CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
27
Yes No
Debate Score:31
Arguments:30
Total Votes:31
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (4)
 
 No (13)

Debate Creator

anonymousdeb(61) pic



Is splatter painting art?

Do you believe that splatter painting, and other minimalistic works of art, should be considered art.

Yes

Side Score: 4
VS.

No

Side Score: 27
1 point

Splatter painting, as you call it, is not considered to be of the minimalist genre.

Rather, it is abstract expressionism. Such as the works of Jackson Pollock and others. I am not a huge fan of Drip Art....but yes, it is an Art form.

Hope this helps.

Side: Yes
marcusmoon(586) Disputed
1 point

Splatter painting, as you call it, is not considered to be of the minimalist genre.

Rather, it is abstract expressionism.

True, it is abstract, but it is only an expression of the laws of physics.

Side: No
1 point

@marcus .

Modern Art?
Side: No
1 point

Of course it's art. Art is so loosely defined you can take a dump and call it art.

Is it good art? Hmm. Well that depends. How big is it, how original, how colorful, how is it being used, and how hard would it be to replicate?

Side: Yes
1 point

While I do think it's art I also think it's "lazy" art. Compared to some other great works of art that have detail and depth, Splatter paint isn't as personal or thought provoking, at least to me. Some of it is beautiful, but I prefer a different style.

Side: Yes
2 points

Really quite the opposite. It is an attempt to take art away from the artist and bring them to a more natural, primordial, and child like state. Let the universe do the painting for you.

Really, the artform is in selling the splatter paint art. These people are the real geniuses. Why do you know about any of this crap to begin with? People with way too much money throw their money at it. Maybe they have such a low opinion of everyone else that they see splatter painting as the best the lower class plebeians can come up with. Buying their finger paintings and sticking it to the fridge with a magnet is really the charitable thing to do.

Crazy people need to make a buck too, ya know? Some pretty good art comes out of crazy people.

Then there is splatter painting..... Sounds like some kind of side hussle a land sharking used car salesman would come up with. Surely some dumb rich schmuck would buy this canvas with my guacamole diarrhea splashed all over it. This painting really takes you to a place.

Side: No
2 points

Pollack's work is not art.

Neither is a host of other works commonly classify as art.

First, to be clear, Pollack's work was called poured painting not splatter painting. In addition to poured paint, drips, and splatters, there are footprints, cigarette ashes, and cigarette butts in them.

Also, computer analyses of pieces by Jackson Pollack reveal fractal patterns. This is one of the ways genuine Pollack pieces are distinguished from counterfeits.

Even so, I don't see how the mere presence of a pattern qualifies a piece as art. Many things have patterns, but are not art, leaves and the scales of a fish, for example. I hardly would classify a dried fish skin as art.

Second, the basic premise behind a lot of modern art is that all that is required to make something into a piece of visual art are the following things:

- 1 - Some physical object It does not matter whether the Artist made it.

- 2 - A title It does not matter what the title is, or even if it is Untitled number 2, or just Untitled.

- 3 - Someone to call it art This can be done by explicit statements, or by putting the object in a museum or gallery with a museum label next to it.

The problem is that none of this has anything at all to do with applying skill or discipline to make a work with creative intent that is automatically apparent to the viewer. There is no requirement of intent or skill in a splatter painting.

There are countless similar examples in all sorts of things called modern "art".

Mark Rothko

When my wife and I talk about painting a room, and we get tester quantities of colors that are candidates for the room, she paints colored rectangles on the wall of the proposed base colors, and above and below them she puts thick stripes of the trim colors under and over the proposed base colors.

Each set of colors looks like a Rothko painting.

It is not art when my wife does it. It was not art when Rothko did it.

Marcel DuchampWhen I go into a bathroom and relieve myself in a urinal, or see one displayed in a building supply store, it is not art.

It was not art when Duchamp laid one on its back and titled it Fountain.

Andres Serrano

When a mentally ill person urinates in a jar, and then puts something in the jar, it is not art, even if he/she photographs it.

It was not art when Serrano did that, and then called it Piss Christ.

Richard Serra

When scrap metal is melted down into ingots or blocks and piled or stacked together, it is not art.

It was not art when Serra had other people do that, and called examples of it One Ton Prop and Elevation Mass.

Jeff Koons

When I go into a department store, and vacuum cleaners are displayed on shelves, it is not art. It is not art when Koons does the exact same thing in a museum.

Third, There is more to art than personal taste, metaphoric content, or beauty. These can all occur independently of skill or intent. The creator's intent both in developing skill, and in creating a particular piece is a deciding factor in whether something is art. There are some pretty basic questions that differentiate art from things that are not art.

- 1 - Can it happen by accident?

- 2 - Was it an incidental product, or a byproduct of something else?

- 3 - If nobody told you it was art, would you assume it was not.

- 4 - Could an untrained child make it?

- 5 - Is it the product of an activity special education teachers try to keep their students from doing?

If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then the piece in question is not art, however interesting or beautiful it may be.

Side: No
Dermot(5684) Disputed
1 point

Marcus you have not defined what art is , you’re merely saying what art is not , so what is art ?

Side: Yes
cruzaders(341) Clarified
3 points

I f I remember correctly Dermot you are an artist, would you mind posting some of your work? I'd be ahppy to see it

Side: Yes
marcusmoon(586) Clarified
1 point

Dermot,

Marcus you have not defined what art is , you’re merely saying what art is not , so what is art ?

That is the question.

I am NOT distinguishing between good and bad art, so how well the artist does the following is immaterial to the definition.

I am not distinguishing between performance and visual arts.

Art is:

Discreet from other things. Not a part, not a copy.

Human-made: not made by nature, an animal, or a machine.

Made with conscious intent, though not necessarily according to a plan.

Made with attention to the application of developed skills

Made with the intention to express something. This could be an idea, feeling, observation, or even an interpretation or recasting of something else.

Side: Yes
marcusmoon(586) Disputed
1 point

Marcus you have not defined what art is , you’re merely saying what art is not , so what is art ?

My observation is that in many modern academic and artistic circles, merely saying something is art has been given authority.

Often, the only way anyone would know it was supposed to be art is that it was given a title, put in a museum, and some critic/scholar/curator wrote some explanation of it in an article or museum label, regardless of whether the artifact meets any defined criteria whatsoever.

My son and I have a game we play in the modern art galleries of museums.

We stand in front of some mundane, purely functional object, for example, a fire extinguisher or drinking fountain mounted on the wall, or we contemplate a green exit sign mounted above a doorway, and then, in earnest tones, talk about it as if it is on exhibit.

. Me: The artist is clearly making a comment on modern man's frustration with societies sexual mores. The red cylinder, an obvious phallic reference, is constrained by a gauge, a handle, and a directable nozzle. This symbolizes the control society seeks to exert over men's sexual urges.

. My Son: Oh, clearly you are correct. This theme is further reinforced by the fact that society has put male sexuality into a closed box with a glass front, so we can see the male sexual self, but it is contained, separate from society, unable to express itself.

. Me: The artist even made a pun, writing on the case that imprisons the phallus 'In case' of emergencies, break glass.' This symbolizes the fragility of societies sexual rules, and a tacit admission that men are only wanted when there is grave societal need of masculine services, like war.

. My Son: This is a complex piece. There is a subtext about feminine power. The penis is painted red, a clear reference to menstruation. The case symbolizes the vagina, called a 'box' in slang, and the case is also a literal box. The male power is locked in the vagina....

And so on...

People can think anything is art if they want, and I am fine with that.

But that does not mean I won't make fun of them for it.

Side: No

Here's the thing: some art classified as minimalism is actual art. Closing your eyes and moving a large paintbrush around a canvas is not art. Doing a splatter painting and selling it for $2,000 dollars is the equivalent of microwaving Top Ramen and selling it as genuine Japanese cuisine. In other words, it's an insult to everyone who's actually done something worth noticing.

Side: No