What's new
By:
Filters

This "art" Boils My Blood....

I suppose if they'd used dead fish it would have been more acceptable...

Personally, I think it does strike an odd cord, there is something disturbing and 'other' that I can't place my finger on. I do like it.

Besides, I believe there is someone on this forum who has a picture of a betta in a vase with a picture of a Sharpei puppy in an extremely small cage next to it, explaining that if you wouldn't do this to a dog, why do it to a fish? (note, I'm not getting on the person case about this, I think it's a very well done example that, hmmm, oddly, strikes a cord, just as it was meant to) but no one complains about someone sticking a puppy in a cage that small to take pictures of it.

And considering the knife is dull and the fish aren't actually living in the bowl, I think it's a disturbing but otherwise harmless thing. Now, if some idiot where to actually think this is the perfect way to keep goldfish... That would be just plain stupid.
 
I don't see anything "creative and intelligent" about it. It's not even so much that it's not kind to the goldfish...It's just STUPID!!! How is that art?? (Note to any artists we have here, I do not want to offend anybody) Did she envision it for months in her head, dream of "molding" it to her vision, live it, breathe it, until her vision became art? Or did she just throw some s**t together to get a reaction from people, thus drawing them in, calling her edgy, controversial, etc. Now I know that I have just came up with my own version (or is it a vision?) of a series of events that may or may not be real.
So hey everybody.....LOOK AT THE ART I JUST MADE!!!
 
well you cant say its *not* art, because everyone in the world has different personalities. for example: you people hate this pretty much because you are all fish fanatics, (no offence i am too) but to somone that feels very sad or mad or somthing this *IS* art to them, because it reflects their emotion and how they feel about it... anyways. ive been to the lourve museum and if you dont like that *art* then you would throw up in this place. there are picture far worse then that goldfish and knife... but they are only there because they are considered art bacause when they *were* painted, thats how things were, and thats how people thought about stuff...
 
It does nothing for me. For me it is not art, just crap. I doubt that the fish will be there long term and the knife poses no danger to the fish. It might be pathetic but not dangerous.

-john
 
Even if the goldfish was a plastic one, its not art. Any 5yr old could put a knife in a bowl and fill it up with water- i don't even see where using intelligence would come into doing somthing like that, let alone creativity.
If that is art then some of the tanks in the gallery section here are masterpeices (and fish freindly too) :teacher: :lol: !

edit: for sp
 
If that's art god help us, sick individuals just trying to get a name for themselves, as they don't have any creativity.
 
Unfortunately, what makes something "art" sometimes is the name of the person that is dong it. If I splash some paint on a piece of canvas, and try to sell it, people would look at the "painting" and the name signed to it and say "what is this crap". But is Picasso did the same thing, it would be a masterpiece. Same goes for this. If one of us put a fish in a bowl with a knife, people would call us idiots but since the "artist" in this case is apparently known for this type "art" then it goes on exhibit and I guess the artsy f...sys drool over how wonderful it is.

I think the gallery director misses the whole point of the problem here when she says the knife poses no problem for the fish. It's not that the fish will cut itself on a knife. It's that a fish is "living" in an unfiltered bowl (literally) with less than a cup of water. How often do you think the water gets changed or the fish gets fed or whether they use dechlorinator when they do change the water?

And just incase anyone wants to know, I flunked Art Appreciation in college. Most of those "masterpieces" just looked like stuff my kids did in kindergarten when they were fingerpainting. I guess I'm just not cultured, just a good ol' southern redneck.
 
picasso's "are" masterpieces... im sure if he splashed some paint on a canvas like you put it it wouldnt be art it would in fact be "crap" but picasso had his own unique style and all of his paintings actually had meaning...
 
collared_drifter said:
picasso's "are" masterpieces... im sure if he splashed some paint on a canvas like you put it it wouldnt be art it would in fact be "crap" but picasso had his own unique style and all of his paintings actually had meaning...
Click to expand...
I'm not picking on Picasso. He's just the only artist I could think of at the time. Just saying that a well known artist could get away with throwing crap together because his fans would be able to find meaning in it.

I guess Andy Warhol (I think that's right) and his classic masterpiece "Campbell's Soup Can" is a better example. I mean it's a painting of a can of soup. How wonderful would that have been if one of us had painted it?
 
well most of the time its not who has painted it, its just the picture itself, and to everyones taste and style.. the cambels soup can stuff is only mainly just a gagish kind of thing. but everyone loves it cause its interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Loved And Lost ... My Babies Over The Years
Replies
7
Views
941
seffieuk
seffieuk
Tokis-Phoenix
Dog Control Laws And Pit Bulls
5 6 7
Replies
93
Views
10K
red-devil0602
red-devil0602

Most reactions

Useful Links

Back
Top