• Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Whats interesting is that most people would consider the original to be art, and most people would consider just the cocks to not be art, but are the cocks with the statement of intent art or naw? If just the cocks are not art, and the cocks with the statement are, then do the cocks become art if the artist knows about the art that used to be there? Do they become art if the viewer knows about the cocks and infers the missing statement? That’s the interesting question here, because it implies that the piece can be art to one person who knows the context and not art to another person who is only aware of the cocks.

      • Buddahriffic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, it feels kinda like OP is really wondering if what’s there now is just as good as what used to be there because it might still be labeled “art”. Not all art is equal, and I’d much rather have nice looking art than art that says “this used to look nice but now it’s just dicks”. But, given that some asshole decided to just paint over it with monocolour, I’d rather have that “fuck you” than to see it left blank.

        I hope the 2nd artist has the determination to put it back if the owners try to get rid of it again, but the patience to wait until they stop watching it so they don’t get caught. Or make them spend money on a surveillance system and someone to monitor it but still put it back one or two lines at a time. Until the owners have an aneurysm and it eventually ends up in the hands of someone more chill.

    • thonofpy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I find that it makes most sense to me to answer “is this and that art”-questions with a yes by default. Is it made by a human with the intent to convey a message? Art. Any other approach always seems to end in questions of taste.

        • thonofpy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          While I don’t like that particular art form and choose not to look at it whenever possible, I’d say yes. A lot of art tries to get you to think, feel or do something and I don’t see how this is fundamentally different, even though it seems a little sick at first. From the perspective of, say, the graphic designer for the ad campaign, it might very well be art.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Art is what you think it is.”

        Never lost an argument with that one.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        But there are so many people who are so confident in saying things that easily fit the definition you propose are “not art”

        • thonofpy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just because there are many doesn’t mean they are right (I don’t mean to offend). Art, I believe, is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the thought of the creator.

    • Pheonixdown@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Art is art because is is art and not because we say that it is art.” - Hoid, Words of Radiance, Brandon Sanderson

    • Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s art as long as the one who draws them has a message to deliver (besides “hehe, I’m drawing cocks on a wall”)

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        what makes “hehe I’m drawing cocks on the wall” invalid? let’s examine a situation where the person who painted the cocks didn’t know that there used to be traditional art there, but I do. I see the cocks, think about what used to be there before someone “fixed” it, and I receive a message even if none was intended. Is it art in that case? If it is, did the person who just wanted to doodle some dongs create it, or did I?

        • IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To quote the great Ben Folds, “Ooooh, oh, if you’re feeling small And you can’t draw a crowd Draw dicks on the wall If you can’t draw a crowd Settle for what you CAN draw”

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The clueless case is invalid because it’s strictly a descriptive/self-apparent exercise – lest every single act become art, thus depriving art of meaning. I don’t have an authoritative answer to your second question, but I’d argue you’ve created an ephemeral, individual piece of art.

      • thonofpy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. The message here is more along the lines of “pity this was painted over so boringly, this is what you get”. It is not just a wall, it is the wall with the original artwork still underneath a thin layer of paint. I call art. Even with just the “hehe”, I’d say it still has the old meaning of any mark made on purpose anywhere: “I was here.” (That seems to be the main point of tagging.)

    • Peddlephile@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      To me, what would make it art is a little statement on the side for the viewer to discern who the cock artist was, when it was painted and materials used, and the vision behind it.

      • JokeDeity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would be honestly pretty great if all these had really neatly stenciled little signatures under them all.

    • Calavera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is just as modern art works today.

      The funny thing is that it all began as a revolt against old art for being too elitist, but now regular folks cannot enjoy todays art because they are esthetically awful and would need a full book collection to understand why that piece of rotten banana is art, so just the elite can enjoy it. The rest just pretend to look fancy

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s the Duchamp problem. He said “You guys are so far up your own asses that you’ll piss in a urinal if it’s in the bathroom but you’ll praise me as a genius if I move that same urinal to the gallery” and the art world was like “Joke’s on you, fucker, I’ll start the bidding at $1.2 million for the pisser!”