>62417783
your post is art
>>62417823
Is your post art?
>>62417783
dadaism
/thread
>>62417783
Yes
Is this art? If so, am I now an artist?
>>62417932
Art is just intentional creations mate, doesn't mean you're making anything of what one would call "worth"
>>62417932
Yes. It even has a statement behind it and it's creation if you can believe that.
>>62417932
I like the funny way you curved the 'R'
>>62417783
Yes, but is it 'good' art?
>>62417783
Yes, because they have made a CHOICE to express themselves with white noise. The factor of choice is what decides whether it is art. If you're watching static on TV, nobody made that choice, that just happened to be what the TV was broadcasting when nothing else was on. So it is not art.
>>62418911
>>62417682
>>62417633
If an open paint can falls on a blank canvas unintentionally, is the result art? If not, what if someone finds meaning in it, is it still not art?
>>62419156
If even one person can consider something art, I feel that's all it takes. It does no harm to call something art just because others disagree.
>>62417854
your presentation of that post is art
>>62419156
Somebody would have to present it as (their) art first. Without that, I don't think it's art. Unless you believe in divine forces, in which case you can attribute it to them, but then you'd have to admit everything in existence as art.
>>62418014
>>62419188
These posts are conflicting, does something have to be created with the intention of it being art, to be art? Is there an official definition of art? Does anyone claim the authority to define art objectively?
>ITT: children who think they dictate what is and isn't art
context and purpose matters
>>62419373
I think >>62419188 is wrong, we're talking about art made by humans, or presented by humans
is all deliberate action inherently pretentious?
>>62419373
something has to be created with the intent of making art- however the audience has the capacity to call something art when not created with the explicit purpose of being art
however, art can't be deemed not-art by the audience, because there is someone who deems it art- the creator
>>62419440
Is there such a thing as a truly humble person?
>>62418158
Kek
>>62417854
"It's turtles all the way down!"
>>62419531
does the answer to this determine the answer to my original question?
>>62419510
you have to define a contextual framework
>>62419585
I think the real question is - "Does your question need an answer?"
>>62417633
>>62419188
>>62419339
>>62419188
Was the urinal art before the "artist" wrote his name on it?
worst thread i've ever seen btw ( by the way )
>>62419795
nope
was your computer a computer before the sand was refined into silicon for the cpu?
>>62419838
itpa (is this post art)
>>62419902
If the "artist" decided not to write his name on it, would it still be art?
>>62419958
nope
Y'all are still assuming that art has to have meaning to be art. Art is pointless by nature so trying to identify what exactly constitutes art is fucking stupid.
>>62420015
>>62419510
>>62419339
>>62419188
>>62419232
>>62419156
>>62418014
>>62417823
>>62417633
What authority do you have? Who are you to say what is art? You cannot all be right, so who is wrong?
>>62420052
Can literally anything be art then? What about a tree falling in the forest? Does something have to be observed to be art? Does the very fact it was not observed give it artistic merit?
>>62420081
we don't this is just the opinion of the art and art critique community at large. exact definitions can vary depending on what philosophies you subscribe to and what sort of context or reference frame you use.
>>62420126
Yes anything can be art. The category of 'art' is used to describe things that have no purpose except being appreciated for being themselves. Because everything in reality has no purpose for being, literally anything can be deemed 'art' and it will be true (which is why arguing about what is and isn't art is fucking stupid)
>>62420081
you
everything is art. art is all around you.
ultimately, art doesn't matter. so your art-related opinions don't either. no more questions.
>>62420636
Ultimately there's nothing that matters. So your opinions, thoughts, feelings, identity, etc. don't either. The fact that we all construct such elaborate meanings for ourselves is honestly really pathetic when you think about it.
thiiiis a perfecft thread to involve my shit i make music and use lots of distortion
check out my latest album
https://soundcloud.com/drtyflaco/sets/drty
im pretty sure its shit or the shit i dont really know yet im searching for feedback negative or positive i dont rlly give a fuck as long as i get feedback, kinda like distortion
>>62419958
That's not the artist's name anyway.
>>62417410
if you mean it to be when you turn it on, then yes.
>>62419373
>official definition
>art
>static is the background radiation left over from the Big Bang which created everything
Idk, knowing that makes static beautiful imo. That static has always been and always will. It's the eternal artistic masterpiece.
>>62421669
dam...
>>62417525
Yes you fucking idiot.
Learn about the dada movement.
>>62422031
fuck the dada movement, the surrealists did that shit way better and with more fucking tact
rearranging something with the intention of creating art is art
doesn't have to be pleasing. merzbow rearranges noise to create art.
the television static is not intentionally created by an artist therefore it is not art. such that a natural phenomenon is not art.
at least that's how i see it.
>>62422061
surrealism sux, bud.
>art
>likes dali
>>62422113
>implying that a mediocre washed up nazi dicked like dali represents the entirety of the surrealist movement
kek, you're really showing how limited your art knowledge is right now friend-o.
it's already been done, sweetie.
>>62417410
Well considering "art" is a form of self expression and televisions and radios are inanimate objects.
No.
