Because I have my reasons to say that it, along with a lot of other postmodern "art" just isn't art.
- Yes, it is art.
- No, it is not art.
Most Helpful Girl
Anything in a museum now is garbage. Modern art is so caught up on trying to do the next thing nobody has done before and prescribing some fake deep message to it so when naturally you call them out for making what is objectively trash they can look down their nose at you and say "well that's just because you don't GET it." Oh I get it. And it's shit.
I don't care what bullshit you spout a shelf of used erasers and a rug you bought at Ikea then tacked on a wall is not art.
I have seen one exception. I went to an art museum in Denver (it was a free day and I was forced into it, never would have gone otherwise) there was a room that was a replica of an Italian restaurant, painted entirely blood red, being torn apart by equally blood red foxes. And that was it, a place getting fucked up by some wild animals. The two foxes fighting over bread sticks did not symbolize gang wars or some other such bullshit. It was just two wild animals fighting for food, as they would.
Most Helpful Guy
One man's art is another man's garbage, just like one man's garbage is another's art.
Art is party by the intention of the maker, you can have art — it doesn’t make it good art — but someone who thinks they are doing something that has a community content and they’re trying to communicate with us, with others who participate in this art in a way that somehow suggests or communicates something of real value that can’t be said or can’t be easily described. The art is dependent of the person who is seeking to declare it art.
You see things that are supposedly masterpieces that a two year old could have done.