Whatever happened to real art?

[Q Classic]

The rubbish bag does nothing for YOU.

the rubbish bag does nothing for me, correct.

But you cannot say that Rubbish Bag is not art, all you should be saying is that it is not what you like in art.

i consider certain computer games art. however, i'm frequently told it isn't. those same people then turn around and tell me that a plastic bag, which did not involve nearly as much effort, sacrifice, and meaning as said game to make is art.
this is what i take offense at, and this is what i find most problematic of the nature of art today. a sort of snobbery, that some art is art, while the rest is just rubbish for mass consumption--and those of us who don't understand the art art are ignorant imbeciles with no taste.

Yeah, that's fine, that's how it is supposed to be.

if the curator wants to consider it art, that's fine. if the artist wants to, that's fine too. i don't consider it art. on the other hand, i consider the arrangement of my dorm room to be the epitome of installation artwork, but i have yet to publicize it.

[monolith94]

I couldn't resist....

[GePap]

Certainly a classic. Though isn;t the pic a bit cut off? I though you could also see somehting peaking through the bottom of the curtain, in one of the corners.

[Ecthy]

at your first post, Albert... some real cool art from former times and then that piece of crap,

(there's something about satire that I adore...)

[FrostyBoy]

Q Cubed, saying one thing is not art and another is, is like saying that something has no mathematical relation and something else does.

Art is universal, it the essence of everything.

[FrostyBoy]

..

[FrostyBoy]

This is the sort of artwork I prefer in a painting.

[monolith94]

Yeah - beautiful women make great subjects!

[Al B. Sure!]

Monolith:

what is that painting? and is that an Egyptian 'Ud on the table?


GePap:

fine... i'm not very well versed in religion or the bible so i can not tell you everything in the pictures but i'll take the first one and try... even a medieval peasant probably knew more than i do...



the knight is basically the Christian hero; the ideal of man and he looks forward all determined to stay on his path, ignoring the gnarled embodiment of death with its hour glass, as well as the boar-headed devil behind him. i dont know what the dog means (it might just be thrown in for no reason by Durer) but basically, this painting communicates the idea that you should go on forward on the true path with the sins of the devil behind you and though death may always be at your side with its hour glass counting down your days, you must ignore him and continue on.

pretty simple message and technically, it is very well drawn. straight forward allegories

[GePap]

Or it could mean that the Knight, as amna of war, rides with along with these forces of evil, or perhaps it shows a man of power in his arrogance (with a steed and hound and armor and a sword all to show his power) and how it can not save him. The devil behind him hold the time he has left until death, which the skull in the ground signifies.

No, the message is not simple, and yes, a medeival peasant would be much better versed than us in the allegories. Anyone can appriciate the technical craftmanship of the drawing, but now ecveryone can understand the full meaning, if any.

[Al B. Sure!]

GePap:

you got to think of the times and you're talking about Durer a german during the emerging protestant reformation who was obsessed with religious violence (hence all his apocalyptic drawings)

so your two interpretations while yeah they do make sense, do not really fit with Durer or the times. they actually are very good interpretations and i can really see what you're talking about but in the context of the times, i dont think Durer would have been trying to belittle the christian knight.

[Sava]

the internet has given rise to the greatest exchange of art in history!

[monolith94]

"in the context of the times, i dont think Durer would have been trying to belittle the christian knight."

Well, that's your opinion. I personally think the age of the knight shown lends more credence to GePaps interpretation #1 - that's the message I take from the art as well. Plus there's a neat little parallel as well - both the knight and satan are riding horses.

You don't think that all people thought the same about the upper classes, do you? Artists have always been known as idelogical rebels!

[Al B. Sure!]

Monolith:

no... death is riding a horse. satan is behind him walking.

[GePap]

So he rides with Death, doesn't he?

The knight (who was a man of War, and hardly ever a big symbol of Christian purity by himself [I can think of any medeival pistures I have seen were a knight is inherently good]) had no symbols of the faith on him. What does he carry on his other hand?

you got to think of the times and you're talking about Durer a german during the emerging protestant reformation who was obsessed with religious violence (hence all his apocalyptic drawings)

And how does this back up your notion? Who do you think was doing all the killings at this time? Armored men in horseback, for one. In a time of geenral war, and armed man would hardly be an obvious symbol of Christ, specially this one? There is no sign of him doing anything about the demon or death, just going with them. And hwta is death counting down to? With his sandclock? Would a good Christian knight fear death (aka, his time running out?)