Vote
24 Total Votes
1

No,

10 votes
3 comments
2

Yes, very much

5 votes
2 comments
3

Is it art?!

4 votes
0 comments
4

No, because it is modern

2 votes
0 comments
5

Yes, it is so ugly

2 votes
0 comments
6

Yes, it is so graceless

1 vote
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
TBR says2015-04-04T11:45:56.2892200-05:00
Several of these types of questions have been posted recently. I know its a old(ish) point to bicker over, but this bickering has happened with every change in art. I would like you (any one who say "yes" in any form) to look at this, and tell me how they react. http://www.markrothko.org/images/paintings/black-in-deep-red.jpg
InveiglingDragon says2016-03-27T23:56:24.2863261Z
I will say that that statue of the balloon dog does fit my definition for "ridiculous." But well... That's kind of fun too.
cyber_onions says2016-12-14T15:34:03.0122023Z
Some art is supposed to be ridiculous - I think the Koons in the picture is an example of this (though with Koons, who really knows). Some people don't understand art, and they want it to be made easy for them, something they can consume and say aahhh that's a pretty picture. These people might see anything beyond (deeply culturally entrenched) representation as ridiculous. *Contemporary art. 'Modern' art refers specifically to the era of Modernism, which ended circa 1970. The word you're looking for is 'contemporary' I think.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.