This reading immediately made me think of the stun pulled by the artist known as Banksy. He sold one of his works at an auction, and upon the auction closing, the frame which the painting was in shredded the painting. I think this was his way of getting a similar statement out there, that it is ridiculous what some people will pay money for. I think this is similar to what the artist in the reading was getting after, though a bit different in that the reading was more of a dig at an artist, while Banksy’s act was a dig at the consumers of art.
Its hard to say what art is, or what it isn’t, in world with NFT’s, basketball cards can now be considered art.
I think that art is probably anything that speaks to someone. For instance, this painting was sold for an astronomical amount of money, and some people might say “that’s just a white line”, while others might get a great deal of meaning from the piece.
I don’t know if it is anyone’s position to say what is and isn’t art, but to he point about the article, I think Koons stretched the line a bit by charging so much for an inflatable dog statue, and one that he didn’t make himself. I think the issue is that Koons himself didn’t make the piece of art, as many people have recreated simple objects and sold them as art.
Digital art is comprised of a wide range of mediums, and I think you could even argue that companies like Pixar create digital art. Though maybe my definition and opinion will change as the semester progresses.
Comments