Art or Porn

I vowed that I would stay out of this dead horse debate, but sorry Richard - something you hang in your passageway so that everyone is happy to see it is 'decoration' not necessarily art.

I can quite well say it's porn, as art is something one can place in the passageway and allow guests and friends to view

Uhm no dude. Those are called decorations. Pretty pictures taken or painted to decorate walls. Thats craft, not art.

Have you been to a gallery lately? You have no idea what conceptualism is do you?

Bingo Christo!

Conceptualism, hahahaha nice word drop.....so where does vulgarism fit in?

Conceptualism, hahahaha nice word drop.....so where does vulgarism fit in?

Dude seriously. Sarcasm wasnt needed here but since you asl I'll answer. Where does vulgarity fit in?

You mean like selling 30 year old shit for 130 000 euros? Or masturbating at your own exhibition opening? or taking photographs of women's period? or reading from a scroll that you unrolled out of your vagina? or painting with shit? How about exhibiting your own semen? Or having an entire exhibition of photos of your own poo?

Or maybe Robert Mapplethorpe showing a naked children? The curator of that exhibition was brought before a grand jury by the way.

Or maybe putting a urinal in a gallery in 1917 when it was considered completely immoral. Duchamp by the way is considered the grandfather of conceptualism.

Vulgarity has been a part of art as long as there has been social rules and morals to challenge. Rennaisance painters painted religious scenes in order to paint nudes. If it wasnt religious it was vulgar and immoral.

Have you seen the work of Jan Saudek?

Challenging the way we think and see the world. That is art. Pretty pictures have no value other than to decorate walls.

Yes, but... in the world of Gerry - and only in my world, do not expect anyone else to agree - art must also posess beauty. I get that "pretty pictures are mere decoration", but if anyone's "outburst" is not visually pleasing, then it loses its appeal to me.

Jan Sudaek was mentioned - yes - case in point. provocative, evocative, vulgar at times, but never un-pretty.

Art, to me, is beautiful. If it ain't, its just an outburst. then it may as well be a Julius Malema speech.

Art, to me, is beautiful.

Yes but beauty, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. Even with "oretty pics" what is beautiful to me is not necessarily beautiful to you. I am talking about images that have no other function than mere aesthetics.

Again, world according to Gerry - and no one else's. this is merely MY opinion.

To be art, it has to:

1 - be well crafted. the "artist" has had to master his/her/its craft. Know their media, have honed their skills.

2 - be original. I don't have much value in something that is re-hashed. We all copy great masters to learn, but until you produce somethign original, you're a knock-off artist.

3 - be beautiful to look at. I dont care how well-crafted and original your can of poop is - it ain't pretty to look at.

What it does NOT have to be:

Thought-provoking or making a statement. It helps, sure, but a well-crafted skillfully made beautiful image does not have to make me think or make a statement to be art.

Claude Monet's Poppy Fields is a great example of this. its awesome. Simply Awesome. But its not thought-provoking or making any social commentary. But no one will deny its art.

If you want to make social commentary without bothering to hone your skills - become a politician, you will never be an artist.

Well excuse my sarcasm noted here.......however in retrospect I was just merely stating my own point of view on the topic and you made personal mocking of it by bringing up.......You have no idea what conceptualism is do you?.....along with the decoration remark......I'm well aware of Duchamp - Fountain, along with several of the other mentioned artists.....quite a keen bean on the arts myself......just happened to be me misplacing a write up in the forum at the wrong time so on my behalf I guess apologies for that.

I have a beef with absolutely EVERYTHING visual qualifying as art these days. It used to be that to be an artist was something special and no matter how weird the artist was he was respected. These days the word "artist" has no more value. It is common and literally everything is classified as art.

So when you say art is something pretty that you hang on your wall it really insults me as I dont just take postcard pictures. I put a LOTT of research and thought into the work I send to galleries.

And Gerry art does not have to be aesthetically pleasing. I would NEVER jang a Picasso on my wall. I think it is the ugliest paiting ever made by a master artist. BUT it is definately thought provoking and the man really was on a whole new skill level.

I would NEVER jang a Picasso on my wall

Agreed. Picasso is Kitch. so is Salvador Dali. and Van Gough never could paint. if not for his "tragic story" he would have been a footnote in history.

I need a tragic story lol