First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Chimpanzee wins $10,000 in art competition
572 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 9/2/13 , edited 9/2/13
I actually love this piece of work. The chimp might not have known what he was doing with the paint (other than using his favourite colours, probably); but I think they go very will with eachother.
bhl88 
75215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/2/13
That moment when you see your name in the news....
33992 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Virginia
Offline
Posted 9/2/13

theYchromosome wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:

I think all the entries were chimps.


Oh, so because he didn't beat humans, it doesn't matter? Don't belittle Brent's accomplishment! He was clearly making a statement about the inherent structure of the universe, one that touched me deeply and changed my life. This is clearly newsworthy, and is of direct consequence to all of humanity's future. Go be a buzzkill somewhere else negative nancy.

Jokes aside though, I'm more concerned that they consider a primate researcher to be a valid judge in an art contest. What are Mrs. Goodall's qualifications as an artist? I suspect foul play -- Brent probably had a hefty bribe of bananas saved up from his days as a research subject, and used them to gain an unfair advantage. This was clearly a political move. Why else would a primate researcher be in charge of art judgements? The contest was obviously rigged, and no one is doing anything about it. Just one more reason not to trust authority -- everything's corrupt and society's going down in flames because of travesties like this.

TL;DR: I don't really care who won a chimpanzee art contest.


LMAO!!
24968 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 9/2/13

AshRandom wrote:My contempt is simple. Creating an object purely for the sake of evoking emotion is a hollow endeavor.


That contempt's a bit questionable, since just about all human works are created for the sake of evoking emotion.

And frankly, there isn't much intellectual difference between the procedures of building a house, composing a song, or sticking the business end of a blade in someone's chest. Everything required the full extent of human intelligence to pioneer and the minimum of human understanding to copy.
54331 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Under your skin.
Offline
Posted 9/2/13

bhl88 wrote:

That moment when you see your name in the news....



OMG BRENT IS HERE
congrats!


33051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 9/2/13
This is where the planet of the apes start.
13564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / New York
Offline
Posted 9/2/13

theYchromosome wrote:
I get the feeling you're just using "art" as a word for "painting," but I consider things like mathematical proofs, works of engineering, and most science as a form of art as well, and based on the way you described things, it feels like you'd agree -- I'm pretty sure it's just a difference in semantics. I think it's more the case that science is artistically relevant, rather than that art isn't relevant to society. I kind of think of scientific endeavors as making art out of the world, and in that sense, I'd agree with you that it far surpasses painting. But the novelty and elegance of a simple and beautiful theory definitely qualifies as artistry, although like I said, I suspect it's just a semantic difference. I might be making too big a deal of this, but I just wanted to be sure you're not diminishing the value of something I find important.

Art isn't good because it's emotionally gripping, it's good because it's interesting -- it expresses something that's otherwise close to inexpressible through prose. Emotions are often thought of in that way, which is why so much art deals with emotion. But the best art out there isn't there to evoke emotion, it's there to give a new perspective on a problem (which often does evoke emotion, but the nuance is obviously different). You're right in saying that "creating an object purely for the sake of evoking emotion is a hollow endeavor," but good artists aren't trying to evoke emotion, they're trying to express a thought and perspective on something -- this is arguably what's going on when a scientist expresses a theory. I'll agree with you that paintings rarely do this (probably because, as you said, intelligence isn't requisite for a career painter), but they definitely can. I came to study mathematics as a result of poetry, and paintings are what introduced me to poetry. It's not really the emotional stimulation that I find valuable in poetry and painting. Rather, it's the introduction to a new way to think about something. Art has the rather peculiar capability to let you take a peek into someone's head, and when the things that are in that person's head are interesting, then so is the art. That's also why I'd call most of the things you mentioned in your post "art."


We agree.

However I should point out that you may have mistook me. Art is a completely different word from artwork. For instance, I practice the scientific arts, but I do not produce artwork.

How about this, in the effort to avoid a purely semantic argument I'll attempt to define artwork.

Many pieces are clearly beautiful and meant to be so, and many others are repulsive and equally intended to be so. Some are scary and others joyful. So what then, is artwork? It's something created to evoke emotion. It really has no other specific properties which don't fall out of the subset of all artwork.

The only other property of artwork which I can see, is that the object created is essentially useless for any purpose aside from evoking emotion. And it's valued specifically for that trait alone. In fact, the degree to which it maximizes it, the artwork becomes more and more valuable, until it reaches a state where one can claim it to be priceless.

The chimp created such an object. I set about attempting to explain why artwork is childsplay, whereas invention and innovation are masterful. It is after all, the difference between what people are capable of, and what chips are capable of. Seemed relevant at the time... Perhaps not.
Posted 9/2/13
And here I was thinking my little scribbles on paper meant nothing. Damn it.
18394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 9/2/13
lucky damn Chimpanzee
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.