Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Isaac on April 28, 2015, 03:59:52 pm
-
…he's not a landscape painter but instead, paints directly on the landscape (http://www.mbl.is/english/news/2015/04/24/uproar_as_artist_dyes_geysir_pink/). He added that Icelanders should be proud to see his artwork as no one has seen Icelandic nature in this form before.
-
…he's not a landscape painter but instead, paints directly on the landscape (http://www.mbl.is/english/news/2015/04/24/uproar_as_artist_dyes_geysir_pink/). He added that Icelanders should be proud to see his artwork as no one has seen Icelandic nature in this form before.
Are we supposed to know what you are talking about?
-
Are we supposed to know what you are talking about?
Click the link.
I like it.
-
I like it.
I like it too, or at least I have no problem with it.
But for this guy to say 'no one owns nature' as justification for his own actions - actions which convey an assumption that HE owns it and can therefore do as he pleases - that's pretty dishonest if you ask me.
-
I'm tempted to agree with the spokesperson for the landowners - "This man is incredibly arrogant and his actions and words reveal his ignorance."
-
I'm tempted to agree with the spokesperson for the landowners - "This man is incredibly arrogant and his actions and words reveal his ignorance."
I agree. Perhaps the "painter" should be painted pink himself, preferably indelibly.
-
Is "This is not art, it's vandalism" a false dichotomy?
-
Is "This is not art, it's vandalism" a false dichotomy?
No, it isn't, although from time to time a self-serving idiot with no talent other than for self-promotion tries to pretend that it is. I remember particularly some brainless moron who mounted an exhibition of snapshots of scratches he had made with keys to the paintwork of other people's cars (without their consent, of course): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4454485.stm.
Jeremy
-
He says:
" I love mother nature. If I love a woman I give her a diamond ring. That's why I decorate nature, because I love it."
Maybe we should love him so much that we decorate him with tar and feathers ;D
-
…he's not a landscape painter but instead, paints directly on the landscape (http://www.mbl.is/english/news/2015/04/24/uproar_as_artist_dyes_geysir_pink/). He added that Icelanders should be proud to see his artwork as no one has seen Icelandic nature in this form before.
It's the old story about that woman who is always pregnant.
-
I don't approve of this. He doesn't own the land. He's not even a citizen of Iceland. He didn't get a review by a local ranger or committee. He's an obnoxious tourist.
He could color a fountain, this is often done in my town when the baseball Cardinals have a division or league championship. He could color a small waterfall by submerging some gelled marine flashlights (and then retrieving them after he is done). He could backlight the geyser at night, gelling his lights.
-
Is "This is not art, it's vandalism" a false dichotomy?
No, it isn't, although from time to time a self-serving idiot with no talent other than for self-promotion tries to pretend that it is. …
Why is "This is not art, it's vandalism" not a false dichotomy?
-
I don't approve of this.
Do you like it?
-
Isaac,
Why is "This is not art, it's vandalism" not a false dichotomy?
Because the number of available options is not greater than two - art/vandalism is in the eye of the beholder. They are simultaneously one and the same.
-
They are simultaneously one and the same.
One is not Two :-)
dichotomy (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/dichotomy): a difference between two completely opposite ideas or things
-
Perhaps the "painter" should be painted pink himself, preferably indelibly.
In revenge for the camel. (http://evaristti.com/index.php/the-arido-rosso-project)
(Serial offender. (http://evaristti.com/index.php/the-ice-cube-project))
-
Isaac,
One is not Two
Two can be One.
dichotomy (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/dichotomy): a difference between two completely opposite ideas or things
False dichotomy (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma): A false dilemma (also called...false dichotomy...) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
-
In revenge for the camel. (http://evaristti.com/index.php/the-arido-rosso-project)
(Serial offender. (http://evaristti.com/index.php/the-ice-cube-project))
Since it appears he is a serial vandal, perhaps his private parts should be removed with a pair of Pinking Shears.
-
Not your finest moment.
-
Because the number of available options is not greater than two - art/vandalism is in the eye of the beholder.
In the eye of the beholder - art, vandalism, neither art nor vandalism, both art and vandalism,…
-
Back in the day, before graffiti became "street art", I gave an exhibition of photographs of graffiti from around the world, entitled, "Is it (N)ever Art, Is it (N)ever Vandalism?" False or not, this dichotomy has been (and is) applied to graffiti since its modern-day beginnings.
As for the piece in question, did it cause any permanent damage, frequently the criterion for "vandalism"? If not, where's the harm apart from the feelings of a few territorial Icelanders?
-
If not, where's the harm apart from the feelings of a few territorial Icelanders?
Where's the harm when the artist colours your home?
-
If he used some sort of food coloring that disappeared after a few minutes without effecting nature, I don't see the harm. What would you think of it then? There are many nature artists who set up their art for a specific period and then remove it. Let's say though that additionally he was granted permission to produce this "work of art".
NYC Brooklyn Bridge Waterfalls (2008) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shg8Op_6ft8
NYC Central Park Christo's The Gates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates
-
Isaac,
Given "art/vandalism is in the eye of the beholder" at the limit there will be as many "available options" as beholders.
Please can you provide me with a third available option?
-
As before -- #3 neither art nor vandalism, #4 both art and vandalism
-
Let's say though that additionally he was granted permission to produce this "work of art".
The artist has told us -- *"I do not ask for permission because nature belongs to no one."*
"Strokkur, and the whole Geysir area is a nature reserve (http://www.mbl.is/english/news/2015/04/25/artist_refuses_to_pay_fine/)."
-
We already know that he neither asked for nor was granted permission -- "If he had asked permission we would have told him that it's illegal and that we would never agree to this kind of art performance."
Some of the most impressive art I have seen over the years have been done, illegally and without permission, on the sides of buildings, on metro cars (subways to you Americans), anywhere these young (and sometimes not-so-young) artists can find a canvas for their works; often, I might add, at considerable risk of incarceration or even their lives.
-
By all means, offer up your home as a canvas :-)
-
Where's the harm when the artist colours your home?
The operative word, which you conveniently left out of the quote, was "permanent". Painting your house would require you to repaint to restore it. In the case at hand, restoration required doing nothing for a few minutes, or even a few hours while the geyser digested and then belched out the food coloring, going on its merry, uncolored way. No harm, no foul.
-
In the case at hand, restoration required doing nothing for a few minutes, or even a few hours while the geyser digested and then belched out the food coloring, going on its merry, uncolored way. No harm, no foul.
How exactly do you know? Are you in Iceland at the geyser?
-
How exactly do you know? Are you in Iceland at the geyser?
Why would that be required? Are you so ignorant of the mechanism of a geyser to think that some food coloring would wreak permanent damage? I must say, you seem uncommonly invested in making this guy bad.
-
What I dislike the most is that everything this "work of art" has expressed is the assholeness and banality of mind of the "artist".
The banality of mind if evident by the fact the "the artist " has done the very same thing every idiot would do if it wasn't illegal, so no "deep thinking" is involved in the "artistic act".
The assholeness is evident from the fact that he did it for the very same reason any idiot would have done it: just to make people talk about him.
-
What I dislike the most is that everything this "work of art" has expressed is the assholeness and banality of mind of the "artist".
The banality of mind if evident by the fact the "the artist " has done the very same thing every idiot would do if it wasn't illegal, so no "deep thinking" is involved in the "artistic act".
The assholeness is evident from the fact that he did it for the very same reason any idiot would have done it: just to make people talk about him.
Finally we have a cogent definition of both art and artist. Well done, Diego!!
-
Why would that be required? Are you so ignorant of the mechanism of a geyser to think that some food coloring would wreak permanent damage?
In fact, you simply don't know that "restoration required doing nothing for a few minutes, or even a few hours".
I must say, you seem uncommonly invested in making this guy bad.
You seem uncommony invested in excusing his behavior.
The operative word, which you conveniently left out of the quote, was "permanent". Painting your house would require you to repaint to restore it. In the case at hand, restoration required …
Did the "most impressive art [you] have seen over the years … illegally and without permission, on the sides of buildings" require restoration?
By all means, offer up your home as a canvas.
-
Isaac,
As before -- #3 neither art nor vandalism, #4 both art and vandalism
I stand corrected. Thank you.
-
The banality of mind if evident by the fact the "the artist " has done the very same thing every idiot would do if it wasn't illegal, so no "deep thinking" is involved in the "artistic act".
Except that "the artist" has done variations on a theme.
Except that "the artist" has garbed his project in an art context.
-
Except that "the artist" has done variations on a theme.
Except that "the artist" has garbed his project in an art context.
Except that idiots keep repeating their feats and keep making excuses up for doing it.
-
Not every idiot makes variations on a theme; not every idiot garbs those variations in an art context -- most use simple repetition, most use excuses that don't refer to art.
-
Not every idiot makes variations on a theme; not every idiot garbs those variations in an art context -- most use simple repetition, most use excuses that don't refer to art.
Right, not every idiot do variation or make up excuses.
But many idiots do that (just out of boredom).
-
So no -- the "the artist " has [not] done the very same thing every idiot would do.
-
So no -- the "the artist " has [not] done the very same thing every idiot would do.
Ok: "the artist" has done what most idiot would do.
Muuuuuuch better....
-
Has "the artist" done what artists would do?
-
Has "the artist" done what artists would do?
No.
-
In other vandalism news:
Vandals deface Ozark National Scenic Riverways cliff
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/state-and-regional/vandals-deface-ozark-national-scenic-riverways-cliff/article_eb229650-dc55-5077-9ada-7c9aa4bad7f5.html
What gets me p-o about this is that some volunteer climbers are going to have to clean it off. Fine to climb for fun - not cool that someone has to do this to clean up a mess.
-
In other vandalism news:
Vandals deface Ozark National Scenic Riverways cliff
I'm sure they done variations of it (like writing on house walls or garage doors) and they would probably claim that to be at.
-
The "artist" is an arrogant vandal, he should be arrested, fined and deported from Iceland.
-
…he's not a landscape painter but instead, paints directly on the landscape (http://www.mbl.is/english/news/2015/04/24/uproar_as_artist_dyes_geysir_pink/). He added that Icelanders should be proud to see his artwork as no one has seen Icelandic nature in this form before.
This man needs to be put away before he decides to put graffiti on Half Dome and call it art. People have defaced nature enough already. I'd rather he take the Burtynsky route then simply add to the carnage.
In the great race to be original, it's a bit frightening to think what might come next.
-
In the great race to be original, it's a bit frightening to think what might come next.
Mushroom clouds make for a great visual.
-
Mushroom clouds make for a great visual.
it would be a great way to jump start the rapatronic market, too.