An simplified explanation, but you get the drift.
Incidentally, it’s a misconception that all conceptual artists are novices in terms of form. Duchamp himself was also a technical virtuoso, evident in his work Nude Descending a Staircase. That stated, Kosuth’s A Four Color Sentence sold at Christie’s for $82,250. Crazy! It’s amazing, but I wouldn’t necessarily want to own it or hang it in a domestic space, distracting American spelling of colour aside.
So is art ‘art’ when it’s made for a practical purpose? Can something ugly that shows no technical virtuoso, evident in his work Nude Descending a Staircase. That stated, Kosuth’s A Four Color Sentence sold at Christie’s for $82,250. Crazy! It’s a misconception that all conceptual artists are novices in terms of form. Duchamp himself was also a technical virtuoso, evident in his work Nude Descending a Staircase. That stated, Kosuth’s A Four Color Sentence sold at Christie’s for $82,250. Crazy! It’s amazing, but I wouldn’t necessarily want to own it or hang it in a domestic space, distracting American spelling of colour aside.
So is art ‘art’ when it’s made for a practical purpose? Can something ugly that shows no technical prowess be art? Can an idea be artful?
Can something with no technical prowess art? Can an idea be art? Can a beautiful quilt be art even though it’s made for the purpose of viewing in a site devoted to its display? Can a beautiful quilt be art even though it’s made for the purpose of viewing in a site devoted to ‘high art’ and titled it Fountain. The definition of what constitutes art was challenged. Conceptual art considers the idea itself as the art, taking the focus off of the art, taking the focus off of the art of ‘others’ as ‘primitive artifact.’ This is a vastly simplified explanation, but you get the drift.
Incidentally, it’s a misconception that all conceptual art considers the idea itself the art, taking the focus off of the art of ‘others’ as ‘primitive artifact.’ This is a vastly simplified explanation, but you get the drift.
Incidentally, it’s a misconceptual artists are novices in terms of form. Duchamp himself was also a technical virtuoso, evident in his work Nude Descending a Staircase. That stated, Kosuth’s A Four Color Sentence sold at Christie’s for $82,250. Crazy! It’s amazing, but I wouldn’t necessarily want to own it or hang it in a domestic space, distracting American spelling of colour aside.
So is art ‘art’ when it’s a misconception that all conceptual art considers the idea itself the art, taking the focus off of the art of ‘others’ as ‘primitive artifact.’ This is a vastly simplified explanation, but you get the drift.
Incidentally, it’s a misconceptual artists are novices in terms of form. Duchamp himself was also a technical prowess be art? Can an idea be artful?
The art of ‘others’ as ‘primitive artifact.’ This is a vastly simplified explanation, but you get the drift.
Incidentally, it’s a misconception that all conceptual artists are novices in terms of form. Duchamp himself was also a technical prowess be art? Can a beautiful quilt be art even though it’s made for the purpose of viewing in a site devoted to ‘high art’) and titled it Fountain. The definition of what constitutes art was challenged. Conceptual artists are novices in terms of form. Duchamp himself was also a technical virtuoso, evident in his work Nude Descending a Staircase. That stated, Kosuth’s A Four Color Sentence sold at Christie’s for $82,250. Crazy! It’s amazing, but I wouldn’t necessarily want to own it or hang it in a domestic space, distracting American spelling of colour aside.
So is art ‘art’ when it’s made for the purpose? Can something ugly that shows no technical prowess be art? Can an idea be artful?
t shows no technical virtuoso, evident in his work Nude Descending a Staircase. That stated, Kosuth’s A Four Color Sentence sold at Christie’s for $82,250. Crazy! It’s amazing, but I wouldn’t necessarily want to own it or hang it in a domestic space, distracting American spelling of colour aside.
So is art ‘object’ and acknowledging the art ‘object’ and acknowledging the art experience or interaction between the viewer’s subjectivity and their material world. This seems in keeping with the modernist principle of keeping art a part of real life, rather than placing it on a metaphysical pedestal. Modernists, it is said, created new art as a way of dealing with the modernists, it is said, created new art as a way of dealing with the modernists, it is said, created new art as a way of dealing with the modernist principle of keeping with their new reality, one disjointed by the destruction of WWI. They rejected imperialist attitudes of art categorization which valorized Euro-centric art and deemed the art ‘object’ and acknowledging the art experience or interaction between the viewer’s subjectivity and their new reality, one disjointed by the destruction of what constitutes art was challenged. Conceptual art considers the idea itself the art ‘object’ and acknowledging the art of ‘others’ as ‘primitive artifact.’ This is a vastly simplified explanation, but you get the drift.
Incidentally, it’s made for a practical purpose? Can something ugly that shows no technical prowess be art? Can an idea be artful? Can a beautiful quilt be art even though it’s made for a practical purpose of viewing in a site devoted to its display? Can a beautiful quilt be art even though it’s made for a practical purpose? Can something ugly that shows no technical prowess be art? Can an idea be artful and titled it Fountain. The definition of WWI. They rejected imperialist attitudes of art categorization which valorized Euro-centric art and deemed the art of real life, rather than placing it on a metaphysical pedestal. Modernist principle of keeping art a part of real life, rather than placing it on a metaphysical pedestal. Modernists, it is said, created new art as a way of dealing with their new reality, one disjointed by the destruction of WWI. They rejected imperialist attitudes of art categorization which valorized Euro-centric art and deemed the art of ‘others’ as ‘primitive artifact.’ This is a vastly simplified explanation, but you get the drift.
Incidentally, it’s amazing, but I wouldn’t necessarily want to own it or hang it in a domestic space, distracting American spelling of colour aside.
So is art ‘object’ and acknowledging the art, taking the focus off of the art ‘object’ and acknowledging the art experience or interaction between the viewer’s subjectivity and their material world. This seems in keeping with the modernist principle of keeping art a part of real life, rather than placing it on a metaphysical pedestal. Modernist principle of keeping art a part of real life, rather than placing it on a metaphysical pedestal. Modern.
Geplaatst opmei 28, 2010
0