• Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Whats interesting is that most people would consider the original to be art, and most people would consider just the cocks to not be art, but are the cocks with the statement of intent art or naw? If just the cocks are not art, and the cocks with the statement are, then do the cocks become art if the artist knows about the art that used to be there? Do they become art if the viewer knows about the cocks and infers the missing statement? That’s the interesting question here, because it implies that the piece can be art to one person who knows the context and not art to another person who is only aware of the cocks.

    • Pheonixdown@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Art is art because is is art and not because we say that it is art.” - Hoid, Words of Radiance, Brandon Sanderson

    • Calavera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is just as modern art works today.

      The funny thing is that it all began as a revolt against old art for being too elitist, but now regular folks cannot enjoy todays art because they are esthetically awful and would need a full book collection to understand why that piece of rotten banana is art, so just the elite can enjoy it. The rest just pretend to look fancy

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s the Duchamp problem. He said “You guys are so far up your own asses that you’ll piss in a urinal if it’s in the bathroom but you’ll praise me as a genius if I move that same urinal to the gallery” and the art world was like “Joke’s on you, fucker, I’ll start the bidding at $1.2 million for the pisser!”