Read this short article about a $12 million stuffed shark.
Then watch this short video about it.
Next, watch this short video about an exhibition consisting of an empty room.
Are either, or both,of these examples “art”? If so, why? If not, why not?
(This blog post is adapted from a lesson in the Lancaster School Theory of Knowledge blog)
I believe that the stuffed shark is not art because it is just a stuffed dead animal and though time may have went into this process it is still not, in my opinion.
I believe that the art of nothin wall is also not art becaue it is just a blank wall. But in seeing both of these videos I think that art is just a way or perspective on how people view things.
After viewing the stuffed shark and the video, I believe the stuffed shark is not art and the empty room is art. The stuffed shark is not art because they are just taking dead animals skins and stuff it with cottons. The empty room is art because the aritist was showing how art can be created in many differents way not just by drawing it. So this is whatt I believe in the article and video.
I think both are art.
The preserved shark gives an emotion of fear and death; it makes people think about life.
The “Nothing” art show is also an art since it creates a strong feeling of either dismissing the art as absurd, or a new insight and understanding of art.
Yes the shark is because its a natural animal that fascinates people and being able to see it up close and personal. The shark is a deadly animal that people do not see or try to see because of the risk of death.
The empty room is not art because its just a white empty room. You can do that with anything so its not that special.
In my perspective, nothing is not art, but to many viewers it may. The art of nothing is to those who can feel it, for instance, the artist had felt nothing and complicatedly came up with this idea.
The shark, in my opinion, is not art. The shark did not become noticeable until the drawing of its significance had shown to the public.
I believe that Art is recognized only to individuals and are not always recognized at first sight.
In my opinion, the shark was not art because the man who thought of it didn’t make it. He had people preserve a shark and I didn’t think it was a creative piece of art.
The empty room was also not art because it seems to me that the man was trying to think outside of the box, but I don’t think he realizes that people want to come and see actual art accomplished with effort and hard work.
well, i would have to say that they both are are art because i believe that art is seen through the eyes of whom created the art. art is seen in many different ways.
I say the shark is not art because all it was, was just a stuffed dead animal, but if the shark was created by clay and then stuffed, then it is art and getting a living things body and stuffing it, to me, it is not art.
I think the empty room is art because somebody tried to express something through that white room, and art doesn’t have to be something fascinating, it has to be created to show emotion or symbolize something the artist is trying to portray.
i believe that this shark imitates art but perserving it and nameing it does not make it art. its inhumane, to capture a shark just to say its beautiful. true art reflects the artist. the shark reflects that its artist is a monster.
http://www.worldreviewer.com/_images/e4/b7/e4b7426805c2fe71f22d66c142ef95c9/the-persistence-of-m-440×298.jpg
There are clocks on a beach.The painting is of clocks being squiggly. The shows that the time is out of order and something is wrong with the word.This succeeds,because it is beatiful and very well done picture.
http://www.worldreviewer.com/travel-guides/works-of-art/the-great-wave-hokusai/14830/
I see a large wave that is going to sink the boats in the water. The artist used a lot of blue in the painting. The artist is saying that people should beware of the great force of waves. I think that the art gets the point across of what it is trying to prove
http://www.poster.com/showposter.aspx?pid=26389
I see an oak tree with a beautiful landscape with animals in the far distance. I interpret this as a picture of oak tree resting in the sunrise. The artist is trying to say nature is always going to be there sunrise or sundown. It’s also saying that trees are meant to stay in the ground and Ferlazzo needs to stop killing them by wasting papers and giving me papers that I really want. I think the work fails because people are still killing trees a.k.a Ferlazzo.
Description:
• A white horse
• A Black horse with a man on it
• A lot of trees; light & dark green ones
• A man standing near the white fence
• 2 girls in white dresses in front of the house
• A small stream leading to a pond or a lake
• Only a few houses in the village
• A field of wheat
• A lot of fences
Analysis:
• There are 12 houses
• Only 4 people
• The color is well balanced
• Looks very rounded