Thread: Should a pile of arranged bricks be considered art?

Having seen a wide variety of art over the years I have often pondered this question, now I would like the views of others. If you vote in the poll please post a few words, whatever your view.

So, what do YOU believe?

If it is meant to be art, then it is. If it has a meaning and a name like, “this could be your car after a car crash” then it would be considered as art.

I guess it really depends on what art really is. If you define it as something that makes people think, that conveys a message to people, then I guess a pile of rocks could classify. But only if the message isn't lost by over-abstracting it.

But yea, going to a museum to find a pile of rocks is kinda disappointing :wink: Once I saw a naked female statue in a pile of cloths, and that's supposed to be a modern masterpiece.. For me art should also be aestetically pleasing and difficult to make. Sure abstract art can have a strong message, but if it's something I could've made myself without any training or practise then it just doesn't give me respect for the artist.

I was taught that Art was "the highest form of self-expression" and is therefore an "expression of the complexity, creativity and soul of the artist".

I personally tend to 'like' art that has a unique quality or signature about it. e.g. Dali's work has a signature. Certain sculptors produce a unique piece.

Incidentaly if he/she/ had sculpted the tyres [that is made imitation tyres] say of many different materials, colors and shapes - say even a 'cubic' tyre, I would have raced to applaud it. Perhaps I should take up art....

Perhaps I should take up art....

Yeah do that, I want to have a good laugh… :wink:

I think art is everything made by someone to someone else with a special meaning. Some books can be considered as art (poetry), most paintings are art, and a pile of bricks could be art.

Originally Posted by Artemis

Perhaps I should take up art....

Yeah do that, I want to have a good laugh… :wink:

I think art is everything made by someone to someone else with a special meaning. Some books can be considered as art (poetry), most paintings are art, and a pile of bricks could be art.

In bold, it HAS to be in bold.....

I think we need to work on Captain Caveman next....

I think it should. It is like if i would ask you the following question: Is the drawing the 3 year old child next to you made considered art?

The answer is OBVIOUSLY yes, even though you can do the same thing in about 3.5 seconds.

If the peice the person created is entended to be art, so be it!

As long as its purpose is not functional in the sense that its purpose is not primarily to spark and emotion or purvey an artistic image. Personally though to me its just a pile of bricks, and if I cant call it not art i can atleast call it bad art.

One of Damien Hirst's exhibits at a London gallery (I think it was the Tate) was thrown out by the cleaners who thought it was a pile of rubbish. (Which it literally was.) Hirst is reported to have been amused by the error. Since the piece was valued at $34,000, and he had presumably been paid for it, he could afford to laugh.

LOL!!! Boy, that must of been insulting!

The story of the emporers new suit sums it up for me.

By the definition given by some it would seem that if one were to - well - you know - in a field, or somewhere instead of a toilet, but take care to lay it in a particular direction - one could call that art.

I believe one artist has actually made 'art' by varying his/her diet to produce colors - or perhaps it was just a story, either way it could only be viewed as a load of 5H1T.

I'd like to know if there was a huge outcry that 'masterpiece' had been lst by the cleaners - if not then I'd suggest people looked at it out of curiosity.

Objective: It's ALL art, down to the last particle
Subjective: It's why I think most artist collectors are loons that buy paint sloppings from you if you sold it as "art".

Overall, I'd have to say yes. It is all art, since it all enspires thought. Which art tends to be singled out as doing. I could go on a long philosophy issue with DEFINING art, but that's too much trouble.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Objective: It's ALL art, down to the last particle
Subjective: It's why I think most artist collectors are loons that buy paint sloppings from you if you sold it as "art".

Overall, I'd have to say yes. It is all art, since it all enspires thought. Which art tends to be singled out as doing. I could go on a long philosophy issue with DEFINING art, but that's too much trouble.

I think it's about time we had a third option say "Conjective" But I can't work out what it should mean...

Originally Posted by billco

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Objective: It's ALL art, down to the last particle
Subjective: It's why I think most artist collectors are loons that buy paint sloppings from you if you sold it as "art".

Overall, I'd have to say yes. It is all art, since it all enspires thought. Which art tends to be singled out as doing. I could go on a long philosophy issue with DEFINING art, but that's too much trouble.

I think it's about time we had a third option say "Conjective" But I can't work out what it should mean...

I believe the proper definition of conjective would be "Oh my god, I cant believe I havent punched you yet" but thats a tad violent.

Marcel Duchamp put a toilet in a expo, and made an happening.


I voted no, because even if it's considerated as an art, it's pure crap for me. I am not interested. I have seen various type of this art :
- metallic boxes with some oxydation produced by human urine
- painting, painted with human feces
- empty bottles on a tablet ...

http://www.zumbazone.com/duchamp/fountain.html

http://www.european-street-painting....r%20taipei.htm

That IS art.

That's funny : but where are the joints of the floor ?