But is it art?

[HeadingNorth]

It's alright, nobody is forcing you to like it.

 

That's entirely beside the point. What is being forced, or attempted to be forced, is the necessity of calling things art which palpably are not.

[Phanerothyme]

"palpably not art" - ha ha ha ha ha ha.

 

But then I don't think you're joking.

[flamingjimmy]

Not a child or animal in evidence there

Way to move the goalposts bro, you didn't specify that, you simply claimed that you didn't believe.

 

"one[an art critic] that has been "fooled" in some kind of "sting" operation"

 

I showed you an example where pretty much the entire art world was 'fooled', surely that's enough?

 

In any case, here's a different example featuring a 2 year old. Again, 10 seconds on google is all you need to spend to find loads of examples, I really don't get why you're in denial about this.

 

You can fool the art world with intentionally bad art/art by children/animals. To be fair that test was pretty easy, but that was just a bit of fun, I didn't even try it until now, even I got 100%, and I don't even 'get' art.

 

Also, when you use quote marks, you need to actually reproduce what's been said by people, not approximate it, or make up your own phrases that were not used.

[Phanerothyme]

Way to move the goalposts bro, you didn't specify that, you simply claimed that you didn't believe.

 

Not me, I was trying to call you on this:

 

Also, yes it is telling (and hilarious) that art critics cannot tell intentionally made art from the accidental work of young children and/or animals.

 

I showed you an example where pretty much the entire art world was 'fooled', surely that's enough?

 

I don't think you read the whole article did you? Pretty much the whole Art World of Boston in 1927. Arguably the whole hoax was a work of art in itself.

 

 

In any case, here's a different example featuring a 2 year old. Again, 10 seconds on google is all you need to spend to find loads of examples, I really don't get why you're in denial about this.

 

I didn't deny it. But you seem to think that all of your examples constitute the "art world".

You can fool the art world with intentionally bad art/art by children/animals. To be fair that test was pretty easy, but that was just a bit of fun, I didn't even try it until now, even I got 100%, and I don't even 'get' art.

If it was that easy, what do you and I know that 'art critics' don't?

Also, when you use quote marks, you need to actually reproduce what's been said by people, not approximate it, or make up your own phrases that were not used.

 

I just do it to annoy people.

[flamingjimmy]

Not me, I was trying to call you on this:

Well if only you'd actually quoted the relevant parts of my post instead of "just putting" random words of your "choice" into quotation marks then that might have been clear.

 

I don't think you read the whole article did you? Pretty much the whole Art World of Boston in 1927.

Whoops my bad, I got it confused with a similar trick someone did with intentionally bad poetry that I read about the other day.

 

I didn't deny it. But you seem to think that all of your examples constitute the "art world".

My examples show that it can, and has been done, on multiple occasions, to multiple different groups, which if you'll recall is the exact claim that I originally made.

 

In any case, it doesn't even really matter if it's not the most world renowned art critics that get fooled, the fact that the art lovers and the people who are the ones who perpetuate modern art can be so easily fooled is just as telling.

 

If it was that easy, what do you and I know that 'art critics' don't?

Nothing, but that was a crappy online quiz with only 6 questions that was clearly put together by a moron, it proves nothing, I only linked to it for a bit of fun.

 

 

I just do it to annoy people.

I find that hard to believe, nice cover though.

[JFKvsNixon]

That's entirely beside the point. What is being forced, or attempted to be forced, is the necessity of calling things art which palpably are not.

 

To you maybe not, but to others yes it is art. That's the point, we're having an argument where we're both right. It's all a matter of opinion, around 6 billion of them.

[HeadingNorth]

To you maybe not, but to others yes it is art. That's the point, we're having an argument where we're both right. It's all a matter of opinion, around 6 billion of them.

 

It is not a matter of opinion; I refer you back to my original post in this thread. There is a very simple and straighforward to test to determine whether or not something qualifies as art.

[JFKvsNixon]

It is not a matter of opinion; I refer you back to my original post in this thread. There is a very simple and straighforward to test to determine whether or not something qualifies as art.

 

So you're trying to argue that someones opinion on whether something is or isn't art isn't a matter of opinion. Have you thought this through?

[Jessica23]

It is not a matter of opinion; I refer you back to my original post in this thread. There is a very simple and straighforward to test to determine whether or not something qualifies as art.

 

I don't necessarily agree, but even so, by that test the Bob Law piece under discussion would pass as art with flying colours.

[chorba]

...............