NationStates Jolt Archive

I take an art course at my school, where it is more driven by your own creativity rather than what the teacher assigns you to do. You're basically able to do what you want when you paint, sculpt or whatever, but the teacher supervises and guides you in a more advanced and meaningful direction when necessary.

Anyway, recently, I've gotten into working on more abstract subjects and techniques, because I was very interested in the works of people like Klimt, Rothko and Kandinsky. I really think you had to have true skill to do some of the things these people did. But, then again, every time I see some modern art bozo who has an entire gallery of pieces where's he's basically painting a single dot on a blank canvas and talks about how it represents human nature... that stuff just really pisses me off. That takes little creativity or even technical expertise to do, and it doesn't really present anything cutting-edge or revolutionary. And If I had a piece like that, I bet you I can bullshit about it's deep philosophical and spiritual ramifications for hours. So, basically, yeah, I don't like the art of today's world, for the most part (I won't generalize too much).

So, what do you guys think of modern art?

modern art?

modern art?

Yes, indeed.

-snip-

Well, the visual arts aren't really my field (I'm more involved in music), but it does seem as though skill and craftsmanship these days are greatly undervalued in favor of marketing in all of the arts. You could take a photograph of a rock, change the colour balance in Photoshop, put it up in a prestigious art gallery and make thousands of dollars selling it to art critics and snobs, when there are hundreds more images like that on the hard drives of college students. Likewise, one can write a mediocre song -- or even mix one from preset elements in GarageBand or an equivalent program in about ten minutes -- sell it to a company to use in TV ads, and before long that song will hit the top 40 even if it has no particular musical interest. And so on and so forth.

Some modern art is really good, sometimes becoming successful in spite of its marketing; some of it is not really all that good, and while it may be temporarily popular (and make money) it will eventually fade into obscurity while the good art will remain objects of wonder and appreciation. Until then, you can laugh at it. :)

EDIT: On the other hand, I haven't noticed any really great or popular artists, composers, songwriters, authors, etc. who produced anything much of greatness after the 70s or 80s. We still remember Bach, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, and Elvis, but what immortal works have been produced recently? What happened to all the little communities that emerging great artists were part of in their youth?

IMHO art really died with Art Deco, bit art has always almost dived people, there where was probably cavemen moaning about the state of cave paintings. Though I am partial to some Ronald Searle Drawings

I blame Andy Warhall. Soup can, my ass.

So, what do you guys think of modern art?

Some of it is really interesting some of it sucks. The same can be said about all forms of art.

If it is true that anyone can shit in a bucket, call it art and walk away with millions then it sounds like you're an idiot not to be shitting in a bucket right this moment.

It just takes different kind of understanding and learning to appreciate certain art. Some people don't get modern art, much as some people probably don't understand the artistic language of ancient Greek vase-painting.

Like everything; some is good, some is bad and some should be shot.

Sometimes I just get a kind of 'What?' feeling, other times a 'That's cool', and often when reading descriptions of art (and some modern music as well) have a sense of 'How utterly pretentious and unnecessary'.

I take an art course at my school, where it is more driven by your own creativity rather than what the teacher assigns you to do. You're basically able to do what you want when you paint, sculpt or whatever, but the teacher supervises and guides you in a more advanced and meaningful direction when necessary.

Anyway, recently, I've gotten into working on more abstract subjects and techniques, because I was very interested in the works of people like Klimt, Rothko and Kandinsky. I really think you had to have true skill to do some of the things these people did. But, then again, every time I see some modern art bozo who has an entire gallery of pieces where's he's basically painting a single dot on a blank canvas and talks about how it represents human nature... that stuff just really pisses me off. That takes little creativity or even technical expertise to do, and it doesn't really present anything cutting-edge or revolutionary. And If I had a piece like that, I bet you I can bullshit about it's deep philosophical and spiritual ramifications for hours. So, basically, yeah, I don't like the art of today's world, for the most part (I won't generalize too much).

So, what do you guys think of modern art?
Here's my standard:

If I replcate a piece of art prefectly, such that no one can tell the difference between them except to say that one of them is the original and one of them is my copy, is my copy still quality art?

If so, then the original was also quality art.

I haven't noticed any really great or popular artists, composers, songwriters, authors, etc. who produced anything much of greatness after the 70s or 80s. We still remember Bach, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, and Elvis, but what immortal works have been produced recently?

It hasn't been long enough to tell if the works are immortal?

Here's my standard:

If I replcate a piece of art prefectly, such that no one can tell the difference between them except to say that one of them is the original and one of them is my copy, is my copy still quality art?

If so, then the original was also quality art.

That's quite a narrow view of art. You're essentially saying that the only requirement of art is to be aesthetically pleasing.

Some of my favorite works are modern (Manuel Neri). On the whole, however, modern art is crap.

It hasn't been long enough to tell if the works are immortal?

More importantly, Elvis really sticks out like a sore thumb from that list.

That's quite a narrow view of art. You're essentially saying that the only requirement of art is to be aesthetically pleasing.
If the value in the art stems only from the meaning infused by the original artist, then it's not art. It's just a big red stripe on a black canvas called "Voice of Fire".

And I didn't say pleasing. But the aesthetics are all that matters, yes.

If the value in the art stems only from the meaning infused by the original artist, then it's not art. It's just a big red stripe on a black canvas called "Voice of Fire".

And I didn't say pleasing. But the aesthetics are all that matters, yes.

No, it's perfectly reasonable for something to be art because of the meaning the artist put into it. Take some of the Temples built at Burning Man. Sure, if you produced an exact copy, it could be considered aesthetically pleasing. But the meaning given to each temple by the creators means that you can't just replicate them.

And you sure as hell can't reasonably say they aren't art.

So basically, what the artist puts into it and what the audience puts into it do matter.

I visited the High Museum of Art last year with it Louis' (XIV, XV, XVI) collections display on loan from the Louvre. It was awesome, genuine art that took my breath away.

Then I toured the actual High itself. The modern art floors are what I like to call "emporer's new clothes art" in my opinion. Someone said it was good stuff and the elitists didn't dare say it was crap for fear of looking stupid. Most of it was crap and the elitists still look stupid anyway. jmho

I take an art course at my school, where it is more driven by your own creativity rather than what the teacher assigns you to do. You're basically able to do what you want when you paint, sculpt or whatever, but the teacher supervises and guides you in a more advanced and meaningful direction when necessary.

Anyway, recently, I've gotten into working on more abstract subjects and techniques, because I was very interested in the works of people like Klimt, Rothko and Kandinsky. I really think you had to have true skill to do some of the things these people did. But, then again, every time I see some modern art bozo who has an entire gallery of pieces where's he's basically painting a single dot on a blank canvas and talks about how it represents human nature... that stuff just really pisses me off. That takes little creativity or even technical expertise to do, and it doesn't really present anything cutting-edge or revolutionary. And If I had a piece like that, I bet you I can bullshit about it's deep philosophical and spiritual ramifications for hours. So, basically, yeah, I don't like the art of today's world, for the most part (I won't generalize too much).

So, what do you guys think of modern art?

I dislike modern art, mainly because I don't see it's merits nor contributions. As an Art Historian I'm inclined to the past. Paleo-Christian, Medieval, Renaissance and Manierism truly inspire me. After that, I like Romanticism and Gothic Revival.

No, it's perfectly reasonable for something to be art because of the meaning the artist put into it. Take some of the Temples built at Burning Man. Sure, if you produced an exact copy, it could be considered aesthetically pleasing. But the meaning given to each temple by the creators means that you can't just replicate them.

And you sure as hell can't reasonably say they aren't art.

So basically, what the artist puts into it and what the audience puts into it do matter.
What that audience puts into it? That's absurd. It's the same art of the same quality regardless of whether anyone ever sees it. The nature of the art isn't affected by who observes it. It cannot be.

The meaning put into the art by the artist also doesn't matter. Art is all about aesthetics.

Look at literature. What point the author was trying to make doesn't matter. What point the author did make does.

I take an art course at my school, where it is more driven by your own creativity rather than what the teacher assigns you to do. You're basically able to do what you want when you paint, sculpt or whatever, but the teacher supervises and guides you in a more advanced and meaningful direction when necessary.That wouldn't work for me. I need much more guidance when it comes to art.

What that audience puts into it? That's absurd. It's the same art of the same quality regardless of whether anyone ever sees it. The nature of the art isn't affected by who observes it. It cannot be.

The meaning put into the art by the artist also doesn't matter. Art is all about aesthetics.

Look at literature. What point the author was trying to make doesn't matter. What point the author did make does.That's silly. How can you say "the nature of the art isn't affected by who observes it" and then say "[the] point the author did make [is what matters]"? The point the author makes is subjective to the person observing it (or reading it).

What that audience puts into it? That's absurd. It's the same art of the same quality regardless of whether anyone ever sees it. The nature of the art isn't affected by who observes it. It cannot be.

The meaning put into the art by the artist also doesn't matter. Art is all about aesthetics.

Look at literature. What point the author was trying to make doesn't matter. What point the author did make does.

No, it isn't. For a start, in these particular cases, the audience changes it. Also, the meaning by the artist can move something from "pretty" to "wonderful" quite easily. Basically, art is about provoking reactions in the viewers. If you build and paint something awesome, that's cool. But if nobody cares, it's probably not that artistic. Again, BM has some great examples. For instance, the Angel of the Apocalypse (http://flaminglotus.com/angel/gallerie/index.html). Sure, it's neat, but I'll bet that for the people who danced inside its wings it has extra meaning, is more real.

Get what I mean?

What that audience puts into it? That's absurd. It's the same art of the same quality regardless of whether anyone ever sees it. The nature of the art isn't affected by who observes it. It cannot be.

The meaning put into the art by the artist also doesn't matter. Art is all about aesthetics.

Look at literature. What point the author was trying to make doesn't matter. What point the author did make does.

Art without meaning is not art, it's craft. Art is meaning. If you lack this understanding, you cannot, will not and do not recognise art when you see it.

/artist

Art is 85% meaning, 10% audience interpretation and 5% aesthetics.

real art is about an artist exposing their heart and soul onto the project

basically the stuff that makes it to REAL galleries

ART comes from those who could spend their live just to make one thing,...

Art is Michelangelo, the Venus de Milo,...and their level of genius

If the value in the art stems only from the meaning infused by the original artist, then it's not art. It's just a big red stripe on a black canvas called "Voice of Fire".

And I didn't say pleasing. But the aesthetics are all that matters, yes.

It's not "only" the meaning infused by the original artist.

There are a variety of aspects that go toward making something art.

To say that a high quality copy of Van Gogh's sunflowers is as worthy a piece of art as the original is compelte nonsense. Something that I understand that you are very keen on, the free market, demonstrates this by placing many tens of millions of dollars in difference of value between the two.

Literature is a good example. Death of a Salesman is a terrific piece of art but if I were to copy it out word for word, I would not become as good an artist as Arthur Miller.

My college has a small art museum dedicated to modern art. Some of it is quite good. On the other hand...
I was passing through one day and noted, for the first time, what appeared to be a metal rim of some sort with a fishing net tied around its edges, suspended from the ceiling by some sort of fishing wire/thread/whatever.
Apparently it was titled 'air container'. The little explanatory plaque next to it informed me, in much wordier format, that, "The artist (forgot her name) explores the meaning of the word container through this series. What is a container? What is its purpose? Etc. etc. etc."
Further inspection yielded 'fire container' (a paper basket suspended from a stick by twine), 'earth container' (a blue plastic tarp combined with some bungee cords) and 'water container' (I'm not sure exactly what this one was, but I suspect that, in its former life, it was a bicycle).
This had been placed, quite carelessly, next to some art that some poor soul had actually put some effort into. A fine series of paintings of the sort that have 'hidden' pictures in them, basically everybody who looked at them saw something different. They were rather neat, I thought, and I'm not typically a fan of such things.
I found myself wondering how the latter artist would feel having his work compared to what some 'arist' threw together in her garage in about five minutes.

My college has a small art museum dedicated to modern art. Some of it is quite good. On the other hand...
I was passing through one day and noted, for the first time, what appeared to be a metal rim of some sort with a fishing net tied around its edges, suspended from the ceiling by some sort of fishing wire/thread/whatever.
Apparently it was titled 'air container'. The little explanatory plaque next to it informed me, in much wordier format, that, "The artist (forgot her name) explores the meaning of the word container through this series. What is a container? What is its purpose? Etc. etc. etc."
Further inspection yielded 'fire container' (a paper basket suspended from a stick by twine), 'earth container' (a blue plastic tarp combined with some bungee cords) and 'water container' (I'm not sure exactly what this one was, but I suspect that, in its former life, it was a bicycle).
This had been placed, quite carelessly, next to some art that some poor soul had actually put some effort into. A fine series of paintings of the sort that have 'hidden' pictures in them, basically everybody who looked at them saw something different. They were rather neat, I thought, and I'm not typically a fan of such things.
I found myself wondering how the latter artist would feel having his work compared to what some 'arist' threw together in her garage in about five minutes.

Some art is good, some art isn't. That's no different to two plays or films being put on in parallel or two books being sold next to eachother.

Art is Michelangelo, the Venus de Milo,...and their level of genius

And I, sir, couldn't agree with you more. Michaelangelo is a Genius, Alessandro Botticelli is a Genius. Almost everything else pales in comparison.

real art is about an artist exposing their heart and soul onto the project

basically the stuff that makes it to REAL galleries

ART comes from those who could spend their live just to make one thing,...

Art is Michelangelo, the Venus de Milo,...and their level of genius

Doesn't need to make it to the real galleries. Just needs to have someone put their heart into it, and someone to say "Yes, that's neat". Just because it doesn't reach some arbitrary level does not make it not art.

That's silly. How can you say "the nature of the art isn't affected by who observes it" and then say "[the] point the author did make [is what matters]"? The point the author makes is subjective to the person observing it (or reading it).
The point the author makes is objectively true, regardless of whether anyone figures it out.

No, it isn't. For a start, in these particular cases, the audience changes it. Also, the meaning by the artist can move something from "pretty" to "wonderful" quite easily. Basically, art is about provoking reactions in the viewers. If you build and paint something awesome, that's cool. But if nobody cares, it's probably not that artistic. Again, BM has some great examples. For instance, the Angel of the Apocalypse (http://flaminglotus.com/angel/gallerie/index.html). Sure, it's neat, but I'll bet that for the people who danced inside its wings it has extra meaning, is more real.

Get what I mean?
No. In fact, I think your argument is circular.
Art without meaning is not art, it's craft. Art is meaning. If you lack this understanding, you cannot, will not and do not recognise art when you see it.
Art is craft. Artistry is a trade; a skilled artist is no different from a skilled welder.
Art is 85% meaning, 10% audience interpretation and 5% aesthetics.
Art can have meaning, but what meaning it has is inherent in the finished product. What the artist intended no longer matters. What the audience at large thinks of it is irrelevant.
To say that a high quality copy of Van Gogh's sunflowers is as worthy a piece of art as the original is compelte nonsense. Something that I understand that you are very keen on, the free market, demonstrates this by placing many tens of millions of dollars in difference of value between the two.
I didn't say high quality. I said perfect. A perfect copy of Van Gogh's Sunflowers (interesting choice - I hate Van Gogh), one that is indistinguishable from the original by any means, one that appears to be painted on identical canvas using the same pigments at the same time as the original, would be priced by the market equal to the original.

That price would be lower due to increased supply.

One of the characteristics that appears to make art more valuable is age. That would need to be reproduced as well.
Literature is a good example. Death of a Salesman is a terrific piece of art but if I were to copy it out word for word, I would not become as good an artist as Arthur Miller.
But the product would be of the same quality, and contain exactly the same meaning.

I was discussing the art, not the artists.

The point the author makes is objectively true, regardless of whether anyone figures it out.There are always several possible interpretations of something. Demonstrate how to determine which one is objectively true.

I didn't say high quality. I said perfect. A perfect copy of Van Gogh's Sunflowers (interesting choice - I hate Van Gogh), one that is indistinguishable from the original by any means, one that appears to be painted on identical canvas using the same pigments at the same time as the original, would be priced by the market equal to the original.

That price would be lower due to increased supply.


But by knocking the "same time" thing into there (which stops it from being a "copy", by the way), what you're doing is messing with intent. Okay, age does have an effect on art but you're surely not going to be so intellectually dishonest as to say that that if a (near) perfect copy was made a week later, the subsequent incongruity between prices would be down to that week?

There are always several possible interpretations of something. Demonstrate how to determine which one is objectively true.

If the author doesn't know and the audience doesn't know there would seem to be only one solution.. ask Llewdor if it's okay to like it.

A perfect copy of Van Gogh's Sunflowers (interesting choice - I hate Van Gogh), one that is indistinguishable from the original by any means, one that appears to be painted on identical canvas using the same pigments at the same time as the original, would be priced by the market equal to the original.

Only if nobody knew which were the real one and which were the original. If people did--even if the two were absolutely identical in every other respect--they would certainly NOT be priced equally by the market.

And if they didn't, the pronounced decrease in price would not only be due to increased supply, but also to uncertainty: you can't be sure you have the real one, so you don't value it as much.

There are always several possible interpretations of something. Demonstrate how to determine which one is objectively true.
I never claimed that was possible.

But by knocking the "same time" thing into there (which stops it from being a "copy", by the way), what you're doing is messing with intent. Okay, age does have an effect on art but you're surely not going to be so intellectually dishonest as to say that that if a (near) perfect copy was made a week later, the subsequent incongruity between prices would be down to that week?
No, there the changes would be the imperfections. I need the copy to be perfect for this to work.

There's no reason for you to value one painting over the other if they're identical. It's not possible for two paintings to be exactly the same in every respect except in that one of them is a good painting, and the other one isn't. Being a good painting relies on the painting's other characteristics, so if no other characteristics differ then the two paintings must be equally good.

No, there the changes would be the imperfections. I need the copy to be perfect for this to work.

There's no reason for you to value one painting over the other if they're identical. It's not possible for two paintings to be exactly the same in every respect except in that one of them is a good painting, and the other one isn't. Being a good painting relies on the painting's other characteristics, so if no other characteristics differ then the two paintings must be equally good.

Okay, let's backtrack to an earlier comment you made. You said that if I were to copy out Death of a Salesman, it wouldn't make me as good an artist as Arthur Miller (let's ignore, if we can, Miller's other works). Why not? How else can we judge an artist but by the aesthetic quality of his art?

Okay, let's backtrack to an earlier comment you made. You said that if I were to copy out Death of a Salesman, it wouldn't make me as good an artist as Arthur Miller (let's ignore, if we can, Miller's other works). Why not? How else can we judge an artist but by the aesthetic quality of his art?
I did nothing of the sort. In fact, literature is an excellent example because we DO print thousands of copies of books, but those copies don't become less good books by virtue of being copies.

My only previous remark on this subject was in response to your assertion that my copying Death of a Salesman you would be become as good an artist as Miller, and since that was beyond the scope of this discussion I sidestepped it by pointing out that you were discussing the quality of the artist, not the art.

Had you phrased your question differently, and asked whether your copy of Death of a Salesman would be as good a piece of art as Miller's original, I would have answered an unequivocal yes.

I did nothing of the sort. In fact, literature is an excellent example because we DO print thousands of copies of books, but those copies don't become less good books by virtue of being copies.

My only previous remark on this subject was in response to your assertion that my copying Death of a Salesman you would be become as good an artist as Miller, and since that was beyond the scope of this discussion I sidestepped it by pointing out that you were discussing the quality of the artist, not the art.

Had you phrased your question differently, and asked whether your copy of Death of a Salesman would be as good a piece of art as Miller's original, I would have answered an unequivocal yes.

I think artists and their art are very much linked and therefore are entirely within the scope of this discussion. I don't think we need to open a new thread for this, so can you just answer whether or not my copying of a play makes me as good an artist as the original playwright. And if not, why not? Why do we not judge an artist only by the aesthetic quality of his art?

Modern art combines my two least favorite things: philosophical interpretation and crap.

I never claimed that was possible.Then why would you claim there is only one objective interpretation?

Then why would you claim there is only one objective interpretation?
Because that's how objectivity works. Something is either true or it isn't; there's no middle ground.

I think artists and their art are very much linked and therefore are entirely within the scope of this discussion. I don't think we need to open a new thread for this, so can you just answer whether or not my copying of a play makes me as good an artist as the original playwright. And if not, why not? Why do we not judge an artist only by the aesthetic quality of his art?
I would argue that composition has value - creating new art - and copying doesn't provide that value.

Some of it is really interesting some of it sucks. The same can be said about all forms of art.

I agree with that. I think the only reason older art seems better is the same reason older literature seems better: all the lousy stuff has been forgotten.

There is a greater focus on "making it new" than in other times, though. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that philosophy.

I would argue that composition has value - creating new art - and copying doesn't provide that value.

Okay. Now say I was partly responsible for the composition - I was the playwrights secretary and wrote down his words on a typewriter. Am I now as good an artist as him?

Because that's how objectivity works. Something is either true or it isn't; there's no middle ground.Yes, that's the definition of 'objective', but why would you assume it's objective at all?

Okay. Now say I was partly responsible for the composition - I was the playwrights secretary and wrote down his words on a typewriter. Am I now as good an artist as him?
Together you are a greater artist than either of you independently.

Yes, that's the definition of 'objective', but why would you assume it's objective at all?
Everything has an objective truth value.

I don't like much modern art. I like some modern things, paintings and such are often still done well.

The last sort of art I really liked was probably Romantic.

Everything has an objective truth value.Really? Let's say I think brussels sprouts are delicious. You think they're disgusting.
Are the brussels sprouts objectively delicious or objectively disgusting? How would you determine this?

Really? Let's say I think brussels sprouts are delicious. You think they're disgusting.
Are the brussels sprouts objectively delicious or objectively disgusting? How would you determine this?
Brussels sprouts have a flavour, objectively.

That you enjoy that flavour is objectively true.

That I dislike that flavour is objectively true.

To say that something tastes good, on its own, isn't a sensical statement. It wouldhave to taste good to someone, because it needs to be tasted in order to taste at all.

The modern art floors are what I like to call "emporer's new clothes art" in my opinion. Someone said it was good stuff and the elitists didn't dare say it was crap for fear of looking stupid. Most of it was crap and the elitists still look stupid anyway. jmho
In the case of Piero Manzoni, modern art could quite literally be "crap" and still accepted as art. Which is quite ironic, given his intent (the same can be said of Dada).

Then again, I would not say all modern art is simply accepted for art's sake. Some is, but some is quite good. Art did lose something when it moved away from representation though.

To say that something tastes good, on its own, isn't a sensical statement. It wouldhave to taste good to someone, because it needs to be tasted in order to taste at all.Indeed. Which makes the taste of something a subjective statement, and not an objective truth.

If it is true that anyone can shit in a bucket, call it art and walk away with millions then it sounds like you're an idiot not to be shitting in a bucket right this moment.

Actually Manzoni's Artist's Shit is sold for 25'000-30'000 euro but on May 23 2007, an exemplar has been sold for EUR124,000 at Sotheby's.
You are 47 years too late though.

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=27330&tabview=text&texttype=10

Here's my standard:

If I replcate a piece of art prefectly, such that no one can tell the difference between them except to say that one of them is the original and one of them is my copy, is my copy still quality art?

If so, then the original was also quality art.

You cannot call art a replica of an artwork.
An artwork needs to be original, else it's just decoration.

And I, sir, couldn't agree with you more. Michaelangelo is a Genius, Alessandro Botticelli is a Genius. Almost everything else pales in comparison.

Ever seen Bruno Munari's works?

Okay. Now say I was partly responsible for the composition - I was the playwrights secretary and wrote down his words on a typewriter. Am I now as good an artist as him?

No more than the typewriter because you didn't have any role in the creative process. And even if you had, by geeving feedback to the artist for example or editing the final text, he is still the one that decided what was actually written.

Ever seen Bruno Munari's works?

Not much, but I do know he contributed a lot to the study and fundament of visual arts both visualy and academically.

Not much, but I do know he contributed a lot to the study and fundament of visual arts both visualy and academically.

You definitively should.
Biggest problem is that there's too little out there. The catalogue of the exhibition Die Luft sichtbar machen is good though.
Check out Marco Bagnoli too. Expecially if you like old art.

You definitively should.
Biggest problem is that there's too little out there. The catalogue of the exhibition Die Luft sichtbar machen is good though.
Check out Marco Bagnoli too. Expecially if you like old art.

Will do. Thanks for the reccomendation.:)

Will do. Thanks for the reccomendation.:)

The luck of having for mother an international art criticist.
BTW if you'll like Bagnoli and have the means to go to Prague there should be an exhibition in the Czech Muzeum of Fine Arts in spring 2009.

The real art is getting away with calling it art; not everyone can do that.

Actually Manzoni's Artist's Shit is sold for 25'000-30'000 euro but on May 23 2007, an exemplar has been sold for EUR124,000 at Sotheby's.
You are 47 years too late though.

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=27330&tabview=text&texttype=10

A Belgian artist did something quite similar. Meet the Cloaca (http://www.cloaca.be/machines.htm).

(it's basically a machine which replicates the human digestive system. The shit that comes out of it is also sold. I guess it's about consumerism or how art has become a product for consumption nowadays (although I guess it has almost always been to some degree).)

Indeed. Which makes the taste of something a subjective statement, and not an objective truth.
No. The flavour of something is an objective truth. Whether you like it is even objectively true, but simply not knowable to people who aren't you.

Asserting that it tastes good is a subjective measure because it depends on who's doing the measuring. But the actual flavour the food has doesn't change, nor does your preference or distaste.

You cannot call art a replica of an artwork.
An artwork needs to be original, else it's just decoration.
If you have an "artwork" and I have a perfect, indistinguishable copy, why is yours better than mine? What about yours makes it better, given that they share every characteristic?

If you have an "artwork" and I have a perfect, indistinguishable copy, why is yours better than mine? What about yours makes it better, given that they share every characteristic?

except originality

The luck of having for mother an international art criticist.
BTW if you'll like Bagnoli and have the means to go to Prague there should be an exhibition in the Czech Muzeum of Fine Arts in spring 2009.

Then I'll check that out. Thanks again!:)

except originality
But you can't determine originality from looking at them. If I don't tell you which is which, you can't tell them apart.

Art is like music. A piece always appeals to someone. No matter what the piece, as long as it's original, there is some beauty in it to be found. You simply have to look objectively.

The luck of having for mother an international art criticist.

What do you think of Thomas Kincande? (I think I spelled it right.) I've always liked his art. They bring a sense of peace to my home. Very relaxing.

What do you think of Thomas Kincande? (I think I spelled it right.) I've always liked his art. They bring a sense of peace to my home. Very relaxing.

I think you mean Thomas Kinkade. And are you serious? They have some nice parodies on some of his stuff at SA.

I don't think it's art what he makes, kitsch would be a more accurate description. Mainly because:

kitsch is said to be a gesture imitative of the superficial appearances of art. It is often said that kitsch relies on merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art.

In my mind art is a blend of creativity, skill and effort. They're not always equally balanced, but they're all used in one form or another. And I don't just limit "art" to something that is visual: I consider music, books, movies, paintings, drawings, all of it, as art.

That having been said, I have no idea with any particular "style" of art: if that's what you like, all the power to you.

What does irk me dearly is when people, artists or audiences, try to inject meaning where there is none.

A reviewer might try to inject motifs into movies that aren't there. An art critic might try to find a deeper meaning in a portrait or a still life when it is, in fact, just a portrait or a still life. And yes, a "modern artist" might stick a chainsaw in a chunk of concrete and call it "human suffering".

Asserting that it tastes good is a subjective measure because it depends on who's doing the measuring.Eh, this is close enough to my point.
If this is the case, then saying "the interpretation of [artist's work] is X" is a subjective statement because it depends on who's doing the interpretation.

If you have an "artwork" and I have a perfect, indistinguishable copy, why is yours better than mine? What about yours makes it better, given that they share every characteristic?

In most people's minds: the more difficult it was to create, the higher quality it is.

That's why many consider Beethoven a greater composer than Mozart: Mozart wrote prolifically, fluently, and easily; he rarely sketched anything out beforehand; he finished many works within hours of beginning them. With Beethoven, on the other hand, every note was a struggle, reworked endlessly before he allowed it to see the light of day; and plus, he was deaf, so he couldn't even hear the pieces after he wrote them. It was obviously more difficult for Beethoven to write music, so he is the more highly regarded by many.

Now, Beethoven had copyists who made his music presentable to musicians, transforming his unruly manuscripts into beautiful, legible writing. By your argument, those copyists should be regarded as artists of the same caliber as Beethoven, or even more so; for Beethoven's personal scores were almost unreadable to anyone but him, whereas the copyists' scores were clear and precise. But, in fact, nobody even remembers the names of those copyists; for they did not invent that particular arrangement of notes on the paper. They did not go through the great perceived struggle that Beethoven did; they did not actually make the decisions to introduce the second theme upside down in the third bassoon, they were merely relaying those orders from another. They were not involved in the inspirational or developmental process.

Does that help?

In most people's minds: the more difficult it was to create, the higher quality it is.

That's why many consider Beethoven a greater composer than Mozart: Mozart wrote prolifically, fluently, and easily; he rarely sketched anything out beforehand; he finished many works within hours of beginning them. With Beethoven, on the other hand, every note was a struggle, reworked endlessly before he allowed it to see the light of day; and plus, he was deaf, so he couldn't even hear the pieces after he wrote them. It was obviously more difficult for Beethoven to write music, so he is the more highly regarded by many.
That's absurd. There's no reason to value something more highly because it took more effort to achieve. It's the finished product that matters.
Now, Beethoven had copyists who made his music presentable to musicians, transforming his unruly manuscripts into beautiful, legible writing. By your argument, those copyists should be regarded as artists of the same caliber as Beethoven, or even more so; for Beethoven's personal scores were almost unreadable to anyone but him, whereas the copyists' scores were clear and precise.
No. I've asserted that their art is equivalent or superior, not that they were greater or equivalent artists.
But, in fact, nobody even remembers the names of those copyists; for they did not invent that particular arrangement of notes on the paper.
That's more the fault of people than my reasoning.
They did not go through the great perceived struggle that Beethoven did; they did not actually make the decisions to introduce the second theme upside down in the third bassoon, they were merely relaying those orders from another. They were not involved in the inspirational or developmental process.
Agreed, which is why I didn't assert those who make copies are good arists. But those copies are still good art.
Does that help?
No. Why are copies of books and sheet music still art (no one insists that Beethoven is only good when played from his original scribbles), but copies of sculpture and paintings not art?

This doesn't make any sense. The common perception of art in nonsensical.

That's absurd. There's no reason to value something more highly because it took more effort to achieve. It's the finished product that matters.
I agree with you there. Go talk to society about it.

No. Why are copies of books and sheet music still art (no one insists that Beethoven is only good when played from his original scribbles), but copies of sculpture and paintings not art?

This doesn't make any sense. The common perception of art in nonsensical.
In literary media such as books and music, the actual sounds of the notes or meanings of the words are represented by standardized symbols that it has become easier to produce by machine. Thus, creating copies of such works can be rationalized. However, visual media such as paintings and sculptures have no shorthand, so there is no such rationalization in place. I guess.