There are 4 choices, 5 votes for newmiracle87's debate

The Gates, a work of art?

Has anyone heard of the Gates in Central Park in NYC? They’re considered a work of art but I can’t really believe it is. It’s 23 miles of cloths hanging off of little archlike things. It took year and millions and millions of dollars to complete and it’s a piece of crap. The same artist also did something with umbrellas in CA. I think the retard could have done something much better with their money, like feeding starving people or give the money to research for cancer.

• It's art.

  Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s art. It has significance to someone (if only the artist, so be it) as more than just a thing, someone thinks of it as art so it is art. Not everyone has to enjoy something for it to be art. And hey, if it has generated tourism then quite a few people must like it, eh? They must consider it art, right? So it is art.

  40%  Voted for by ohsweetie2788, justonewish.

  View 3 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • newmiracle87
    April 7, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    you have a good point so I'll have to look into the definition of art I suppose. Continuation - definition of art Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. . The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. . The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. . High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. Well that seems to fit but let's look up beauty: The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality. . A quality or feature that is most effective, gratifying, or telling . An outstanding or conspicuous example OK, so that fits too, but was it really a good use of this artist's time? I went to see these and I'm telling you they were so boring and pointless, nobody had any understanding of them, I doubt the artist even knew why. Why didn't we use the money to research something or feed the homeless?
  • • justonewish
      April 7, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      We didn't use it to do that because some people are just lame and don't realize some things are not worth while. Or maybe the artist had a better vision of what it was supposed to be like.. and it just turned out like crap.
  • freeduck
    September 28, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    I'm not sure about a lot of the things that pass for art. If its purely the vision, why can't everyone just start making crap and getting rich? like that painting of a bunch of red squares. that isn't art, I don't care what you say, anyone can make red squares, I probably made a couple pictures like that myself, in kindegarten.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: