ralph lauren sale

http://www.ralphlaurenbrandpolo.com

I don't take any of your words as an insult we are simply having a discussion. :)

I had the idea of a bludgeon in mind because recently a friends quite heavy granite and steel scuplture feel off the little table he had constructed for it and quite solidly hit my knee, I wasn't suggesting that anyone actually take a sculpture and attack someone with it.

I guess killing a person with a sculpture _could_ create a kind of performance art. But in doing so you woul dlikely destroy the original artistic intent of the sculpture. Of course, the main type of person who seeks out the kinds of artists that do these kinds of performances are the police.

As far as cars and other artistically inspired manufactured goods go, people who buy things generally want the things they buy to look nice and people who makes things for sale generally try to make their product as attractive as possible to the largest number of potential customers.

When talking about art that is unpleasant you bring up two different types of potentially unpleasant art. Most Shock Artists usually want to make as offensive or objectionable amterial as possible in order to get a reaction from the people who would view their art. Other art that can be unpleasant is generally considered so because of subject matter. I think Schindlers List, the Civil War photographs, and other such imagery can be unpleasant many because as humans we are capable of doing great violence against each other. We are full of negative emotions that society as a whole tends to ignore unless some giant tragedy or eruption of violence makes us look. In the case of the movie and the photographs, they are both beautifully shot and composed, but the subject matter makes us face something that most people want to pretend doesn't exists, so we become uncomfortable and describe the experience as unpleasant. Of course, just because an artwork might make us feel uneasy or an experience might be unpleasant doesn't mean that it still doesn'thave personal or cultural value to the people who view it.

Seriously though that is a much better way to put it, and I hope you don't think I meant you any insult. I also agree that "nice" in look, sound, or smell doesn't have to be the goal of art, although it is the goal of most "secondary" art; that is the artistic design of things from urinals to cigarettes to automobiles, there is very little interest in making a urinal that would frighten people or a cigarette that looked unpleasant. There might be a limited market for an imposing automobile, however. There is indeed plenty of art whose goal is to evoke "negative" emotions, from the rather "hackish" (and yes that is a personal judgement) artists who work with shocking mediums or create shocking works simply because they enjoy upsetting people, to painters or authors who capture unpleasant moments or horrific thoughts and images; for instance the film "Schindler's List", the videogame "BioShock", and Brady's many photographs of the aftermath of American civil war dead all capture unpleasant, horrific, or disquieting images, and are all still art, and recognized as quite good.

I don't think I said that an art object has to be useless, though reading back I can see why you took my words tht way. What I should have said is that the purpose of the Art object must to illicit a feeling, emotion or thought.

Also it is important to understand that not all Art is tangible. A performance for instance is not tangible and though it may be recorded, the _recording_ is not art. To use a historical example Marcel Duchamp's Fountain, the Art is not in the urinal, but in the thought behind displaying the urinal as Art. This is also true of the examle you gave One and Three Chairs. The chair, photo and dictionary entry themselves are not Art, the Art is in the Concept which is why the artwork is categorized as "conceptual art." In Conceptual Art, the actual Art is in the idea not in the artifacts.

Also while Art requires some amount of work to make (as does everything) it is not required to be "nice" in anyway. Many works of art are disturbing in one way or another, such as the people who paint with feces, or Marc Quinn who makes casts of his own head from his own blood. What is and is not Art is not determined by what something looks, feels, sounds or "smells" like.

Which brings me back to what I said before. The most basic and stripped down definition of Art is something which _exists_ to make to bring about a specific feeling.

Could you take a sculpture and bludgeon someone to death with it? Sure, but that is not what it is there for and as soon as you use that sculpture to kill someone, you have changed the way people feel about it, what emotions it may bring up, or how people think about it.

Taken on another side, this means that "Art" is a goal, something, and an achievement, and hence can be qualified and has properties, that should not, for any matter change. But unlike drawing a line somewhere and saying this is "Art" and not this, objects should be considered as more "Art" and less "Art" depending on their closeness to the properties of "Art".

Yet, by the definition of "Art", itself must be the same for any and each thing, at any random and remote location, for any living and non-living creature. The only really common denominator, which is then definitely art, at the moment is either a/several god(s), the soul, time, or the most fundamental of particles. (No, I really DON'T want to speak about religiousness or a lack thereof, so I won't continue in this direction)

But assuming we sort out which of the previously mentioned denominator is the only one, and define it as "Art" it does not remove the "Art" of everything that has been created. Quite the contrary. It means that absolutely everything is "Art", at different levels of art-ness. And it would somehow look like a religion since it is an "Art" is an ideal to tend to. (If you forget the highly connotative and emotional meaning of the word religion, it conveys the idea here)