Are Jackson Pollock's Paintings Art?

I think there might be some confusion as to what constitutes enjoyment. Despite the linguistic root, I don't believe being left with happy or good feelings is a requirement. Most of the people for example who call Schindler's List a "really good movie" don't mean to imply there's anything good about most of the events depicted therein; nevertheless I think they can be said to have enjoyed the film.
 
Checkmite said:
I think there might be some confusion as to what constitutes enjoyment. Despite the linguistic root, I don't believe being left with happy or good feelings is a requirement. Most of the people for example who call Schindler's List a "really good movie" don't mean to imply there's anything good about most of the events depicted therein; nevertheless I think they can be said to have enjoyed the film.
Click to expand...

Okay then, although it may be necessary rather than a sufficient criterion as spectator sports and board games and panel shows on TV may fit the description.
 
angrysoba said:
I said: If I can pick any I like then I pick the one whereby a musician can declare it music because he or she says it is and people agree it is.
Click to expand...

How about chairs ? If I make a TV and call it a chair, is it a chair ? Or do others have to agree that it is ? It seems a bit vague for a definition.

That's a false dichotomy. I'm not maintaining any misunderstanding; I simply find it too tedious to re-read your posts. I'll accept you didn't say "static".
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but it wasn't clear from your first response.
 
Belz... said:
How about chairs ? If I make a TV and call it a chair, is it a chair ? Or do others have to agree that it is ? It seems a bit vague for a definition.
Click to expand...

That's where we disagree. I don't think we need a definition. That's how these things work; the meaning of art or music is simply in its social use, NOT by conforming to some dictionary definition. That is, after all, how most words are used - the use comes first and the definitions that you find in dictionaries tend to be written up afterwards to capture the essence of a word's use.

A lot of people who play the old "Dictionary Definition Fallacy Game" talk as though they ask themselves "Is this music? Well, let's look it up the word music a dictionary and see if it conforms to the definition.", but when I asked you for your definition you didn't have one to hand. According to your logic, you cannot know what music (or art) is unless you have a definition ready in your mind. I expect that you do not, and the same goes for your rhetorical questions about tables and TVs. My guess is that you don't have memorized definitions of these things either, but rather a pragmatic use of the terms whenever you encounter situations in which the terms are useful.
 
angrysoba said:
I don't think we need a definition. That's how these things work; the meaning of art or music is simply in its social use, NOT by conforming to some dictionary definition.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about dictionaries. A definition IS a social convention. Words have meaning because we agree that they have those meanings. A word without meaning is useless, and that's what you are proposing if you say that art is whatever the maker says it is. It's pretty much the opposite of a definition, and therefore it can't be discussed or agreed upon.
 
Belz... said:
I never said anything about dictionaries. A definition IS a social convention. Words have meaning because we agree that they have those meanings. A word without meaning is useless, and that's what you are proposing if you say that art is whatever the maker says it is. It's pretty much the opposite of a definition, and therefore it can't be discussed or agreed upon.
Click to expand...

You said it needs a definition. I am saying that if someone says "this is art" and people agree (don't forget that bit) then it is art. Other people in this thread have been pulling up claims that art must conform to "a definition". Now you are saying that a definition is merely a social convention. In which case, if I say, "this is art", and someone agrees then it is, by definition, art.

And by the way, "a word without meaning is useless" - WRONG! There are a lot of functional grammatical terms that don't have meanings as such, but have uses, such as "as", "a", "to", "of" etc...
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
I do believe so. I don't think many people could fake an Einstein paper without it being spotted promptly. If they made a convincing fake then it would be someone working at the same level as Einstein.

Making messes on canvas ain't so hard.
Click to expand...
Then I can only conclude that you haven't ever actually looked very hard at any Pollock paintings.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
People have been jumping to conclusions about what I have and haven't seen for quite a while now.

But allow me to see his work through your eyes. I'll send you my address. Don't forget to pack them in dry ice, please.
Click to expand...

You'll probably need an adapter.

Arthwollipot is from Australia, they use a different plug down there.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
People have been jumping to conclusions about what I have and haven't seen for quite a while now.
Click to expand...
Well, I can't possibly believe that you could think that Pollock is easily fakeable if you'd actually looked at one, so I have to take your claim of having seen one with a grain of salt. I assume that you were at a gallery, saw it on the wall, gave it the barest glance, dismissed it and moved on.

Gawdzilla Sama said:
But allow me to see his work through your eyes. I'll send you my address. Don't forget to pack them in dry ice, please.
Click to expand...
Sure, I'll send you my spare pair. But you don't really need them. Your own would be perfectly adequate.
 
arthwollipot said:
Well, I can't possibly believe that you could think that Pollock is easily fakeable if you'd actually looked at one, so I have to take your claim of having seen one with a grain of salt. I assume that you were at a gallery, saw it on the wall, gave it the barest glance, dismissed it and moved on.
Click to expand...

There you go again, assuming that what you see is what I would see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom