Random ModeKeyboard shortcut: Command/Ctrl + Shift + R
Is... It... Art?
In the early 1900s, Dadaism led to some very... interesting art pieces. For each picture, guess whether the object was arranged or created by an artist specifically to create an art piece, or whether it is some random everyday object.
Some of the pieces here are not strictly Dada, but are certainly inspired by the movement.
Nice one. Quite brilliant how you've incorporated the outline of a head and shoulders in the yarn. Man looks upon the modern world and shrugs. Very powerful piece of work.
The ball of yarn could have been a random object but then I loved how the needle you inserted alludes to our desire to include the other and the loose end evokes a sense of letting go. Absolute masterpiece, chef's kiss.
Actually, the ladder COULD be art. I guessed right that it wasn't, but I could very easily imagine something like "Solitude" as a title.
The broken glass was the only one I failed to guess, by the way. (To be honest, I knew most of the Duchamps.) With the bluish-grey background that matches its shades, it looks so much like an installation.
You should definitely try your hand at dadaism.
And yes, it is also really funny. :) As dadaism should be.
Wikipedia says this about Bottle Rack: "The original piece was mistaken as rubbish due to its appearance, and was thrown out by Duchamp's sister and stepsister after the artist left France in 1914 for the US." He literally just bought it and did absolutely nothing to it except present it as art. I'd generally consider myself a fan of artistic interpretation/analysis, but this is just utterly meaningless to me. I don't get the humor or surrealism, my mind is blank when I look at these things. Anti-art at its finest, I suppose.
The point is that art is a matter of intention and perception. If something is presented as art, it will be perceived as art, and therefore, it is art.
It's a different philosophy from the ancient greeks for example, for whom art required a specific technique, or craft. In fact, they didn't even have separate words for the two concepts, as τέχνη / téchnê means both art and technique.
Still another point of view would be to consider that art has to do with beauty. This is probably what most people instinctively believe - but it also makes art highly subjective.
Yeah, to me the most compelling artworks often make some meta statement about art itself while also demonstrating a lot of skill or technique, combining your first and second points. I'd say these do a lot of the first with virtually none of the second. Obviously different people like different things, but for me I have to see some skill, even if I think the end result is ugly. The fact that replicas of Bottle Rack (not even the original damn thing) are in art museums with some of the most spectacular paintings ever created by humans is hilarious and depressing in its cutesy postmodern way.
Personally, I tend to generally enjoy older things over newer things. I'll gladly stare at a frying pan if it's a few thousands of years old. That's my taste. It's not superior to anyone's, it's just mine.
There should be a Jetpunk equivalent to the Oscars. Every year awards given out for Most Inventive Quiz, Funniest Quiz, Best Overall Quiz, etc. This one would be nominatable for several categories. Nice work.
really fun quiz – i personally enjoy dada art but the difference between many pieces and regular objects really is just the presentation and you did a damn good job with the choices!
haha I felt so clueless, in the majority of cases I could find no way to rationalize whether the object is or isn't art. I mostly ended up just tagging the more banal things as "art" and the seemingly more interesting ones as "random objects".
Your expressed endorsement is totally irrelevant. By engaging and considering it, and ultimately rejecting it, you've actually validated it as art. It got in your head so much that you had to comment. I bet a random Manet or Greek marble or bone chinaware hasn't done that. That's part of what makes abstract art and Marcel Duchamp special.
I don't really get this. I understand that engaging with something is an act of attention that lends it more power even if the engagement is negative (like how hating a celebrity just brings them more publicity). But there's clearly something in the rejection as well. I've engaged with the notion that golf is a sport and ultimately rejected it, which doesn't seem to me to validate the notion. Engaging with it at all lends the debate some legitimacy, but I don't think that, regardless of the side you come down, you inevitably end up validating the topic of debate.
Any landscape painting from the 19th century has gotten in my head and stuck with me far more than "Fountain" has. Now that's some art!
If I go to a restaurant, get served a big steaming turd on a plate, and reject it, I'm not rejecting its worthiness as a meal -- just by engaging, considering, and rejecting it, I've actually validated the chef. It just got in my head so much that I had to send it back.
Yeah I only got two wrong as well - which to me shows that when we're looking at things with a little consideration we can mostly descry meaning where it is intended. To me it validated the idea of these pieces as art.
Nah it is mostly the staging that is a tell, whether it is consciously or subconsciously. I guess that is why so many people got the ladder wrong, because it stands alone in an empty room ( but for me the room was not pristine enough, the paint strokes gave it away that the room was an actual work in progress) a common set up for art pieces to make people think about the object.
Brilliant, just shows the absurdness of some art, everyone says "I could do better than that" but not many do. I wonder what, if any, criteria exist to decide if a random object is presented as art or not. Is it the artist, the setting, the design, or just the viewers perception that decides?
That's because most of us don't have friends in the international art circuit. You need to be known in this group before you can start the money laundering which is most of the modern art today.
With Duchamp's case, it was very much the artist's intent that labeled it art. With Fountain specifically, he submitted it to an exhibition for the Society of Independent Artists. He paid the fee, so they couldn't reject it, but they didn't show it. It was only after a studio photo was taken of it that people knew it existed.
But fundamentally, what you're asking is the question that this sort of anti-art is supposed to make you ask. "Is this art? Why is this art, or why isn't it?" It sort of leaves it in your hands to decide what you consider art or not.
Is it art because it makes people feel something? A lot of people are revolted by Fountain, and those people wouldn't dare call it art. Is it art because it takes effort to make? Is it not art for the opposite reason? Does art have a variety of colors? Does symbolism make a work art? Does aesthetic beauty? On that note, is kitsch artful? Is Guernica by Picasso? As long as you're thinking about it, you won't be wrong.
I've been putting off taking this quiz because just from the title I knew I'd fail miserably. Finally took it, failed miserably, but genuinely enjoyed it! Thanks!
What is art, anyways? Do you need to put effort into it, must it look beautiful? For that matter, must you even declare it art? Can art be accidental? I would say any form of human expression is art, even if that expression is surreal or of lacking it entirely. Thereby, everything humans do is art.
Seems just a touch too broad of a definition, don't you think? To me, The Birth of Venus and the Rwandan genocide exist under separate categories in my mind for some reason, can't put my finger on it...
When we moved into our new office there was (and still is) a fire extinguisher attached to a bracket on the wall. I put a small sign reading "Model for Monumental Fire Extinguisher by Claes Oldenburg" under it and . . . voila! a masterpiece.
(Google "Claes Oldenburg" if you've never seen his sculptures.)
I'm surprised I got 100% on the first try. Most of them I was at least somewhat confident on, but there were a few where I could have easily talked myself into going the other way.
Yeah I got two wrong (one each way). To me that suggests that the artworks aren't quite as random as many people (and the joke behind this fun quiz) seem to think.
It is the setting, if you saw them all in a pile or a store room or some old barn it would not be as easy. In a lot of cases the art is a random object taken away from its normal context or surroundings. An intentional way the "artist" is displaying it.
Even if you don't realise it, you pick up on these things subconsciouly. (like hey, this object seems to want to be making a point eventhough it is a random object).
(And not only would it not be so easy, in a lot of cases it would seize to be art and revert back to just being an object)
Wow, I recognize some of these from an old high school project I did on the Dada art movement! Didn't think I'd be able to use that knowledge again lol
That’d be funny, but there are several famous pieces of art that are essentially a blank canvas! The whole Take the Money and Run debacle from 2021, for instance. Or Erased de Kooning Drawing would fit the bill, too!
Isn't there some famous piece where an artist actually painted a really detailed and skilled scene and then painted the whole canvas white over it? Some commentary about erasing beauty or something? I'm an art novice, but I could swear I have read about that.
To the credit of the artists, I only missed two (one was actually art, one was actually random). So on the whole, the intended art pieces were pretty recognizable as being art to me. Though I probably would've missed the shovel one as well if the lighting hadn't looked like an art gallery's lighting.
The fact that half of this is considered art is crazy. But this inspires me to make a simple line on a piece of paper, crumple it up and then call it "art" thank you for the idea.
Ah, ready-mades, the peak of laziness in art, followed by so much BS theorization that the word "art" has lost all of its meaning, cause if everything is art, then nothing is. Welcome to postmodernity. Thanks Duchamp.
You should make a version of this where every answer is a random object you own, then later see in the stats which was confused as art the most and make it public as your artwork
I’m surprised all of them are not art. I mean art could be anything random nowadays. I miss the art from the renaissance from Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Shakespeare, especially the Mona Lisa painting. That’s the good old times in art.
Actually, the ladder COULD be art. I guessed right that it wasn't, but I could very easily imagine something like "Solitude" as a title.
The broken glass was the only one I failed to guess, by the way. (To be honest, I knew most of the Duchamps.) With the bluish-grey background that matches its shades, it looks so much like an installation.
You should definitely try your hand at dadaism.
And yes, it is also really funny. :) As dadaism should be.
It's a different philosophy from the ancient greeks for example, for whom art required a specific technique, or craft. In fact, they didn't even have separate words for the two concepts, as τέχνη / téchnê means both art and technique.
Still another point of view would be to consider that art has to do with beauty. This is probably what most people instinctively believe - but it also makes art highly subjective.
On a side note: You can’t tell from the angle of the photo, but it’s actually a structure that you can walk inside. It’s pretty impressive.
really fun quiz – i personally enjoy dada art but the difference between many pieces and regular objects really is just the presentation and you did a damn good job with the choices!
Any landscape painting from the 19th century has gotten in my head and stuck with me far more than "Fountain" has. Now that's some art!
A powerful statement, thanks martay.
But fundamentally, what you're asking is the question that this sort of anti-art is supposed to make you ask. "Is this art? Why is this art, or why isn't it?" It sort of leaves it in your hands to decide what you consider art or not.
Is it art because it makes people feel something? A lot of people are revolted by Fountain, and those people wouldn't dare call it art. Is it art because it takes effort to make? Is it not art for the opposite reason? Does art have a variety of colors? Does symbolism make a work art? Does aesthetic beauty? On that note, is kitsch artful? Is Guernica by Picasso? As long as you're thinking about it, you won't be wrong.
What is art, anyways? Do you need to put effort into it, must it look beautiful? For that matter, must you even declare it art? Can art be accidental? I would say any form of human expression is art, even if that expression is surreal or of lacking it entirely. Thereby, everything humans do is art.
(Google "Claes Oldenburg" if you've never seen his sculptures.)
Even if you don't realise it, you pick up on these things subconsciouly. (like hey, this object seems to want to be making a point eventhough it is a random object).
(And not only would it not be so easy, in a lot of cases it would seize to be art and revert back to just being an object)
Dimby: Yes
(Nice quiz by the way)