Quote:
Originally posted by
Ms. Spice
I'm going to assume most, if not all the posters here have little to no artistic background. It's like saying you know good or bad wine if you've never even tasted alcohol before. It's not fair to judge a work of art if you
...
more
I'm going to assume most, if not all the posters here have little to no artistic background. It's like saying you know good or bad wine if you've never even tasted alcohol before. It's not fair to judge a work of art if you don't know what good art is to begin with.
The medium should have some bearing on the meaning of the work; instead of saying "that's hot, not,etc." it would be better to properly evaluate whether or not this piece is done skillfully, and if the subject matter has any bearing to the content. And this is approaching it in a very simplistic manner.
It would be incredibly useful to also evaluate why the artist used his penis; what statement was he trying to make? I don't really have an opinion on the matter yet, but as an art student, that's where I would start.
less
Wouldn't you say that when the medium is so radically different it becomes part of the art itself, therefore does in fact lend some sort of meaning to it?
I haven't really been involved in anything related to the art world since college, but I had a whole course dedicated to the question of what art is and what qualities make a piece classified as art. A lot of it has to do with whether there is a quality of the sublime about it, but who decides that? In short, it's art if you think it is, not if you think it's not.
But let's be honest here. Painting with the penis? There is a reason for that, therefore has to be accounted for when you look for the meaning of the "art."