this art is better than that art

my art is better than your art

Quote from: mauserclock;1757469If art is going to be put in a gallery, and written about, and praised, and bought, it should naturally have worth. If you're going to make something that, while creative, has absolutely no skill put into it, then why would you put it in a gallery and try to sell it to people

other people will find worth in it, some don't take effort into account when considering "value"

i.e. I could scribble all over a piece of paper and even though I don't think it's considerably good art, someone can easily go "oh my, that's beautiful!!!!! i'll take twentyyyy!!" and suddenly it has value to them

Quote from: mauserclock;1757469If art is going to be put in a gallery, and written about, and praised, and bought, it should naturally have worth. If you're going to make something that, while creative, has absolutely no skill put into it, then why would you put it in a gallery and try to sell it to people

Potentially, to mock the fact that people will buy it, or that people would treat art like a marketable commodity at all.

Beside that, if art is to be subjected to the same capitalist market as other commodities, then it should be blatantly obvious to you that effort =/= price.

I'm sure that mocking art as a marketable commodity was original  and  clever 50 years ago

I didn't necessarily mean effort so much as I meant both form and   content. If you don't have creativity in both the idea, and how the   idea is presented, then it's misguided to praise something as a   fantastic, creative artwork that is, by all means, a shit artwork. There's no problem with a well designed, well supported, creative conceptual   artwork; but to make something that's a shit artwork and to claim anything else  is disgusting. Sure, people can think it's the best thing since sliced  bread, and sure, they might want to buy a million of it, but don't stick  it in an art gallery and call it art if it isn't art. Public opinion doesn't decide if something is great art or not.

I bet you 10 bucks that in 50 years people will be looking back and either saying that Damien Hirst was a jackass, or they won't remember him at all

who died and made you art king!

Quote from: mauserclock;1757715I'm sure that mocking art as a marketable commodity was original  and  clever 50 years ago

I didn't necessarily mean effort so much as I meant both form and   content. If you don't have creativity in both the idea, and how the   idea is presented, then it's misguided to praise something as a   fantastic, creative artwork that is, by all means, a shit artwork. There's no problem with a well designed, well supported, creative conceptual   artwork; but to make something that's a shit artwork and to claim anything else  is disgusting. Sure, people can think it's the best thing since sliced  bread, and sure, they might want to buy a million of it, but don't stick  it in an art gallery and call it art if it isn't art. Public opinion doesn't decide if something is great art or not.

I bet you 10 bucks that in 50 years people will be looking back and either saying that Damien Hirst was a jackass, or they won't remember him at all

everything you just said presupposes a definitive qualitative scale for art

that does not exist.