What is art?

[Ron_Tomkins]

As I said, MANY TIMES, my only purpose is to understand why and how people manage to like abstract art. Why is it so difficult to understand that I'd want that ?

Why and how people manage to like abstract art? Sounds like you find it inconceivable that people can like such thing, right?

I understand you dislike abstract art so much, you can't even accept the premise that other people have different tastes from you. But Belz, that's basically the explanation. The reason people "manage" (a word that suggest they actually had to do an effort) to like abstract art or any other thing you, Belz, dislike to death, is because different people like different things.

We're discussing art and I can't present my personal opinion ?

Not if we want to reach an objective veredict of what is art. Your personal opinion is no more relevant than anyone else's and doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. You say you hate abstract art, someone else says the opposite. Who is "right" in that argument?

You think any discussion about art is going to be objective ?

Believe it or not, it can be. You just analyze and discuss the phenomena (be it art, fashion, religion or any other social meme) without using your personal tastes as a criteria.

Then we can close the thread right now.

Or we can include personal tastes in the discussion. We might actually learn something.

No, the only thing we might learn is that Belz doesn't like some forms of art. And that's not news to anyone because it's obvious that everyone has their own tastes. So your personal individual tastes are irrelevant when trying to form an objective understanding of art as a cultural phenomena.

 

[Belz...]

I dunno, I'd keep quiet about it if my tastes were that simple.

Cow manure How mature.

I like many different types of art or music or whatnot. But harmony/melody is important to my appreciation. Why is that simple ?

 

[Belz...]

Why and how people manage to like abstract art? Sounds like you find it inconceivable that people can like such thing, right?

Hence why I'm trying to understand it.

I understand you dislike abstract art so much, you can't even accept the premise that other people have different tastes from you.

Why do you lie about this, Ron ? What's in it for you ?

Not if we want to reach an objective veredict of what is art.

And that is silly. How do you think such a thing could ever happen ? Pretty much anything and everything can be art depending on who you ask, and since that interpretation is a matter of emotional response, objectivity seems, by definition, impossible. Any discussion about art will, therefore, necessarily involve personal opinions and little else.

You're simply trying to make yourself appear more rational than me in this discussion, for some reason. What is this, a skeptical sweepstakes ?

Your personal opinion is no more relevant than anyone else's and doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. You say you hate abstract art, someone else says the opposite. Who is "right" in that argument?

Nobody, and the fact that you think that I think otherwise continues to illustrate how you little you understand my original post.

No, the only thing we might learn is that Belz doesn't like some forms of art. And that's not news to anyone because it's obvious that everyone has their own tastes. So your personal individual tastes are irrelevant when trying to form an objective understanding of art as a cultural phenomena.

Understanding what people like and all doesn't lead to understanding the cultural phenomenon ? That's bonkers.

 

[BillyJoe]

Cow manure How mature.

I like many different types of art or music or whatnot. But harmony/melody is important to my appreciation. Why is that simple ?

First of all, I used a big smily face.

But, then, all jokes contain an element of truth.
All I meant is that it is easy to appreciate a pleasant harmony or melody. It's more difficult to appreciate why a musician has used a discordant note or a jarring rhythm.

"All the old familiar choruses come crowding in a different key:
Melodies decaying in sweet dissonance"
...from "A Passion Play" by Ian Anderson (Jethro Tull)

 

[BillyJoe]

Hence why I'm trying to understand it.

Except that you burst upon the scene with a torrent of abuse.
That didn't sound like someone trying to understand.

Pretty much anything and everything can be art depending on who you ask, and since that interpretation is a matter of emotional response, objectivity seems, by definition, impossible. Any discussion about art will, therefore, necessarily involve personal opinions and little else.

Except that you can appreciate music that you don't like the sound of.
How does that fit into your little scheme?

 

[Dani]

You included the intent of the artist in your defnition.
And you could have said at least one person in the audience.
Maybe you didn't mean that then.

I'm still working on my definition. This debate might help.

Yoko Ono is regarded as an artist and was performing in an artistic context. Having that information, the fact that Yoko Ono was doing a performance and not just farting or cooking a fried egg (not that Yoko Ono wouldn't make something artistic out of it) and the fact that it had an audience made me conclude that it is, in fact, art. With this, I had enough and, as you imply, maybe even too much to reach this conclusion.

When you asked me, it made me think and I had to discard the intent of the artist. The possibility that someone creates or performs something without consciously thinking about it as art while on the other hand an audience or public do consider it art is quite conceivable. In fact, I highly doubt that the concept of art is universal. Did people think about their paintings as art in prehistory? Yet we call it prehistoric art.

The number of people who consider something art is relevant to its meaning though. Just for the sake of communication, it is. Social context is also relevant. I would give more weigh to assertions on whether something is art or not in an art gallery than in a football stadium.

Masters of the pure note!

Meh... not that I dislike them, but I prefer other more dynamic groups from the same generation, especially performing live.

Then you're saying her performance was not deliberate?

No. Her performance wasn't based on a deliberate choice of musical notes. Melodically, it wasn't deliberate. Very possibly it was deliberately non melodic.

Random noise doesn't have a beginning. It just starts. Random noise doesn't have an end. It just stops. Random noise doesn't progress. It just continues. That's the difference I was referring to.

Something that has a beginning, starts; something that has an end, stops. I don't have much else to say, except that I'm aware that Yoko Ono is a conscious being who can choose when to start and when to stop. Any human can choose a beginning and an end to whatever they feel like doing, and this obvious fact is irrelevant to what we call art or the value of an art work.

Fair enough. I didn't listen more than once either.
On the other hand, I do own pieces of mucic that I did not like initially but which grew on me with repeated listening. My first purchase of a Jethro Tull album based on having heard a single song from it was a shocker at first. I now own all their recordings and their are still some song that I don't like the sound of but that I like listening to, if that makes sense to you?

I actually had a shirt done with the "Aqualung" cover some years ago. In fact, I even went to a Jethro Tull concert. I hated it. I still like their old material though.

Well, in my opinion, what is important is to be natural about it. It would be stupid of me to listen carefully several times to the Yoko Ono performance to try to "get it" or go back to it a year after to see if I have developed my taste to the extent of being able to enjoy it, and if not, try again the next year. Or even worse: pretend that I get it and that I enjoy it just to fit in. This happens quite often because art, unlike calculus, doesn't need to be explained.

I honestly have reached a conclusion about Yoko Ono's performance. After all, possibly it's not about another listen, but about another thought. I, like you, believe her performance is more an intellectual thing, but I'm not interested in the intellectual content of her performance, whatever it is. I think her performance is plain rubbish. If some day I change my mind regarding this performance, that would mean that I've had an important revelation, not just a change of appreciation.

I agree. I was just making a distinction between low and high quality art. Though I now realise I was talking just about technigue or use of technigue. Soime art doesn't require must expertise in this area, other Art does.

Art is an evasive concept. We can try to have a rational approach to this semantic debate, but I think the concept is not entirely rational because it doesn't have clearly defined boundaries. The concept has evolved from its more concise original meaning, and is still evolving. All I know is it relates to works of aesthetic value, and I'm not even that sure about this.

Can you think about an informative description of what we can objectively say constitutes art?

 

[BillyJoe]

Meh... not that I dislike them, but I prefer other more dynamic groups from the same generation, especially performing live.

Not my number one group either and of course there are different styles.

No. Her performance wasn't based on a deliberate choice of musical notes. Melodically, it wasn't deliberate. Very possibly it was deliberately non melodic.

I meant deliberate in any way.
Do you think it was just random vocalisation that would necessarily be different with each performance or do you think it had a repeatable structure?

Something that has a beginning, starts; something that has an end, stops. I don't have much else to say, except that I'm aware that Yoko Ono is a conscious being who can choose when to start and when to stop. Any human can choose a beginning and an end to whatever they feel like doing, and this obvious fact is irrelevant to what we call art or the value of an art work.

I not sure that you quite get what I mean. If you made a recording of Yoko Ono's piece and just cut off the first and last 15 seconds or so, it would still begin and end but it would not have "a beginning" and "an end". I think it would make a difference in her case.

I actually had a shirt done with the "Aqualung" cover some years ago. In fact, I even went to a Jethro Tull concert. I hated it. I still like their old material though.

Jethro Tull do not have a wide audience, but they do have a loyal cult following which have kept them going for almost forty years. They're still doing concerts almost weekly, mostly in the UK and Europe.
I think you must have missed something
But, that's okay, apart from my wife, no one I know likes the group either.
Did they not play "Budapest"? Despite it's complexity, the band do a surprisingly good live performance of this song.

Well, in my opinion, what is important is to be natural about it. It would be stupid of me to listen carefully several times to the Yoko Ono performance to try to "get it"

But that would exclude a whole swathe of really good music that could end up entertaining you more and for longer than music that is immediately accessible (or "natrual" as you put it). I don't know about you but, although I like listening to easy "natural" music I quickly tire of it. Music that grows on you and reveals itself over time is much more unduring and satisfying in my experience.

Or even worse: pretend that I get it and that I enjoy it just to fit in. This happens quite often because art, unlike calculus, doesn't need to be explained.

Agreed. Has there ever been a Sokal Hoax in the world of music?

I, like you, believe her performance is more an intellectual thing, but I'm not interested in the intellectual content of her performance, whatever it is. I think her performance is plain rubbish. If some day I change my mind regarding this performance, that would mean that I've had an important revelation, not just a change of appreciation.

Interesting way to put it.
It was, in fact, Jethro Tull's "Aqualung" album that, except for the title song, I hated when I first listened. Later, bits of music would spontaneously come into my head and it took me a while to realise that these bits of music were from that album. He has a very idiosyncratic style that is certainly not immediately accessible.

Can you think about an informative description of what we can objectively say constitutes art?

Very broadly it is anything that moves at least one person emotionally or intellectually. That is, of course, not a sufficient description because, as Ron Tomkins pointed out, other things apart from art fit this description.

 

[Dani]

I meant deliberate in any way.
Do you think it was just random vocalisation that would necessarily be different with each performance or do you think it had a repeatable structure?

Well, you asked me if I meant her performance wasn't deliberate. I already said that I agree with you that it's deliberate, and pointed out that the notes she produced in the performance were not deliberate, but random. Structure is another thing, but I would bet the performance has no predetermined structure, except the concept of someone doing a "piece of music" for an audience.

I not sure that you quite get what I mean. If you made a recording of Yoko Ono's piece and just cut off the first and last 15 seconds or so, it would still begin and end but it would not have "a beginning" and "an end". I think it would make a difference in her case.

I think I get what you mean, but my point is that the same happens with a baby's cry or a conversation. "A beginning" and "an end" are not more characteristic of art than of other human activities you can think of. In other words, I agree that it has a beginning and an end, but I find it completely irrelevant to consider something art or good art.

Jethro Tull do not have a wide audience, but they do have a loyal cult following which have kept them going for almost forty years. They're still doing concerts almost weekly, mostly in the UK and Europe.
I think you must have missed something

Yes, I missed their bluesy touch and Ian Anderson looked like a buffoon. After so many years, I would've preferred him not to stick to that old gimmick.

But that would exclude a whole swathe of really good music that could end up entertaining you more and for longer than music that is immediately accessible (or "natrual" as you put it). I don't know about you but, although I like listening to easy "natural" music I quickly tire of it. Music that grows on you and reveals itself over time is much more unduring and satisfying in my experience.

Well, putting an effort into "getting" Yoko Ono's performance would prevent me from listening to good music at that very moment. In fact, I don't think what Yoko Ono does in the performance fits the category of music. Besides, what if I never change my mind about the fact that it is, musically talking, rubbish? In fact, I have no issue with the musical aspect of Yoko Ono's performance. I get it. It's a woman shouting. She's been doing that for a long time. The concept behind it, even if I doubt it, might be interesting, but then it's not about music, it's about a concept behind something presented as music.

I didn't mean accessible by natural, and I wasn't referring to music, but about what I think is the better attitude towards music. I don't like overintellectualizing about music and art before being emotionally captivated by it. I just like it or don't like it. After that, I can explain some reasons why I like it and even make an intellectual dissection of it. I never forced myself to listen to something that I dislike, which is different to listening to music that is too abstract for my demands. I've got a taste for abstract stuff though. I like jazz, Zappa and I'm interested in dodecaphonism. Of course, my taste has broadened through the years, but I've always felt it natural. There's always been something in me wanting a little more harmonic tension here, more complex rhythms there, not that note that I'm already expecting here, etc.

Agreed. Has there ever been a Sokal Hoax in the world of music?

I didn't know about the Sokal Hoax. I just read an article. Interesting.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hence why I'm trying to understand it.



Why do you lie about this, Ron ? What's in it for you ?



And that is silly. How do you think such a thing could ever happen ? Pretty much anything and everything can be art depending on who you ask, and since that interpretation is a matter of emotional response, objectivity seems, by definition, impossible. Any discussion about art will, therefore, necessarily involve personal opinions and little else.

You're simply trying to make yourself appear more rational than me in this discussion, for some reason. What is this, a skeptical sweepstakes ?



Nobody, and the fact that you think that I think otherwise continues to illustrate how you little you understand my original post.



Understanding what people like and all doesn't lead to understanding the cultural phenomenon ? That's bonkers.

Art, like any other cultural meme (Examples: Religion, Fashion, Politics) involves personal interpretation, and it is understood from the very beginning that humans will disagree amongst each other on what is "right" or "wrong", on what is religiously "correct" and what isn't, what is "fashionable" and what isn't, what's "in" and what's "out". etc etc. There can be no universal agreement on these things, because they are by definition subjective.

Therefore, a study of any cultural meme, requires a prior understanding of this, and an understanding that, in order to study such cultural meme, one must step outside of their individual biases and tastes.

If this discussion were about Religion instead of Art, and we were trying to reach a verdict on what is Religion, our personal tastes and individual biases would be irrelevant when trying to define it in an objective way. If I were a Catholic and you were a Jew, we would get nowhere if it all turned into a discussion of which one is the real God. Your personal beliefs are irrelevant. My personal beliefs are irrelevant. Anyone's personal beliefs are irrelevant when trying to objectively define Religion. So you going on rants about which God is the real one would be as irrelevant as your current rambling about what types of Art you like and what types of Art you hate.

So, again, no one has said that the fact that different people have different beliefs, is irrelevant. What's irrelevant and useless is using our personal beliefs when trying to objectively discuss the social meme in question. This is what you continuously fail to understand.

So stop saying it can't be objectively discussed because it has already been. In fact, the Marquis wrote a very good objective analysis of the subject in hand. You should read it, as it provides a classic example of how one can analyze a cultural phenomena without involving their personal biases.

 

[Belz...]

Except that you burst upon the scene with a torrent of abuse.

Saying that I find a piece of art ugly is abuse ? Give me a break.

Except that you can appreciate music that you don't like the sound of.
How does that fit into your little scheme?

It doesn't. I can't.

 

[Belz...]

What's irrelevant and useless is using our personal beliefs when trying to objectively discuss the social meme in question.

First, I think you're taking this a bit far. The OP asked if the piece in question was art, not to provide a thesis for why people consider this or that art.

My personal question was designed to understand why people like pieces of art such as this. I guess people being opaque as they are in this thread, I can't expect to understand it here.

So stop saying it can't be objectively discussed because it has already been. In fact, the Marquis wrote a very good objective analysis of the subject in hand. You should read it, as it provides a classic example of how one can analyze a cultural phenomena without involving their personal biases.

Again, I don't remember the topic being about analysing the cultural phenomena. It was a question of opinion right from the start.

 

[BillyJoe]

Saying that I find a piece of art ugly is abuse ? Give me a break.

You described the Jackson Pollock as something a three year old could accomplish throwing buckets of paint on canvas and then we're expected to believe you really honestly want to understand?

Except that you can appreciate music that you don't like the sound of. How does that fit into your little scheme?

It doesn't. I can't.

Fair enough.
Do you understand calculus?

 

[live830]

Abstract art contains essential information ???

Yes, essential to the message or the figure. Not, like, essential to life.

I believe I said that.

No, you just said it should "represent something." Abstract art, by definition, does "represent" something. I was wondering if you meant that art should depict recognizable objects (which isn't necessarily non-abstract... objects can be recognizable even after abstraction). That would be called "representational."

Because I don't like it otherwise. Just like music "should" be melodious in order for me to appreciate it. It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact concerning my tastes.

I understand. Some people can't be bothered to apply their own imagination. If you can't make out a clearly defined figure, you don't like it.

I didn't say anything was wrong with it. I said I didn't like it. Seriously, guys, take some time to read properly.

One of your reasons why you don't like abstract art was that it is too "make up as go along." I'm asking you now, what does it matter? Of course, I disagree that it is any more "make up as you go along" than representational art is. It isn't just "made up as you go along" just because you don't understand it.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

First, I think you're taking this a bit far. The OP asked if the piece in question was art, not to provide a thesis for why people consider this or that art.

OK but you do realize that the OP title is "what is art?" Also, the OP uses the Pollock example only as a starting point to ask more general questions about what art is, and what criteria society uses to qualify something art. I quote from the OP:

In general, what distinguishes art from non art?

This is a general question that, if it is to be taken seriously, requires objective analysis of the cultural phenomena understood as "art". And for that, our personal tastes and biases are not only irrelevant but an obstacle to forming a serious objective analysis that we can all agree on.

My personal question was designed to understand why people like pieces of art such as this.

Ok, and I answered your question already though I'm not sure you're satisfied with it: The reason people like pieces of art such as this is because different people have different tastes. What we call "art" ranges from an infinite spectrum of possible tastes which can satisfy an infinite variety of people.

Again, I don't remember the topic being about analysing the cultural phenomena. It was a question of opinion right from the start.

I think it's fair to say it was about both. This thread does give leeway for us to present our personal opinions. But the OP did address the universal question os what art is. And that's the question I'm addressing.

Regardless, even if you present your personal opinions but you present them in a way that suggests that your personal opinions and personal tastes are the last call on what art is, then I will engage in a discussion with you. Because I think anyone who claims their personal list of what something needs to be to qualify to be called art, is being intellectually dishonest. Art is been proven to be whatever people want it to be. Which means, art is no different from any meme. It's a made up concept. It's whatever the society in question wants it to be. No one is right and no one has the last call on what it is.

 

[Belz...]

You described the Jackson Pollock as something a three year old could accomplish throwing buckets of paint on canvas and then we're expected to believe you really honestly want to understand?

A slight exaggeration. However, it's important to note that since I can't make heads or tails of the piece, I can't tell if there's any form of competence or talent involved.

Do you understand calculus?

Unfortunately no. Why ?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, essential to the message or the figure. Not, like, essential to life.

How can it be essential to the message if it's abstract ?

I understand. Some people can't be bothered to apply their own imagination.

You'll be hard-pressed to find someone with more imagination than me. But a seemingly-random pattern of curves and colours doesn't exactly get it going for me.

If you can't make out a clearly defined figure, you don't like it.

That seems to be the case. Again, this applies to all forms of art, for me.

One of your reasons why you don't like abstract art was that it is too "make up as go along." I'm asking you now, what does it matter?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I mentioned that as one of the reasons I don't like it.

Of course, I disagree that it is any more "make up as you go along" than representational art is. It isn't just "made up as you go along" just because you don't understand it.

Why do people assume that one follows from the other ?

 

[Belz...]

OK but you do realize that the OP title is "what is art?" Also, the OP uses the Pollock example only as a starting point to ask more general questions about what art is, and what criteria society uses to qualify something art.

True. I don't think I'm qualified to discuss this subject objectively, assuming such a thing is possible. I simply provided my opinion in response to the OP, and attempted to get something going to answer some of my own interrogations.

Ok, and I answered your question already though I'm not sure you're satisfied with it: The reason people like pieces of art such as this is because different people have different tastes.

"Why do you like this particular movie ?" is a question I can definitely answer with something more than "because my tastes are different from yours." I'd think people can usually tell why they like something or not.

I've had at many points in the past the impression that some people appreciating abstract art did so out of elitism rather than actual taste (they like/understand it, unlike the dumb masses, etc.). If someone can actually explain why they like it it would go a long way towards dispelling that impression.

Regardless, even if you present your personal opinions but you present them in a way that suggests that your personal opinions and personal tastes are the last call on what art is, then I will engage in a discussion with you. Because I think anyone who claims their personal list of what something needs to be to qualify to be called art, is being intellectually dishonest. Art is been proven to be whatever people want it to be. Which means, art is no different from any meme. It's a made up concept. It's whatever the society in question wants it to be. No one is right and no one has the last call on what it is.

Two things:

1) For the fourth time, I explicitely answered that this was art, so I'm getting a bit tired of your implication that I said otherwise.

2) If no one is right and no one can claim that something is art and something else isn't, then I submit that, again, objectivity in this matter is impossible.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

"Why do you like this particular movie ?" is a question I can definitely answer with something more than "because my tastes are different from yours." I'd think people can usually tell why they like something or not.

You can elaborate into the details of why you enjoyed a movie, but essentially the truth remains the same: You enjoyed the movie (as opposed to other people who didn't) because different people have different tastes.

I've had at many points in the past the impression that some people appreciating abstract art did so out of elitism rather than actual taste (they like/understand it, unlike the dumb masses, etc.). If someone can actually explain why they like it it would go a long way towards dispelling that impression.

I too get that impression from some people. I too think that there are branches of art and audiences for them that are extremely intellectual and analytical. But I think that we have to respect each person's way of appreciating art. Some people appreciate it more intuitively, others more intellectually and others are more in the middle of these two extremes.

Two things:

1) For the fourth time, I explicitely answered that this was art, so I'm getting a bit tired of your implication that I said otherwise.

No, I know you said it's art. But still, one could claim that there's such thing as an objective "good art" and an objective "bad art" basing their opinion on their personal tastes. And that's erroneous. There is no objective good art nor bad art. It would be as illogical as saying that something is not art, using nothing but our personal tastes.

2) If no one is right and no one can claim that something is art and something else isn't, then I submit that, again, objectivity in this matter is impossible.

Yes, objectivity is impossible because art is a made up thing, in the lines of religion or fashion. But objectivity is not impossible when it comes to defining such phenomena from a third person point of view (Such as the one used to define and study consciousness)

See, I think that the closest thing to an objective definition of art is basically seeing it as that: A social cultural meme that, as any other social cultural meme, has different points of view and thus there is no universal truth. This definition already accepts the premise that each one of us has different points of view, so that is ok. The fact that "no one is right" and that it's an entirely subjective matter doesn't get in the way of objectively defining art because our definition already accepts that premise: Art is a social cultural meme that's entirely subjective and arbitrary, and each individual perceives it and judges it differently.

 

[Belz...]

You can elaborate into the details of why you enjoyed a movie, but essentially the truth remains the same: You enjoyed the movie (as opposed to other people who didn't) because different people have different tastes.

Actually, I enjoyed the movie and you didn't because people have different tastes. The reason why I enjoyed it is NOT because there are different tastes, but because the movie itself corresponds to mine.

I too get that impression from some people. I too think that there are branches of art and audiences for them that are extremely intellectual and analytical. But I think that we have to respect each person's way of appreciating art. Some people appreciate it more intuitively, others more intellectually and others are more in the middle of these two extremes.

Fair enough. I just wish I could "get" abstract art. I just don't.

No, I know you said it's art. But still, one could claim that there's such thing as an objective "good art" and an objective "bad art" basing their opinion on their personal tastes. And that's erroneous. There is no objective good art nor bad art. It would be as illogical as saying that something is not art, using nothing but our personal tastes.

One could, but I didn't, so why mention it ?