[kaolinite]

My favourite story on a similar note is how a Marc Jacob's boutique was vandalised a few years ago. The vandal spray painted "ART" across the front of the store. Marc Jacobs responded by photographing it and putting it on a teeshirt and selling it for $700.

http://www.huhmagazine.co.uk/3721/art-by-art-jacobs-t-shirt

[qq66]

Mind-boggling to think about, but could the vandal assert copyright over the spray painted wordmark?

[nosuchthing]

Not really.

For reference, Richard Prince's derivative 'artwork', particularly the slight modification of artwork from other artists without consent has more often than not been ruled fair use — http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-17/richard-pr...

[PhasmaFelis]

Geez, it's depressing what this stuff says about us. The definition of "art" becomes "anything produced by an Approved Artist," nothing less or more. If I showed up at the Frieze Gallery trying to sell them a piece of shit on a plate, they'd laugh in my face. If I produced documentation proving that the plate had in fact been shat upon by Andy Warhol, it would suddenly be Art and worth a fortune. If I revealed that I had faked the documentation, it would suddenly be worthless again--unless the whole routine had attracted enough attention for the art world to crown me a Designated Artist, in which case anything I smeared shit on henceforth would become, by fiat, Art.

There is literally no quality intrinsic to the work itself that contributes to its status as Art. Traditionally someone says "Hah, I could have made that," and someone else smiles smugly and says "Yes, but you didn't, did you?" The thing is, it wouldn't matter if I had. I'm not an Artist, so wouldn't be Art.

Art is reduced to nothing more than a subset of Celebrity.

Richard Prince could print out this post and sell it for $50,000.

[danharaj]

The escape hatch to this ghastly affair is to stop thinking about art in terms of notoriety or commercial value, or the product of a profession. Art as commodity is a depressing concept, I agree. Art as social status is, too. A lot of things are depressing when they are forced to fit our Procrustean socioeconomic institutions.

I believe that if one thinks about art in a deeply personal way, everyone has the spark of an artist and everything they do can be artful. With art everywhere, art feels far more alive. I believe that art is the humanness left behind in an artifact by its creator that has no significance except that a human being put it there. Objects that have no meaning except that a human being made them feel powerful. They are human subjectivity rendered tangible. To bear one is to bear something deeply strange and wholly familiar.

[uxcn]

Well, Baudrillard[1] would say that the abstraction just becomes indistinguishable from what it abstracts. So, the celebrity of art becomes the abstraction for it, and then the abstraction itself becomes art. Eventually another abstraction has to take its place, ad infinitum.

I think I prefer Drew Struzan's definition though. It's something that asks a question, which ultimately only you can answer.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

[monk_e_boy]

    > The definition of "art" becomes "anything produced
    > by an Approved Artist," nothing less or more.

Grayson Perry did some very interesting lectures here in the UK where he explained why a urinal in a toilet is a urinal, place it in a gallery as part of a show and it's art.

It's great that the most common question asked of big time artists is "WTF is art anyway?" and they all try to answer it. It's super cool. Anyway Grayson said that all the proper art like portraits and landscapes have been done a million times and are still being made today. It's only the weird shit that gets in the newspapers, and that's because it's weird, or someone paid a gazillion pounds for something bonkers.

Grayson ended up saying that it's an interesting question. There is no answer. He doesn't think about it much.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c37b1b6a-3017-11e3-9eec-00144feab7...

[petercooper]

This is not just true of art but even with businesses that get funded by VCs or that make it into Y Combinator. The latest group dating or photo sharing app might just be another dull piece of crap until it gets validated by the celebrity of VCs or an accelerator.

[firebones]

What an idea: businesses as collectibles.

A baseball in the gift shop for $5 versus identical baseball that happened to be Alex Rodriguez's 500th home run fetching $105,000.

It's not the nature of art, it's purchasing the story around it.

idlewords had a name for this: investor storytime. [1] All these examples have less to do with whether something is or isn't "art" and more about whether the mystique around the story appeals to someone who is willing to part with cash to be part of that a story. A plate with shit is a plate with shit, but a plate of shit with a story? Now you're talking.

[1] http://idlewords.com/talks/internet_with_a_human_face.htm

[petercooper]

I'd argue the send glitter to your enemies business was an example of business as art/collectible. MillionDollarHomepage perhaps another example.

[PhasmaFelis]

Another thought I just had. The original artists of Richard Prince's pieces were understandably upset because it looked like he was profiting unfairly off of their artistic effort--a reasonable assumption, and something that happens all too often with art shared online.

But the truth is actually worse. He didn't profit off of their art, didn't make money because of the quality of their photos. It could have been any photo. It could have been a frame from one of those rotating E-Mail .gifs from the '90s. It doesn't matter, because the only thing Richard Price was ever selling was his own celebrity. The image is merely the frame in which it was hung.

[takinola]

You need to separate the commercial value of art from the (for lack of a better word) intrinsic value of art. The halo effect happens in any field whenever there is a subjective evaluation. For instance, people tend to think expensive wines are better even though they often cannot tell the difference between cheap(er) and more expensive wines in blind tests.

I believe the intrinsic value of art (ie. how "art-y" something is) can be evaluated in a couple ways. First is technical. Does the execution of the art require some kind of technical excellence. If you take a look at some paintings and sculptures, you cannot but be struck by the incredible attention to detail and precise work done by the creator. Even features that the audience would probably never notice (eg. reflections in the pupil of the subject in a painting) are carefully rendered.

The second criteria is how much the piece changes the art form itself. Think about how renaissance paintings introduced perspective in painting to make more realistic images whereas earlier paintings were flat and lifeless. More recently, consider how Elvis created rock and roll or how Michael Jackson changed the definition of a singer from someone with a good voice and catchy tune to being an all round entertainer with skills in dancing, video and special effects.

The third criteria is something I call transference. It is when an artist can transfer an emotion from inside their mind to that of the audience using only the medium of their art. Listen to Chopin's Funeral March to see what I mean or rewatch the early scenes in Jaws (before the shark shows up) to get a more contemporary example.

Lastly, some art has a point of view and says something that asks us to look at the world in a different way. Most standup comedy is like this. Banksy's art is like this. Warhol's paintings were like this. Shit on a plate could be like this if executed well. This is the area where I feel a lot of modern art has lost its way. They mistake different for meaning. I once was at the Tate Modern in London and noticed that most people were not really looking at the works of art but fixated on the little white cards next to each piece explaining what the work was about. If the art work cannot tell its own story then perhaps it has not much to say or is not well done.

Art, like love, can only be truly measured in the heart of the subject. Your feelings for your mum would not be swayed if some celebrity stated that their mother was the best in the world so, unless you are an art investor, do not be carried away by the whims of the so-called connoisseurs of the art establishment.

[ctdonath]

I've concluded art = that which was made to be looked at.

[Natsu]

I've concluded that art is anything an 'artist' can sell to someone, whether the sale price is reputation or money.

[mcv]

I've concluded that the best art is free, done by passionate amateurs rather than people looking to make a buck.

[nosuchthing]

Conceptual/performance art is often unsolicited..

Some art is simply about creating an experience for the recipients / audience /

[collyw]

Its celebrity culture for snobs.

[collyw]

The more I read about stuff like this the more I am convinced that most modern art is just pretentious crap.