Originally posted by Brother EdwinNot Micheal Angelo's "David" then?
Today I was walking around my cousins collages art showing at some building in central London. One of the things on display(not my cousins) was a real middele aged unfit man standing there naked coverd in white paint.
That is not art.
Originally posted by Brother EdwinWhat is the purpose of art? Maybe you think art is about beauty? No, it is not.
Today I was walking around my cousins collages art showing at some building in central London. One of the things on display(not my cousins) was a real middele aged unfit man standing there naked coverd in white paint.
That is not art.
I was told that the purpose of art is to mimic life. To "bring to the attention of the masses certain aspects of life that they would not otherwise be aware of, and/or to see it more clearly defined."
I think the fact that the piece upset you means that it is indeed a work of art.
Originally posted by Brother EdwinThat was probably not great to look at, but did it have a piece of writing explaining the piece? If not then it's pointless.
Today I was walking around my cousins collages art showing at some building in central London. One of the things on display(not my cousins) was a real middele aged unfit man standing there naked coverd in white paint.
That is not art.
I love you as always Ravello 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by arrakisthis guys got it!!!
What is the purpose of art? Maybe you think art is about beauty? No, it is not.
I was told that the purpose of art is to mimic life. To "bring to the attention of the masses certain aspects of life that they would not otherwise be aware of, and/or to see it more clearly defined."
I think the fact that the piece upset you means that it is indeed a work of art.
i am fat, i look like ive been covered in white paint...
and i like being observed in the nude...
(though it is usually better when a chick is observing... guys don't do anything for me...)
and when i take my clothes off... i usually get the direct attention of the masses...!
Originally posted by Brother EdwinSure it is... it's very bad art.
Today I was walking around my cousins collages art showing at some building in central London. One of the things on display(not my cousins) was a real middele aged unfit man standing there naked coverd in white paint.
That is not art.
P-
The post that was quoted here has been removedNo, I was saying that an explanation next to the piece of work would help the viewer to understand it rather than just seeing it as a naked man covered in paint. An explanation should be produced if the piece of work is not easily understood.
Cave paintings are quite good art, they represent an age and do not need an explanation next to them as it is easy to see what they represent.
