Now that the dust has settled, do you consider this art? High quality, or low quality? And why? I'll put my opinion in a reply.
>>82894258I would count ityou can interpret in a lot of waysI see the decay of lifeyou start green you hit your prime and then your oldXD
>>82894258The banana is legendary, and legends are art.
>>82894258i really really really like this artwork
>>82894258the only arguement i can see for this being art is it was made by a woman, requires an absurd degree of retardation to believe is art, and made them rich with 0 actual work or effort which is a profound comment on how easy women have it. so no, but because i dont see it as art and women are fucking worthless it actually is art by not being art
Yes. The rage it got is a typical example of the power of art in getting a reaction
>>82894273That's a very astute interpretation, especially considering the that the "artist" and the procurer who bought it see it as a statement about the art world>>82894290Made by a man, Maurizio Cattelan>>82894294The piece itself doesn't evoke rage, though. The rage is caused by people upset that it sold as art for a bunch of money.
i never like the whole "just by saying something and/or getting people talking that MAKES it art" argument.i still don't think all video games ever made are art, but they involve pretty straightforward art (pixel art, music, etc). mix of art and engineering, similar to architecture (can be hugely creative, or can just be designing a functional building).this, however, is nothing. it's a banana taped to a wall. it's not even "clever", it's like when people use sarcasm to avoid the non-ironic effort they're sarcasm-ing their way out of.
>>82894258>>82894258No, it is not art. If you do consider it art, you must admit that it is technically low quality. If art is in the eye of the beholder, then this piece says a lot about the beholder. Since art has no agreed upon definition, we can go off of what we know about art: 1) art changes us, and we change the world2) art, especially when done professionally, is meant to be proudly displayed, but it may be hatefully destroyed 3) a piece of art fabricates reality in order to give us real feelings The first point is vague and general, and is pretty much a catch all that allows anything to be art. However, it doesn't let anything be "good" art. The second point is almost self explanatory. Your either proud enough of the art you own that you want to show the world, or the art represents something so counter to you, that you want to make a spectacle of destroying it, like tearing down a dictator's statue and melting it into bullets. To explain the third point, consider pornography as an art form. It is meant to inspire lust, but the woman on the video and I don't know each other. This is not an actual sexy video sent to me by a lover. Real base desires are triggered by a fabrication.Continued...
>>82894258It's funny for getting people so upset over it
>>82894324>made by a man>Maurizio Cattelanspic name. minorities are not men. even so by your logic the same things ive said still apply just replace woman with minority
>>82894258theres no "art" nowdays the very secund they remove tax breaks from art the artists will have to get a real job
>>82894516Now, on to "Comedian," a banana duct taped to a wall. This piece is proudly displayed in a museum, so imagine visiting it. On a good day, I will see a banana, and in the back of my mind, my true base reaction is that it's food, and that I should eat it. But I am a civilized person, so I push those thoughts away, and might think something about the decay of life like >>82894273 . I might read a critique of the modern art industry, and think about it. However, bananas rot. Three weeks later, I might see the piece again, but I'll smell it first. It will be gross, stinky, attracting insects, and the base reaction will be my desire to throw it away. The base reaction is not being fabricated, and it completely drowns out any artistic interpretation. There is no desire to spectacularly or ceremoniously destroy the piece. It is simply common civility to throw away rotten fruit. By this reasoning, we must conclude that, if it is art, it is technically unskilled, because the artist neglected to put preservatives on the banana.Continued...
>>82894554>B-b-but art is in the eye of the beholder! You can interpret it however you want!Fine, but the interpretation says a lot about the beholder. My interpretation is that a scammer pawned off his trash for hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you interpret it as art, then as I already pointed out, it is unskilled, low quality art. Just like I wouldn't color outside the lines and expect mommy to put it on the fridge, I wouldn't buy a rotten banana to put on my wall.>B-b-but that's the critique it's making about the modern art world! You're missing the point!Am I? The curator paid hundreds of thousands for a rotting banana, and now has to swap it out with a fresh banana every few weeks. So is he a sucker who hasn't got a clue? Or is he a cuckold with a humiliation fetish? The interpretation of the piece is now dependant on the purchaser. Thus, it can't be art.
>>82894290>It's art by not being artNothing can be so meta. It's not art.
>>82894661you fail to see how retarded the logic of a woman's brain can be
>>82894258It's technically art in the same way that shit can technically be food. Low quality and disgusting.
>>82894258No. Art besides other things is a thing your ordinary normie cant repeat.
>>82894258its almost exactly a century away from duchamps infamous urinal (102 years) just over a century of this and then the next decade the artists complain about AI
>>82894864I had no idea that disgusting ironic cringelords existed back then
>>82894258Art can be anything, this however is shit but its still art
>>82894258I legitimately can't recall a single piece of traditional art made this decade that evoked any emotion other than annoyance.It is remarkable in that the entire artform has been completely subverted into non-existence. Nothing can convey a sincere emotion anymore, it's all bananas on walls.
>>82894957there's a dinner scene in Rebecca (1940) where they talk about art. one of the guys bemoans modern art, where they just draw a few shapes and claim it means (xyz).
>>82895116In a sense death of art is art in in itself. Every "abstract" piece gains new meaning when you understand it's made on the corpse of something Good. It has a message you don't need to imagine or theorize because it is apparent- This is nonsense. It's nothing. A Post-post-post-modern creation that has lost all meaning and purpose. People only consume things like this because they don't know something Good can even exist, and for money laundering.That, at least, evokes an emotion.
