Post art you like - Page 4

On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote:
After thinking about it, I will start an argument about 'what is art?'. This is no discussion about taste, and I really do not want to start arguing about it. But I couldn't leave this uncommented, I even think it is dangerous and wrong not to object to the original post.



I think that this has nothing to do with art. Zero. This is by definition the opposite of art. Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting.
As you mentioned correctly, this is propaganda. Propaganda transports a simple message in an obvious way so that the targeted audience understands it. Propaganda wants to convince. This image was not created as art, wasn't published as art, wasn't received as art and will never be. Your 'interpretation' is none, you just describe the most obvious anti-american, anti-semitic statements the poster makes. This image does not want the viewer to think, it uses one-sided skin-deep prejudices of a culture to create hate.
The only relevance this piece of graphic scum has is the similar stupidity to modern anti-american propaganda: By seeing how little the propaganda depiction has changed in over 60 years just displays how narrow-minded people who publish this sort of trash are.

On May 27 2007 15:13 Myrmidon wrote:
People who know what they're talking about agree that propaganda of the sort in the OP is not art. It might be worth looking at in a different context and relevant to historians, maybe, but without digging through centuries of arguments in art criticism, just accept that it's not considered art.

On May 27 2007 15:20 {ToT}Strafe wrote:
Fuck it, just have to post this one.
+ Show Spoiler +

On May 27 2007 15:08 Navane wrote:



..blablabla

i wasnt going to post here but your narrowmindedness enraged my allready heated mind (i just watched napoleon dynamite): you can't tell one what's art and what's not - everything and nothing is art. It's not a protected title.

"Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting." <- you try to force us from perceiving the image in any form but stale propaganda.

On May 27 2007 17:04 geometryb wrote:
i took an art history class in high school and we learned about the evolution of the human figure and the different styles. we were taught to compare things across time periods. etc. etc. but i really don't know how to discuss art. i mean i can look at a piece and identify the style/artist/why it's significant in art history. but looking for "meaning" in art is just something that never went well with me. i mean why do we even care what the artist's intentions were or what it means to us and the message he is trying to send? i am very curious...

what does art mean to you?



btw to the people who are arguing about "what is/isn't art":

well, marcul duchamp's fountain (which someone already posted) makes us challenge what we consider art. it's a urinal, it's mass produced, and it was ripped directly out of a bathroom. is this art? is this work any less valid than those of monet or bernini or da vinci? there isn't one answer to this and everyone's responses will vary.

propoganda is probably one of the main reasons for the production or art in the first place isn't it? pretty much every religious piece can be seen as a form of propoganda. and also roman arches/columns to commemorate victories and great emperors, palaces etc there are lots of examples.