What is art?

[Cavemonster]

The critic (or whoever that was bluesjnr was paraphrasing) did not critique the piece on its own merit.

There is no such thing as a piece's "own merit" divorced from the context in which we view it. We simply cannot pretend to view work in a vacuum.

If David Lynch's next movie were 2 hours of puppies playing set to banjo music, it would matter that it was made by David Lynch and what his previous movies are like. That's the context in which we experience things. If you see something in a museum, or in a garbage dump, where you see it matters, especially if it is clearly chosen.

The little description on the wall, the frame, the point in history a piece comes from. Those are all a part of our experience. Every little bit of information that is clear, and even those that require a bit of digging are part of what makes work interesting, part of what makes it mean what it means or feel how it feels. To suggest that there is some ideal purity in ignoring all this context is silly.

Here is a sentence.
"That morning, I finally stopped crying."

Imagine it was written by a concentration camp survivor, or a seven year old from a refugee camp, a seven year old from a wealthy suburb, a teenager.

Context, including the maker of the work, is crucial. Any piece all by itself is simply one piece of a puzzle

 

[Fnord]

3/10, because you might get a few bites.

Mneh ... worth a try ... I still think that what passes for art is largely decadent affectation impose upon an unsuspecting and utterly gullible public.

 

[Fnord]

There is no such thing as a piece's "own merit" divorced from the context in which we view it. We simply cannot pretend to view work in a vacuum... Here is a sentence.
"That morning, I finally stopped crying."

Imagine it was written by a concentration camp survivor, or a seven year old from a refugee camp, a seven year old from a wealthy suburb, a teenager.

Context, including the maker of the work, is crucial. Any piece all by itself is simply one piece of a puzzle

Here is a classified ad:

"For Sale: Baby Shoes. Never worn."​

Taken on its own, isolated on your monitor, it aludes to a very sad and poignant event in someone's life. Taken as a piece of flash fiction by Earnest Hemingway, it takes on an entirely different weight of meaning.​

 

[arthwollipot]

That's skill, not art.

One can be skilled at creating art.

 

[Fnord]

One can be skilled at creating art.

But would it be art ... or artifice?

 

[quadraginta]

There is no such thing as a piece's "own merit" divorced from the context in which we view it. We simply cannot pretend to view work in a vacuum. If David Lynch's next movie were 2 hours of puppies playing set to banjo music, it would matter that it was made by David Lynch and what his previous movies are like. That's the context in which we experience things. If you see something in a museum, or in a garbage dump, where you see it matters, especially if it is clearly chosen.

The little description on the wall, the frame, the point in history a piece comes from. Those are all a part of our experience. Every little bit of information that is clear, and even those that require a bit of digging are part of what makes work interesting, part of what makes it mean what it means or feel how it feels. To suggest that there is some ideal purity in ignoring all this context is silly.

Here is a sentence.
"That morning, I finally stopped crying."

Imagine it was written by a concentration camp survivor, or a seven year old from a refugee camp, a seven year old from a wealthy suburb, a teenager.

Context, including the maker of the work, is crucial. Any piece all by itself is simply one piece of a puzzle

I think that what you describe as needful, the context of a work, is one way of appreciating it. To view a piece in isolation of all these other factors which you feel are essential is another way.

The fact that you insist that your way is the only right way , and that the other is intrinsically flawed and deserving only of dismissal is a reflection of the futility of this sort of discussion.

Many others can argue quite cogently that an art work which is unable to stand on its own merits, without the bolstering effects of provenance or cultural rep. is fundamentally less deserving of respect.

If you encounter a sculpture while walking in a public park, and it captures your eye and makes you pause for a moment to contemplate it, is it less artistic because you know nothing of its maker? Does it become more artistic when you learn that it is by someone famous or infamous? Does it become less artistic if you discover that it was made by the vocational education class of P.S. 237?

If you know nothing of its provenance does it then become worthless?

I'm going to say that either or both are certainly worthy of consideration, but your insistence on exclusivity is not.

 

[rustypouch]

Mneh ... worth a try ... I still think that what passes for art is largely decadent affectation impose upon an unsuspecting and utterly gullible public.

Fair enough. I can see your point.

There is a reason Thomas Kinkade is popular, although I don't understand it.

But seriously, there are times I almost pity people who don't get art. They are missing out on great experiences.

 

[SnnTsd]

One can be skilled at creating art.

"Art" from the latin word, Ars, means, "skilled" or techique, so you are basically right.

It's interesting that many so called indigenous people don't have a word for "art" the way it's used in this thread. What they do, is to label their products as "indigenous art" to make westerns buy those products. Many indigenous people have words for "skills" and "nice" in their language btw.

To me, the word "art" is a cultural word, a part of the newer western history, used to make people buy some specific products, like the word "sale".

Incredible paintings, on par with monet, picasso, whatever, are created with photoshop and drawing boards by skilled crafts(wo)men, in few hours to met the demands of commerical market forces. Most backgrounds, like nature scenes or cities, in hollywood blockbusters are paintings done with classic techniques.

It strikes me how little attention commerical and digital art get from the gallery scene. I'm almost sure it's about money and surival of a increasingly eccentric market.

 

[quadraginta]

"Art" from the latin word, Ars, means, "skilled" or techique, so you are basically right.

It's interesting that many so called indigenous people don't have a word for "art" the way it's used in this thread. What they do, is to label their products as "indigenous art" to make westerns buy those products. Many indigenous people have words for "skills" and "nice" in their language btw.

To me, the word "art" is a cultural word, a part of the newer western history, used to make people buy some specific products, like the word "sale".

Incredible paintings, on par with monet, picasso, whatever, are created with photoshop and drawing boards by skilled crafts(wo)men, in few hours to met the demands of commerical market forces. Most backgrounds, like nature scenes or cities, in hollywood blockbusters are paintings done with classic techniques.

It strikes me how little attention commerical and digital art get from the gallery scene. I'm almost sure it's about money and surival of a increasingly eccentric market.

Didn't Warhol start out as a commercial artist in the advertising and promotion industry?

Not that it's particularly relevant to anything, although I think you can detect some evidence of those influences.

 

[Fnord]

There is a reason Thomas Kinkade is popular, although I don't understand it.

IMO, his art seems to appeal to a romanticized sense of nostalgia in his fans. It's like a Currier & Ives repro with more vibrant colors.

But seriously, there are times I almost pity people who don't get art. They are missing out on great experiences.

I pity those who feel that they must explain their art in order for anyone to "get it". IMO, if art has to be explained, then it is either artifice or mere childish scribblings.

 

[jiggeryqua]

IMO, if art has to be explained, then it is either artifice or mere childish scribblings.

Could you explain quantam mechanics to me? On second thoughts, don't bother...it's either artifice or mere childish scribblings...

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I pity those who feel that they must explain their art in order for anyone to "get it". IMO, if art has to be explained, then it is either artifice or mere childish scribblings.

I hadn't realized that. Thank you for explaining it to me.

 

[Fnord]

Could you explain quantam mechanics to me? On second thoughts, don't bother...it's either artifice or mere childish scribblings...

I hadn't realized that. Thank you for explaining it to me.

It may be safe to assume that you both consider yourselves "artists" -- albeit frustrated ones.

Art is self-expression, boys, and is therefore subjective. Science is knowledge, and is therefore objective. Art is based upon impressions, while science is based upon facts. Science can explain artistic principles, yet art can only express how science is perceived by the artist.

Most of what passes for art -- especially "flash" or performance art -- is both pretentious and highly esoteric. In other words, completely out of touch with anything other than the subjective inner world of the so-called 'artist'.

And don't get me started on rambling emo freeverse.

 

[roger]

This is going to sound condescending and snide; I'm not sure there is help for that.

Y'all are at nearly a century behind. The New Criticism dealt with all these issues back in the 20s.

This is sort of like reading a physics thread where no one refers to relativity, QM, and the like. Lots of flailing around without much progress. I'm guessing you wouldn't start opining strenuously in a physics thread without the education, why do so with art?

Really, go read Bishadi (sp?) say, dismissing 20th century physics without any education. It's embarrassing.

We forget how much education we absorb about the objects around us, and mistake that knowledge for "obvious". It's obvious X is art. It's obvious that you X is polite, Y is rude. Etc. No, it's learned.

Our lives are filled with representational art, hence, we find it fairly straightforward to evaluate. I find average taste is quite ... average. Tom Clancy outsells John Updike by tons. People will argue that it is a matter of taste. It is, to an extent. However, if you look at any given issue, such as characterizations, you will find cardboard cutouts in Clancy, and nuanced, complicated characters in Updike that teach you something about yourself. (And, of course, if you are looking for a ripping read, Clancy outshines)*

And that is the reason we study English and American Literature in High School. It's not obvious. The authors spent their lives learning their trade - all of the details of the works aren't just going to be obvious to us because we read at a six grade level. "War and Peace" is a long boring story about a war. That's the obvious, 6th grade summary. There's a bit more in the book than that. I've been rereading Wallace Stevens, relistening and playing Bach for my whole life, and I still learn each time, and despair at my continuing ignorance. Back in VA my local grocery played classical outside (probably to keep away teens). I was floating along, listening to some sublime Bach, when I heard a teen sitting on a bench opine to his friend about the "elevator music". It was obvious to them, I guess.

Part of creating new forms is having to explain it. Not always, of course - the form can be clear, but the creation inspired. But on the whole, yes, the art you consider great was once not so great because it wasn't obvious.

Monet, an artist everyone on JREF falls over themselves admiring, was panned during the first Impressionist art show in 1874 (the term actually came from the painting Monet exhibited in the show: Impressionism, Sunrise.

Go google Salon des Refuses - the splinter group of artists that broke away from the Paris Salon. Manet, Whistler, Courbet, Monet, all "obviously" inferior or trash to the art world at the time.

None of that is an argument that all works are equal, or whatever. There was some real crap at the Salon des Refuses, for example. But, it takes time for new things to become known, accepted, discarded, what have you. The artists listed above broke all kinds of known "rules" of art and palette. I mean, look at that clumsy, crude, broad brush work of Monet!!! Everyone knows that to be true art your brushstokes must be tiny and nearly invisible. It's obvious! What a laughing stock that Monet is, to try to pass off that crude technique as art. My 8yo child already has better brush technique.

Or so the arguments went at the time.


*edit: the point being, you can value one of the writers over the other, and who could argue with you? But if you are going to suggest that Clancy turns a phrase better than Shakespeare, that his characters are more nuanced than Henry James', or whatever, you have a real argument ahead of you, and I suggest that you are going to lose.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Rom Tomkins , there is a big difference I think, is that while the classic fan (as I am) may not *LIKE* other music current, he can easily recognize that it is music (as opposed to random noise). There is about 1 or 2 composer I can remember where the difference between noise and music is blurry but the crushing majority is recognizable as music. I would not classfiy death punk metal (or techno) as "not music" and the crushing majority of the folk would not either, although they will readily they don't like it.

Not the same with the trash which pass as art. Like that painting above.

Put it on the street, without explanation and price tag, and it will be removed every tuesday and thursday of the week, by the garbage collection man.

And that is IMHO the main difference. If your average man/woman lead to be led by the nose to brainwashed "this IS art!", and they look at it very dubiously , then clearly, something is very wrong with either the majority of the folk, *OR* a few folk are trying to define as art , whatever pass through their mind and pretend it woke up their eomotion.

Sorry, but your argument is basically "I personally don't think punk/rock is not music but on the other hand, that piece of trash painting is not art" as if that was a general, universal, objective statement that everybody else agreed with. But no, that's your personal opinion. Unlike you, there are many people who do consider punk rock to be not music. And unlike you, there are many people who do consider the painting that you consider trash, to be art.

So my argument still applies: Just because you don't agree that some forms of expression are not art, doesn't mean it isn't art to a whole lot of other people. Any creation that has its audience, enters the taxonomy of Art. There will always be groups of people who do not like certain types of creations that other groups of people do acknowledge as art. And that's ok, because that's the way it is. Actually, it's the only way it can be. There will be no single form of art that absolutely every single human on the planet appreciates as art.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
That's skill, not art.

One can be skilled at creating art.

You're kidding, right? I mean, can you not tell from my post I never argued that one cannot be skilled at creating art? What I said is that Skill is one thing and Art is another.
Come on, Arthie... this kind of non-sequitur is so unlike you

"Art" from the latin word, Ars, means, "skilled" or techique, so you are basically right.

And many words have their origin in some other word, sometimes because that's how they started. But later they evolved into something else. So Art is not a synonymous of Skill and effectively you don't see people using them interchangeably ("You got good arts with that hammer, kid"... "That picture is a piece of skill"). It's pretty well understood that they are two different words, that each one means something different and that "skill" is relative when making art. Many people we consider artists had very poor skills. Many were self taught, never attended an academy and even made many "mistakes" (which sometimes evolved into a new "school", and yes, a new "skill")... yet they had an original tone, a quality, a style, which is what made them appeal to the audience they had.

 

[jiggeryqua]

It may be safe to assume that you both consider yourselves "artists" -- albeit frustrated ones.

Art is self-expression, boys, and is therefore subjective. Science is knowledge, and is therefore objective. Art is based upon impressions, while science is based upon facts. Science can explain artistic principles, yet art can only express how science is perceived by the artist.

Most of what passes for art -- especially "flash" or performance art -- is both pretentious and highly esoteric. In other words, completely out of touch with anything other than the subjective inner world of the so-called 'artist'.

And don't get me started on rambling emo freeverse.

Your use of the word 'boys' undermines anything you have to say, Fnord - not that anything you're saying in this post has a foundation anyway, but if you feel the need to attack us by belittling us then you probably have no argument anyway.

Let's see...nope, no argument. Just that tired old saw that 'art is not science'. In that, of course, you are correct - it isn't. If you are happier with simple objective facts than with areas of subjectivity, well, that's a subjective thing in itself. Maybe you could explore your uneasy attitude to your own subjectivity in a different thread.

Science cannot explain artistic principles, by the way. Do you not suppose it would have, by now, if it could? Do you not suppose you would have, by now, if it could? Science can describe perspective and pigments and pattern recognition, but it cannot answer 'what is art?'

Life is science and art. Not all science is great science, not all art is great art. The spinning top I played with as a child was science, the fingerpainting I brought home from school was art.

Yes, much art (of any form) is 'pretentious'. That you see pretention as wholly negative is, by the by, a subjective opinion (though I'd agree with you). That you see 'esoteric' in the same way is a little more disturbing. Quantum mechanics is esoteric (and a lot of people who refer to it are merely pretentious...). How is your inner world, by the way? That you are apparantly completely out of touch with it worries me, for your sake. That you despise anyone who is in touch with theirs worries me for my sake.

(Adding 'so-called' before a word doesn't actually alter it, by the way. It's just another of those 'tells', like your use of 'boys', that shows you have no real argument, just a subjective, pretentious, inner distaste for something esoteric that you don't understand.)

And for the record, it's rarely safe to assume, but at least you hedge your bets with every hedge you can lay your hands on. Other people think I'm an artist - I've always been slightly uncomfortable with the word, not least because it appears to be taken as permission for ignorant opinions like yours. Other people think I'm an artist when they see my work - other artists think I'm an artist when they see my work. Some people buy my work, but that's a different matter, as explained elsewhere in this thread and all the others like it. I don't think I'm particularly frustrated - any more than any given scientist is a mad boffin tinkering with things he doesn't understand. Ah...there's another difference between science and art. With art, it's ok to tinker with things you don't understand...you should try it, Fnord.

 

[quadraginta]

It may be safe to assume that you both consider yourselves "artists" -- albeit frustrated ones.

I can't imagine what I might have said to give you that impression.

If anything I would be more apt to consider myself a builder, since I have spent nearly all my adult life in the construction industry, and also a craftsman, since much of that time was spent with tools in hand.

Art is self-expression, boys, and is therefore subjective. Science is knowledge, and is therefore objective. Art is based upon impressions, while science is based upon facts. Science can explain artistic principles, yet art can only express how science is perceived by the artist.

Most of what passes for art -- especially "flash" or performance art -- is both pretentious and highly esoteric. In other words, completely out of touch with anything other than the subjective inner world of the so-called 'artist'.

And don't get me started on rambling emo freeverse.

You're already well into the rambling, so an aimless segue into some other ramble would not be much of a diversion. Carry on.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Science cannot explain artistic principles, by the way.

Sorry but that it can do.

 

[jiggeryqua]

If those 90 minutes of video do, in fact, explain artistic principles, why didn't you post it sooner? I mean not just in this thread but in all those other 'art isn't science' threads?

I don't want to get mired in semantics - there are things in and of art that science can explain, I said so in the post you plucked a part from...perspective, pigment and pattern recognition, for example. But how does science 'answer' (from the same post, and from the title of this thread) "What is art?".

Could you manage an answer in words, rather than imagining I'll watch a 90 min lecture? I wouldn't mind if you linked to words it might take me 90 mins to read, but I admit I'm hoping for something fairly succinct.