What is the difference between art and advertising?

[athon]

No, that answers the question "Is it art?". "Yes", you say. So I ask "Why?"

Why is that painting art? I'm asking you.

He said 'because somebody says it is'. That's his definition of art.

Why are you trying to limit his definition of art, Claus? Isn't that your bitching from before - people are limiting your definition?

Do you think a black square on a wall is art?

Goalpost chift - why are you generalising this from 'do you think this black square is art?' to 'do you think a black square on a wall is art?'

You just can't be honest in any of your posts.

Not only that, when my post is reduced to one question - what do you mean by the word sell - you can't even respond to it.

So...what do you mean when you say 'sell'?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

And I told you. "Because" somebody thinks it's art. I was afraid I would have to explain this to you again. Please try to keep up.

You are still evading the question: Is it art to you?

I'd have to see it. I certainly wouldn't rule it out. But if somebody else said they thought it was art, then I would agree. There is so much that art can be that your sweeping statement about "all art" is ludicrous.

You may think that. But it doesn't make me wrong. I just have a different opinion of what art is and what it does.

I can only think of two things that I would say about "all art", and they are:

1. That a conscious being created it.
2. Somebody thinks it is art.

I cannot think of any other rules. Maybe others can.

Ahhhhh......

When someone creates something, does it not have value - of some kind?

Why are you trying to limit his definition of art, Claus? Isn't that your bitching from before - people are limiting your definition?

I'm not. I'm trying to get him to say what he thinks is art. That's not limiting his definition, that's simply asking what it is.

Goalpost chift - why are you generalising this from 'do you think this black square is art?' to 'do you think a black square on a wall is art?'

You just can't be honest in any of your posts.

You miss the point. Not surprisingly, since you are so keen on making me appear bad.

Oh, well.

So: What is it selling? Itself? If you want to make the case that it is, I'd probably even agree with you. But you'd need to make the case.

I already did.

 

[volatile]

I already did.

No you didn't. Because that would have involved you saying "Mark Rothko's square is selling...", and "I define "sell" as...", which you manifestly haven't done.

You also haven't explained what Zereissprobe, Life Sharing, Biennale.py and Breakdown are selling. I've asked you a few times, and I'm interested to see how your thesis applies to these cases.

I teach art history and mark essays for a living. You just failed my class, frankly.

 

[Tricky]

You are still evading the question: Is it art to you?

You want me to judge the "art" of something I haven't seen?
You know, Claus, I don't have a checklist for what is and isn't art, other than the two things I mentioned. Do you? Do you look at a person's creation and decide what it is selling before you will call it art?

You may think that. But it doesn't make me wrong. I just have a different opinion of what art is and what it does.

Yes, we have gone through this. You can have an opinion. What you cannot do is redefine words, or more correctly, you cannot redefine words without being demonstrably wrong in your opinion. You have redefined "practice" as a synonym for "selling", and that is simply wrong.

When someone creates something, does it not have value - of some kind?

Value of some kind? That is just another evasive derail. If I type the letter "d" on my keyboard, does that have value of some kind? Well, I can't spell the word "dishonest" without it. I may find I need to use that word.

 

[CFLarsen]

No you didn't. Because that would have involved you saying "Mark Rothko's square is selling...", and "I define "sell" as...", which you manifestly haven't done.

Demonstrably not correct.

You also haven't explained what Zereissprobe, Life Sharing, Biennale.py and Breakdown are selling. I've asked you a few times, and I'm interested to see how your thesis applies to these cases.

You clearly aren't interested in what I say. You sure aren't listening.

I teach art history and mark essays for a living. You just failed my class, frankly.

You flunk students if they disagree with you what art is and what it does?

You want me to judge the "art" of something I haven't seen?

It's a black square on a wall. There's nothing more. Is it art? To you?

Do you need to see something in order to judge whether it is art or not - to you? I'm sure there's a Caravaggio you haven't seen yet - but would you call it art even if you hadn't seen it?

You know, Claus, I don't have a checklist for what is and isn't art, other than the two things I mentioned. Do you? Do you look at a person's creation and decide what it is selling before you will call it art?

If you don't have a checklist for what is and isn't art, then you shouldn't go around telling people that they are wrong about art.

Yes, we have gone through this. You can have an opinion. What you cannot do is redefine words, or more correctly, you cannot redefine words without being demonstrably wrong in your opinion. You have redefined "practice" as a synonym for "selling"

No, I haven't.

Value of some kind? That is just another evasive derail. If I type the letter "d" on my keyboard, does that have value of some kind? Well, I can't spell the word "dishonest" without it. I may find I need to use that word.

*sigh* Whenever I try to explain, it is merely dismissed as "evasions" and "derails". Go with what I say, not what you want me to say.

Yes, it has value. If you use a "d" to spell "dishonest", then you have added value to what you are writing. When you throw paint on a canvas, it has value. Whatever that value is, is up to the person experiencing the work. It can be monetary, it can be an emotional experience, or whatever you like.

 

[Tricky]

It's a black square on a wall. There's nothing more. Is it art? To you?

Do you need to see something in order to judge whether it is art or not - to you?

Actually, yes I do, assuming I have no information on if anyone else calls it art. A description won't cut it. There's a picture of woman with her hands crossed. Is it art to you?

I'm sure there's a Caravaggio you haven't seen yet - but would you call it art even if you hadn't seen it?

As I've said (repeatedly) if someone else thinks it's art, then I'm happy to call it art. I'm not real picky about what gets called art. I reject statements about what "all art" must do.

If you don't have a checklist for what is and isn't art, then you shouldn't go around telling people that they are wrong about art.

I haven't told you a single thing was "not art". I am happy to accept your contention that any piece of creation is "art". What I am not willing to do is accept your arbitrary definition of what all art must do. I don't place any such restrictions. You are the one doing this.

Can we see your checklist?

No, I haven't.

Yes you have. You told me that your usage was your definition. You used them as synonyms. If you were telling the truth when you said your usage was your definition, then you defined "practice" and "selling" as synonyms. Now if you were lying you've changed your mind and now don't want me interpreting your usage as your definition, then you could give us your specific definition of "selling" as used in the sentence "All art is selling something".

Yes, it has value. If you use a "d" to spell "dishonest", then you have added value to what you are writing. When you throw paint on a canvas, it has value. Whatever that value is, is up to the person experiencing the work. It can be monetary, it can be an emotional experience, or whatever you like.

So if I type the letter "d" then I am adding value. According to your earlier usage, "adding value" is also a synonym for "selling". Ergo, typing the letter "d" is selling something. For someone who has such a restrictive definition of art, you certainly have a very open definition of "selling".

 

[volatile]

Demonstrably not correct.

If it's demonstrably correct, please demonstrate where you have defined what Mark Rothko is selling, and what you mean by selling.

You clearly aren't interested in what I say. You sure aren't listening.

I am listening. I'd like you to tell me what those pieces are selling. What are Breakdown, Life Sharing, Biennale.py and Zereissprobe selling? Simple questions, if, indeed, all art sells something.

You flunk students if they disagree with you what art is and what it does?

No - I flunk students who make outrageous statements like "All art sells something" without explaining either their terms or their argument, and who don't answer questions when asked. That's kinda rule one of academia - answer the question.

 

[CFLarsen]

Actually, yes I do, assuming I have no information on if anyone else calls it art. A description won't cut it. There's a picture of woman with her hands crossed. Is it art to you?

Do you even know what you are arguing?

On one hand, you say that something is art, if other people think it is art. So you don't have to see it for yourself.

On the other, you can't say if something is art, because you haven't seen it yourself.

Which is it?

As I've said (repeatedly) if someone else thinks it's art, then I'm happy to call it art. I'm not real picky about what gets called art. I reject statements about what "all art" must do.

In which case, you should be able to tell whether a black square on a wall is art. If someone else says it is, is it art?

I haven't told you a single thing was "not art". I am happy to accept your contention that any piece of creation is "art". What I am not willing to do is accept your arbitrary definition of what all art must do. I don't place any such restrictions. You are the one doing this.

I'm not placing any restrictions on what all art is and does, quite contrary. I am saying that all art sells something - be it whatever it is to people.

Gee, first I define art and what it does to be so broad that it is meaningless. But at the same time, I am restricting what art is and what it does?

Make up your mind. Which is it? Am I restricting art, or am I being too broad to make sense?

Yes you have.

Don't tell me what I have done.

So if I type the letter "d" then I am adding value. According to your earlier usage, "adding value" is also a synonym for "selling".

No, it isn't.

If it's demonstrably correct, please demonstrate where you have defined what Mark Rothko is selling, and what you mean by selling.

See post #247.

You may disagree with what I am saying. And obviously you do. But if you disagree, then you admit that I have, in fact, explained what I mean.

I am listening.

Clearly, you are not.

No - I flunk students who make outrageous statements like "All art sells something" without explaining either their terms or their argument, and who don't answer questions when asked. That's kinda rule one of academia - answer the question.

I have explained in extenso and answered plenty of questions. That you don't agree with what I think art is and what it does is an entirely different matter.

 

[volatile]

I like you, Claus. I'm sure I like you more than the average poster round these parts. But it's such a shame when an obviously intelligent, vaguely eloquent and often interesting person has to resort to such weird obfuscation and borderline silliness just to avoid having a sensible discussion of their views.

Claus. Honestly. You haven't answered questions or given explanations. Else we wouldn't be still asking them. To make your case, you urgently need to post your definition of selling.

I've also provided you with some art-works that, in my opinion, don't sell anything at all. I'd like you to explain how you would claim that these pieces sell, and what they are selling. It's the same question I'd ask any of my students.

Take Breakdown, for example. During this performance, Mark Landy pulped all of his possessions, including some art-works he owned. As the work resulted in total absence, it cannot be bought or sold. As the work was about taking, destruction and removal, it seems that saying it was "selling" something is extremely problematic, given that the word sell usually entails precisely the opposite of these terms.

You might like to argue that the work "sold" Landy as an artist - but if this is a sale, what did he get in return? No doubt the material and personal value of all of his possessions, including several very, very valuable paintings, was greater than he might hope to receive for future sales of more traditional pieces (if, indeed, he does choose to produce material works). Is this a sale in any real sense? Was the work itself "selling" Landy (who's buying?) or it it contribute to his status as an artist in a way that is rather different to that which might normally be understood by the term "sell"? I think terming this work as "selling" something is something that would require some very rigorous defence. Such a defence might be possible, you'd just have to define "sell" convincingly.

You might well have a case - as I said, if you are arguing that art is always already commodified (and is therefore selling itself) in some way, then that's an argument worth having. I don't think it quite holds up, but it would be a more tenable position (and one more conducive to interesting discussion) than the one you're currently taking.

So, if you are interested in honest debate (and I believe that at some level you actually are), please explain what you mean by "sell", preferably in reference to those pieces I've already asked you about. That'd help me understand where you're coming from, and what you're trying to say.

 

[volatile]

Sorry: where in post 247 do you explain what Rothko is selling, and what you mean by selling?

Let's just have two sentences:

"Mark Rothko is selling..."

and

"By 'selling', I mean..."


It's that easy. After that, we can move on.

 

[CFLarsen]

I like you, Claus. I'm sure I like you more than the average poster round these parts. But it's such a shame when an obviously intelligent, vaguely eloquent and often interesting person has to resort to such weird obfuscation and borderline silliness just to avoid having a sensible discussion of their views.

Claus. Honestly. You haven't answered questions or given explanations. Else we wouldn't be still asking them. To make your case, you urgently need to post your definition of selling.

I've also provided you with some art-works that, in my opinion, don't sell anything at all. I'd like you to explain how you would claim that these pieces sell, and what they are selling. It's the same question I'd ask any of my students.

Take Breakdown, for example. During this performance, Mark Landy pulped all of his possessions, including some art-works he owned. As the work resulted in total absence, it cannot be bought or sold. As the work was about taking, destruction and removal, it seems that saying it was "selling" something is extremely problematic, given that the word sell usually entails precisely the opposite of these terms.

You might like to argue that the work "sold" Landy as an artist - but if this is a sale, what did he get in return? No doubt the material and personal value of all of his possessions, including several very, very valuable paintings, was greater than he might hope to receive for future sales of more traditional pieces (if, indeed, he does choose to produce material works). Is this a sale in any real sense? Was the work itself "selling" Landy (who's buying?) or it it contribute to his status as an artist in a way that is rather different to that which might normally be understood by the term "sell"? I think terming this work as "selling" something is something that would require some very rigorous defence. Such a defence might be possible, you'd just have to define "sell" convincingly.

You might well have a case - as I said, if you are arguing that art is always already commodified (and is therefore selling itself) in some way, then that's an argument worth having. I don't think it quite holds up, but it would be a more tenable position (and one more conducive to interesting discussion) than the one you're currently taking.

So, if you are interested in honest debate (and I believe that at some level you actually are), please explain what you mean by "sell", preferably in reference to those pieces I've already asked you about. That'd help me understand where you're coming from, and what you're trying to say.

Clearly, I am not avoiding having a discussion on my views. And I have made it very clear what I mean, in post after post after post.

What it comes down to is disagreement over what art is and what art does.

Sorry, but it can never be anything else than disagreement. We are not talking about verifiable facts here. We are not talking about falsifiable theories and hypotheses.

We are talking about opinions. Opinions about what is probably the most incomprehensible of all human endeavours: Art. What the heck is it? What's it for? Why is it here?

Look back on the responses in this thread. There are people who want to dictate how I should see art. How I should think what it does. And if I didn't do what I was told, I was a baaaad skeptic!

Get a friggin' grip. We are talking about art. Whatever it is to you is inherently different to me. May be that is the end purpose of art: To provoke us, to think new thoughts?

What art isn't is to bang each other over the head with our own opinion, insisting that we are right - and others are wrong.

Debates about what art is and what it does should make us think. Not be used as a weapon, to force people to think a certain way. And that's what you, Tricky and Athon are doing: I have to see things your way when it comes to art. And if I don't....woe unto me! If I am not convincing you that Art Is X, then bad me! You will flunk me!

Gee, are you convinced that cubism better than mannerism?

Do you really tell your students that there is but one way of looking at what art is and what it does? Your way - or they flunk?

It's art!

 

[volatile]

Oh my.

I asked you some questions, not about what is and what isn't art, but what you mean by "selling", and how you would apply the world "selling" to some specific works that I think fall outside of this term. I was asking for a conversation.

What you gave, above (and maybe you should re-read it, noting exactly where it doesn't answer any of my sensible, polite and pertinent questions) was ridiculous. You don't engage with any of my arguments. You don't attempt to justify your position. You fail to take notice of any of the problems in your argument which need clarification.

In essence, your response has nothing to do with my post. It's just a rant. I didn't ask for a discussion on what is and what isn't art. I was asking about this notion of selling, what you mean by it, and how you think it can be sustained when applied to wok like Lundy's, or Brus', or works by anonymous activist artists, for example.

Please, let's have a discussion. It's really hard talking to myself. In my last post I even gave you some possible tacks to approach which might even result in your argument being credible. But it feels like I'm doing all the work - you haven't so much as offered a case, let alone a counter-argument.


If my students make statements without qualification, they fail. If my students fail to answer the question posed, they fail. If my students do not engage in productive dialogue with their source material, then they fail. It's not about right or wrong, it's about mode of argument.

As I said earlier, I think I probably even agree with you for the most part - but I'm not sure, as you haven't properly explained either what you mean by sell, or how the term applies to specific pieces. I think that there are definitely pieces that don;t work as "selling" anything, but I'm willing to be convinced should you want to actually make an argument.

If I set an essay question "Is all art selling something?" and the answer was essentially "Yes, in my opinion. It's a matter of opinion, so there", with no further exegesis, then I'd fail them. I'd do the same if they said "No, in my opinion. It's a matter of opinion, so there". The conclusion isn't as important and the demonstration of a coherent thought process. In order to pass, you'd need to engage with what "selling" meant, consider how the definition you've provided works in esoteric cases, and then extrapolate to universality, or, of you disagreed, discuss pieces that didn't seem to sell anything, and explain why. You've done none of these things.

 

[volatile]

As for forcing opinions, no-one's forcing anything. We disagree with your blanket assertion that all art is selling something, mainly because we don't really understand what you mean by "selling".

If you want to say "All art is selling something", then you need to define what you mean by "sell", and how this term functions. It is not sufficient just to assert it as true with no further thought.

Please, it'd be really useful to get this back on track if you would just define your terms. What's stopping you?

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh my.

I asked you some questions, not about what is and what isn't art, but what you mean by "selling", and how you would apply the world "selling" to some specific works that I think fall outside of this term. I was asking for a conversation.

What you gave, above (and maybe you should re-read it, noting exactly where it doesn't answer any of my sensible, polite and pertinent questions) was ridiculous. You don't engage with any of my arguments. You don't attempt to justify your position. You fail to take notice of any of the problems in your argument which need clarification.

In essence, your response has nothing to do with my post. It's just a rant. I didn't ask for a discussion on what is and what isn't art. I was asking about this notion of selling, what you mean by it, and how you think it can be sustained when applied to wok like Lundy's, or Brus', or works by anonymous activist artists, for example.

Please, let's have a discussion. It's really hard talking to myself. In my last post I even gave you some possible tacks to approach which might even result in your argument being credible. But it feels like I'm doing all the work - you haven't so much as offered a case, let alone a counter-argument.


If my students make statements without qualification, they fail. If my students fail to answer the question posed, they fail. If my students do not engage in productive dialogue with their source material, then they fail. It's not about right or wrong, it's about mode of argument.

As I said earlier, I think I probably even agree with you for the most part - but I'm not sure, as you haven't properly explained either what you mean by sell, or how the term applies to specific pieces. I think that there are definitely pieces that don;t work as "selling" anything, but I'm willing to be convinced should you want to actually make an argument.

How do you separate what art is, and what art does?

If you can, can you do it objectively? Or is it a matter of opinion?

If I set an essay question "Is all art selling something?" and the answer was essentially "Yes, in my opinion. It's a matter of opinion, so there", with no further exegesis, then I'd fail them. I'd do the same if they said "No, in my opinion. It's a matter of opinion, so there". The conclusion isn't as important and the demonstration of a coherent thought process. In order to pass, you'd need to engage with what "selling" meant, consider how the definition you've provided works in esoteric cases, and then extrapolate to universality

Whoa. Why do I have to extrapolate to universality, if art is inherently a matter of personal taste and opinion?

Are you saying that art isn't? You'd have to - wouldn't you?

 

[volatile]

Whoa. Why do I have to extrapolate to universality, if art is inherently a matter of personal taste and opinion?

Because the statement is "ALL art is selling something".

Sheesh.

Whether or not "all art is selling something" might well be a matter of opinion, but it's an opinion that needs to be supported against the weight of counter argument.

Thus: When I explain, in detail, why I think Lundy's Breakdown, for example, does not sell anything, you need to explain what it's selling.

And as for what art is and what it does, I think those are separable (as per the philosophy of Deleuze, for example), but all art does do something - known in the business as it's "affect".

That is not the same as saying all art sells something, and I'm sure you realise that.

So, please. I'm tried of asking. I'm tired of maintaining a calm and level set of arguments in the face of your obstinate inability to have a discussion. What do you mean by "sell"?

 

[volatile]

Can I just add to this:

I have said numerous times that I think I broadly agree with you, and that there are some interesting and potentially quite nuanced arguments to be made in favour of your position. I already stated one - that is art might be said to be selling itself in some respects. But you refuse to make them. You refuse to present any coherent, clear or forthright statement of the process that has gone into forming your opinion.

As such, this is not a matter of differing opinions. It's simply that you are unwilling to justify your opinion with anything more than rhetoric, and as such we don't really know if we agree or not. That's why we keep asking you to define "sell", and to be clear when stating that specific pieces "sell". I'd like to know what you mean. I can't agree or disagree with you as it is, because you simply haven't made a case. I don't know what you mean. None of us do.

I don't think I agree with you, but seeing as you haven't actually explained what you mean (by giving your definition of the word "sell", and stating explicitly what the examples you have been presented with are "selling"), I don't know. If you want to argue that all art is always already commercial, or that all art exhibits (thus "sells" in the sense as the word might be used in the phrase "sell yourself short") something of the artist to the World, then let's hear the argument.

Please.

 

[Tricky]

In which case, you should be able to tell whether a black square on a wall is art. If someone else says it is, is it art?

In my opinion, yes. I've told you this several times. In the situation where nobody has told me anything about it, then I'd have to see it. But if I said it "wasn't art" and then found that someone else said it was, then I'd accept that it was art. Art only has to be art to one person.

I'm not placing any restrictions on what all art is and does, quite contrary. I am saying that all art sells something - be it whatever it is to people.

And that is where you are using the word "sells" incorrectly. Now if you said art "means" something to people, I'd have no problem with that. But there is quite a bit of art that does not "sell" anything, using any definition of "sell" I have ever seen that has been set by a lexicographer. Of course, you could give us your definition. I'm not completely sure why you won't. Is it a pride thing?

Gee, first I define art and what it does to be so broad that it is meaningless. But at the same time, I am restricting what art is and what it does?

Well then why won't you give us your checklist for "what art must be", just as I've given you mine? Why don't you do at least one thing that is a direct, non-evasive answer? Why don't you demonstrate that, at least under certain clearly described situations, you can be honest.

Don't tell me what I have done.

I don't have to tell you. I can show you if you like. Everyone here who has the patience to read this thread knows that you said that your usage was your definition.

And for the record, I'll tell you anything I like here, as long as I stay within forum guidelines. And I'll be honest.

No, it isn't.

Adding value isn't selling? Then were you mistaken earlier when you said it was, or were you lying?

 

[Prometheus]

Demonstrably not correct.

Evidence?

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Actually, I really have been trying hard to figure out what Claus is saying despite his insistence on being anything but helpful. The best I can figure is, if we combine Tricky's idea that it's art if someone says so, take Claus at his word that he doesn't want to limit anyone else's opinion of what is art, and then look at definition #8:

....
8. to cause or persuade to accept; convince: to sell the voters on a candidate.....

If someone thinks a given piece is art, then that piece has successfully persuaded the person in question to accept it as art, and it is therefore selling the idea of itself as art.

How about it, Claus? Is this what you mean?

 

[CFLarsen]

Because the statement is "ALL art is selling something".

Where do I speak for other people?

Sheesh.

In my opinion, yes. I've told you this several times. In the situation where nobody has told me anything about it, then I'd have to see it. But if I said it "wasn't art" and then found that someone else said it was, then I'd accept that it was art. Art only has to be art to one person.

No.

If you want to criticize me for something, you have to make up your mind about what it is you are criticizing me for.

On one hand, you say that something is art, if other people think it is art. So you don't have to see it for yourself.

On the other, you can't say if something is art, because you haven't seen it yourself.

Which is it? Do you think something is art because other people say it is - or do you not think so?

Well then why won't you give us your checklist for "what art must be", just as I've given you mine? Why don't you do at least one thing that is a direct, non-evasive answer? Why don't you demonstrate that, at least under certain clearly described situations, you can be honest.

Likewise, you criticize me for having a definition of art and what it does to be so broad that it is meaningless. But at the same time, you criticize me for restricting what art is and what it does.

Which is it? Am I restricting art, or am I being too broad to make sense?

 

[Tricky]

Which is it? Do you think something is art because other people say it is - or do you not think so?

As I have said numerous times, I think a person's creation is art if any person thinks it is. The unusual scenario you have presented is one in which there is no information on whether or not anyone elses thinks it is art. In that situation, I'd judge based only on my own opinion, but willing to alter my judgment if another opinion were given.

I have answered your question directly and honestly.

Likewise, you criticize me for having a definition of art and what it does to be so broad that it is meaningless.

No I have not. I have asked you to give us your "checklist" for what is art, but I have never said that you define art too broadly. I doubt that anyone could define art more broadly than I do.

Which is it? Am I restricting art, or am I being too broad to make sense?

You are restricting art because you set a condition for what all art must do, i.e. "sell something".

I have answered another question for you directly and honestly.

Why is it that you cannot seem to do this?