"Art" (rant)

Quinny

Quinny

Active member
*half of NS groans*

Yeah, I'm back, and I feel like burning off some steam. Seeing as some NSers (I won't name screennames) have had unpleasant reactions the last time did this, I feel it is my civic NS duty to provide you with this disclaimer. If you meet any of the following criteria, you are special...and should exit this thread immediately.

1. If you don't like to read things longer than 3 paragraphs...LEAVE!

2. If you have trouble detecting oozing sarcasm...LEAVE!

3. If you can't take my stuff with a grain of salt...LEAVE!

4. If you hate thought provoking material...LEAVE!

5. If you hold some retarded grudge against me...LEAVE!

6. Finally, if your IQ does not exceed the total sum of the six numbers in this disclaimer, thats 1+2+3+4+5+6 for you slower folk...LEAVE!

Please do your best to comply with these six rules, you have been warned. Remember, God kills a puppy every time you break one of these rules. Just think about the puppies.

Now, on with my rant...

What is Art? Art is difficult to define. The dictionary defines it as: "the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty." But it goes far beyond that. Art reflects beauty in some form. Though "beauty" is very subjective because its defined by a person's opinion.

Truly great art, however, is recognized and appreciated by most people from all walks of life. When I think of great art, names like di Vinci, van Gogh, Mozart, John Lennon, Hemingway, and Shakespeare for example. It is works by these people, and many others, that define what is great art. Its works like their's that can withstand time and live on through the ages.

That was very uplifting wasn't it?

Anyway, I have now come to my point. What the fuck is this?

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/imgs/keyworks/emin001.jpg

Yes, this is actually considered art. And yes, this is actuary sitting in and art museum. And yes, it's also considered "valuable." For the lucky people who don't know what this is, it is Tracy Emin’s work called “My Bed." If you can't tell, it’s a rather messy bed littered with condoms, cigarets, clothing, bodily fluids, and God only knows what else. From the look of it I'd say the lady needs a damn maid.

It makes me wonder, who decides what is "art." Seriously, who designated Emin's steaming pile of crap as a work of art? What made the "elite of the artistic world" decide that this is a great creation of beauty. Does "My Bed" stir up some kind of great moving emotion inside me...nope, but it is string up my lunch.

To my knowledge, the people who decide what "art" is, are a load of arrogant elitist fucktards who are too busy sucking each others' dicks to explain to "the great unwashed" what the hell they’re talking about.

Can someone please explain to me the artistic merit of "My Bed"...or for that matter, any of this modern art trash?

Anyone remember that art exhibit that was on the news 4 or 5 years ago? It featured an artistic interpretation of the Virgin Mary. Remember what the medium it was? Pastel? Nope! Acrylic? Nope! Bronze? Not even. It was the great medium of...dung. Thats right, poop. I shit you not (pun very much intended). How the fuck does a large brown turd thrown onto a canvas turn into art? The shit caked canvas didn't even look like a person, let alone a cultural icon like Mary. I know kindergarten finger paintings that are more artistic.

That exhibit also featured a "sculpture" of a cow...a real cow...cow that had been cut into four pieces and put in four glass cases filled with formaldehyde. WHAT THE FLYING FUCK!!!! This is art!?! The sad thing is people actually paid money to go see this exhibit. How do the museum directors sleep at night!?!

This kind of "art" can suck my left tentacle! It takes no fucking skill to make that kind of crap! Most of these modern artists just throw any random old shit together, say something about it having a hidden meaning about the torments of the human soul, and then get paid RIDICULOUS amounts of money for doing practically jack shit!

Here is another fine example of "art."

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/imgs/artists/havekost/Eberhard-Havekost-Carpark4.jpg

This magnificent piece of crap is Eberhard Havekost's "Carpark 4." Holy Jesus! How fascinating! A fucking car windshield! Seriously...how hard was it to paint that? Most of the canvas is a grey fucking windshield! I'll bet there's an explanation that it’s “the outer expression of the inner emptiness of the human soul” or some bullshit like that. WEAK!

That reminds me...why is depression always associated with artistic inspiration? Art is not always inspired by negative things. Its just the most convenient...but thats for another rant.

Back on topic, how about this?

http://www.3ene.com/sculpture/photographs/big/bigugly.jpg

Sublime! This sculpture is a bronze, shit colored lung with a glowing light-bulb sticking out of it. WTF?!?!!? This metal turd was exhibited at the 2004 London Art Fair. Is this "an expression of the inner self?" I've seriously shat more interesting loads into my toilet. My crap came from inside me? Its an expression of my inner bowels. Does that count?

I want a piece of this art-action damn it! Here is my stroke of inspiration.

http://img349.imageshack.us/img349/1249/unwind7tk.jpg

I call it "Blue Angst." It represents the deep emotional struggle that every creature must endure. The blue represents all odds being against the individual. The line is the never ending depressing river that is life. The large dot at the end represents the futile struggle of men, women, and children. The white canvas is the emptiness of life...Gosh, I sure am depressed, I think I'll go eat some chocolate ice cream and watch a show on Lifetime.

Where the fuck is my fat paycheck? Where is my award? When will this be featured at a national art exhibition?

It wont.

Do you know why? Its because I'm not one of them. I'm not part of the art community. Apparently if you have a college degree in art, everything you touch can turn into gold. Apparently if an artist pukes on a sheet and throws it up on a wall its art...but its grotesque and tasteless when Joe Public does it. Do you know what that screams?

Art Communaty > You

What gave them the idea that they are such hot shit? I guess since they are so enlightened in the ways of "art" it makes them better human beings. Oh yeah? WELL FUCK YOU TOO, YOU ELITIST BASTARDS!!!!!!!!

This kind of modern art is shit. Shit is shit, no matter what color is comes in. Thankfully, this kind of drivel will not live long in the memory. I guarantee works like "My Bed" and "Carpark 4" will be long forgotten in 20 years. Truly great art can survive fads, trends, and the test of time. Suck on that you no talent asshats!!!!

On a side note...do you know what type of art is most overlooked? Animation.

Peace out.
 
yeah i dont see how some of that stuff sells for so much. Like seriously a 4 year could have made some of it. Like I dont know allot about visual art. but im guessing it will be the trend for a while. Maybe I should jsut wipe my ass with paper and sell it for thousands
 
I read that whole thing, and it was well written. I liked the prequisites to reading the rant also.

On a side note, when saying, and I quote

"This kind of "art" can suck my left tentacle!"

did you mean testicle, or were you expressing your inner self deprivation by feeling like an octopus in the dark, dismal ocean.

wow that last paragraph got out of hand. I don't even know what I was talking about. My english teacher would be ashamed.

well, anyway, nicely put. At the portland art museum, they have a painting. It is a red square on a white canvas. A RED FUCKING SQUARE. I could paint that. I see where you're coming from. I won't get paid millions for my red square, yet if this guy does it, he's famous. DAMN ARTISTS.
 
have you gone to the art museum in NY? Go into madern art section and you'll shit your pants with rage. one picture is a black dot in the center of a canvas. Another is like 6 verticle canvases painted a different color and placed next to each other. It's really sad to see how recognition is going to the wrong people these days
 
i saw this thing on abc were this little 4 year old girl was just throwing paint on a canvas an then spreading it around then she sold it for thousands of dollars
 
i was having this discussion with my roomate just last night. i was thinking about how everytime i go up to the fine arts building on campus to practice the piano i cant help but think that political science was a stupid major choice. why, i could be painting my life away or playing piano all day long, and getting a degree for it.

then i though, maybe im not talented enough to get a degree in art or music... then i proceeded to look at the current exihibit thats up in the main foyer... it was a bunch of sheets with some paint sploched on it. next to it were a few canvasses that i know for a fact i could duplicate with ease. it was at this point that i knew i was in the wrong major. i could be getting a degree and probably some scholarship money to make a few messy brush strokes on some canvass. instead i have to write pages upon pages about the current state of Islamist thought in Egypt, and how it compares to the Islamist groups in Turkey... holy crap are you serious?

and to add to your thoughts quinny- how about modern interpretive dance? my friend married a ballerina (a legitimate form of dance) and so we would go to dance performances sometimes to see her dance. anyhow, sometimes these performances would include interpretive dance or modern dance or whatever... all i know is that if any of those people are seeing a dime of scholarship money, im going to puke. its absurd. every bit as bad as "my bed"

but like you said, the real greats will survive and still be talked about and discussed for generations. this kind of worthless drivel will fade away. sooner rather than later hopefully.
 
Unless you've done EXTENSIVE reading into Aesthetic philosophy you're in NO position to judge what constitutes art and what doesn't. The reading I would reccommend for you is Arthur Danto's "The Artworld", which is a paper roughly 8 pages in length, containing one of the major arguments on aesthetics from the past century. A lot has been written on it. You're right, defining art is a difficult thing, but it is NOT the case that "art is in the eye of the beholder". It's referred to as the "Desperation theory of art"; that (X) is art iff someone says it is. That is no more effective a definition than any other, and it's probably the least informative one in existence. The fact is that defining art really is an ongoing discussion, but rejecting something because it conflicts with your view of what art "should be" is necessarily superficial thinking. And the fact that things you're denying are widely accepted as art leaves the onus of proving that they aren't, on you. It's pretty clear that in all cited cases the artist is trying to make a statement, and is successful in one way or another. I am not arguing that any of this makes these things art. Coming up with a definition is not what I'm trying to do for you here... but I am saying that going "What the fuck, how is this art" is NOT at all persuasive, and should not convince anybody. If you have a specific question I might be able to answer it, because this is one of those things I'm into. I may add to this in a minute.
 
I had a debate like this in class a few weeks ago. Something like Humans are the only things that can create art. I'm still undecided on who won, but here are my points.

The dictionary is says Art has something to do with human conscience, but dictionaries suck. Ask an artist why they make art, and they'll probably say to evoke a response, to make the viewer think or feel something. I don't think any will say they make art to prove they have a human conscience.

So going by this definition, those creative works are art because they filled you with rage. Your post was art because it made me laugh, and this post is art because I got frustrated proof reading it. I probably still screwed up somewhere.

If you follow this argument things get really weird. People piss me off, so are they art? Banff makes me go "YAY MOUNTAINS!!! WEEEEEEEEEE!!!!", so I guess nature could be art too. Monkeys look really happy when they jerk off, so the act of masturbation could be art!

Told you it would get weird.
 
Just to toss something out there, Danto says that the definition of art is determined by a framework of theories that make up the artistic community, such as "This is art because it is a reflection of the real world", or "This Art is art because it is a creatively made mere real object" . But this cannot be expressed in terms of a set of necessary and sufficient conditions, which is the nature of a real "definition", but it does give us a place to start in making distinctions between art, at least positively.

But I would say that we shouldn't really be trying to hard to find a definition. Our problem isn't here that we don't KNOW that it's art or not, when we're in a gallery we're in a different realm, and we recognize that things are "art"... we just don't know how to make sense of them. It's not a difficulty of telling whether it's art or not, it's a difficulty of knowing what to DO with it, how to see it. If this is the case then a definition of art won't help us anyway. For example, Carlson's appreciation principle: we must appreciate artwork (X) as the "kind of thing" (X) is. We don't appreciate a piece by Thelonious Monk in the same way as a Bach. These kinds of observations can help us put new artworks in the correct reference classes, and getting this right helps guide appreciation. I think this is far more useful than trying to come up with clear borders between what is and isn't art. What's at stake is the means for interacting with an art object, rather than defining the boundaries between art and non-art. So, if appreciation is what is important, a theory of appreciation is what would be useful. Or a bunch of theories, whatever. Essentially, while some people are trying to come up with aesthetic and non-aesthetic theories of art, what we SHOULD be doing is focussing on the aesthetic and forgetting about the "art".
 
so what makes a great artist and what makes a crappy one? people always say van gough is one of the greatest artists, and they state it as more of a fact than an opinion. if you don't like it then you're considered small minded or lacking taste.
 
that is true i went to a art museum today with my Art 107 class and there were some paintings that were a canvas split in half with yellow on one side and light blue on the other. i could have done that, but most people think that isn't good enough to get in an art museum. i also read about the guggenhiem museum having a canvas with a rip in it. it sold for $1 Million. Another had different shades of yellow, which also sold for a million. I don't understand how great artists like di Vinci, van Gogh can be on the same page as these untalented "artists". Art in general doesn't make much sense to me and this isn't helping the cause.
 
He made a lot of works that do an excellent job in serving their aesthetic purpose... that is, there's a lot of beauty, charm, boldness, etc, depending on the work, in there. These are properties which supervene on perceptible ones... the Mona Lisa is contemplative because of the use of colour and the way her mouth is shaped, etc. Which isn't to say that the use of a particular set of colours will make a work contemplative... aesthetic properties aren't positively condition governed. Though they might be negatively so. Hmmm.
 
i think that some aspect of what quinny was trying to get at is whats involved in creating a piece of art. when you look at a painting by dali, you think "wow, i could probably never do that" it elicits a kind of wonder at the level of talent and commitment that people have for their art. for me i see this as a worthwhile consideration. maybe asking whether a thing is "art" or not isnt really what the original post is getting at, rather, what about creations that really took little talent to produce? its harder to swallow for me. if i could do it, im not impressed by it. maybe my consideration of artwork is shallow, but i really dont care to think about what a messy bed is supposed mean. great idea maybe, but dont display it along side rembrandt or rodin.

to go back to the idea that the great works will endure, i thought of a story that i heard about picasso. i dont know if its true or not, but its kind of amusing.

the story goes that at some point in picassos career a woman came up to him and said "i have an 8 year old son that can paint as well as you" picasso then replied, "congradulations madame, your son is a genius"

so to think that many people had these feelings about someone who is now considered a great innovator does make you think about things a bit.
 
I think some art forms do take a degree of talent and dedication to so great an extent that just looking at them is impressive... but this shouldn't be what determines how we appreciate art. It might take an absurd degree of talent to paint something so realistic that it looks like a photograph, but that's no guarantee that this extremely lifelike painting is going to evoke anything or work well aesthetically. It might take an absurd degree of dedication for an artist to take a pile of rocks and file them down by hand into pebbles, put them in a pile and title it "gravel"... but again, is there any point to it? There's nothing aesthetic about it. Contrarily, it takes almost no real talent to create Michael Craig-Martin's "An Oak Tree" (which you can see here: http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=27072&tabview=image and read the titling information on the lower piece of paper in that image, which is a part of the work, here: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/ig206/oak_tree.html), and "An Oak Tree" is brilliant. The whole "Talent" and "Dedication" thing doesn't really pan out.
 
woooord, totally agree, 100%, i think its gay how art teachers can grade you too. cas like how do they know whats art and whats shit thrown on a canvas?

oh yeah, that sounded almost like a maddox rant, haha it was funny.
 
I seems to me that defining art, for most people, has something to do with the degree to which they appreciate it, which of course is irrelevant.
 
JD: For the record, my original post was NEVER deliberately intended to be a persuasive piece.

Firstly, you seem to be implying that average person can’t truly distinguish what is art and what is not. Thats a load of horseshit. Artwork is not recognized and kept alive by a group of experts, its recognized and kept alive by EVERYONE. We wouldn’t have art in our cultures otherwise. No one will care or take notice of something if no one like it (artistic or not).

Unfortunately art can only defined be theory...but that makes everything fuzzy as hell. The fact that "art" is being defined by theories DOES make it "eye of the beholder." Theories are principles derived form ideas and interpretations...created by the individual.

Of course no one can draw a definite line. If you could, art would be a science. My problem is with where the hypothetical boundaries of art are bing pushed. What constitutes "The Gates" being a work of art, but not the Coca-Cola sign in Times Square? Or vise-verse. Or how about "Blue Angst" compared to "My Bed?"

At some point there MUST be a place where "art" is defined. If "My Bed" is art, then couldn’t the clutter on my desk also be art? Of how about a car? A double-bacon cheeseburger? The entire universe!?! Is everything art? Is nothing art?

Art and effort may or may not go hand in hand. There is no way to determine that either. And apparently creative talent isn’t a factor anymore.

The problem is today that a lot of people are simply being told what is and what isn’t. That, I believe, is the case of the examples I posted above.
 
i liked that rant. Oh yeah? WELL FUCK YOU TOO, YOU ELITIST BASTARDS!!!!!!!! that part especially, nice conclusion.
 
as much as i hate modern art, my english teacher explained it best to me. he was talking about a piece called 'band of fire', which was essentially just a horizontal stripe of red paint on a white canvas. someone in the class blurted out "i could do that, how is it art?", my teacher simply responded "but you didnt"
 
"No one will care or take notice of something if no one like it (artistic or not)."

Acknowledging your hatred for shitty art is a form of caring and taking notice, exemplified in your links to the shitty art in your first post.

Dislike does not promote lack of remembrance.
 
Y'all are missing one basic fact:

the "art" is your interpretation of the work. The "art" occurs between the object and your eyes, NOT the object itself. Art is about EXPRESSION not visual stimulus.
 
Good... that's fine. But if you're going to get into this in anything resembling a philosophic context, and claim that your opinions are "right", you're going to need to be rationally persuasive to have any degree of success.

First of all, you're going into this a little headstrong. Recognize that you're in an academic atmosphere the second you make these claims. You can be wrong about these things. In fact, in some measure, art IS a science... it involves theories, conjecture, proofs and disproofs, a set of things that have come to be recognized as proven, just as in mathematics or any other "science"... this is not an area in which you can say "Here's my position and it's equal and opposite to yours." Take a university course with this attitude, and you will receive an F. Please understand this.

Next. I am not saying that the average person can't distinguish what is art and what isn't... just the opposite. When you go into an art gallery, you know that you're viewing art. That isn't the problem. The problem when you look at a piece and say "how is that art" is not to define it as art, but to know what to DO with it as an artwork, how to appreciate it as such.

"Unfortunately art can only defined be theory...but that makes everything fuzzy as hell. The fact that "art" is being defined by theories DOES make it "eye of the beholder."

I'm sorry, here you are utterly wrong. I've already pointed out why the desperation theory doesn't work. You're basically arguing something equivalent to 2+2=5 here. Theories are not created by the individual, they are abstract concepts that would (or would not if they're wrong) exist independent of us. If (X) is what makes something an artwork, (X) would make something an artwork whether or not anyone realized.

"My problem is with where the hypothetical boundaries of art are bing pushed. What constitutes "The Gates" being a work of art, but not the Coca-Cola sign in Times Square? Or vise-verse. Or how about "Blue Angst" compared to "My Bed?""

What does the Coke sign do? What does it provoke? What aesthetic merits does it have? There are a LOT of reasons to say that it isn't art... the fact that it isn't situated in a network of roles between an artist creating something which is meant to be presented to an artworld public, if you go with Gerald Dickie's ideas. But the onus of proof, when challenging something, is to prove that you're right. (X) is accepted as art. Show me why it's not. (Y) isn't widely regarded as art. Show me why it is.

"At some point there MUST be a place where "art" is defined. If "My Bed" is art, then couldn’t the clutter on my desk also be art? Of how about a car? A double-bacon cheeseburger? The entire universe!?! Is everything art? Is nothing art?"

Then you can go right ahead and come up with a new definition. It needs to be extensionally adequate (encompass all art and exclude everything that isn't art, as you're forming those boundaries), and resolve all disputes about what is or isn't art. It also needs to be informative. Go right ahead, Quinny. I'd like to hear what you come up with.

I may be back later for further discussion.
 
I acually think the MET is a good example of good modern art. And a great example of art in general.

The 7 Deadly Sins was fucking awesome. Along with that metal plate metal sculpture, that was cool too.

And I personally liked those vertical canvases. There were alot more than 6 though, and they were really cool because they were like, the brightest possible shade I've ever seen with paint. Not to mention the perfect match of the change in the colors on the canvases from left to right, or vice versa. Easy to make? Probably, with the right paints. But it looked cool, which is why I liked it. Some of those splatter shit things were just odd, but I liked the color wall.
 
I couldn't agree with you anymore my friend. Art as a whole has turned into trash. COmposers like Mozart have been replaced by guys named Ludacris and 50 Cent, there are a few good authors around but seriously Steven King is our Shakespear of today and that is sad. We need a renaissance
 
I've come to the conclusion that:

Quinny was bored when he created "Blue Angst"

JD likes arguing for the sake of it, but has intelligent discussion while doing so

Bangor likes colors
 
Okay I didn’t read all of the e battles after the post, I will, I just don’t want to loose my thought here. There is a definite divide between insider are, classics and pop art but you basically feel that art has become intangible for the lay-person. I agree. But also some of these works may be taken out of context. They may have been displayed in a series for an exhibit.

The bed exhibit was interesting I thought. but I couldn’t see all the details so I might be totally wrong. Excuse me while I butcher this. First the bedroom is one of the most intimate and telling spaces in our life. It looked like it was alluding to the state of our culture and how it defines the human condition (or vice versa) and is translated into the bedroom. The cigs/drugs whatever may suggest our idolizing Hollywood/TV culture or, an attempt to mask deep insecurities by self medication (because we see pop culture as our standard we strive for those ideals) the condoms suggest the same. They may represent our worship of promiscuity, of a rock star/mogul/starlet lifestyle, or perhaps sex is used as an attempt to fill a void in our soul, or they are not mutually exclusive but feed off one another. Also the stuffed animal sits in stark contrast to all the adult items in the room which may represent how childlike/ignorant or emotionally immature, lost and misguided we are.

You or I could make a similar piece and never get noticed because we are not in the circles. I agree that that logic is. you shouldn’t need a PhD and published dissertation to enjoy art but also these same people are pushing the envelope, which is beneficial but intangibly so, some obscure piece of crap to you and I may influence the next Van Gough. But I feel that the bottom line is that true art transcends many of life’s artificial barriers (class education etc.) and speaks to the human condition simply and effectively.

Anyway, good post.
 
Okay, I used the latter example in a discussion with a friend's mom about what constitutes art. She was really pissed off that this particular Guggenheim museum had this statue of a man on a horse created for it, featuring a ginourmous phallic aspect to it, as THE most important commission for the museum by a very famous contemporary artists. Here are some reasons why that second work that this person came up with could be considered art:

1. He made it. You could have made it, but you didn't and he did make it instead of sitting around doing nothing.

2. I am not positive about this, but I believe the artist would have gone to the effort to make all of his own pigments for each canvas, as well as stretching each canvas himself, making the project a time consuming process. The colors represented are all in equal proportion to each other, all representing the exact shade of each; I have seen this in person as well and if the red was say, 1 shade off in terms or lightness or darkness, it would have thrown off the entire piece.

I am in a 4th year seminar right now on 'artistic fashioning.' (In case you couldn't tell, I'm graduating in History in Art this April.) Artists go to great lengths to fashion their 'self,' in comparison to other artists and society. This means that they are attempting to make themselves stand out among millions. The first installation, the bed, for example, is a heinous pile of disgustingness, BUT the artist is obviously trying to garner a reaction. To go back in history, think of Reuben's 'Prometheus Bound' a work that shows Prometheus chained to a rock with a bird pecking out his liver. That also isn't 'beautiful' subject matter, but it is a very reknowned piece of work. This artist showing a disgusting bed is actually portraying something that you could find in any number of bedrooms across the world, much like you could find a sculpture from ancient Egypt showing a replica of a regular civilian's house, or someone performing a really menial task.

So, while works like the bed ARE 'art,' in a very loose sense of the word, I'd say they are aiming more at the experimental end of things. The artists are doing it because they can, and it is their own form of expression that you can choose to enjoy, be horrified by, or completely ignore.

One more point I will bring up is the painting called 'Voice of Fire' that the Canadian National Gallery bought for $1 000 000 in the late 80's:

imageserver


Wow, look, three stripes. That's right. I could do it with my eyes closed. Hell, YOU could do it with your eyes closed. But here's the thing: you didn't. You didn't make a behemoth canvas and paint three stripes on it. You could have, but you didn't and Barnett Newman did. It is constituted as art because someone took it in their mind that they were going to create something, albeit a boring subject matter, and they created it. And hey, it represents Christ's passion. Yep. Since it was created for the purpose of being looked at, it's art. It's stupid, but it's art.
 
Hah, good discussion above. I can just picture JD musing at Jackson Pollack with Theonious Monk playing in the background…perhaps smoking a cigarette. And Quinney beside him calling Jasper Johns modern expressionism bandwagon trash.
 
JD, I think just heard God kill a puppy. You forgot to read the disclaimer, "Grain of salt." You are treating my rant as intellectual material, whilst in truth its probably not worthy of the intellectual level of a travel brochure.

For Christ sake, I talk about throwing-up on a bed sheet.

Of course I’m headstrong...I’m unwinding, not crafting a college thesis. I write like that when I’m riled up (degree of anger). Anger is irrational. So that means my original post just could be...(fill in the blank).

BTW, I do find it a little insulting that you think that I would present myself like that in a formal atmosphere. Whatever, its not a problem.

I understand you have a strong interest in the topic, but please realize that I’m wasn’t treating with 100% seriousness (I’m still not BTW). I know you are thinking serious topic = serious discussion, but thats not how I’m operating at the moment...sorry. I know you are irked that I didn’t write a foundation to my challenge (and you are trying to capitalize on that).

I’m guessing that probably means you wont bother to respond to what I have to say next, but whatever...I’ll play this more seriously to make you happy.

Now that we are on theories, lets change gears. The first thing everyone learns in science is, "You can never prove a theory, only disprove." Things that are regarded as "true" in science are simply the things that have yet to have been proven wrong. The definition of "art" is not an established and proven fact, basic math however is. No matter what the circumstance is 2+2 will always equal 4. I can’t disprove that 2+2=4 as I can’t disprove that "My Bed" is not art. I CAN however prove that 2+2=4, but I CANNOT prove "My Bed" to be art. Apples and Oranges. Math is a benchmark in science, art has no such reference point. Science usually comes from a procedure while art comes from inspiration (yes that statement is full of holes, and I really don’t have the discipline at the moment to be specific, take it or leave it).

And then we have these:

"If (X) is what makes something an artwork, (X) would make something an artwork whether or not anyone realized"

"What does the Coke sign do? What does it provoke? What aesthetic merits does it have? There are a LOT of reasons to say that it isn't art... the fact that it isn't situated in a network of roles between an artist creating something which is meant to be presented to an artworld public, if you go with Gerald Dickie's ideas. But the onus of proof, when challenging something, is to prove that you're right. (X) is accepted as art. Show me why it's not. (Y) isn't widely regarded as art. Show me why it is."

On one hand it would mean that art is whatever you make it. On the other its what others make of it. This is going to lead into circular logic...as if it hasn’t already. I know your tapping your foot waiting for an explanation as to why "My Bed" isn’t art, and I have yet to be told why it is. I think its safe to say that neither of us will be fully satisfied.

How about that...I found a wall. Some final thoughts to all:

Everybody seems to agree that art is inspired internally. But by what? Emotions, the will to create, expressing an opinion, practicality, all of these, or none of these? What separates art from anything else that originates in a similar fashion? Is art a more pure manifestation? We can’t ever really know what drive every individual person. Therefore this is why art can’t clearly be defined, because its origin can’t clearly be defined.

Changing gears again, while EVERYONE (myself included) looked for a yes or no answer. What if it isn’t. Something is art to one degree or not. One piece could be more "artistic" than another. Just some food for thought.

I noticed that some of the people in this thread believe that innovation defines art for some people in this thread. Here is something to think about. A modern composer (his name unfortunately escapes me) created a song that nothing but silence, the absence of sound. No music, static, or anything. Interesting isn’t it. It is very simple, much like "Voice of Fire."

On the topic of music...would stuff by Backstreet Boys, 50 Cent, or Phish be considered art?

All in all ther are too many unanswerable things for my liking. Thats why I believe art is very subjective. There is not enough structure to suggest otherwise. You can’t be objective if there is no way to detach yourself. Great art is seen it eventually pans out over time, when it is remembered. Really great art tends to strike you in a different way than the other things, thats why people remember it.

I hope that post was organized, if not I apologize to everyone that endured that. I’ve got homework to do and can’t re-read it now.

Come again if you want...I might be back later.
 
My eyes hurt from reading, but I'd like to make a brief mention of how you are confusing conceptual art, with art that is meant to be pretty or send a very clear message using only visual stimuli. Conceptual art, is created on the grounds that the process the person is going through to create it, is more beautiful than the piece itself. The very fact that they'd BOTHER to make, is the art present. At a later point in time, I will post much more on this subject, as it is one I believe in strongly, probably to the point where I can not move my fingers much more.
 
Yeah I know that's kinda BS but you should check out his other work. He not only wrapped a giant sky scraper in sheets and strings, but he also did the same with an entire ISLAND! Now that is nuts.
 
HOLY SHIT! i own "my bed". im gonna sell it to some art gallery and then take the money and buy a mansion near whistler! YES!

but seriously... its art if they want it to be and if people want to pay a million dollars for than let them do it. some people probably think its a waste of money to spen 1000 dollars on ski gear but theres a shit load of us that do that.

to me art is anything tangible that inspires me. so i can enjoy art in a fancy museum or gallery, walking down the street, or sitting at home relaxing to some music or a book.
 
Cool... I think I just heard him intelligently design the hip bones of a whale.

" The definition of "art" is not an established and proven fact, basic math however is. No matter what the circumstance is 2+2 will always equal 4. I can’t disprove that 2+2=4 as I can’t disprove that "My Bed" is not art. I CAN however prove that 2+2=4, but I CANNOT prove "My Bed" to be art. Apples and Oranges. Math is a benchmark in science, art has no such reference point."

This is a problematic perspective, because we do have a reference point in philosophy. Logical reasoning is every bit as solid in foundation as mathematics. To put it in clearer terms, rather than using 2+2 =/ 4, let's use "I can exist and not exist at the same time". You very much can prove or disprove the artistic identification of things... but you need a theory to do it, and that theory becomes the premise by which you conclude that (X) is art or not. I can attack that premise.

"On one hand it would mean that art is whatever you make it. "

First of all, this conclusion follows from NOTHING I said. Read again. There's no logical progression here.

"On the other its what others make of it. This is going to lead into circular logic...as if it hasn’t already. " George Dickie's theories, which I put up there, are just an example of how to look at things. Actually his theory IS circular, but again that's not necessarily enough to dismiss it because it's an inflected theory and it isn't viciously circular. But that's beside the point.

"I know your tapping your foot waiting for an explanation as to why "My Bed" isn’t art, and I have yet to be told why it is. I think its safe to say that neither of us will be fully satisfied."

But you see, I have an explanation as to why it is. I have a bunch of explanations that would allow for it being art. I'll stick with Dickie for now, I guess. As a result, I'll say "My Bed is art because it is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an Artworld public." But there's no way you can possibly argue with me on this topic without reading and knowing that theory... which is why the first sentence of my first post in this thread holds true. This is a MUCH tougher question that it seems on the surface, it's actually tougher than the big defining question of Ethics, "How should we act". Without taking a serious look at a lot of papers (which usually build on each other) it's extremely difficult to even take a whack at questions in aesthetics... which is exactly what you're doing any time you ask something like, "How is this art?"

"Everybody seems to agree that art is inspired internally. But by what? Emotions, the will to create, expressing an opinion, practicality, all of these, or none of these? What separates art from anything else that originates in a similar fashion?"

For answers to this I would refer you to the short paper "What makes a situation aesthetic" by J.O. Urmson.

"We can’t ever really know what drive every individual person."

Who says it has anything to do with people? Formalists would say the contextual aspects of art don't matter at all.

Argument for Formalism (Monroe Beardsley, 1950s)

1. Ae props are perceptible

2. Perceptible props are detected by perception alone

3. So ae props are detected by perception alone

4. So contextual features aren't relevant to detecting ae properties

They're wrong, as it turns out... but can't be proved to be so by thinking of art as something dependent on interpretation and creation. So what you're saying here isn't assured by any means.

"Changing gears again, while EVERYONE (myself included) looked for a yes or no answer. What if it isn’t. Something is art to one degree or not. One piece could be more "artistic" than another. Just some food for thought."

That's interesting, but is there a line on one side of which we can call it art, and on the other side of which we can't? Where would we put that line? And what makes some things more artistic than others?

" A modern composer (his name unfortunately escapes me) created a song that nothing but silence, the absence of sound. No music, static, or anything. Interesting isn’t it. It is very simple, much like "Voice of Fire.""

For an example that may be easier to get your head around, Rauschenberg, the same guy who made what is probably the most famous "Bed" artwork (his is a dishevelled bed with paint streaks on it), borrowed a sketch by De Koonig, and painstakingly erased it, presenting it as "Erased De Koonig Drawing". To look at, it's a blank piece of paper... but the aesthetic qualities it has, as it provokes the ideas of destructiveness and boldness, go beyond a simple blank piece of paper.

"On the topic of music...would stuff by Backstreet Boys, 50 Cent, or Phish be considered art?"

Yes, by almost any theory. Just really, really shitty art. There's such a thing as bad art, remember.

"All in all ther are too many unanswerable things for my liking. Thats why I believe art is very subjective. "

There aren't. You just haven't done enough reading and thinking on the subject. It's not something you can just walk into and "get"... it takes a lot of effort.

"Really great art tends to strike you in a different way than the other things, thats why people remember it."

James Shelley, in "The Problem of Non-Perceptual Art", states that aesthetic properties ARE perceptual ones, that they "strike us", and some might argue that those works that "strike us" more than others are those with more obtrusive and effective aesthetic qualities. But then, you'd have to ask, isn't subtlety sometimes a virtue?

You can keep this up, but unless you take a week or two looking through articles on JSTOR you'll have a lot of difficulty coming up with much to change your initial preconceptions on the subject. It's a dense area of philosophy that's just not easy to "get into", because all the major thinkers seem to feed off each other. If you read the Shelley I mentioned he refers to something like ten different people, who may in turn refer to each other in their own works. Takes a lot of reading, like I said to begin with.
 
Two things:

First, its still an inadequate comparison. Math is more concrete than a theory, and the fact that mathematics are commonly used to support scientific theory. Besides, I didn’t bring math into it, you did. Use whatever example you want. Apples and Oranges.

I’ve always had a difficult time with circular theories. Just a personal judgement, but they are seldom tangible enough for my taste. I need something with a more solid base to be able to latch on to. If something can’t be one way or the other, it’s in the air. If its in the air, it difficult to gain anything conclusive. It not enough to tilt me one way one or the other, so generally dismiss it. Just a personal thing. If it cant be defined, it’s not worth much...to me at least. Particularly if you wonder into theory, where its damn near impossible to take a stance on anything. Thats probably the biggest error I made in this thread.

Second, you caught me. I am by no means an expert on the subject, nor was I trying to kid myself. I’ve been holding a straw-man for the whole thread. Most of the people in this thread caught that from that start, whether they realize it or not. Surprising really, considering the normal par of this forum. I’m happy, even though I look a bit like a dumbass.

I did however want to get a reaction of people, sure enough I did. I’m actually quite satisfied. If I had any idea that I would have had such a great (intelligent) reaction out of this...I would have put hours of thought into my first post...rather than 15-20 minutes.

I rant for my own ventilation, but I post them here because I love seeing how people react. Hell, I’m not half as uptight as I come across. No I don’t really hate Goths, Dan Brown, or whatever other crap I went off on. Sure, I may have distaste for some, but I’m not that angry.

46 replies and without any inflammatory, stupid, or irrelevant posts. Even the one-liners contributed something to the thread. I’m stunned.

See what happens when you get people going on an interesting subject. I have new faith in NSG. I do think I may start coming to NS more often.

Though I still think stuff like "My Bed" is a waste of time and brain space. It may or may not be art, but I still think its drivel in its purest form.

Do I look like a fool? Sure. Am I sorry? Nope. You all just proved that NSG doesn’t have to suck. You all officially kick ass.
 
so i pretty much just skimmed and read sentences but i think i can just go ahead and state my opinion that dada and duchamp and the likes essentially destroyed art... or complicated it so much that everyone, critics, artists and viewers... can no longer make sense of what is and isnt good art. its my own somewhate cynical opinion that if you have either enough or not enough... im not sure... sense of humor... and can bullshit yourway through some sort of social explanation for your piece of shit work, then any artist can create whatever they want and legitimize it as art... and that seems to be what they do. the intellectualization of art, removing its representational aspect... left us with redefined piles of shit. so... yeah, i agree, worthless.
 
k so i read the rest of the post... then most of the posts... and then gave up.

but ill throw out these:

in native american/first nations... whathave you... language, there was no word for art, yet they came out with what has since essentially been appropriated as "canadian" style, by way of Haida.

i have a bad memory for names and such but there is theory about self stating art, i know youve pretty much covered it JD, but the simple act of creating something and calling it art is sometimes legitimate... which is bullshit i say.

finally, "try and get through a university course with that attitude and youll fail" or whatever you said... not so much. thats my attitude, i think most of art is a fucking joke. most of my professors (in mainstream north american or european art) are a fucking joke, they all think theyre revolutionaries here to incite aaction in the system or some shit... but rally theyre just ranting about nothing with no purpose. so... i dont take any of it seriously, i pass just fine and sort of pretend i care about the least academic topic im allowed to write about for 4 or 5000 ords or whatnot.

so uh... shitting in a jar, or walking up to a piano and not playing for 5 minutes, or getting cheekbones implanted in your forehead... my indeed be classified as art, and may stir things up and may have some intellectual background... but i still dont think it legitimizes them. i agree that what is really good withstands time and that most of this will be politely pushed aside and forgotten about in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top