• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SkeptiCamp NYC 2011

Wowbagger said:
Also, for what it's worth: Massimo Pigliucci once hosted a very interesting dinner discussion about Objective Criticism of the Arts. Asking how objective critics are or even could be. It was rather interesting. I wonder if this session will be somewhat similar in nature.
Click to expand...

Now that might be an interesting discussion.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
So what was the lecture regarding art and skepticism about?
Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't a lecture, first of all. It was an open discussion. In the first part, we gathered all the various ways one could define art, some of which might challenge an individual's notion of what art is or can be.

Then there were a small number of slides where he would ask "Is it art?". For example, someone took a short piece of rope and nailed it to a wall, in a gallery. Most folks, including I, felt that it lacked effort, but could be "about the message". Though, calling it art for that reason was a bit of a stretch, for many, I think.

I guess the motivation for all this, so far, is to ask "what is this?!" when browsing through a gallery, and get more efficient answers out of it.


Then there was a fair bit about how science and technology have changed art, and our perceptions of what art is. Today, most humans accept "modern art" as art, but a long time ago, art had to be "realistic" to be appreciated.

Today, we can take beautiful images of things that can't be seen with the naked eye: The cosmos far from Earth, and tiny nearly-symmetrical cellular structures. If hung in a gallery, most of us felt these photos would constitute art as well.

Towards the end there were questions of "Who made it?" and "What were they thinking?", in which we discover how the artist, and motivation, matters a lot when judging art... especially if we find out the artist was an elephant.

Art is always viewed in some context, and I suppose the value, in general, of discussions like this would be to expand our ideas of what could go into that context.

For skeptics, in particular, this might be handy, because too many of us are kinda bad at this sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
Wowbagger said:
Well, it wasn't a lecture, first of all. It was an open discussion. In the first part, we gathered all the various ways one could define art, some of which might challenge an individual's notion of what art is or can be.

Then there were a small number of slides where he would ask "Is it art?". For example, someone took a short piece of rope and nailed it to a wall, in a gallery. Most folks, including I, felt that it lacked effort, but could be "about the message". Though, calling it art for that reason was a bit of a stretch, for many, I think.

I guess the motivation for all this, so far, is to ask "what is this?!" when browsing through a gallery, and get more efficient answers out of it.
Click to expand...

"Art" is whatever an artist says is art. Period. So it sounds like the first part of the discussion was a waste of time.

Wowbagger said:
Then there was a fair bit about how science and technology have changed art, and our perceptions of what art is. Today, most humans accept "modern art" as art, but a long time ago, art had to be "realistic" to be appreciated.

Today, we can take beautiful images of things that can't be seen with the naked eye: The cosmos far from Earth, and tiny nearly-symmetrical cellular structures. If hung in a gallery, most of us felt these photos would constitute art as well.

Towards the end there were questions of "Who made it?" and "What were they thinking?", in which we discover how the artist, and motivation, matters a lot when judging art... especially if we find out the artist was an elephant.

Art is always viewed in some context, and I suppose the value, in general, of discussions like this would be to expand our ideas of what could go into that context.

For skeptics, in particular, this might be handy, because too many of us are kinda bad at this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

The second half of the discussion sounds like it was much more worth while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom