take your fancy book-learnin' and your French cheese and stick it!!! we americans beat the mexicans...and we stole their jalapenos. they're ours now! USA! USA! USA!
I'm not "just missing it". In your eyes, they're both art. As far as I'm concerned however, there are two options: 1. Britney Spears concerts are not art at all or 2. They're not nearly as close to being "art" as a van Gogh painting. I made the concession in the interest of agreement, but that doesn't mean that I feel an objective view is completely wrong. Is the subjective view better? Naturally. And using a subjective view, a Britney Spears concert is still less "art" than a van Gogh painting, and to claim that they are on the same level is ridiculous. And by no means do I feel that anything that comes out of Europe is "art". But even you must admit that our contributions as Americans to "art" have been few compared to Europe. Is that partly a product of the fact that we've only been around for 200 years? Partly, but not nearly as much as the fact that we've never been dedicated to the production of the arts. In the beginning, our only culture was what came over on ships with the settlers from Europe. What culture have we developed of our own since then? Your post gave examples of regional culture. Hey, good for them. But how many of these "regional" cultures are just bastardizations of other culture (Texas with Mexico, for instance)? The US has almost no culture of our own, because we never cared to develop or encourage interest in the arts, which has historically been the measure of a nation or region's culture. We tend to look down on artists as useless (unless they're entertainers, in which case we pay them millions of dollars). This all goes back to my original argument that the US has become a soulless, greedy, corporate nation with absolutely no interest in the arts or anything other than over-consumption and making money.
what are you on about? quit talking about van gogh until you give some examples of why it's art. the center of the "art world" shifted to new york city in the fifties. i'll stack my boys up against your euros any day.
No. Objectively (which you might want to look up in a dictionary) they both meet any reasonable definition of art. You don't have an 'objective' view. I said they were both art. Whether they are on the same 'level' is a subjective assessment. You are entitled to your subjective assessment but don't trump it as something else. Ali G's movie is still less 'art' than 'The Godfather.' So what. I can name a (subjectively) 'bad' art piece from Europe for every one you can name from the US. That doesn't prove anything accept that we're all subjective. If you mean total number of pieces of art, sure. But that is primarily due to how long we've been around. If you mean 'good art' vs 'bad art' I'd say I'm not sure why you're subjective view is the definitive opinion. Uh, Jazz? The blues? Western Swing? We can start with those. You can refer back to my post that lists painters and poets and writers if you want. Your view is way to simplistic. No society has a culture independent of others. Cheese, since you like that one, was not discovered in France, for example. 'Historically been the measure???' How do you measure that, to begin with? Who says thats the standard? You just type out sweeping generalizations with little warrants for your claims. Yes. And its still the same flawed argument.
Actually, it started shifting in the early 40's (and as a result not only of American movements, but of European elite coming here due to German and Soviet aggression)...and it was only temporary. Now, there really isn't a center of the art world. It is shared among NY, Paris, London, and Tokyo (with possibly even more than that). Nobody really dominates anymore.
Deckard: I suppose i should now post a pic of britney jiggling on stage so we can continue this objective debate...
except for us good old AMERICANS EATING THE CHEESE WITH THE JALAPENOS WE STOLE FROM THE MEXICANS!!! jalapenos, bi$ch!!!!!
I haven't had a chance to read through many of the posts so I apologize if these points have been made already. Would you consider the original Ellington "Take the A Train" art or for that matter Beethovens 9th Symphony because in the first case it was written and recorded for mass production or in the latter because it was intended to be performed and reproduced many times. For that matter works by Andy Warhol or crafts. Shouldn't an Eames chair be considered a work or art? But of course this was prior to industrialization and since industrialization. I would guess that if DaVinci had access to a printing press he probably would've like to see reproductions of the Mona Lisa and get royalties. If I remember my art history correctly the Lascaux cave paintings were meant to be magical to bring better hunting. Certainly that would be considered a material benefit. The problem I have with this is that this is a "snobbish" and very limited view of art. I work in a field that can be considered applied art and would rather believe that art comes in many forms and that it is stunting to consider one thing ART and one art.
Anyone still interested in the economic and geopolitcal issues about a potential cold war between the US and Europe? Those might be easier to figure out than trying to determine what is ART and what is art.
Yes, my 9 year old. Not too shabby, if you ask me. And anyone who wants to post something of Spears is welcome... just don't make Max mad.
That was the best by far because it came out of nowhere. Cheers. Sishir, 1. You are confused about mass production. 2. You are again arguing with something that I am not with regards to what is and isn't "art." I am just pointing to difference within categories, not exclusion. 3. You are calling my argument snobbish without understanding my argument.
I couldn't help myself... we don't know what the Lascaux paintings meant to those that painted them. Anything on our part is pure conjecture. What exactly did she/he/it mean? Some of the best art, imo, produces just that effect. We try to put our own interpretations on the work of the artist/artists. They could have been an attempt to use magic to improve their hunting. They could also mean something else, or nothing. I would bet against them meaning nothing, but that would be my opinion. And this could go on all day. Keep D&D Civil!!
