Porn vs. Art

[not daSkeptic]

I still believe Pluto's a planet, for example.

Planets are defined by objective, measurable criteria established by an organization whose purpose is to define such things for the world. Can the same be said of art?

 

[not daSkeptic]

Funny - the important thing was to "affect the senses or emotions" a couple of posts back, which, in any event, clearly doesn't work.

Sure it does. Silence can have a huge effect. Just last night I was watching a television show in which one of the main characters, integral to the show's multi-year run, suddenly died right at the end of the episode. No warning or follow-up, he was just gone. Breaking with the show's usual format, the credits ran with absolutely no sound. The dramatic impact of that was intense.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

See the question being begged now?

Nope.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I would have to say the latter, I attempt to create objects of beauty.

The only emotion I can honestly say that I'm trying to evoke would be desire. The desire to purchase.

Heh. Well said.

In my view, objects are perceived as beautiful because they evoke certain emotional responses, and as such, to make something beautiful is to make something that evokes emotion. It's not the only definition of art, but there are many who agree with me.

By the way, the object in the avatar looks very nice, though I can't tell what it is.

 

[quadraginta]

In my opinion, the relevant question is what your intention of creating your works is. Do you attempt to evoke emotions, or to put it more simply, do you attempt to create objects of beauty?

Probably this pushes things somewhat far afield, but I can see the 'intent to evoke' as not being a necessary prerequisite. People can make things for their own personal reasons, with no regard for the opinions of others, and quite unintentionally create something which others find to be beautiful or moving. To assert that such creations are not art seems somewhat limiting.

Before it became a crafts industry quilting was perhaps an example of this. Many dear old ladies were quite pleasantly surprised to learn that their work born of poverty and parsimony was deemed to be art in the eyes of strangers. Many of them were just trying to use up scraps and save money.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Probably this pushes things somewhat far afield, but I can see the 'intent to evoke' as not being a necessary prerequisite. People can make things for their own personal reasons, with no regard for the opinions of others, and quite unintentionally create something which others find to be beautiful or moving. To assert that such creations are not art seems somewhat limiting.

Before it became a crafts industry quilting was perhaps an example of this. Many dear old ladies were quite pleasantly surprised to learn that their work born of poverty and parsimony was deemed to be art in the eyes of strangers. Many of them were just trying to use up scraps and save money.

Well, to be honest, in this case, I might well be hesitant to call the end result art; I think the intent is important. On the other hand, I would assume most of the crafts were made with the intent of making something beautiful, which satisfies my conditions. An object created out of pure practicality, or strictly as a pastime with no other purpose I wouldn't necessarily call art.

I do realize many others may, however, and will accept their definition of art alongside the one I prefer.

 

[Marcus]

Heh. Well said.

In my view, objects are perceived as beautiful because they evoke certain emotional responses, and as such, to make something beautiful is to make something that evokes emotion. It's not the only definition of art, but there are many who agree with me.

By the way, the object in the avatar looks very nice, though I can't tell what it is.

You're looking at the top of a jewelry box , inlaid with a large number of woods, the colors you're seeing are the real colors. Okay, I'm really off topic now, just can't resist talking about my work.

 

[Marcus]

In my opinion, the question of what is art is a personal decision, and can't be constrained by pre-determined conditions(i.e., porn can't be art.) For example, painting is a medium that most people agree is art most of the time. And yet, when I look at a painting, I might say it is bad art, I might say it is good art, but I might even say that it is not art. Some people might disagree, and say that anything put on canvas is always art, or that porn is never art.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

In my opinion, the question of what is art is a personal decision, and can't be constrained by pre-determined conditions(i.e., porn can't be art.) For example, painting is a medium that most people agree is art most of the time. And yet, when I look at a painting, I might say it is bad art, I might say it is good art, but I might even say that it is not art. Some people might disagree, and say that anything put on canvas is always art, or that porn is never art.

I disagree, therefore you're wrong

 

[Southwind17]

No No, it doesn't, it's a false analogy.

Why?

You are artifically singling out porn. How could an action/adventure film be art? Or the most artsy Oscar winner you can think of? It couldn't, according to your logic.

Have you looked up "porn" in a dictionary? If not, I suggest you do so. Then try looking up "action/adventure film" and "artsy Oscar winner". I hope you'll appreciate where I'm coming from then.

The primary purpose of porn is entertainment.

As I say, I suggest you look up "porn" in a dictionary.

The primary purpose if movies is entertainment.

You got that right, essentially.

If you want to argue that entertainment involving sexual stimulation is somehow less noble and less deserving of being considered art than entertainment involving happiness, sadness,excitment, angst, fear, violence, and, oops, sex, than I disagree.

It's not a question of nobility or deservedness, it's simply a question of what it is, which is determined by what purpose it serves. Take this, for example:

Now, whilst some people might describe it as a "work of art" in a highly complimentary but colloquial manner, and whilst it undoubtedy contains artistically derived elements, at the end of the day it is a motor car, and I challenge you to show me one in an art gallery, indeed any motor car, other than one possibly set in a context that necessarily then purports to make the entire display "art".

As an aside, this question of what constitutes art has personal relevance for me. I'm an artist by profession, but not a painter. The question of whether my work is art, or craft only, is a debatable point.

Well let's debate that then - I think that might be worthwhile. What, in your opinion, is the fundamental difference between "art" and "craft"?

She's saying that Industrial includes the sound of jack hammers, which is what you asked for.

Actually, I meant only jack hammers, and in an unarranged manner, hence the reference to a "road crew in full flow". I thought that was self-evident, but apologize for the confusion caused by a lack of absolute clarity.

In my opinion, the relevant question is what your intention of creating your works is. Do you attempt to evoke emotions, or to put it more simply, do you attempt to create objects of beauty?

I disagree. I could envisage an artist with a serious mental disorder that means that he is completely oblivious to what he does but who creates great, but "meaningless" works of art (by myChambers' definition) nonetheless. I'm sure there must be some people like that. Intent is irrelevant, which, interestingly, also serves to differentiate art from porn, which, by definition has clear and singular intent.

The only emotion I can honestly say that I'm trying to evoke would be desire. The desire to purchase.

Mmm ... exactly the same emotion that art dealers prey on, demonstrating that the "desire" to own a Hirst, for example, evidenced by a large exchange of cash, does not per seof itself render said object "art". The difference being that your work, I suspect, and with respect, relies more on its merit to evoke a desire to purchase, whereas Hirst's relies more on simple authenticity to ensure a successful ego trip, and hopefully healthy financial gain afterwards on the back of somebody else's ego. That's not to say that much of Hirst's work isn't art. I'm sure it is.

Planets are defined by objective, measurable criteria established by an organization whose purpose is to define such things for the world. Can the same be said of art?

"Whoa! Pluto's dead," said astronomer Mike Brown, of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, as he watched a Webcast of the vote. "There are finally, officially, eight planets in the solar system."

A clear majority of researchers voted for the new definition at a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague, in the Czech Republic. The IAU decides the official names of all celestial bodies.

The tough decision comes after a multiyear search for a scientific definition of the word "planet." The term never had an official meaning before.

What Is a Planet Today?

According to the new definition, a full-fledged planet is an object that orbits the sun and is large enough to have become round due to the force of its own gravity. In addition, a planet has to dominate the neighborhood around its orbit.

The new definition of "planet" retains the sense that a true planet is something special.

A previous proposal, unveiled last week, would have set the bar for planethood considerably lower. The earlier proposal also required planets to be round as a result of their own gravitational force. But it did not specify that a planet has to dominate its region, and that omission would have granted planet status to a lot of bodies.

"Astronomers, who are normally mild-mannered types, are revolting against the IAU proposal," Brown wrote on his Web site last week, soon after the initial unveiling.

In response, the IAU committee charged with composing the definition "reversed course completely, and offered up a definition that's much more scientifically palatable," said astrophysicist Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C., today.

"They reworked it and it has become a much superior definition. I think this will stand the test of time," Boss said.

But for now the vote is drawing some opposition. Planetary scientist Andy Cheng said the definition is ambiguous, because it hasn't answered the question "how round is round?"

"This will be an issue in the future," Cheng said. "Dozens of objects are going to be straddling this line. The new definition is not going to help us with this."

"I'll still continue to maintain that Pluto is a planet," he said.

The definition that won the vote is "a bit of a semantic atrocity," he added.

The definition was bound to be messy. It had to be palatable to many researchers and to address the plethora of celestial objects.

Last week's proposed definition was meant to apply to all planets in the universe. But, faced with the difficulty of arriving at a consensus on universe-spanning criteria, the IAU committee narrowed the definition to apply only to our solar system.

[Mason Inman
for National Geographic News
August 24, 2006 (Updated 3:30 p.m. ET)]

[emphasis added]

Good to see that the scientific community has its act together regarding definitions and consensus, even if the art world hasn't!

Sure it does. Silence can have a huge effect. Just last night I was watching a television show in which one of the main characters, integral to the show's multi-year run, suddenly died right at the end of the episode. No warning or follow-up, he was just gone. Breaking with the show's usual format, the credits ran with absolutely no sound. The dramatic impact of that was intense.

As I wrote - not on its own it can't. It was only "intense" because of what had just happened immediately before it, like a long pause in a piece of music. If somebody had walked into the room where you were watching the show right after the death, just as the credits started to roll, and glanced at the TV, do you think they would have detected an "intense dramatic impact"?

You're looking at the top of a jewelry box , inlaid with a large number of woods, the colors you're seeing are the real colors. Okay, I'm really off topic now, just can't resist talking about my work.

Interesting you refer to it as "work" and not "art". Hopefully an art vs. craft offshoot will clarify.

In my opinion, the question of what is art is a personal decision, and can't be constrained by pre-determined conditions(i.e., porn can't be art.) For example, painting is a medium that most people agree is art most of the time. And yet, when I look at a painting, I might say it is bad art, I might say it is good art, but I might even say that it is not art. Some people might disagree, and say that anything put on canvas is always art, or that porn is never art.

So you're basically advocating that "art" should mean to each individual person whatever they want it to mean, right? In that case, how would you go about setting an art course curriculum, teaching a practical art class, setting criteria for art course assessments and qualifications, or curating an art gallery?

 

[Marcus]

So you're basically advocating that "art" should mean to each individual person whatever they want it to mean, right? In that case, how would you go about setting an art course curriculum, teaching a practical art class, setting criteria for art course assessments and qualifications, or curating an art gallery?

Rather than responding point by point, I'll try to sum it up.

I wouldn't try to do any of those things, but the people who do have their own ideas, and they don't always agree. I didn't take art in college, but if I did, perhaps the instructors would have encouraged me to use their criteria rather than develop my own. I doubt that gallery owners and professors would agree with your assertion that porn can't be art, but I don't have any proof of that.

As far as my own work, it's really craft rather than art, despite what my customers like to claim. The reason being not the medium(wood is as worthy as canvas) but the production element. My boxes are not one-of-a-kind items and they are not made individually, but rather in batches. In the art and craft world, we use two definitions. Art (with a big "A") is what we have been talking about on this thread, and what the rest of the world thinks about when you say Art, art (with a small "a") is a more generalized term and the only one under which my work really qualifies. So perhaps I was a bit disingenuous when I refered to myself as an Artist, what I really meant was an artist.

So in my view, film is a worthy medium and the result can be Art. A fancy car can't be Art because it is a production item . If a car was made from scratch , one only, under the supervision of one person, then it could be Art.

I know of a lot of people who also think that to be art an object has to be completely useless (or without function, to be more polite.) It has to just sit there and look pretty.

 

[Toke]

I find that Art/art distinction to be really convenient and easy to manage, but if not actually wrong then at least of limited usefulness.

Looking at some of the furniture here I see artwork, and do not really care that it is mass produced.

I am not foolish enough to think there will ever be general agreement on what is art.

 

[Southwind17]

Rather than responding point by point, I'll try to sum it up.

I wouldn't try to do any of those things, but the people who do have their own ideas, and they don't always agree. I didn't take art in college, but if I did, perhaps the instructors would have encouraged me to use their criteria rather than develop my own. I doubt that gallery owners and professors would agree with your assertion that porn can't be art, but I don't have any proof of that.

As far as my own work, it's really craft rather than art, despite what my customers like to claim. The reason being not the medium(wood is as worthy as canvas) but the production element. My boxes are not one-of-a-kind items and they are not made individually, but rather in batches. In the art and craft world, we use two definitions. Art (with a big "A") is what we have been talking about on this thread, and what the rest of the world thinks about when you say Art, art (with a small "a") is a more generalized term and the only one under which my work really qualifies. So perhaps I was a bit disingenuous when I refered to myself as an Artist, what I really meant was an artist.

So in my view, film is a worthy medium and the result can be Art. A fancy car can't be Art because it is a production item . If a car was made from scratch , one only, under the supervision of one person, then it could be Art.

I know of a lot of people who also think that to be art an object has to be completely useless (or without function, to be more polite.) It has to just sit there and look pretty.

This leaves much room for debate, and I'm not sure there's much mileage in going there, but I do find your view on the "one-off" car particularly odd. What do you see as the relevance of "from scratch", "one only" and "under the supervision of one person" compared to, say, "from a blue print", "mass produced" and "under a management/supervisory team", which most production cars are, and, interestingly, most print pictures and postcards, for example, in picture shops and newsagents? Is a prototype car [A]rt but a production car not? Is an original oil painting [A]rt but a print not?

 

[Marcus]

I find that Art/art distinction to be really convenient and easy to manage, but if not actually wrong then at least of limited usefulness.

Looking at some of the furniture here I see artwork, and do not really care that it is mass produced.

I am not foolish enough to think there will ever be general agreement on what is art.

It's of limited usefulness to the general public, but essential in my business(selling at art festivals and galleries) as is the elimination of mass produced items from consideration in either category. My own work is limited production and is therefore art, but technically not eligible for those shows who only allow Art(grey area). Some shows go further and only allow Fine Art (painting, drawing, and sculpture).

 

[Marcus]

This leaves much room for debate, and I'm not sure there's much mileage in going there, but I do find your view on the "one-off" car particularly odd. What do you see as the relevance of "from scratch", "one only" and "under the supervision of one person" compared to, say, "from a blue print", "mass produced" and "under a management/supervisory team", which most production cars are, and, interestingly, most print pictures and postcards, for example, in picture shops and newsagents? Is a prototype car [A]rt but a production car not? Is an original oil painting [A]rt but a print not?

I admit, it's hard to explain. I have to get back in the shop, for now, I will just say that prints are art but nor Art, and as such are not allowed in shows that have Art only. A mass production item like a car would not be Art, although the original design would be.

 

[Mirrorglass]

In my opinion, the relevant question is what your intention of creating your works is. Do you attempt to evoke emotions, or to put it more simply, do you attempt to create objects of beauty?

I disagree. I could envisage an artist with a serious mental disorder that means that he is completely oblivious to what he does but who creates great, but "meaningless" works of art (by myChambers' definition) nonetheless. I'm sure there must be some people like that. Intent is irrelevant, which, interestingly, also serves to differentiate art from porn, which, by definition has clear and singular intent.

But you've said a dozen times you think intent is important! What if this person with a serious mental disorder makes a video of himself having sex? Does that mean since there's no intent to arouse, you wouldn't consider the video pornographic?

 

[Belz...]

So ... where were we ...?!

Insults, actually.

 

[Belz...]

I like porn (legal gay porn, that is).

I like art (need not be legal or gay).

No vs. about it.

Welll, who do you think would win in a fight ?

 

[Belz...]

You have been provided with several examples of such and instead of accepting them and admitting defeat you are now moving goalposts to claim that you asked for something much more specific.

I do believe that, if we had a dictionary for people, that would be the definition of the entry "Southwind17".

 

[Belz...]

There's no reason why you can't make an art piece by arranging just one element repeatedly. The important thing is the attempt to evoke emotion.

I think that's the part that Southwind doesn't get. He seems (he can correct me) to think that there's some inherent (per se) quality to art that is independent of observation, hence the circular definition he made and then retracted about art vs artists.