Joyrider

I've already posted this link in things I hate. But it's probably worth a little discussion of it's own.

http://artnews.info/gallery.php?i=882&exi=9391

I have a copy of the ICA's press release in front of me, I'll type it up if people want to read it.

will people get the fuck over it a bike is not art.

chris crash will people get the fuck over it a bike is not art.

Art can consist of anything...

i have a feeling this is going to be fun, wheres tynnan?

Platini [quote]chris crash will people get the fuck over it a bike is not art.

Art can consist of anything...[/quote]

Does that mean that anything is art?
How do you then rate/quantify it?
What are they learning at art school? How to do anything?

atomic.a [quote]{

Does that mean that anything is art?
How do you then rate/quantify it?
What are they learning at art school? How to do anything?[/quote]
actually yes. quantifitcation (qualification?)/rating does not necessarily come into it, as art is essentially a relative experience.
art school (generally) teaches you both the manual skills to realise your ideas, as well as teaching you how to refine your thought process so that your ideas can come through more clearly or simply or so that you (as an artist) can fully justify all of your decisions made thoughout the process.
most post dada art critique/theory tends to argue that art is basically what an artist decides/presents as art. and a whole lot of the 1950-70's was spent (by artists) trying to negate the role of the artist, by attempting to get 'regular' people (audience members, etc.) to engage with art as a practice that can be engaged in by anyone. of course a lot of this failed because everyone likes the spectacle/celebrity of an artist, and art collection/comprehension is essentially (foremost?) an eliteist activity. blah blah blah. sorry. but basically, yes, art is whatever anyone says it is, it's rating/qualification by a given populace only determines it's acceptance into the wider art canon, not whether it is art or not.

Hmmmm I went to art college and all it taught me was;

How to get drunk.
How to get high.
How to handle being chatted up by men.
How to be broke.

My own crappy experience of art college aside, I would hate to think that anything is art as it takes away from the thought, skill and passion of the creation.
By your reasoning you could program a computer to be an artist.

well what you learn and what they teach can be two totally different things, neh? ;)
I would hate to think that anything is art as it takes away from the thought, skill and passion of the creation.
that definition doesn't have to degrade 'good' art, just as a prefab home doesn't degrade charters cathedral just because they both are architecture. one item compared to another within the same category doesn't effect both negatively, if anything, it might make you appreciate the quality more, since you have seen how bad it could have been.
and look at the readymade, there is no skill, and (sometimes) little thought put into many of the choices made, the only factor that allows them to be art is the fact that they were chosen by and artist
or abstract expressionism, again, lots of thought and passion, but no skill.
or tom friedman, often well respected, but his work is almost all thought or OCD based. a 1mm ball of feces, a piece of paper that had been stared at for 1000 hours, stuff like that. (again, not necessarily good in my opinion, but hey, he won awards)
you could program a computer to be an artist (generally it might have to be removed from it's functional aspect, but not always), why not? that's just technology mixing with art, like kinetic art, or dan flavins flourescent tubes.

(note: this isn't really my opinion, i'm not sure where i stand on this, but i do understand and in some way empathise with its reasoning)

art is something created sole for ascetic reason, if is serves any other purpose (is useful) then its not art, ergo bike not art.

erm debateable, how do you define purpose?

a lot of art serves political or social purposes, and then one could also look at medeival painting/sculture which was all spiritual, functioned as an object within a space, aided supplicants in their prayers, etc, etc. but i do agree that most art falls into your category, i just wouldn't limit it that way (especially since the bikes in question propbably won't be used, like alot of those designy bikes, they're to look at, not touch). form doesn't dictate function.

I disagree that art cannot come in a form that is "useful", or at least that the boundary is not so clear cut. I think it can be argued, at least, that design has artistic merit, as does architecture and I am sure there are others not mentioned here. WHat is key is the creative effort that went in to the design of the building, object, painting....etc. rather than a requirement for the piece to be useles to be considered "art".

My two pennys worth!

+1 hassanr

hassanr a lot of art serves political or social purposes, and then one could also look at medeival painting/sculture which was all spiritual, functioned as an object within a space, aided supplicants in their prayers, etc, etc. but i do agree that most art falls into your category, i just wouldn't limit it that way (especially since the bikes in question propbably won't be used, like alot of those designy bikes, they're to look at, not touch). form doesn't dictate function.

then it serves a useful purpose, and is a tool not art. asteic appreation may be a mesure of the effectiveness of this tool, and a mesure for art, as tensil strength is a mesure for steel, and copper, yet steel is not copper, and art is not usefull

if they are made to take something usefull and turn it into something useless then they are simply a waste of energy and resources that would be better spent.

this is what i mean when i say art sucks.

but art IS and always has been a tool of power. even today, most art theory and critique is purposefully kept toan elite clas through the use of dense linguistic habits. almost all art from russia in the earl half of the 20th century was used as a tool to 'enable the people' aka keep them in check/productive. in the middle ages and rennaisance artistic practice was controlled by guilds which maintianed high fees for art education and kept out (most of) the riff raff. it's all still art. even if you don't like it.

n.b. this is just me making an argument for the sake of it

fair enough :) i'm enjoying it.

hassanr but art IS and always has been a tool of power. even today, most art theory and critique is purposefully kept toan elite clas through the use of dense linguistic habits. almost all art from russia in the earl half of the 20th century was used as a tool to 'enable the people' aka keep them in check/productive. in the middle ages and rennaisance artistic practice was controlled by guilds which maintianed high fees for art education and kept out (most of) the riff raff. it's all still art. even if you don't like it.

weather i like it or not is not improtant, what important is the purpose served.

when we finish this we can then move one to why its pointless to make a representation of representation, and why plato was right to ban art in the republic if you would like.

half of the degre i'm working on is history of art. while i hate the department and almost every single soulless fucker who is in it, i do enjoy it

weather i like it or not is not improtant, what important is the purpose served.
but how is the purpose served the most important aspect? i agree that if the MAIN purpose of an object is functional then it falls under the sub-category of 'design' and may or may not be art, but pure aesthetics isn't the only function of art, if it were, it would be really stagnant and boring.
why its pointless to make a representation of representation,
pop art?
as per plato, unfortunately you've got me there, i tend to avoid most greek stuff

come back to england quick chris, this would be a brilliant conversation in a pub, face to face.

"Bazarov, "we deny everything" kirosanov, "even art?" Bazarov "even art"

from Fathers and Sons, Ivan Turgenev, 1861

hassanr come back to england quick chris, this would be a brilliant conversation in a pub, face to face.

will do, and we should.

i'll join in too
i love a mass debate
and i studied fine art
but ive not got enough time to read all the posts

come to the pub when i get back, lets do the one off tottenham court rd and they got supprised that we wanted 3 baskets of chips there where nine of us.

art debate and chips