CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
That's not art that's just a strange fetish or something then. Even if it's not 'shit' that's just the example I thought of, it could be paint for example, or tree leaves, etc.
the media is meaningless it could be any of those things because the artisitic expression/vision is what matters ..you just cant get past the shit or whatever odd thing you may think of ...and yes there was an artist who shat on canvasses ..it's part performance art and as such is meant to elicit a response
People will sit there and go "I think this represents the artist's frustration with the global climate, particularly this corner of the piece
you're exaggerating, and if that does happen it's not by knowledgeable people ..take this masterpiece as an example ..to the lay person it's just a jumble of lines that may or may not represent a person ...but without knowing in what context marcel duchamp created that image it remains the sole interpretation of the person viewing it ..and that's about anti-art as it gets ..art is the artists vision expressed in whatever form, not what his audience interprets it as
and its like the guy's just saying "LOL no I didn't think any of that, I just smeared some paint all over a canvas, but I will accept your money, kind sir"
yes because artists are making millions off their work, every last one of them :upstare: ..btw did you know van gogh died penniless? so do Modigliani, Pissarro, Rousseau and countless others