because anyone who can have the patience to expand art a three-year old makes into something really big makes you an artist.
2007-02-08 03:49:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by triskaidekaphobia 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Duchamp was at that time leading the way in suggesting that art does not have to adhere to conventional forms of art or use conventional materials. He was also saying that art is not just about appealing to the eye but should open up the mind . Also mass produced items not necessary to life where only just beginning to be available to everyone. As is the tradition for artists today he was commenting on the time he lived in.
Bottlerack gave artists free licence to experiment with materials, crafts and challenge the accepting that art must be explained by the eye only.Thus this belongs in a museum of modern art for it's importance.
2007-02-10 06:58:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Willi 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Still assuming no "WWE" advantage: Terry Funk. As I said before, if he couldn't out-wrestle you he'd out-fight you. If he couldn't out-fight you, he'd out-"crazy" you. Bret Hart. Hate to see Dynamite leave so soon, but the Hitman would just out-wrestle him and make him tap to the Sharpshooter. Sting. A little better wrestler than Savage, I think. Sting would win by submission to the Scorpion Deathlock. Chris Benoit. Damn...what a match-up! Chris' strength advantage would be the difference here. Dean would eventually tap to the Crippler Crossface. Kurt Angle. As great as Owen was, so is Kurt. Kurt's meaner and more ferocious. No submission here, Kurt would just have to wear Owen out and pin him. Hulk Hogan. Hogan CAN wrestle. He's bigger and stronger than Austin, too. The Undertaker. Shawn's good, real good. I just think the Undertaker can beat him. Ric Flair. Flair had no trouble out-wrestling the big guys. The Rock would be no different.
2016-05-24 06:49:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wow! There are so many good answers, where to begin?
- it's anti-establishmentarian
- he hated refined art
- it's a revolt against the conservative art schools and museums (back then it was)
- nihilism
- "art that means nothing" IS modern
- saying nothing is saying everything
- it's the start of readymades
- the whole point of ready mades is that the true art is in WHAT you choose to put on display and NOt in your technique or fussy ability to MAKE things
- all of these things are totally modern
- elegant
- less effort
- tapping into so-called common culture
- speaking to Ordinary Man
- saying Fook You to the long tradition of the Classics
- but most of all putting something on display whatever it is (comapre with Warhol's soup cans!!!!!) and saying HERE, THIS is art because I have chosen it
- this is what I see in our culture that needs to be LOOKED at
- the objects of ordinary life can be breathed with artisitc appreciation
How many do you need? LOL
Have fun!
2007-02-08 03:52:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because it asks you to consider, amongst other things, that
a) art is creative thought, not craftsmanship
b) art is as much a matter of context as content
2007-02-08 20:38:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by Tim W 1
·
0⤊
1⤋