Too simple to be art?

[The artist formally known]

Notice that it's not a square, nor a rectangle, it's actually a rhombus.

[me003]

You guuys arent seeing the beauty in that first painting!!!!!!

IT'S A RHOMBUS!

[The artist formally known]

You guuys arent seeing the beauty in that first painting!!!!!!

IT'S A RHOMBUS!

Egg zack lee

[YPrrrr]

You guuys arent seeing the beauty in that first painting!!!!!!

IT'S A RHOMBUS!

OH GOD!!!!!!!!! IT'S GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!!

nah, it's still trash

[russell]

Yeah I remember seeing that when I was there.

The question is whether there is a textbook definition of art, or if art is whatever inspires something in the viewer. If you, as a viewer, look at this blue canvas and think "bullshit" and keep going, then it's not art. But there's a lot of people who might stop and think about something, like what we're doing at this moment. Additionally I like the theory that all good art is controversial, hard to look at, brutally moralistically challenging, and repulsive; this fits most of that description. Same reason you might debate Bukowski's place among 20th century literary greats.

Personally I'd say this is a lot more interesting than, say, the Mona Lisa. Who gives a shit about the Mona Lisa? It was commissioned by a rich family half a millennia ago. It has virtually no meaning now and I'm pretty sure Da Vinci wasn't trying to inject much emotion besides what was necessary to sell it.

But that's just my preference for art.

[me003]

Egg zack lee

Dang, I didn't notice you said that right before me.....