(Bring your mouse to the quote above to read The New York Times article.)
-
Defining art has always been a huge problem. Whether art is to be used for aesthetics, to be functional, or both has always been an issue. This issue arises with Hirst’s medicine cabinet. Does it serve a function? Yes. Is it aesthetically pleasing? Yes. Then is it art? For me art is something that was only initially made to be aesthetically pleasing and not to serve a function. For example, if someone sculpts a human hand for aesthetic appreciation, it is art. If someone then uses that sculpture as a prop for psychological readings of the future, it will still be art even though it now serves a function. Conversely, if the hand was built for readings and then used for appreciation, it would not be art. With this in mind, Hirst designed his cabinet to be used an appreciative piece so I would consider it as art. We must look at initial purpose of an item when defining it, if we define it after it can be seen as defined as a branch of other disciplines, and its purpose will then be skewed to suit each. By defining an object by its initial purpose, we can draw a line between what it is meant to do and what it is not, giving it the opportunity to shine within its discipline or to receive the appropriate criticisms.
-
“…works we admire not for skillful hands-on execution by the artist, but for the artist’s creative concept.”
Art is perception and can never be wrong or right. Art is whatever I think it should be. There are no guidelines or restrictions and that’s why I believe that art cannot be taught. Art can be anything so where would someone even begin teaching? This medicine chest can be art, from a different person’s perspective, but I don’t think it is art. I don’t connect with this chest nor do I feel like it is sending a message. For me to consider something art, I have to feel something. Anger, happiness, frustration; something. This medicine chest is just another piece of furniture for me. It’s the concept or message that the artist wants to convey that decides for me whether it’s art or not.
-
Art is subject to change. As humans evolve, so does art in order to fulfill our wants and needs. Thousands, and even millions, of years ago, when human beings still lived a rather primitive lifestyle, the main activity for most men was hunting game. They required tools for hunting such as spears or axes, and thus, the most common form of art for their time was creating such tools. Much craftsmanship was put into carving and shaping the blades. Although, symmetry and beauty of a tool is not necessary for catching and killing animals, the humans took great pride in developing the tools, displaying their great artistic skill and dexterity. During the times of Lascaux and Chauvet, humans living in caves found enjoyment in draw paintings in their leisure. Perhaps they used art as a way to record what life was like during their time. It’s also possible that they just wanted a beautiful wallpaper background for their home. Whatever the case, this is the form of art that satisfied them and made their time worthwhile.
As human continued to evolve, more resources were made available to them. In our modern time for instance, art is created using many different mediums placed on various types of platforms. We teach art to kids when they’re young and so they are able to develop a keen sense of aestheticism and create more sophisticated art. It is inevitable that society continues to develop and change. Nowadays we greatly value intellect and reasoning, an thus, art continues to evolve accordingly. This brought about conceptual art, which forces us to think more, rather than consider the obvious. Medicine chest art is just an example such. One cannot say this is not art just because craftsmanship wasn’t put into. What’s more important is the value of the art, and what it teaches us.
This doesn’t mean that everyone should ditch their art and focus on conceptual art because it pays. The older forms of art will always continue to be a part of our culture. I would think of conceptual art as a new addition to modern art, and is just available for those who value it. Everyone has their own tastes and can find enjoyment in whatever form of art they please.
-
This medicine chest, or anything for that matter, can be considered art, depending on the person viewing it. Art is subjective and differs from person to person. Do I think that this is art? No, I do not because it doesn’t make me feel emotions or recognize any hidden messages. This brings up the question, “what is art?” I believe that art is any medium that conveys emotion or a deeper message. Therefore, the notion that something is art differs from person to person. I believe that some videogames are works of art while others see them as just a waste of time.
That is my definition of art but when I go by what I’ve seen in galleries and magazines, art is anything that is mounted up on a wall or on a pedestal. A colored plank of wood on a pedestal is considered art but the same plank of wood on the street would be considered garbage.
So, when is a medicine chest art? To me, it is when it tells me something more than what pills to take next. However, to society, it seems that it is art when the medicine chest is displayed for public viewing, propped up on a wall, trying to “speak” to you, and not mattering whether it succeeds or fails. -
When a person creates such a piece of artwork as a medicine cabinet, I cannot help but feel as if anything could be art. Art is so subjective to the point that as long as a significant amount of people say it is art, it will be art. This cannot be stopped however, because humans are always looking for something more interesting and new. Paintings, sculptures, and drawings are so overly done, that artists have taken a new turn by combining them or perhaps creating their own definitions of them.
As long as there is an output of expression and/or emotion from the artist into the artwork, the viewers could feel it. This may seem unfair that perhaps after an artist becomes famous, anything he or she comes up with could and most likely will be considered art. But, through any form of creativity, there is time and effort involved. We cannot undermine the thought behind all of the artworks that perhaps we do not feel should be considered one. -
I think Damien Hirst’s medicine cabinets should not be considered art. I base this opinion on my experience as a photographer, which has shaped my artistic aesthetic. I have taken photographs in various styles, from photojournalism to high fashion — all of which caused me to shifted my artistic aesthetic in different directions. And, during this time, I realized the importance of having concrete medium and aesthetic criteria. Woody Allen (character: Alvy Singer) describes this importance of these two aspects when he meets Annie Hall for the first time and comments on her photographs in her flat in the film “Annie Hall,” stating that “the medium [of art] puts conditions on the art itself” and that you “need a set of aesthetic criteria in order to put a work in social perspective.” As a medium, the frame used in both analog and digital photography has many conditions that give the art form structure. Focus, composition, and color become the main aspects of concern when taking a photograph. In turn, these aspects can put a photograph in social perspective. From there it can be considered art. As a side point, such is the case with other conventional mediums other than photography.
Take, for example, Eddie Adams’ photo of the Vietnamese police chief executing a Vietcong prisoner. Adams focuses on the intense anger of the police chief’s face and the lifelessness of the prisoner being blown away. He composes the photograph so that the police chief’s face is in profile, intensifying his anger, and the ventral section of the prisoner’s face is in full view, opening his face to evoke sympathy from the viewer. The color is black and white to create a sense of timelessness but more so because black and white film was much more accessible “back then” and easier to manipulate. All of these deductions lead to the conclusion that this photograph puts a brutal spin on the Vietnam War.
NOW. Given openness the medium of photography is to analysis, is it possible to analyze Hirst’s medicine cabinets in the same fashion? It is not possible to do so because the cabinets themselves are merely a symbol of a concept within Hirst’s mind. Hirst doesn’t intend that the viewer base their perception on the cabinets’ themselves but on “his” inaccessible concept, leaving no footholds for any shred of deduction and it is merely generalized. Sure it makes you think. But the reason why you think forever is because you are forever trying to deduce any shred of social perspective within the cabinets.
But I don’t think that all hope is lost for conceptual art. Hirst’s medicine cabinets is merely an extreme outlier. I believe Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” can be tentatively called art. There is certainly some significance to the urinal and its placement and emphasis. But this significance is very esoteric but not nonexistent. But such is the obstacle with most “advant-garde” works like conceptual art.
-
I don’t know… at a first glance, this definitely does not strike as an art to me, unless someone tells me it is, and explains to me what “conceptual art” really entails. As everyone else said in previous entries, yes, art is never something definite and it exists in so many forms that confuse us sometimes. But still, for me, a work of art has to be at least something that evokes a substantial emotion from its viewer (or listener). Art may not immediately elicit any response upon sight, but after a moment or minutes of thinking, I can say something about it.
The last gallery we visited in Chelsea dealt with male masturbation, and most of us found it very distasteful and wondered, “is this really art?” To me, it was still an art because it drew that emotion of disgust and “eww!” from me.I see this medicine chest and might say something like… “wow, there are so many pills and bottles in there.” But that’s as far as I can go about this. I guess I’m not intellectual enough.
-
I don’t know much about conceptual art, but at initial look at the cabinet, it didn’t seem like a big deal. However, the more I thought about and looked at it, it’s actually pretty amazing. I guess being interested in medicine (the subject) makes it mean more to me. It shows like what Katie said, how much we take to maintain our bodies. So many chemicals go into to us to keep running the machines that are our bodies. But having too much, will kill you.
I looked up the shark exhibit and I find it interesting as well. I think Hirst said he was trying to show the simultaneous state of life and death, as the shark displays. The shark is living, but it’s in such a dead state, like some ghost wandering around the world in unrest. I had never thought about sharks that way.
I have mixed views on conceptual work. Some, like the shark and cabinet, share interesting ideas that should be shown. Others, like the urinal or that masturbating thing at the Chelsea galleries, seem degrading. They may have some idea behind them that makes them “praiseworthy” but for me, with my pretty strict “moral code,” it just reminds me of how people have strange processes to get their probably sound concepts out there. People may call it art, and if that artists thinks so, I guess it is art in general. But personally, its not.
I understand the writer’s worry over conceptual art’s lack of technical skills, but some of the art pieces require extra-art work. Is Hirst really going to go shark hunting for that piece? He’s an artist, not a shark hunter. As an artist, he can at least draw his concept onto paper and bring the pieces together.
I feel that as we grow more distant from the beginnings of the world, artists of the past have touched pretty much every struggle of man and also man’s beauty. I think artists now are trying not to reincarnate beliefs, but invent something completely new. And that’s where conceptual art comes in.
-
This article reminds me the first night we went to the Met for the museum projects. I had seen pictures of Damien Hirst’s “The Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living,” but I had totally forgotten it was in the Met, so when I turned the corner and found a giant shark staring at me, the bridge from Van Gogh to Pollack, I was shocked. But, to me, that is art. it is, just as Hirst describes it, a shark, formaldehyde, metal, and glass, but he arranged it. No one else did, though, of course, anyone could. But he chose to; Damien Hirst thought it up. And whether he wants to display a medicine chest or the corpse of a shark, he’s still venturing to display it. It is art.
-
I personally think modern art like this article talks about belongs to a category all its own, as it aptly states. I agree with Mr. Dutton when he basically summarizes that we’ve entered a time where a lot of art is now not admired for the skill and craft responsible for the aesthetic the viewer sees, but the conceptualizations behind it by the artist, who may not even have had anything to do with the actual construction of any given art piece. I think that art like this and art that is viewed as skillfully beautiful and impressive just belong to two different subsets of art intrinsically. I personally cannot choose which one I prefer, but in the case of the Medicine Chest above, I find it interesting but not artistically impressive. However, I will probably scour my brain a lot harder to find the significance behind it and the artist’s intent than say, a Bernini sculpture.
-
I am familiar with both Hirst’s and Koons’ works. About a year ago I saw the shark in the formaldehyde tank along with one of Koons’ giant metal balloon dogs at the Met. Both artists are very flashy, but not very artistic. When we were in Chealsea, we saw an arrangement of glass bottles, and Professor Judell said that if you put on hundred of anything together it will look good. i tend to agree to this. I also think that if you make something really big it is going to appear awesome. A merdicine cabinet may be beautiful, but it is still just a medicine cabinet either way. At least the Dadaists ROTATED the urinal! I think artists such as these oversimplify art. When I was in the Guggenheim I saw a sculpture the exact opposite of this, and I really liked it. I think the most important thing that art should do is that it should make a statement. Here is the link to the Guggenheim installment. I think the medicine cabinet really contrasts this.
http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/on-view-now/anish-kapoor-memory
-
If there are many tablets on the table, it could be considered art, so why not a medicine chest? When we think about it a medicine chest is filled with different types of medicine, as in the picture. A real life one, I imagine is a wooden cupboard that has glass doors through which we can see many medicine/pill bottles that are small and made with plastic lined up. From close up, we (as in society) do not think of it as a piece of art. Instead, it is a place to keep medicines necessary for us. But, from a picture, we can interpret it as a form of art. Simply put, it is a collaboration of different types of medicine in a row and column format. How we assemble[order] items in the world, is the same way we put together a medicine chest. For example, the assembly of the New York City scaled model in the Queens Museum of Art, is considered art. Then why can’t the assembly of a Medicine Chest in the hospital or even one’s own home be considered an art form? It is just a medium to translate feelings and thoughts, like words are a medium.
If you think about it, everything in the world that is made by mankind grew from art – drawings, paintings, and most importantly sketches. If there would not have been any sketches, then how would there be so many buildings. Maps are also pieces of art. They are made using latitudes and longitudes, given by humans. If there were no maps, how would we travel on airplanes, let alone in subway cars in NYC. The laptops we got from Macaulay also had sketches. If these sketches were not there, either on paper, or in some else’s mind, we would have those. Thus nothing is art, and everything is art. Just depends on perceptions.
For me “art” has to be aesthetically pleasing to my thoughts, emotions and feelings at that particular time. Right now, a medicine chest would not be art to me, but at another time, it could be art to me. So as my mood changes, it becomes art and not art. Just like when I look at the NYC skyline’s buildings, it can be art – a form of painting, image but when I actually am in one of those buildings, it might not be art.
-
I feel that art is form expressing a glimpse of a greater underlying truth. As Picasso said, “art is a lie that makes us realize the truth.” When art mimics reality or tries to portray it, it tries to portray a physical state which in turn is a manifestation of a spiritual state. When it is successfully able to express that which is greater than itself, it is able to connect people through this greater truth.
This definition of art can also be applied in the article when it spoke about the cavemen. The purpose of the art was to reveal something about the artist; his strength or power and standing. In the same way I feel that the more easily art is able to express its intention and connect with people, the greater its value. When using such a definition it becomes hard to classify the medicine cabinet as art; its hard to connect to and understand just by looking. However, it is the result of a thought that the artist had and his desire to express this thought. When analyzed we are able to discover a deeper meaning about society and about the artist himself and what he considers important.
To be completely honest this writing did not go where I thought it would have. Originally I had wanted to agree with Mohammed’s view that the medicine cabinet was not a piece of art. However by the end of writing this reply I feel compelled to admit that as reluctant as I maybe to see it as such, it fits the definition that I have placed on art. I would like to conclude by saying that anything can be art as long as value is placed on it, because this value is able to reveal to us certain truths about the individuals that hold the piece of art in esteem.
My verdict on the medicine cabinet: It’s art but not particularly my favorite kind.
-
Stating an opinion is one of the most powerful assertions one can make. Opinions are unique and possessive because we create them. When asked if something is art? There cannot be a right or wrong answer because the definition of art does not have a universal interpretation. In fact that is a key component of diversity – a mixing of or variety of opinions. When asked about Mr. Hirst’s medicine cabinet, one may call it art while another may see it as simply for what it is – a medicine cabinet.
In life almost everything is open to interpretation. Whether it is art, comedy, or even concerts we have our opinions on each topic.When looking at the medicine cabinet it illustrates a sense of balance. If it is split in half there are four columns on each side, both stock full of medicine. The heavenly sort of light gleaming on the cabinet seems to glorify the cabinet itself. It gives off the vibe that these pills are the saviors to all your problems. In addition, it seems that the cabinet has a medicine for various kinds of sicknesses due to the vast collection of pills. This medicine cabinet shows that artwork is all around us but it all depends on the individual’s perception. Even the television sitting in my living room can be considered art. It is all up to the people to decide and in the end sharing opinions on artwork is what makes this field so diverse.
-
I am always amazed by what the “art world” considers art. It doesn’t baffle me, it simply interests me. At first glance, I didn’t care about the Medicine Chests at all. Who would? Well the “art world” apparently, and maybe someone in dire need of painkillers. But in reading this article, it shed light on the idea of conceptual art.
It seems as though conceptual art is commentary on everyday life, and how we perceive it. If we take a minute to look at the details, or singular objects, what do they tell us?
I’m not exactly sure what Medicine Chest art is supposed to provoke within me. Maybe it’s supposed to say “Why the hell do our bodies need all these drugs? Live your life free of toxins like ancient peoples. Don’t screw up a natural being.” Maybe it’s saying “Why are we wasting our time? Why don’t we know what’s wrong and find one way to fix it?” Or maybe it’s simply saying..”Hey guys, think about organizing you medicine cabinet, it could look like this.” Who knows?
-
What is art? Like love, life, and many other grand concepts of the universe, there is no set definition and people will continue to argue for centuries on what the meaning really is. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Therefore, to a certain extent, anything can be considered art, as long as it is aesthetically pleasing to any one individual. However what is socially accepted as art is a completely different case. Society can label art based on the standards the majority of the people agree on. In our society today, for the most part, art is labeled as something that takes a high level of skill and something that cannot be reciprocated easily. Some however astray from these societal standards and value the concept or meaning of a piece. These people are called modernists. We have no right to tell them what to value, that would be undemocratic. However, we can respectfully disagree with and jeer at their large investments in pieces of everyday furniture which happen to have some kind of “deeper meaning”. Every individual has a different set of values and tastes so every person has a different definition of what they consider art. Based on my personal values and tastes, I can confidently say I do not consider this cabinet a work of art.
-
No one has the right to say what is art and what isn’t. This is precisely the reason why I can never understand how arts critics can judge an artist’s paintings and say, “this belongs in a museum” or that “my four year old cousin can do this.” Ofcourse we can tell if the artist is skilled by the brushstrokes or by the way he/she is able to capture light but it is creativity that distinguishes good artists from the bad. As I mentioned in my other blog, it is crucial to understand the idea the artwork, only then can one truly appreciate the art itself. Damien Hirst’s medicine cabinets is an example of conceptual art. People may scratch their heads and wonder, “How can this sell for a few million dollars?” but in the medicine cabinet pieces Hirst redefines sculpture with his arrangements of various drugs and medical supplies. When I first looked at the picture, I said the exact same thing to myself. But after researching his other pieces, I finally understand the witty idea behind this piece. Hirst’s work is an examination of the processes of life and death: the desires and falsehoods that we have to negotiate our mortality. Humans have become so dependent on vitamins, surgeries, antibiotics and other types of drugs that we are willing to do anything to prolong our lives even if it may have harmful side effects. To put it simply, we fear death and we will do anything in our power to stop it.
Hirst’s medicine cabinet, a simple piece illustrates a highly complex idea, his creativity and wit make the medicine cabinet a masterpeice.
-
Art can take many shapes and forms; it can be as simple as one of Damien Hirst’s medicine cabinets or as complex as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. With that being said I’ve come to learn that there are two very distinct types of art, the subjective and the objective. What we know as classical art is often objective; we try to get into the artists mind to discover the meaning of the work. Contrary to classical art we have modern (or conceptual) art which is often created through an artist’s idea but is open to the perception of the viewer. This by no means defines classical art and modern art as much as it does state the traits it follows; there are times where we find classical art that can be subjective and modern art that can be objective. To me, the type of art a work is categorized by depends on the artists intent; if the artist has a clear-cut idea or message with their work it’s clearly objective, on the other hand if the artist has a simple idea with no sort of motivation behind it, it tends to be subjective.
With the idea of conceptual and classical art also comes the appreciation of craftsmanship. Conceptual art often lacks the craftsmanship by the original author and is much more an appreciation of the idea whereas classical art is often created by the original author. Take for example the medicine cabinet by Damien Hirst, he himself didn’t create much of it’s components and it isn’t exactly aesthetically pleasing as it is nothing more than a medicine cabinet. No fine crafting, no unique textures or shapes, it’s just a medicine cabinet. Now what this medicine cabinet means is up to the viewer as it can depict an infinite amount of things. However, I find it vital in all works of art that the artist creates the work him/herself because it gives the work a sense of identity as to where it comes from. So yes, this medicine cabinet is a form of art, it’s also just a medicine cabinet. That’s the beauty of conceptual art, it’s the most subjective of all and includes the viewer in the process of creating the work, because it is up to the viewer to determine its meaning.
I’d like to say that when I say classical art is objective, I mean to say it is more objective than conceptual art because I know that all art is subjective and open for interpretation.
-
Today, people see basically everything as art. The crayon drawings that a 2 year old creates can make millions some day. A statue of garbage compiled in an erratic manner is something artists are intrigued by. Whatever you see and however things are placed is art. In the past, I think that art had many clear definitions, such as a style in painting and such. But this is no longer the case and you can clearly see this – a medicine cabinet selling for hundreds of thousands? I think that art is how one perceives it and connects to it. At the same time, it’s also how the piece connects to the world and the social climate. While ordinary people may not see the medicine cabinet as a piece of art, someone – say, a doctor – may because he or she can relate to it. I think that is what modern art is all about nowadays. Not like the past where art is such a pure representation of emotions and such, art today is much more abstract and more connected with the changing social and technological climate. The vivaciousness of various arts today really captures present day.
-
Photographer Ansel Adams insisted that ‘[a]ll art is the expression of one and the same thing – the relation of the spirit of man to the spirit of other men and to the world.” That sounds like what you’re getting at.
-
According to the quote below the image, art in the eyes of many is a sort of pragmatism. Instead of the merits of a piece or the sheer unique talent of its maker, we have come to value the mindset of an artist. If one can cater to the masses through some clever conception, then one is an artist in the modern sense. I don’t think that this is entirely deceptive or bad, but I do feel as if modern art is very difficult for traditional-minded folks to grasp. After all, if you’ve fallen in love with a Michelangelo or a DaVinci then an image of a urinal is hardly artistic to you. This is not to say that modern art is worth less than traditional European art. So long as artistic expression, regardless of the medium, does not infringe on the rights and lives of others, I have no problem with it at all. In fact, I might even come to respect modern art, because the abstractness I perceive in seeing a urinal displayed allows me to put my thinking cap on. We all become detectives with modern art, trying to make sense of what’s on the outside and hopefully, what’s on the inside as well.
Comments are now closed.
NYT > Arts
- James Dean, Founding Director of NASA Art Program, Dies at 92
- Maurice El Medioni, Jewish Algerian Pianist, Dies at 95
- Robert Beerbohm, Pioneering Comic Book Retailer and Historian, Dies at 71
- Philharmonic Sidelines 2 Players It Tried to Fire for Misconduct
- Thom Browne Presents Frette Designs in Milan
- Patti Astor, Fun Gallery Co-Founder, Dies at 74
- ‘The Stranger’ Review: Somewhere Over the Freeway
- Rumi Missabu, Avant-Garde Drag Performer Who Glittered, Dies at 76
- ‘Rust’ Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed Is Sentenced for Involuntary Manslaughter
- A.I. Made These Movies Sharper. Critics Say It Ruined Them.
21 comments