What is art?

[Belz...]

Then it wasn't random - as you implied of the Pollock you were allegedly mimicking.
So, fail.

Throwing "fail" around doesn't make one look smart, but rather puerile.

The colours I used were not random. They were part of a palette. But the patterns are pretty random as I just wiggled my computer's mouse around.

 

[Belz...]

Well, I'll let Ron answer that one since he's already crtiicised me for the same error.
(edit: Oops, I see he already has)

How is it an error since we all agree that it's right ?

 

[Cavemonster]

Yeah. Ugly art.

Considering that it looks like a 3 year-old threw a bunch of paint buckets on a canvas, I'm not sure how you can feel anything off it.

How about this:

I made that with MSPaint in about 2 minutes. Do you feel anything off it ?

Generally, when people are vexed by Pollock's work and interested enough to spend time talking or posting about it, I suggest what I did in this older post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4271873#post4271873


Some foods are hard to appreciate if they aren't cooked right, bought at the time of year when they're freshest, or paired with the perfect beverage. Some music is hard to get until you know what the lyrics are about, or listen to it in the right mood.

 

[KingMerv00]

What is "What is art"?

A debate in semantics.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

!! NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, you are. Southwind made the exact same argument, which basically goes like this: "I don't like this art, therefore it is not art per se"

Southwind doesn't like the idea of porn being art, therefore porn is not art per se.

You don't like Pollock, therefore his art is not art per se.
And before you jump out and say you never claimed this, here it is in your own words:

You can feel strongly for pretty much anything. But a bunch of random lines doesn't communicate much emotion, per se.

Therefore my comment couldn't possibly be a statement of fact.

So you admit your personal opinion about some works of art, is not a universal fact?

I interpret it as bad art, actually.

Yes, you do.
Other people don't.

What conclusion do you draw out of this?

Quote:
Your personal feelings about a work of art are not more "valid" or "objective" than anyone else's.

I believe I just said this. Perhaps you simply misunderstood my original post entirely.

Perhaps I did. Again, if you do accept the fact that your personal opinion on some works of art does not speak for everyone else, then I think we're done here, as that was what I have been arguing with you.

My interpretation is that it's bad. And my opinion is that it's quite inept, as my similar-but-not-quite-the-same picture illustrates.

Your not-quite-but-similar picture only illustrates your personal opinion and nothing else. Some people will agree with you, others won't and will still prefer Pollock's "random" lines rather than yours and you will have "proven" nothing to them with your comparison.

No sure I agree here, however. I find it very difficult to understand how random lines which do not represent any real object can carry any emotional meaning.

You find it very difficult to understand, Belz. You. I wonder if by now you realize the point I'm making or if it's just random bolding of words to your eyes.

Quote:
See the parts I bolded?

Since I typed them myself, your "oh gee, look what I found hidden in your sentence" is a bit silly.

You're making yourself look even sillier by replying with this childish rhetoric type of response. Of course you can see the parts I bolded (duh!) The question is, do you know why I bolded them? Do you understand the point I have continuously made at you?

Since you chopped the important part out, and only replied to the "see the parts I bolded?" part (which is just silly and immature), I will review it for you once again:

Just because some works of art don't move you, doesn't make your assertion valid that such works have no intrinsic emotional value, which is a general, broad statement meant to include everyone else. This is what I'm arguing with you.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

That's why I hate abstract art. It means nothing except what you make up as you go along. In my opinion, art should represent something.

Well, I'll let Ron answer that one since he's already crtiicised me for the same error.
(edit: Oops, I see he already has)

How is it an error since we all agree that it's right ?

Who is this "we all", Belz? You do realize a lot of people do like abstract art, don't you?

You really need to review this whole "speaking in the name of everyone else" fallacy you're making. It's making you look very silly.

 

[BillyJoe]

Throwing "fail" around doesn't make one look smart, but rather puerile.

Except that I was not throwing it around. That was the final summarising word after showing you how your attempt at mimicking a Pollock indeed failed.

...the patterns are pretty random as I just wiggled my computer's mouse around.

The patterns are pretty random?
Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Either you created a pattern or you just wiggled randomly. My comments about the result you produced was to illustrate that what you produced was, indeed, random. My point being that therefore what you produced did not, as you intended, mimic the Jackson Pollock which is clearly not random.

But then you said:
"Anyway, maybe the distribution of the colours IS the point of the picture I linked !!"
So, now you're claiming you (might have) produced a deliberate distribution of colours. In other words, that what you produced was non-random. If so, then you are a little closer to the Pollock (though the gulf is still as wide as the ocean).

The nonsense in all of this is that you set out to show that the Pollock is random and ended up saying that your picture (meant to mimic that Pollock) has pattern.

So, fail.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, you are. Southwind made the exact same argument, which basically goes like this: "I don't like this art, therefore it is not art per se"

Ron, you're usually a pretty rational fellow so you'll forgive me if I'm rather puzzled by your apparent inability to understand the following:

Is it art? Yes.

Yeah. Ugly art.

I specifically agreed that it was art on my VERY FIRST POST here. In fact, I reminded you a couple of times so far and you've completely ignored it. No wonder you think I'm saying the same think as Southwind.

I then qualified my response with an opinion. I didn't think it was necessary to label it as such since "bad" or "good" is automatically a question of perspective.

You don't like Pollock, therefore his art is not art per se.

And before you jump out and say you never claimed this, here it is in your own words:

Wait, let me read that again.

You can feel strongly for pretty much anything. But a bunch of random lines doesn't communicate much emotion, per se.

That's odd. I can't find anything in there that means "is not art".

So you admit your personal opinion about some works of art, is not a universal fact?

I would've thought it was a given.

Yes, you do.
Other people don't.

Why do you feel it necessary to repeat, in other words, what I just said, apparently thinking that you've making some sort of point ?

Your not-quite-but-similar picture only illustrates your personal opinion and nothing else. Some people will agree with you, others won't and will still prefer Pollock's "random" lines rather than yours and you will have "proven" nothing to them with your comparison.

You disagree that the pattern is similar ?

You find it very difficult to understand, Belz. You. I wonder if by now you realize the point I'm making or if it's just random bolding of words to your eyes.

Here you go again, repeating my own points as though you're the one making them.

Just because some works of art don't move you, doesn't make your assertion valid that such works have no intrinsic emotional value, which is a general, broad statement meant to include everyone else.

Sigh. Do you or do you not see the difference between art that represents real objects and art that does not ?

 

[Belz...]

Except that I was not throwing it around. That was the final summarising word after showing you how your attempt at mimicking a Pollock indeed failed.

You know, if the so-called skeptics on this forum stopped trying to determine the intent of other posters and by the same token imagine themselves psychics, they would pass off as actual skeptics more readily.

As to your strawman, I wasn't trying to "mimick" the other artwork. I was trying to make a random pattern of lines and I asked if someone felt something off of it. That was the whole point. There was no hidden agenda for you to discover.

The patterns are pretty random?
Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

That's because you don't know much about randomness.

My point being that therefore what you produced did not, as you intended, mimic the Jackson Pollock which is clearly not random.

How is Pollock's work not random, exactly ? I'm genuinely interested in this answer.

So, now you're claiming you (might have) produced a deliberate distribution of colours. In other words, that what you produced was non-random.

I already said so. Look, would you please take some time to actually read what I post rather than knee-jerk your way around ? I already said that the colours were not random.

The nonsense in all of this is that you set out to show that the Pollock is random and ended up saying that your picture (meant to mimic that Pollock) has pattern.

So, fail.

The only failure here is yours for constructing such an elaborate strawman.

 

[Cavemonster]

How is Pollock's work not random, exactly ? I'm genuinely interested in this answer.

I'm glad you asked that. First, I'd like to clear something up about method.

Considering that it looks like a 3 year-old threw a bunch of paint buckets on a canvas,

If you threw buckets of paint at a canvas, you'd get large globs of color, incredibly thick and quite wide with at least something of a radiating splatter pattern. Pollock didn't throw paint in bucketfuls at a canvas, he dripped it onto a large canvas on the floor, creating for the most part an intricate web of very thin lines.

There are a lot of ways to get color onto canvas, daubing, stippling, smearing, dripping, drybrushing, misting, etc. There are a lot of variations on any one of these. For Pollock's most iconic work, he used one of these exclusively.

These are all decidedly not Pollock.

http://www.google.com/url?source=im...8wc4dA&usg=AFQjCNEeyZvjJrFlViuxrNLqx1WNFiodOg

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/cytwombly/images/img_autumn.jpg

http://www.askart.com/AskART/photos/CNY20061115_3442/29.jpg


His mark making is distinct, thin lines occaisionally pooling thicker, but not very extremely. It shows quite clearly the way his hand was moving, always quickly over the whole painting.

His compositions are are almost always diffuse and centered on the canvas. You'll notice that most of them, unlike almost any painting that came before him, have no weighted focal points. Even paint put on accidentally tends to have one or more centers of weight or activity the eye is drawn to.

There is a popular site that lets you "mimic" Pollock, notice that all of them that come up in a google search lack that diffuse composition and all have at least one hot spot.


On this one it's the tension between the large orange and black dots neart center.

Here the eye moves horizontally left to right to settle on the big black splotch on the far right.

To the extent that Pollock's paintings have focal points, it is the canvas itself. He uses variations in density that call to subtle attention the shape of the rectangle he's working with.

Check out the distribution in this painting.
Can you make out the borders of extra black along the top and bottom? \


Or see how all the marks are "contained" in this piece.
This time the border is opposite, relatively blank space instead of greater density.

And those two pieces lead to another non-random element. Color choice and palette. I'll admit, there are some pieces that, on the internet in crappy pictures, look like a mishmash of vomit color, but remember that you're looking at a photograph at 5% the size of something that has very tiny lines. The actual color in the more complexly colored pieces doesn't survive this compression well, and I advise you to see them in person. The choices in more restricted color pieces, like those linked above though, is clear. Compare it to the sickly candy colors in the online Pollock simulator, or your own little digital painting. The colors are distinct and harmonious.

There are many other ways that Pollock's work is patterned and deliberate, but this post is getting fairly long as it is.

I'll leave you with this, another dripped painting that, although it uses the same basic method, is clearly not a Pollock because it uses a different kind of markmaking, different kind of composition, and different kind of pallet and distribution of those colors.

Here

 

[Woolgatherer]

My favorite Jackson Pollock (or at lest one of them) is "Mural" at the University of Iowa.

http://uima.uiowa.edu/mural/

 

[Belz...]

I'm glad you asked that. First, I'd like to clear something up about method.

Well, thanks for the explanation. It still looks thrown together, though.

 

[Olowkow]

Cavemonster's posts were very good.

I can imagine silly, pointless and talentless art, but it is difficult to picture how one applies the terms "good and bad" to art. For me, it is always merely a question of whether it pleases me, whether I enjoy it. I transferred a lot of old 33's to CD for a friend. It was very avant garde modern string quartet from back in the 50's, sort of like John Cage I think. My friend, who is a pianist, greatly admired this music, but for me, I could barely tolerate it...much of the time I found myself turning down the volume while recording. I loved Harry Partch's and Ive's compositions, but I just could not get into this. It wasn't "bad" music, and I appreciated the technique and the talent, I just didn't like it.

 

[Dani]

Is this art?



Yes, of course. It is intended as art by the performer and some of the audience. That's enough.

I judge it as bad, not particularly illuminating, annoying, etc., but this is my personal aesthetic judgment.

I personally have a similar relationship with the concept nation. I find both pretty irrelevant in determining what I consider aesthetically and morally good, while on the other hand many people seem to find some aesthetic and moral value relevance in the meaning of art and nation, respectively. Also, they're vague enough to be controversial, but this controversy, even if interesting from a merely semantic viewpoint, can be futile if the discussion is about the aesthetic or moral value of objects or actions. In other words, I find it more relevant to say that Yoko Ono's performance is rubbish than to say it is art (even though it isn't quite relevant anyway).

I've read Billy Joe's distinction between art and Art, and I'd like to point out that no true scotsman is not the same as No True Scotsman. Both refer to the usage of art and Art respectively.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ron, you're usually a pretty rational fellow so you'll forgive me if I'm rather puzzled by your apparent inability to understand the following:

I specifically agreed that it was art on my VERY FIRST POST here. In fact, I reminded you a couple of times so far and you've completely ignored it. No wonder you think I'm saying the same think as Southwind.

I then qualified my response with an opinion. I didn't think it was necessary to label it as such since "bad" or "good" is automatically a question of perspective.

Okay, Belz. I too find you a pretty rational fellow overall so maybe we're both misunderstanding each other.

Just to summarize, the one thing I'm arguing with you is the position that just because you find some art to be bad, that that makes such art inherently bad.

Quote:
You can feel strongly for pretty much anything. But a bunch of random lines doesn't communicate much emotion, per se.

That's odd. I can't find anything in there that means "is not art".

Agreed. My misinterpretation.

Why do you feel it necessary to repeat, in other words, what I just said, apparently thinking that you've making some sort of point ?

Because your assertions seem to imply that you think that just because you find Pollock's work or any other work you find distasteful, that this means such work is actually bad in some kind of objective, universal sense.

By bolding every time you say "I", "In my opinion", "Personally" or anything else that shows it's your personal view, I try to show you that you're doing nothing but giving a personal opinion which isn't more valid than anyone else's, and thus, no more objective than anyone else's.

Quote:
Your not-quite-but-similar picture only illustrates your personal opinion and nothing else. Some people will agree with you, others won't and will still prefer Pollock's "random" lines rather than yours and you will have "proven" nothing to them with your comparison.

You disagree that the pattern is similar ?

Now you're the one misreading.
Did I ever claim the pattern is not similar? Read again. Pay attention to the actual point I'm making.

Here you go again, repeating my own points as though you're the one making them.

So forgive me if in my enthusiasm, I made a mistake. Are you then saying that you agree that just because some works of art don't move you, that doesn't make your assertion valid that such works have no emotional value to other people?

Sigh. Do you or do you not see the difference between art that represents real objects and art that does not ?

When did I ever address art that represents real objects v.s art that does not? What relevance does that have? Please enlighten me.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well, thanks for the explanation. It still looks thrown together, though.

... to you.

 

[BillyJoe]

I wasn't trying to "mimick" the other artwork. I was trying to make a random pattern of lines and I asked if someone felt something off of it. That was the whole point. There was no hidden agenda for you to discover.

If you weren't trying to mimic what you characterised as the randomness of the Jackson Pollock painting by producing a random pattern of lines in your own picture what exactly was the point of your picture? Your picture was in direct response to the Pollock and, by producing random lines in your picture, you were implying that the Pollock was random. What else am I to conclude?
And then you end by saying that perhaps your lines were not random?
So how have you not failed except miserably.

That's because you don't know much about randomness.

I think Cinderella has found her shoe.

How is Pollock's work not random, exactly ? I'm genuinely interested in this answer.

I have already given one answer but you've ignored it.
Try a simple non-biased coin flip. You'll get groups of up to six heads and tails even with only 200 throws. That's analogous to the blue curves lines and that white slash across your picture. Dead giveaways.
That's why I agree that your picture is random.
That's why the Pollock is clearly not random.

Well, thanks for the explanation. It still looks thrown together, though.

Well, as long as you see how distinctly ridiculous you look prancing around in your cinderella shoes.

When people are asked to write down what they think looks like a random sequence of coin tosses, the result is usually something that is distinctly non-random.
You at least did produce a picture of random lines, but failed to see how the Pollock was not random.

 

[BillyJoe]

Is this art?
Yes, of course. It is intended as art by the performer and some of the audience. That's enough.

Would it be enough if the performer didn't intend it as art but at least one person in the audience was moved by it emotionally or intellectually?

I judge it as bad, not particularly illuminating, annoying, etc., but this is my personal aesthetic judgment.

I must admit I much prefer Pink Floyd's "The Great Gig In The Sky"


But Yoko Ono's performance is minimalist - no music and bearly even a musical note in her voice. But her performance is strong and deliberate. Certainly it's not a random piece. It has a beginning and end and a rather obvious progression in the middle. I assume it would sound the same with every performance - allowing for some purposeful improvisation by the artist.
I think it's more an intellectual rather than an emotional exercise so, for most of the audience, it wouldn't have an immediate appeal. Maybe it's a performance that improves with each listen.

I've read Billy Joe's distinction between art and Art, and I'd like to point out that no true scotsman is not the same as No True Scotsman. Both refer to the usage of art and Art respectively.

I don't quite get what you're saying.

 

[BillyJoe]

Cavemonster's posts were very good.

Yeah, but perhaps it's just because we agree with him.

 

[Belz...]

Because your assertions seem to imply that you think that just because you find Pollock's work or any other work you find distasteful, that this means such work is actually bad in some kind of objective, universal sense.

And since you're wrong about what I seem to imply, there is no need to continue.

By bolding every time you say "I", "In my opinion", "Personally" or anything else that shows it's your personal view, I try to show you that you're doing nothing but giving a personal opinion which isn't more valid than anyone else's, and thus, no more objective than anyone else's.

Which is trivial, since we all know that that's the case.

Now you're the one misreading.
Did I ever claim the pattern is not similar? Read again. Pay attention to the actual point I'm making.

Ron, honestly, I think you're simply knee-jerking your responses. Why do you not simply answer the question I asked instead of somehow assuming I made an affirmation ?

So forgive me if in my enthusiasm, I made a mistake. Are you then saying that you agree that just because some works of art don't move you, that doesn't make your assertion valid that such works have no emotional value to other people?

Of course, since it's trivial that it's the case.

When did I ever address art that represents real objects v.s art that does not? What relevance does that have? Please enlighten me.

I'm simply asking a question, to which again you're having a hard time answering. The reason I ask it is because I usually only appreciate art that does represent real objects.

... to you.

Trivial, again. Or do you want me to qualify everything I say as "to me" or "in my opinion" because you don't understand that it's obviously the case ? I'm not a fundamentalist, I'll remind you. Since when do I claim that my appreciation of anything is universal ?