What is art?

[jiggeryqua]

I'm still waiting for a REAL artist to post.

I think they're all in Scotland, Fnord.

 

[arthwollipot]

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

No, I actually disagree that "Skill" is one thing and "Art" is another. I think they're two sides of the same coin.

Give me some paint and a canvas, and I'll create some art for you. It won't be very good art, because I'm not very skilled at creating it. If, however, I practice every day, over time I will get better and better at it, up to a limit reflecting the amount of effort I want to put into it. You can't really have good art without skill.

 

[BillyJoe]

That's skill, not art.

I'm saying you need the skill to be an Artist.
I've used a capital A here for a reason. I can produce mathematics: 1+1=2, but I would not call myself a Mathematician.

The comparison is not valid. They are two different things. The question of whether or not you need specific and well developed skills to be an artist has been posed and it's one of major controversy.

Not for an artist (which even I can claim to be) but definitely for an Artist (which I definitiely cannot claim to be).

 

[BillyJoe]

...It has been roughly estimated that you have to spend about 10,000 hours practising and and learning under the guidance of experts to become proficient in any field. That applies to sport, it applies to science, and it sure as hell should apply to art.

One word: Mozart.

Leopold Mozart was deputy in charge of the orchestra of the archbishop of Salzberg and an experienced teacher. So Mozart had a teacher on tap in his own home in the figure of his own father. And he started composing at the age of five, so I hazard to guess that he would have passed the 10000 hour test by the time he was fifteen.

 

[BillyJoe]

Furthermore, it is one thing to become an expert at *doing* art. Now how many domain will people pretend that you need 10000 hours to recognize whether this is a true/a fake/or a trash object ?

I didn't make that claim.

ETA: 10000 hours, 150 hours per month, that is about 66 month or at least 6 years continuously. Are you pretending we all the general public 6 years of art study to recognize those stuff as art ?

I didn't make that claim.
An artist requires 10000 hours of training to become an Artist. That was the claim (and not actually made by me). At about 3 hours per day, that would work out to about ten years. That sounds pretty right to me.

 

[BillyJoe]

Excellent point. And in many cases I would think an experienced critic would be able to tell the differences between pieces produced by a first year art student, an artist with 10 years experience and a novice. Especially with paintings.

Yes, the difference between an artist and an Artist.

"Most of all, it is rubbish because you, my dear, are not an artist."
The critic did not critique the piece on its own merit. (S)he had to know who did the piece and then determine if its art. If a piece of garbage is put on a pedestal, if it is placed there by an artist, it could be art. If it is put there by a layperson, it is definitely not art. That's what I find ridiculous.

I guess we interpretated those words differently.
The critic initially gave three reasons for objecting to "the hanky on a pedestal" being art. He then gave his forth and final reason. I took this to be a valid dismissal of the claim (after having given those intiial three reasons). Much like you might give a few brief explanations to one of those cranks who object to Einsten's theory of Relativity of why their claims are rubbish before finally dismissing him with:
"But most of all, it is rubbish because you, sir, are not a Mathematician."

I didn't mean to imply any temporal restrictions to finding something 'art' or not. I meant that when one looks at a piece, one should make judgment based on the piece itself, not other factors.

Mostly that is probably the case. However there are genres in art which often follow logically from their predecessors. If often takes a particularly talented artist to discover that "next step" and popularise it. That consideration can be just as important as the piece itself. The original from which all others followed.

I don't see the painting having what I call a 'pattern'. I get the point (I think) about him being precise and meticulous when producing a piece that appears random, but I don't see that as a 'pattern'.

Remember that this was my objection to those cynics who say "I could have done that", or "My five year old could have done that" implying that Pollock's painting is nothing more than random paint drippings.
Something that is random cannot, by defintion, have pattern. Something that is not random must, by definition, have pattern. (There can, of course, be random elements within a pattern).

 

[BillyJoe]

You cannot become a quantum physicist by attending the University of Google in your spare time. You must do the hard yards. You may be born with a talent for sport but, if you don't practice under the guidance of a trained coach for hours every day, you will never reach your potential. Why should art be any different?

This idea is wrong because by extension, when someone who's not an accomplished track athlete is moving quickly under their own locomotion, that could not be called "running", or when someone is whistling to themselves or singing in a non-professional choir, that could not be "performing music". Or a baby below the age of 13 months would not be "breathing". All of which are clearly absurd.

Being able to run does not make me an Athlete.
Being able to add does not make me a Mathematician.
Being able to sing does not make me a Singer.
Being able to draw does not make me an Artist.

With some inborn talent developed through 10000 hours of practice under expert teachers I might just become any one of these.

 

[Bikewer]

"Pattern" is rather tricky, as we know. We humans have a tendency to see pattern in randomness. Cloud images are a good example.
Years ago, Johnny Carson had a convict/artist on his show. The guy had taken up painting "in the joint" and had become quite successful.
He related that he had to keep his canvasses in a barn on the prison grounds, and when he went out to get one he found it had been extensively fouled by pigeon droppings.
So... He put it in his next exhibition, and it sold for a good price. "Mixed medium on canvas".
Carried to the ultimate, we might talk about certain minimalist painters who would, for instance, cover a canvas with red paint and let it go at that, making references to the viewer "projecting his own image onto the canvas" or "It's not about the image, it's about the surface." This sounds pretty pretentious to me, almost double-speak.
If I want to project my own images, I can look at clouds...

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I apologize if my phrasing has confused you. I do not mean to say that all patrons of artwork must know everything about it including artist and intent.

If that isn't what you meant to say then you probably shouldn't have said it so specifically and unequivocally. You're right. That is confusing.

<snip>

From what I can see, I'd consider it to be in the realm of landscape architecture/ design. Which fits well under the broader umbrella of "art" but not usually under the more specific "fine arts" that I believe we're discussing in this thread. That distinction is normally reserved for work that, among other things, invites a viewer to stop and appreciate it and actively digest it.

Nice technique. When you get boxed into a corner of your own making just redefine your terms to exclude the inconvenient stuff.

Here's Jun Kaneko^WP from Wiki

Jun Kaneko is a Japanese ceramic artist living in Omaha, Nebraska, in the United States. In 1942 he was born in Nagoya, Japan, where he studied painting during his high school years. He came to the United States in 1963 to continue those studies at Chouinard Institute of Art when his focus was drawn to sculptural ceramics through his introduction to Fred Marer. He studied with Peter Voulkos, Paul Soldner, and Jerry Rothman in California during the time now defined as the contemporary ceramics movement. The following decade, Kaneko taught at various U.S. art schools, including Scripps College, Cranbrook Academy of Art and Rhode Island School of Design.

...

His work is included in more than forty museum collections including the Honolulu Academy of Arts, the Museum of Nebraska Art, Scripps College, and the Smithsonian American Art Museum. His most recent collected works is Water Plaza at Bartle Hall in Kansas City, Missouri. [1] He has realized over twenty-five public art commissions around the world. He has been honored with national, state and organization fellowships and an honorary doctorate from the Royal College of Art in London.

He considers himself an artist. Prestigious schools hire him to teach art. His work is shown in (and outside of) art museums all over the world.

The art council of NCSU hired him, as an artist, to create a work of "public art" for their building.

You seem to be suggesting that the "umbrella of art" is divided into little corrals, and one of them includes "fine", but others don't. Having these credentials to peruse, explain why in your opinion Mr. Kaneko is to be excluded from the "fine" one.

Having spoken with him, personally, and with that art council more generally I know that he and they quite explicitly meant for "a viewer to stop and appreciate it and actively digest it." Not to mention that the entire five story facade of that lab building was also quite explicitly intended by its architect to act as a "frame" of sorts for the work to be viewed through. Just because it's spread across the ground instead of hanging on a wall doesn't change that. Think of it as a honking big mural laying on the floor if that helps. It even has a name, "Liquid Order".

All of this leaves aside the interesting conceit that "landscape architecture" is somehow 'not-art'. Whether or not this piece fits into the purview of "landscape architecture" or "art" (I would be inclined to say, "Yes, both.") it certainly fits into the OP, which asked the question,

"In general, what distinguishes art from non art?"

​

At what point does a well designed and appointed garden cross the threshold from horticulture to "art"? There are entire design schools which would take umbrage at your suggestion that they somehow cannot. When is an outdoor sculpture "art", and when is it not? When it is too big? When it doesn't have a plaque and the artist's name beside it? When is it art, and when is it not?

That is essentially what we are discussing here. Stuff hanging on a wall in a museum is just an exemplar of that issue, not an exclusive condition.

This piece, from the very little I know, does not seem to do that, and I'd wager that the majority who experience it regard it as decoration rather than a fine art piece. But, again, this is all in the realm of describing the taste of soup from a photo.

This made me smile a bit. I'd wager that the same can be said of just about any work of "art", whether it's hanging in a frame in The Louvre or from a magnet on a refrigerator door. This isn't an aspersion on "art", but rather a more practical and honest assessment of "the majority". This aspect of art appreciation has already been touched on in this thread, from many different directions.

I have no idea if more or even a larger percentage of people contemplate the 'artiness' of a picture in a gallery than do those walking across Kaneko's brick plaza, but I'd be willing to wager that some of those pedestrians do, and I know that is all that he wanted or expected. As an artist. It is not clear to me that any artist, in any medium, can expect more than that.

Your constant repetition of claims of not being able to to properly experience this piece, and thus cannot comment on it because of the absence of context is an interesting inversion of special pleading. As well as a duck and weave. I don't expect you to evaluate the worth of this piece as "art" and give me your opinion of it on a scale of one to ten, I expect you to understand that this is offered as an example of the ways that the particular contexts which you claimed were so critical and essential may perhaps not always be, and that, yes, a work of art can indeed be taken on its "own merit". Even intended by the artist for just that purpose.

From the tenor of your responses it appears that you have more invested in winning the argument that exploring the answer, so I'll just stop now.

 

[SumDood]

Yes, the difference between an artist and an Artist.

I guess we interpretated those words differently.
The critic initially gave three reasons for objecting to "the hanky on a pedestal" being art. He then gave his forth and final reason. I took this to be a valid dismissal of the claim (after having given those intiial three reasons). Much like you might give a few brief explanations to one of those cranks who object to Einsten's theory of Relativity of why their claims are rubbish before finally dismissing him with:
"But most of all, it is rubbish because you, sir, are not a Mathematician."

I saw the emphasis of the last statement on the phrase 'Most of all'. As in, "the number one reason its not art is because you are not an artist."

Remember that this was my objection to those cynics who say "I could have done that", or "My five year old could have done that" implying that Pollock's painting is nothing more than random paint drippings.
Something that is random cannot, by defintion, have pattern. Something that is not random must, by definition, have pattern. (There can, of course, be random elements within a pattern).

That stretches my definition of 'pattern' just a tad, but I agree with your explanation.

 

[Cavemonster]

Quad,
Let us start over.

There is absolutely no need for this to be a heated accusatory discussion. My feeling is that I have still failed to represent my view to you, since what you represent as my view is not what I believe and not what I am trying to say.

Here is my point.
Every piece of art has a lot of information surrounding it that viewers take in that informs how they view that piece. There is no such thing as a piece without this information. If you take a piece off a gallery wall and lean it against a dumpster, you are adding new context, not removing it from any context.

This information includes everything an audience may know. The place and manner in which it is shown, (including the space and the part of the world). The time in history we are viewing it. Any background information on the piece that is available to us, including it's historical significance, and the reputation and history of the maker.

Now obviously, different audience members will know more or less of this information, but there is generally a baseline that would allow them to enjoy it. 18th century artgoers would not have the context to enjoy Monet's later work. They would view it in the context of their times which would consider it sloppy weird crap.

I am not saying that every audience member must consume every piece of information to "truly appreciate" a piece. Rather, that to appreciate a piece, most audience members are absorbing a large amount of information that they are not actively aware of.

 

[quadraginta]

No, I actually disagree that "Skill" is one thing and "Art" is another. I think they're two sides of the same coin.

Give me some paint and a canvas, and I'll create some art for you. It won't be very good art, because I'm not very skilled at creating it. If, however, I practice every day, over time I will get better and better at it, up to a limit reflecting the amount of effort I want to put into it. You can't really have good art without skill.

I agree with this, at least in large part, although I think that the phenomena of "prodigy" and "natural" might deserve further exploration, but I have a slightly different take I'd like to add.

There can be no question that "practice makes perfect" up to a certain point, but that point is a different one for everybody. No amount of practice will make a so-so guitar player into a David Gilmour or a Stevie Ray Vaughn. There is unquestionably some other element involved.

I came at this from a personal contemplation of the divide between "craftsman" and "artist". I consider myself to be a skilled and meticulous craftsman in some regards and in several trades. And yes, years of training and practice contributed hugely to that, as did a certain amount of latent aptitude. In all modesty I am better at some things than many other people can ever hope to be, regardless of how much they practice. This is only human. All of those other people are likely better at something else than I can hope to be. Each of us have our own particular talents.

But I have never considered myself to be an artist. Just a craftsman, and I have come to the conclusion that the line separating the two is a psychological one.

I can exercise my craft, and at the end of the day I can put down my tools and go to the pub to talk about politics and sports. I could retire from it without stress or discomfort, and have, from more than one. I think that artists have difficulty with that. They have a compulsion to express themselves in their chosen media, and it cannot be suppressed. Postponed perhaps, but only with difficulty, and the discomfort from that is tangible to them.

The really great writers seem to have to write, whether anyone reads them or not. The great painters are going to create images even in the absence of any viewers. Their art isn't as much an effort for them to produce as it is to stifle. Being able to make a living by means of their art is a blessing and a boon, but they're going to do it, regardless, and if they have to flip burgers to keep a roof over their heads then they will. If a craftsman can't make a living in his chosen craft he'll go learn another one.

I haven't resolved this point of view perfectly, and I have no doubt that there is much I am missing, but it has seemed a promising avenue of approach to me. Keeping in mind that I am not suggesting a bright, shiny line between the two, but rather just a way to grasp a distinction of what is probably more properly two directions on a spectrum.

Maybe a dichotomy isn't even appropriate to begin with. They often aren't.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Much like you might give a few brief explanations to one of those cranks who object to Einsten's theory of Relativity of why their claims are rubbish before finally dismissing him with:
"But most of all, it is rubbish because you, sir, are not a Mathematician."

This doesn't work in math or physics. Claims can be evaluated on their own merits, not based solely on the knowledge of the claims' author.
If it's impossible to tell how good a piece of art is until you know the identity of an artist, then your evaluation criteria are wrong.
An objective attribution of value has to allow for the existence of prodigies, and finding value outside of the bounds of the formal institutions the profession encompasses.
Certainly today's art community is collectively attributing objective value to something that has no objective value, only subjective value. That's why it's a joke.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I agree with this, at least in large part, although I think that the phenomena of "prodigy" and "natural" might deserve further exploration, but I have a slightly different take I'd like to add.

There can be no question that "practice makes perfect" up to a certain point, but that point is a different one for everybody. No amount of practice will make a so-so guitar player into a David Gilmour or a Stevie Ray Vaughn. There is unquestionably some other element involved.

I came at this from a personal contemplation of the divide between "craftsman" and "artist". I consider myself to be a skilled and meticulous craftsman in some regards and in several trades. And yes, years of training and practice contributed hugely to that, as did a certain amount of latent aptitude. In all modesty I am better at some things than many other people can ever hope to be, regardless of how much they practice. This is only human. All of those other people are likely better at something else than I can hope to be. Each of us have our own particular talents.

But I have never considered myself to be an artist. Just a craftsman, and I have come to the conclusion that the line separating the two is a psychological one.

I can exercise my craft, and at the end of the day I can put down my tools and go to the pub to talk about politics and sports. I could retire from it without stress or discomfort, and have, from more than one. I think that artists have difficulty with that. They have a compulsion to express themselves in their chosen media, and it cannot be suppressed. Postponed perhaps, but only with difficulty, and the discomfort from that is tangible to them.

The really great writers seem to have to write, whether anyone reads them or not. The great painters are going to create images even in the absence of any viewers. Their art isn't as much an effort for them to produce as it is to stifle. Being able to make a living by means of their art is a blessing and a boon, but they're going to do it, regardless, and if they have to flip burgers to keep a roof over their heads then they will. If a craftsman can't make a living in his chosen craft he'll go learn another one.

I haven't resolved this point of view perfectly, and I have no doubt that there is much I am missing, but it has seemed a promising avenue of approach to me. Keeping in mind that I am not suggesting a bright, shiny line between the two, but rather just a way to grasp a distinction of what is probably more properly two directions on a spectrum.

Maybe a dichotomy isn't even appropriate to begin with. They often aren't.

The compulsion to create is definitely a powerful force. I hadn't really considered that in my definition of what constitutes art. I don't think it's a prerequisite, but it's definitely an element in some aspects. I've been drawing since I could hold a crayon in my hand, and I've always had a natural talent for it as well as a compulsion to do it. Most of my 20s I wasted in this regard, expecting things to improve on their own over time, but it took a little stagnation to make me realize I had to spend hours a day to hone and develop the muscle. While a lot of drawing for instance does come from natural talent, I've seen people I'd consider hopeless strive at learning and end up doing things I would never believe in 5-10 years. Many people don't realize how much of drawing is really just memorizing thousands of logical sequences for how forms interact with each other and how to depict these forms.

 

[daenku32]

I don't mind an empty sheet of canvas to be a 'work of art'. What I can't see is it being sold for millions of dollars simple because of who conceived of it.

We have an artist daughter ourselves, and what she does is certainly art. What I'm waiting for are those multi-million dollar checks.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I don't believe art is worth that much money unless the materials required to create it justify it, like a motion picture or video game. It's crossed the line into pretentiousness for the most part I'd say, unless there's some historical value.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

'Outsider art'

Next.

ETA It occurs to me that at some point outsider art is 'presented' as art (though it wasn't made as 'art').

Exactly my point. What is going on with art is that the process of viewing it as such makes it so. It is a thing that humans do, not something that exists independantly.

This is by no means a new idea. Now, you can posit all sorts of other definitions, but those generally have the problem of either excluding large parts of art history, and/or including neatly mowed lawns.

But that creates a tautology: 'art is...art'. No sixpence for that.

Of course you can get an absurd statement out of it by removing the operative word.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Here is my point.
Every piece of art has a lot of information surrounding it that viewers take in that informs how they view that piece. There is no such thing as a piece without this information. If you take a piece off a gallery wall and lean it against a dumpster, you are adding new context, not removing it from any context.

This information includes everything an audience may know. The place and manner in which it is shown, (including the space and the part of the world). The time in history we are viewing it. Any background information on the piece that is available to us, including it's historical significance, and the reputation and history of the maker.

Now obviously, different audience members will know more or less of this information, but there is generally a baseline that would allow them to enjoy it. 18th century artgoers would not have the context to enjoy Monet's later work. They would view it in the context of their times which would consider it sloppy weird crap.

I am not saying that every audience member must consume every piece of information to "truly appreciate" a piece. Rather, that to appreciate a piece, most audience members are absorbing a large amount of information that they are not actively aware of.

If your point is simply that all art is viewed within some sort of context then I have no issue with that. I already said I didn't. It would be quite impossible for me to, since the statement is a truism. Of course all art is viewed within some sort of context. This is the fundamental meaning of the word "context" in this usage.

You went farther than that. You went on to pick out certain elements of context which you suggested were necessary and essential to proper appreciation. A required minimum, so to speak. This is where we parted ways.

You singled out those elements specifically to make a distinction between one sort of viewing and viewing an artwork on its "own merits", which you claimed to be impossible.

If you are now simply saying that there is always a context of some sort, and nothing more, then we can have no disagreement. It's a somewhat meaningless statement, though.

Much context through which art is viewed is carried around within the viewer. This is why some people like some things and others don't. If there is indeed a right and proper subset of context in which any work should be viewed then only the artist could make that determination, and it is doubtful that there is any pre-defined subset which would find universal agreement.

If your assertion that "There is no such thing as a piece's "own merit" divorced from the context in which we view it." was solely in reference to a truism about context of some sort existing everywhere it would have been better had you not continued by choosing those elements of context which you deemed critical. This would not have prompted any response by me.

However, in that same post you chose to single out "the maker of the work" as one of those "crucial" elements. Later you went on to include name plaques and museum settings. I offered an example of an established and acclaimed artist who routinely created and displayed his work in full knowledge that only a tiny fraction of those who viewed it would have any clue who he was or what prompted his art. You have since continued to tell me I didn't understand you.

I really am not certain if I do yet. What you have been saying seems to be something of a moving target.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

This doesn't work in math or physics. Claims can be evaluated on their own merits, not based solely on the knowledge of the claims' author.

Yes, if you happen to understand the symbolic representation that the author is using, or the author starts from first principles every time. Which would be impractical.

If it's impossible to tell how good a piece of art is until you know the identity of an artist, then your evaluation criteria are wrong.

There's no denying that knowing the cultural framework of the piece is important. The identity of the author is a part of that, for better or worse.

An objective attribution of value has to allow for the existence of prodigies, and finding value outside of the bounds of the formal institutions the profession encompasses.
Certainly today's art community is collectively attributing objective value to something that has no objective value, only subjective value. That's why it's a joke.

Agreed, there can be no objective attribution of value. The quality of an art work depends entirely on the values individuals impose on it, and those are necessarily subjective.

What I'm not seeing is where the art community is saying this is not so.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

The compulsion to create is definitely a powerful force. I hadn't really considered that in my definition of what constitutes art. I don't think it's a prerequisite, but it's definitely an element in some aspects. I've been drawing since I could hold a crayon in my hand, and I've always had a natural talent for it as well as a compulsion to do it. Most of my 20s I wasted in this regard, expecting things to improve on their own over time, but it took a little stagnation to make me realize I had to spend hours a day to hone and develop the muscle. While a lot of drawing for instance does come from natural talent, I've seen people I'd consider hopeless strive at learning and end up doing things I would never believe in 5-10 years. Many people don't realize how much of drawing is really just memorizing thousands of logical sequences for how forms interact with each other and how to depict these forms.

Hey, do you know the famous "Journey of an absolute rookie" thread on conceptart.org forums? Have a look at page one, where the guy is ust starting out. Then look at e.g. page 50 to see what he's doing with still life three years later.

Shows how far you can go with determination.