when does it cease to be art

[jneesy]

and start to be just wrong

has "artistic expression" gone too far?

http://www.local6.com/news/4458322/detail.html

[JerryBeeds]

As the Ladie's man would say, "Yeahhhh, that's disgustin"...

[GatorNation]

As the Ladie's man would say, "Yeahhhh, that's disgustin"...

This was inevitable after the diced cow exhibit a few years ago. Blame the Dada school, a movement that mercilessly conjoined artistic creation and modern philosophy, which facilitated the symbiotic mess we see before us. Things have simply snowballed from there. You'll find somewhat similar issues within serious music as well (e.g, Cage, Young, etc.).

[JerryBeeds]

Yeah, they had that "Piss Christ" exhibit not too long ago also... It was a picture of Jesus in a jar of the artists own urine.... The problem with most art is that it's sold to rich people who don't know what they are looking at... It's like the emperor's new clothes to these people...

[Tator]

For the most part, today's "modern artists" are those who realize that they can't play a productive role within society and thus, impart upon themselves the label of being misunderstood. Ever wonder why you hear of a starving artist but never a starving janitor, scientist, telephone operator, bus driver, etc? That's right, because those people actually DO something that benefits society. Art does benefit society in areas, just not the genre of art discussed in the article. Artistic expression has been hijacked by people whose colossal irrelevance within society, is matched only by the utter self importance of the class of people that provide encouragement by purchasing these lackluster, mediocre attempts at art.

[1000x]

I believe art is art. It has not yet and never will go too far. Everything will forever be in bounds, just as long as an artist is creating art for the sake of expression. Only the artist can truly and accurately label his/her work as true art.

Some will disagree, but mainly because they just so happen to not like certain pieces of art. Not everything is put here on Earth for your enjoyment or understanding. Just because you don't like or understand a piece of art or find it offensive does not mean it is not art. If the artist is trying to express a feeling, idea or technique through his/her artwork, then it is art. People can throw all the hissy fits they want over art they don't like, however, they cannot rewrite the definitions in the dictionary as they go.

[GatorNation]

I believe art is art. It has not yet and never will go too far. Everything will forever be in bounds, just as long as an artist is creating art for the sake of expression. Only the artist can truly and accurately label his/her work as true art.

Some will disagree, but mainly because they just so happen to not like certain pieces of art. Not everything is put here on Earth for your enjoyment or understanding. Just because you don't like or understand a piece of art or find it offensive does not mean it is not art. If the artist is trying to express a feeling, idea or technique through his/her artwork, then it is art. People can throw all the hissy fits they want over art they don't like, however, they cannot rewrite the definitions in the dictionary as they go.

I think the debate goes to whether "expression" includes philosophical commentary. Many art theorists and historians feel that art began embracing and promoting more of a philosophical stance in the twentieth century, which intimates that the emotive, expressive content of a work of art was/is now a residual feature of the piece, not the defining character of the piece itself. If one argues that ANY kind of expression or intention may be the catalyst that galvanizes a valid work of art--whether it be political, emotive, philosophical, religious, etc.--then it seems one would be hard pressed to argue against its existence, its appellation, as "Art."