• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    52 years ago

    It’s art as long as the one who draws them has a message to deliver (besides “hehe, I’m drawing cocks on a wall”)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      Exactly. The message here is more along the lines of “pity this was painted over so boringly, this is what you get”. It is not just a wall, it is the wall with the original artwork still underneath a thin layer of paint. I call art. Even with just the “hehe”, I’d say it still has the old meaning of any mark made on purpose anywhere: “I was here.” (That seems to be the main point of tagging.)

    • Alien Nathan Edward
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      what makes “hehe I’m drawing cocks on the wall” invalid? let’s examine a situation where the person who painted the cocks didn’t know that there used to be traditional art there, but I do. I see the cocks, think about what used to be there before someone “fixed” it, and I receive a message even if none was intended. Is it art in that case? If it is, did the person who just wanted to doodle some dongs create it, or did I?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        The clueless case is invalid because it’s strictly a descriptive/self-apparent exercise – lest every single act become art, thus depriving art of meaning. I don’t have an authoritative answer to your second question, but I’d argue you’ve created an ephemeral, individual piece of art.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        To quote the great Ben Folds, “Ooooh, oh, if you’re feeling small And you can’t draw a crowd Draw dicks on the wall If you can’t draw a crowd Settle for what you CAN draw”