The Turner Prize, now in its 26th year, is arguably the world’s most recognised and prestigious award for contemporary art. The exhibition presents the very best of current British visual art with the intention of stimulating a lively exchange of opinions.
The above image is an installation by Angela De la Cruz, who "uses the language of painting and sculpture to create striking works that combine formal tension with a deeper emotional presence."
- Does the above quote mean anything?
- In your opinion, is Angela's work (pictured above) a work of art?
- What do you think constitutes art?
53 comments:
...
It's a bunch of banged up closets glued together and mayyybe polished.
What emotional depth could that POSSIBLY have?
As to whether the quote means anything - lol, no. That's just some critic's horrible attempt to make his opinions - or lack thereof - seem credible.
As for what constitutes art, I'm not wise, experienced, old or silly enough to answer that. ...but I still think closets =/= art.
Anyone can be labelled as an artist these days, it's pretty irriitating.
No offence to the 'artist' but, it looks like... well, I don't even know what it looks like. It makes no sense, I can try and look at it from every perspective to figure out what the sculpture or broken closet portrays but it shows no emotion for me and I think that thats the most important thing in art, it needs emotion.
Artists make pieces, sculptures or paintings to express their feelings.
(I cannot imagine what the 'artist' was feeling when she made this thing. It literally looks like a bunch of broken closets or doors glued together.)
AND as for the quote?
("uses the language of painting and sculpture to create striking works that combine formal tension with a deeper emotional presence.")
The only emotion I felt when I saw this was an overwhelming amount frustration, It makes no sense AT ALL and I have no idea how much the critics were paid to describe this as something 'striking'.
~Nikol
Actually I disagree with neineisharie.
Precisely what is art? Well it could be just about anything. It is one of the most subjective things in the world, it could be merely an animated drawing for a seven year old, it could be a striking sunset for an eighteen year old, it could be a grand display of food for a chef, it could be a field or a valley of flowers for a florist. Art can be used in a mode of expression in almost any medium, using shapes, symbols, sounds, structure, form, imagery... And the list can go on and on.
But I guess what I’m trying to say is that, maybe art is in the eye of the beholder...
So yes, I would consider Angela’s creation of work as art. And as for the quote, if the critic thinks that Angela used the language of painting and sculpture to create striking works that combine formal tension with a deeper emotional presence, then so be it.
Personally, in somewhat form I can agree to that quote.
I have to admit, gluing closets together is relatively a thrilling thing to do and is somehow hysterically funny.
Yet from the quote above, The artist was obviously not trying to be funny but to "create striking works that combine formal tension with a deeper emotional presence." Thus i don't feel the quote is suited to the artwork at all.
And as for wether I think Angela's work is a work of art.... Not being a very artistic person myself, to me, Angels work looks like a failed piece of artwork.
Wether im right or wrong, It appears that Angela had tried to construct something and ended up with something entirely unexpected.
Like i stated earlier, i'm not much of an artistic person. But i have to admit creative writing and art aren't very different. In both, we're portraying thoughts on paper. We've been told that a good piece of writing makes the reader feel what you want him/her to feel and imagine what you want him/her to experience and i think its the same with art. A good piece of artwork has to be able to give a significant message and make people feel something.
@ Nikki: you said that the most important thing in art is that it needs emotion, right?
and didn’t you also mention that you felt frustrated when you saw it? isn’t frustration an emotion?
therefore even if it is a bunch of broken closest’s, doesn’t it consider to be a piece of art nonetheless? because it has emotion...?
I'm not much of an artist, but I like to do the occasional painting.I also like to see other people's paintings, but Im no expert when it comes to art.
The 'sculpture', to me, looked like a bizarre waste of wood.It honestly looked like wadrobes hammered together.
Infact, looking at this picture, I think of the story of how cheap wine was packaged in expensive bottles and then given to rich people who believed themselves to be great lovers of wine. They didnt even notice the difference.
Maybe it( I'm not sure if I can call it a sculpture)has a certain sophistication that goes unseen by the common eye, or maybe today a three year old can pour some paint onto canvas and sell it for a good price.
I dont have any fixed definitons of art but it has to be beautiful and it has to have meaning. This however, seems to lack both.
Shennin said..."@ Nikki: you said that the most important thing in art is that it needs emotion, right?
and didn’t you also mention that you felt frustrated when you saw it? isn’t frustration an emotion?"
Excellent point Shennin, very valid!
Teressa: "cheap wine packaged in expensive bottles"
Ha ha! Good point. I wonder what the people who'd spend millions on that piece of art would have to say :)
Well, Shennin. The 'emotion' I felt was NOT towards the picture nor the quote. (I should have made it clear. I was referring to the overall article.)
I felt frustrated towards the fact how people (technically the critics) THINK that anything
nowadays automatically turns to art just because an object is broken and looks like its been glued back together.
You said that 'Art is in the eye of the beholder'. Now if a bunch of broken pieces of wood that looks like its been glued back together is deemed as 'art', I'd like to know what kind of emotion you think it expresses. Because looking at it from every possible perspective it fails to convey any sort of emotion for me. I'd like to know how it makes YOU feel.
Because frankly, from what I've seen. Most 'contemporary art' these days are mostly failed attempts from so called artists to be seen as someone emotionally profound and I have proof from a real critic (John Mcdonald) that this is true.
'Never in history has so much contemporary art been spiritless and materialistic, never has it been more shallow and cynical.'
You can label anything as 'contemporary art' these days and this is a fact, whether or not it conveys emotion or whether or not it makes sense.
In my opinion people shouldn't be calling themselves 'artists' if they don't put in much effort to make their pieces. Compare this so called 'piece of art' to one of Picasso's or Moore's sculptures, who do you think gave in more effort? Which pieces actually convey any sort of emotion to the viewer?
Whilst I do understand Shennin's point of view, I'm gonna have to take Nikol's side in this debate. Art is, without a doubt, one of he most subjective things in the world and there are numerous aspects and media which it encompasses. But still, I seriously doubt if anybody can HONESTLY label this as a piece of art. I can only guess that even the people who do call the 'sculpture' a piece of art are only doing so to 'fit in' with the rest of the crowd. I could be wrong, but I'd say that in their heart of hearts, everybody knows that this is certainly not a piece of art, including Shennin and Ms.Angela. There is one more point to take into consideration here. A question with an all too obvious answer. Do you think the carpenter who painstakingly built the closets (before Ms.Angela came along and decided to create some 'contemporary art') would label this as a piece of art?
By the way, in my opinion, the quote and the 'sculpture' are perfectly relevant to one another as they are both piles of rubbish.
Just a point to add to the debate - Van Gogh's paintings were initially thought to be rubbish by critics. He sold only two paintings in his entire lifetime. But now he is regarded as a genius. Rock and roll was thought to be junk when it first came out. Modern poetry and surrealist painting were both criticised as being nonsense.
Is there a moral that we can apply here?
Ah, but sir, Van Gogh didn't glue bashed up pieces of closet together.
He painted.
He put everything into that paintbrush and he painted things no one had ever seen before. He cut off his own EAR because of his art. Genius is never recognized in its day but sir, this? This is hardly art.
And I agree with Nikol - my own frustration is not stimulated by the "sculpture," but it is spawned from the overall reaction to this piece. Seriously? Seriously?
Amazingly talented artists out there live on practically NOTHING because everyone's too busy harping on about ~contemporary art. Credit where credit is due, sure, I've seen many wonderful contemporary art pieces but THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
There are people out there who are still trying to pay for college, for their art degrees, who thought they could take out the loans because maybe they would become recognized painters, graphic designers, cartoonists, fashion designers someday. What about them? Aren't they worth anything? Just because their work isn't EDGY or OH MY GOD SO UNIQUE, they can't support themselves on their art?
It's not fair to them.
Now I don't mean to demean the artist, but anyone can glue closets together.
...on another note, however, if the artist purposely created this sculpture to provoke heated debate upon whether or not it is art then Kudos to her. Genius.
Well, to be honest, im lamentably naive when it comes to art. At the moment, i have a muddled little brain that won't quite perceive this topic.
But seriously? Broken pieces of closets glued together? And they call it art? To me, art is a creation, and this form of junk looks nothing close to creativity.
All I can see is that Angela's 'artwork' is horrible and quite displeasing.
An appreciated piece of art must have spirit, make visual sense and be an awe-inspiring sight. But this one seemed to lack all the elements I find crucial for an artwork to be flawless.
No offence!
As for the quote, I find it entirely irrelevant to the picture that has been referred to as a 'sculpture'. This critic has introduced an inapplicable statement.
Referring to what Shennin had said: 'Art can be used in a mode of expression in almost any medium'. I carefully examined the picture for about 6 minutes, and i didn't really feel what Angela intended to convey. So, I guess, this proves you wrong. Maybe because I'm not much of an artistic character, but keeping in mind the majority who are like me, I believe the so-called piece of art was unable to sustain life.
One day, I'm going to frame a blank piece of paper and make millions.
It's amazing what's considered art nowadays. A lot of good points have been made, and I, like Neiha and Nikol, feel very irritated towards the bashed closet/tree-murdering/wood-wasting sculpture. :S
I'm sorry but I just don't see anything in it, no matter how much I turn my head and look at it from any angle. What exactly was she feeling/thinking when she made this piece of 'art'? "Oh, today's a nice day, I'm just going to bash up a few closets here and there and glue the broken doors together."?
"Uses the language of painting and sculpture to create striking works to combine formal tension with a deeper emotional presence"?
err really? :S I personally think this quote is nothing but, dare I say, malarkey.
--
It is true that art is subjective, and that each person feels something different upon seeing a piece. However, the thing about art that makes it so fascinating is its ability to somehow come to life and breathe; a riddle on a canvas that looks upon humans with emotions as well. I don't know if I make sense, but when people view art, art views them too.
Now excuse me while I rip up a few pillows and call my art handler agent person thingy. :)
But, Sir Van Gogh actually put a lot of effort into his work. I'm not saying that Angela didn't put a lot of effort into hers but a bunch of broken pieces of wood glued together?
If you look at Van Gogh's paintings you can see the intensity and effort he put into it, you can look at the strokes and the colors that he's used ranging from vibrant yellows to lifeless browns, it ranges from lively and fresh flowers to wilting ones, extreme opposites presented in one picture which applies to him seeing as he was bipolar. It's got emotion, he painted what he truly felt and he put a lot of effort into it.
But this so called sculpture? Makes no sense whatsoever. I understand that art is very subjective, we all have our own perception of what we see as art whether people ridicule it at first, like Van Gogh, but the thing is that there's a difference between being unappreciated yet putting your soul into a painting or a sculpture to express yourself or hardly putting any at all and coming up with something that makes absolutely no sense and making millions out of it.
Art is anything you want it to be. It is a form of expression. Poets rhyme to express themselves, authors write books on something they want the world to see, so why not a piece of awe-inspiring ingenuity. It may not make sense to one, but holds the emotions thoughts and subconscious dreams, desires and even a physical manifestation of one's personality.
Everyone has either said 'It is a work of art' or 'it’s junk', but does it really mean something to you? Or is it just an opinion in general; because apart from the actual artist herself, there can't be much meaning in a bunch of cupboards that look like someone has tried to force them into one another.
Art can be one man's (/woman's) treasure and another's trash.
Example: a canvas, with what looks like a coffee stain all down one side, no balance, no form, no visually alluring concept, yet, by the right person - say Picasso's undiscovered master piece, his last - it can sell for literal millions.
Okay, let's put it this way.
Poetry is a form of art.
Here's a poem:
Bashed wood, meow-y kittens
Pillows glue trees squeee
Falling, rawrrrrrr
Yeah yeah yeah yeah
See why it doesn't work?
Art isn't just an expression of one's soul, it's an EXTENSION of it. By putting all your effort into a certain piece, you are somehow making it a part of your soul.
There's a reason why a purposefully done human faeces smear isn't considered art. There's also a reason why a stickman drawn by an adult isn't considered a masterpiece. All these things were expressions of feelings, whether they were malice, boredom etc. And yet, they aren't considered as art. (unless of course, the faeces smear was a 'crappy' version of Starry Starry Night).
It would surely help if the artist had written a deep explanation for her art, so we could grasp what she felt and therefore understand the piece itself. Maybe, then, we would consider it as art.
ooh and another thing.
Raya made a very good point. Art has to make people feel something (apart from the artist). It should speak to the viewer, a way by which the artist makes his voice heard.
To add to this, I also say that art has the ability to speak by itself. Nobody needs to tell you what it means. You just look at it, and FEEL something. It speaks to you.
Although I am horrible at doing art, I love admiring pieces of art and I definitely DID NOT admire THAT 'piece of art'.
I mean is glueing broken closets together really art?
According to me the quote doesn't mean anything when related to that 'piece of art' because I personally do not consider that as art.
To me art is everything that portrays some kind of talent and the picture really did not show any kind of talent except using so much strength to glue closets together and stack them across a wall.
Aisha Bashir
11g2
Bashed wood, meow-y kittens
Pillows glue trees squeee
Falling, rawrrrrrr
Yeah yeah yeah yeah
See why it doesn't work?
Arizza,
I see your point. But let's look at these lyrics instead: "Honey got a booty like pow, pow, pow. Honey got some moves like wow oh wow." From "OMG" by Usher featuring Will.i.am.
Kei$ha's album is called "blah blah blah"
These "artists" sell albums by the millions and rake in the dosh - laughing all the way to the bank.
How different is it from Angela'a art? If Usher and Will.i.am can be respected singers then why can't Angela be a respected artist? Obviously, the rich arty-farty types like her work - it's been short-listed for the "prestigious" Turner Prize...
I'm just playing Devil's advocate. Her installation doesn't do anything for me - just leaves me bemused. (And bemusement is an emotion - as is anger, annoyance, frustration, awe, disgust, perplexity and a whole range of emotions that people might feel when they see her work)
Though everyone in this blog seems to have a highly valid and intellectual point, I have to say it's art. Is it GOOD art? As Nikol said that would be in the eye of the beholder.
I've always defined art as a way of self expression.
I don't feel that the viewers are important, unless you're making art your occupation of course, got to get that income from somewhere. :P
When I look at this sculpture I see a story filled with emotion. Maybe it depends on HOW people are looking at the art.
So I guess my side of this idea would be yes it could be deemed as art and yes this woman should be deemed as an artist. In the end, art does need to have emotion, but it doesn't necissarily mean that everone is going to feel it.
The Turner Prize is, I believe, about upper class snobbery. The riff raff hoi polloi like us enjoy traditional painting and conventional sculpture.
The elites of the upper class need a way to distinguish and separate themselves from us, the unwashed masses. Everything the rich do is quickly emulated by the rabble. So the rich are always on the lookout for tastes that are inimitable. Angela's installation is one example of this; Lady Gaga's cretinous dress made of meat is another.
If meat-dresses were sold in the supermarket, Lady Gaga wouldn't be caught dead in them. If glued-cupboards became common household art the aristocracy would stop patronising it.
The grand styles of one era become tacky in the next. The value of art has little to do with aesthetics.
As Steven Pinker, the eminent cognitive scientist says in his fascinating book How the Mind Works : "Post-modern works are not designed to give pleasure, but to confirm or confound the theories of a guild of critics, to épater le bourgeoisie, or to baffle the rubes."
Sometimes these guys need a child to yell out the emperor has no clothes!
But sir, people like them not because of their substance, but because they are carefree songs that don't require a lot. They may not have a lot of lyrical intensity, but the beats themselves make people feel something - so we dance. (Alors on danse teehee).
I dislike Ke$ha, but I don't mind dancing to her songs because they are very upbeat. (same with usher and will.i.am.). Their songs somehow communicate with a person's body, stringing them along to the melodies.
Plus, they have great agents/publicists/handlers :S
Angela's work on the other hand... err idk :p Ooh she probably had good handlers too.
Hmm, I don't think this could be considered art to anyone but the artist. However, if the sculptor was able to portray the same emotions to the audience that she felt when she made the sculpture, then it could be considered art.
We had a thunk similar to this one last year, about what constitutes art, and I still believe the answer is originality and ability to relate to the targeted audience as well as the ability to depict your feelings and emotions through canvas, stone, pencils or brushes.
I think we're just too used to seeing and accepting pretty,mind-boggling paintings,sculptures and so on, as true form of art. Maybe it's time to think outside the “box”.
No one,in my opinion, not even the world's most preeminent or notable artists can define the proper meaning of art. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But my point is, like Shenny mentioned, art could be just about anything.To me, the “field” of art is so darn subjective and colossal, it varies from mere person to person. Unfortunately, the vastness of art includes this beaten-up closet as one too. To further substantiate my point, I'm quoting a snippet of an article which states the definition of art.
“An art form is the specific shape, or quality an artistic expression takes. The media used often influences the form. For example, the form of a sculpture must exist in space in three-dimensions, and respond to gravity. The constraints and limitations of a particular medium are thus called its formal qualities. To give another example, the formal qualities of painting are the canvas texture, color, and brush texture. The formal qualities of video games are non-linearity, interactivity and virtual presence. The form of a particular work of art is determined by both the formal qualities of the media, and the intentions of the artist”
Well, the glued up pieces of wood exist in 3 dimensions and for sure,respond to gravity.( This is because I'm pretty certain that it will fall to the ground eventually). It also has a shape(a weird one) and
finally, it possesses formal qualities and the intention of artist.(Let's hope she has one). Therefore,it is art. A bad one.
Just because I think it is art, doesn't mean I agree this glued up box is one worthy of Turner Prize nomination or recognition. Jeez, whatever happened to the quality of art these days.
I'd like to see the positive side in anything;although if it is very notorious or eccentric. The dangling broken pieces of the art maybe portray something so depressing something so broken that it's threatening to fall apart. But that's just me. But I really do wonder what was Angela's aim while she was creating her art. Did she really have a profound meaning behind this, or was this some sort of gimmick to achieve popularity instantly?
As for the quote,if the jury has cited so, he or she must have seriously liked her art for some apparent reason for taking this wreck into consideration. No offence to anyone.
No. In plain, simple and comprehensible-to-all-classes-of-society-English: NO. :)
Why? because to me, it does nothing. Literally nothing. No anger, frustration, amusement.. nothing! Reading the caption that mentioned this was 'art' made me laugh really, but that's about it. Maybe this is the judging panel's idea of a practical joke, :D
This quote at first glance seems to be a bunch of intellectual words that someone threw together to portray a sense of sophistication. Yet after reading several times and breaking the words down ou are ble to pick up a few traces of meaning from it. As I broke it down I can see somewhat of the basic meaning behind it. Which seems to say that she uses knowledge and style of past artist to create such a striking and eccentric piece that can portray something that's outer appearance seems to show a sense of distress or tension yet after a long analyse has a deeper emotional presence.
I would agree with shenny that this is a work of art, for it really depends on the beholder.
If I'm trying to dicifier the emotional impact of her work, the first thing I would ask myself is what do closets represent. Well, they represent lonesomeness, seclusion, yor private thoughts and actions. So what would broken closets jumbled together represent maybe they would portray being free from the things that held you bound. It could show anger to the taunts of your thoughts and actions. It could mean anything, it all depends on the beholder.
In my opinion art would be anything that has some impact or brings something in particular to mind to the viewer which according to many of the responses was not able to do so.
^ Well done Shaday and Shafnaa, for trying to see beyond the obvious.
Like Shenny said, art can be anything. Everyone is an artist because everyone is creative. But some bring out their art in various ways. For me, I don't find this sculpture most appealing. But I can guarantee that some believe this Transformer cupboard is a work of art =)
Art is something that brings out emotion in a person, and everyone's tastes are different, that being said, what seems like art to you might not be art to someone else and vice versa. Just because you don't see anger or freedom in this 'sculpture' doesn't mean that nobody else does. Personally, I think this could be art, not necessarily the best, but that's just my opinion.
Coming from my point of view gluing doors or closets together is a really funny thing to do, but when it comes to art it is supposed to be considered a piece of art that someone has worked so hard on. Art is freedom art is a place you express your emotions and feelings art can be anything you want it to be. When people talk about art usually what runs through their minds are paintings. Those people don’t know the real meaning of art. Art could be a broken doll prettified, a messed up kitchen beautified to a chef, it could be anything you want it to be. I would say what Angela created is a work of art because like I said earlier art can be anything you want it to be. As for the quote if the critic thinks Angela “uses the language of painting and sculpture to create striking works that combine formal tension with a deeper emotional presence” then that is entirely up to him. Everyone sees things in a different prospective so it means peoples thoughts all differ from each other.
Firstly, in no way is that not art. To me anything and everything is art, it just matters how you interpret it. And as Mr. Roberts said, the type of people who attend the exhibition... Have certain acquired tastes, or at least different tastes compared to the most of us.
But to be blunt, that quote is just alot of garbage to me. I just cannot relate those sentences and the picture together, it just doesn't work. Yes, there is something to it, it has meaning. And therefore is art, it inspires and grabs your attention.
I think that this sculpture could be considered art. Does it make sense? To me, no. But when has art ever made sense? The lines that define art are blurred but vast. People view different pieces in different persepectives and what might not seem like art to you, could mean so much more to someone else.
I also completely agree with what Shennin said, "art is in the eye of the beholder." (:
This is a bit tricky, I'm a bit on both sides.
Art really can be or mean anything I guess. Everyone looks at art differently. I mean I thought of the Narnia closet when I saw this, guessing it's not quite what she wanted it to mean. :s
"uses the language of painting and sculpture to create striking works that combine formal tension with a deeper emotional presence." Bit over the top, but oh well it's their opinion:)
It's weird that when a kid makes a random art piece, sculpture, painting or whatever, people find it funny or cute. But if they didn't know who the creator was, and it was hung or displayed in a museum, wouldn't it attract more attention as people think it's made by an actual artist and they know she knows what she's/he's doing?
Take this Narnia closet sculpture for example, I'm not sure people would be very impressed if it was a creation of a random person :p
I can't say it's ugly, because I keep looking back at it. I can't say it's amazing, because I don't know what it is. :)
This may not be good art but I thought deeply and tried to find a connection between our lives and the cupboards.
[This took me A LOT of time to figure out!]
If you look at the picture closely, you see ruined cabinets in unbalanced, awkward positions. The wrecked parts dangling and the way that they are placed gives you a feeling of depression, hassle and trauma. This implies upon the emotions stress, tension, pain and anger.
The quote in my personal opinion is very true and I agree to it. It also justifies my point. It augments upon the emotion of tension, and I think a lot of us could relate to it, as our lives are full of these emotions.
Art is a way, a method that can be used to describe emotions. It’s a way of spreading out a message. And anything that expresses your feelings is considered to be art.
For years people have said there is no right or wrong in art. I believe that too. Maybe Angela De la Cruz, is rubbish at being neat or thinks anything can be art. I remenber, when I was in England, there was an otter who used ice and paint for art. There was a tennis player who used a tennis ball and paint for art. You could look at John Galliano and think his clothes are not fashion or haute couture.
What does the dictionary define art as?
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
If it was put into a gallery, with white walls and good lighting, people would look at it differently.
Well, I guess this depends on each one's opinion. To me it looks like a room full of cupboards where struck by a disaster and ended up like that. So, this is not a work of art in my eyes at all. It doesnt make me go "wow" or show me any kind of emotion! And the quote just seems like an atempt to make that so called "piece of art" seem like something great!
I believe art is another form of people expressing themselves, so if this is how she expresses herself or her opinions then yes it is art. But to be honest I don't exactly see it. Has art become this easy? Smash a couple of wardrobes together and you get a prize for it? I don't know, I'm sort of confused.
Art can be anything: like the way your home is painted or even your favourite cartoon show because for me art is pure imagination & like the quote says it does express emototions. but, this is not art for me because this doesn't bring out any emotion in me & i dont find anything imaginative in this, its justt a couple of cardboards glued up together... but it may be art for anyone else!!!
i think art can be anything at all...personally i think it's a method to show your feelings...So sometimes might not always makes sense to everyone,,so it could be !!
I don't have an artistic bone in my body, honestly. & I don't think I can even draw a classic stick figure :$
..Anyway, that's besides the point.
Wow, so. Closets. I mean I understand that art can be anything that visually or emotionally 'appeals' to the viewer. In this case, I feel that beauty true DOES lie in the eyes of the beholder. 8-)
When I look at it, I feel confused.
Confused because I have no idea what the hell it is, and confused at what constitutes art these days. Does that count as this object 'stimulating emotions' in me? ..I think not.
As for the quote; I don't think anyone but the artist can find this hidden 'emotional presence' and 'tension', because, well, I feel none.
To each his own, I say. Wordweb defines art as a 'product of human creativity', or the 'creation of beautiful and significant things'. In WHAT way has this been a creative endeavour?
In my honest opinion, I don't feel it counts as a piece of art. But then again, who am I to judge. Isn't 'anything that stimulates emotions or feelings', art? 8-)
..are there NO guidelines?
Art is seen to be a way of expressing your feelings and how/where you come from.
So the emotion i get from seeing this "THING" is that it is junk and the "Artist" must live in a junk yard.
Although to some people the more out of this world and weird the art is the better, the more "artistic" it becomes.
All it looks like is that then "artist" got angry at some closets and threw them into the corner. And to the quote, i think that the critic is just trying to make it sound good because this doesnt look like art at all.
It honestly looks like unwanted furniture that has no meaning and was not placed like that by an artist.
But however I feel that anyone can create art in their own way and have the right to be called an artist to some extent. There are various types of artists out there who create pieces of work that may look like they have no meaning though people spend millions on them. Different people have different opinions about art. I personally would not see appreciate this as a piece of art but I’m sure that a lot of other people will.
I think I'm going to have to side with what some of the above comments stated; art is subjective, and is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm not a very artistic person, but... I don't really feel much emotion when I see the *pile of wood* art sculpture.
I don't know.. Getting an award for closet doors? Confuses me. :/
LOL! I guess what makes people unique is there taste and lifestyle. Some people call art drawing while others might see it as something else. In my opinion, this is a mixture of art and recycling. What makes people unique is how they act in life. People view this at different prospectives. Some see this as a very artistic monument while others might think of it as JUNK. ;)
hmmm...
I guess art has many ways of expressing itself but when I saw the picture my emotions were blank. At first glance it was just a bunch of closets banged up on top of each other.
There's a saying that art is never perfect & you can never go wrong with art. But where does that line get drawn? Would someone pay thousands for a bunch of broken closets piled on top of each other?
After reading the quote and really looking at the image/art I managed to understand what the artist meant. I dont know about formal tension but i did feel a sense of emotional presence.
In my opinion if you open your eyes and not look at it as broken closets put together and replace the closets with feelings or emotions *metaphorically of course* then it's as though the artist is saying that our feelings even though broken we still manage to stay intact.
Art is something that an individual could relate to and understand in his/her own way.
Art is not only paint on a canvas, it can be sculpting, dance, poetry or even something like...uhh... Angela's work. Definition Art can vary from person to person. Art is way of expressing feelings or vision through your creativity.
Quote has deep meaning to itself than to Angela's work. If piecing together broken wardrobes is considered a notorious piece of art, any toddler could easily take up this status. I'm not saying her work isn't art, although it's definitely not something to be acknowledged the best. What do you think constitutes art? Well, art is the product of your effort and creativeness, not just piecing together anything from the junkyard!
Art or not, this piece of work is hilarious! ;)
Post a Comment