Poll: Can just the color white be art?
Poll Options
View poll results: Can just the color white be art?
Yes
35 39%
No
46 51%
dno lol
9 10%
Voters: 90.
Page 1 of 2
#1
So I had to go see this stupid and terrible play with school, but it did bring forth an interesting question. The play was about three friends, one of them bought a painting that was just white with nothing on it but the color white, and throughout a lot of the play the guy who bought it was arguing with his friend about if this painting was art or not.

So is a painting with just the color white on it really art? Can you justify paying a lot of money for it?
#2
No it's not. Because if it was art then I would be a good artist. I am not an artist.
ggg1 ggg3

.
#3
Me? No I would not pay for a blank canvas unless I would paint over it. A lot of times though, when an artist submits a work that goes against the norm, it's because he/she is already a skilled artist who can play by the rules. That's why pros don't consider scribbled drawings made by 5 year olds as art but they do when it's done by... Michelangelo.
Last edited by metaldud536 at Oct 15, 2011,
#4
Yes, so long as there is a meaning behind it.

Is 4'33 music?




EDIT: seriously though, I'll lay it out for you: minimalism is highly popular at one point. Painters are becoming more and more minimal and abstract. So, one artist responds to all of this by just painting a canvas white: the ultimate minimalism while still actually painting it. This response is heralded by critics for its sarcasm, humor, seriousness or whatever emotion the critic feels the work has conveyed, supported by what the artist says it is about. This first time it is done, it is art: a direct response to other artists. The second time it is done, it is not art, as it does not have the same message instilled in it which the first one did - merely a copy. Later, a canvas which had been slashed through with a blade is exhibited: a response to the white canvas. This is how art develops, for the most part.

Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Oct 15, 2011,
#6
Does it have depth?
╘MESHUG╦G╗AH





Ibanez ARX 350
Dunlop 535Q
Ibanez TS9
Peavey TransTube Supreme
DRIVE Elite straight 412
#7
Unless the paint is made with from the dust of grinded ivory, I wouldn't pay anything for it. I guess it's technically art, but it's not very good.
#8
Quote by Banjocal
Yes, so long as there is a meaning behind it.

Is 4'33 music?




EDIT: seriously though, I'll lay it out for you: minimalism is highly popular at one point. Painters are becoming more and more minimal and abstract. So, one artist responds to all of this by just painting a canvas white: the ultimate minimalism while still actually painting it. This response is heralded by critics for its sarcasm, humor, seriousness or whatever emotion the critic feels the work has conveyed, supported by what the artist says it is about. This first time it is done, it is art: a direct response to other artists. The second time it is done, it is not art, as it does not have the same message instilled in it which the first one did - merely a copy. Later, a canvas which had been slashed through with a blade is exhibited: a response to the white canvas. This is how art develops, for the most part.


That's stupid.
#9
I'd only consider stupid stuff like that to be art if it was the very first thing of its kind: for example, the very first painting that was just a black polygon on a white background, would be original and unusual, but any subsequent attempts (people running out of ideas/paint and just coming in with a blank canvas and going "hay guise this is art right?) would be unoriginal and boring.
#11
Quote by LRCGUITAR
I'd only consider stupid stuff like that to be art if it was the very first thing of its kind: for example, the very first painting that was just a black polygon on a white background, would be original and unusual, but any subsequent attempts (people running out of ideas/paint and just coming in with a blank canvas and going "hay guise this is art right?) would be unoriginal and boring.



What if the artistic intent is for the piece to copy another style and for it to be intentionally unoriginal ans boring?
#12
Quote by Dirge Humani
That's stupid.

I'm just telling you how that came about. It's not exactly good art, but the art community will tell you it is . I'm on the fence, myself. I prefer something with some content in it. From what I gather most critics consider it art for its statement as opposed to its aesthetic.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Oct 15, 2011,
#13
Quote by StewieSwan
Is an A note considered music?



I'd consider it "musical" rather than "music", as it has potential but nothing on it's own.

Dunno what the equivalent for aesthetic art would be.
#15
Quote by Banjocal
I'm just telling you how that came about. It's not exactly good art, but the art community will tell you it is . I'm on the fence, myself. I prefer something with some content in it. From what I gather most critics consider it art for its statement as opposed to its aesthetic.

Art critics are stupid.
#16
Art is subjective. If it's art to you then it is.
Personally I wouldn't consider it so.
Warning: The above post may contain lethal levels of radiation, sharp objects and sexiness.
Proceed with extreme caution!
#17
Quote by Dirge Humani
Art critics are stupid.

So you have said.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#20
things like this are entirely subjective.

in my opinion, if something has some meaning that can be conveyed through a creative medium, it's "art". the fact that you a)may not understand the message b)may not appreciate the message or c)may not appreciate the way that the message is conveyed doesn't make the "art" any less valid.

50 years ago, do you think the majority of people would have considered bands like Zeppelin or Sabbath "art"? i'd say no. but today we consider them pioneers do we not? same concept applies here.
Quote by Scutchington
I like this guy, he's UG's Greek, and he just told your ass in two paragraphs. And I once spent 5 minutes watching his avatar.


A Brain Malfunction

We'll Never Admit As Defeat
#21
If you was told that that painting was white women, in white dresses, in white snow, then you could perceive it as art.

Or pretend that the painting was black. You know what you have there? 5 Negroes in a cave.
BLANKBLANK
#22
Quote by Dirge Humani
Art critics are stupid.


This is what I came in to say.
#23
Sure.

Art can be anything as long as it has thought behind it. That is, a canvas that you bought but haven't used yet isn't art. If you choose to add it to an exhibit though - while still white - it's art.
#25
I personally hate art like that. I find most art like the to be absurd, but then there is some art that makes you really think about the things around you as works of art, although they are just every day objects. I think art should require some technical skill and not just somebody doing something ridiculous and calling it art.



now that is my example of art, although it's abstract in a way it still evokes some emotional response. I don't think you should need to have somebody there to explain why it's art, you should be able to decipher it for yourself
#27
Quote by StewieSwan
Is an A note considered music?

when I read that, I clicked the 'yes' in your sig
HILT!

Where's Waldo?

#28
If I hack at a block of wood in a fury and accidentally create an incredibly clear human figure in it, is that art?
i don't know why i feel so dry
#29
Quote by Edgeworth08
I personally hate art like that. I find most art like the to be absurd, but then there is some art that makes you really think about the things around you as works of art, although they are just every day objects. I think art should require some technical skill and not just somebody doing something ridiculous and calling it art


See: Popular music.
#30
Just like a song, I think a good art piece should exploit the idea that it is based on to the fullest extent; not half assed.
#32
Yes, yes it is art. But I wouldn't buy it, and it's a long irrelevant form of art. Yes, it was revolutionary in the early 20th century, but if done nowadays it kind of loses its meaning. Art is not necessarily the object itself, but rather the meaning of the object.
#34
Quote by justinb904
Art is subjective. If it's art to you then it is.
Personally I wouldn't consider it so.

Mhm
#35
Quote by institutions
Modern art is bullshit.


This , thank god someone said it

EDIT: I don't think art is about skills as much as it is about the message it is conveying. That's why there is art I consider good and art I consider as total bullshit.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Last edited by Good_Lord at Oct 15, 2011,
#37
^ Because it can literally be a pile of bullshit ( or anything that is related to it )
- - - - - - - - - - -
#40
I'm not hating modern art for ''not being art'' , I hate it because it is not the kind of art I come to appreciate as a person.

To me , a flipped over urinal is very lame art , but sadly it's still art.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Page 1 of 2