What is art?

[Belz...]

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?

Another knee-jerker. The answer to your question is in the part of the post you QUOTED and were RESPONDING TO:

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.

Really, Billy. Are you even reading my posts anymore ?

I think Cinderella has found her shoe.

Are you or are you not aware that patterns can spontaneously emerge from randomness ? Wouldn't you call those "random patterns" ? And isn't that applicable to works of arts such as this one ?

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.

I'm sorry, but that DOESN'T answer my question. What distinguishes the two ?

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

Hopefully at least YOU understand what the hell you meant, there.

You at least did produce a picture of random lines, but failed to see how the Pollock was not random.

And you're not helping by simply stating that I'm too stupid to understand. Why don't you explain it to me ? Isn't this an educational foundation ?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

All that is required to become a god is to be worshiped as a god.

I was told once that the above, or something very nearly like it, was said by Anton LaVey. Whether he actually said it or not, I do not know, nor do I know the original context or intended meaning of the quote, regardless of who said it. My own interpretation is simply that the meaning of the word god, while concrete in certain specific contexts, is generally so nebulous and dilute that if you can convince any one person to claim you (or anything) are god, then nobody else has any more right to claim you are not.

The same is true of the word art. Art, like music, like money, like god, is a human thing. If not for us, it would not exist at all. It is whatever we say it is. Through the years, various competing interpretations of what it is have rendered the word all but useless outside of specific contexts in which all participants in the conversation are already in agreement. As it stands now, art means nothing, anything, or possibly everything. Arguing about it is pointless. There can be no winner.

 

[quadraginta]

All that is required to become a god is to be worshiped as a god.

I was told once that the above, or something very nearly like it, was said by Anton LaVey. Whether he actually said it or not, I do not know, nor do I know the original context or intended meaning of the quote, regardless of who said it. My own interpretation is simply that the meaning of the word god, while concrete in certain specific contexts, is generally so nebulous and dilute that if you can convince any one person to claim you (or anything) are god, then nobody else has any more right to claim you are not.

The same is true of the word art. Art, like music, like money, like god, is a human thing. If not for us, it would not exist at all. It is whatever we say it is. Through the years, various competing interpretations of what it is have rendered the word all but useless outside of specific contexts in which all participants in the conversation are already in agreement. As it stands now, art means nothing, anything, or possibly everything. Arguing about it is pointless. There can be no winner.

I agree with all of this, especially the last sentence, except for the part about arguing.

The point of the arguing is to dismiss someone else whom you don't agree with. "I'm right, and you're a clueless doofus." I can't think of any argument about what is and isn't art that doesn't ultimately boil down to a group which says art is whatever someone thinks is art, and another group which, however splintered amongst themselves, insists that there is "right" art, and anyone who disagrees is "wrong". The point of the argument is the dismissal and concurrent assertion of superiority, not the subject itself. These same sorts of people will also smugly tell you which are "good" sports, and which are not, and pursue similar heights of disdain about pets, TV shows, and clothing, to name but a few. They seem unable to encompass the concept that other people could enjoy something they do not, and somehow feel diminished and threatened by the idea.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I agree with all of this, especially the last sentence, except for the part about arguing.

The point of the arguing is to dismiss someone else whom you don't agree with.

That's not a real point.

 

[quadraginta]

That's not a real point.

Many arguments suffer from such a flaw.

 

[live830]

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.

I'd like to clear this up. Abstract art is no more "make up as you go along" than art that is representational. Abstraction is the conscious elimination of nonessential information. It is meant to represent something, regardless of whether you see it. Perhaps you meant "art should be representational"? Representational art gives us figures and images that are immediately recognizable. In this case, I'd have to ask why art should be representational.

Furthermore, what's wrong with art being "made up as you go along"? Why should that alter its value?

 

[Bluegill]

I dislike the word “art” because of these kinds of debates. The word is almost useless. I use it because it’s easy sometimes, as a really broad, general category. However, when it comes to specifying what is or is not art, there are so many opinions that the word is almost useless.

I draw and paint, and I sometimes refer to myself as an artist, but I prefer not to. I’d rather call myself a painter or a sketcher or a house-portrait renderer.

 

[quadraginta]

I dislike the word “art” because of these kinds of debates. The word is almost useless. I use it because it’s easy sometimes, as a really broad, general category. However, when it comes to specifying what is or is not art, there are so many opinions that the word is almost useless.

I draw and paint, and I sometimes refer to myself as an artist, but I prefer not to. I’d rather call myself a painter or a sketcher or a house-portrait renderer.

It's a perfectly good word with many appropriate applications.

It only seems to become an issue when someone is told that they are misusing it on the basis of what is nothing more than a difference in personal tastes.

If you set out to create images in media of your choice I have no problem labeling you as an artist. My personal evaluation of the merit of those images, whether it is positive or negative or neutral, has no bearing on the use of that label.

 

[Dani]

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?

It depends on how you define art to begin with. As it has been said, art is a nebulous concept. In my usage of the term, the audience is what makes something art by just considering it art. Usage gives meaning. Which makes the term quite irrelevant to me.

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

I'm not a fan of Pink Floyd, but I wholeheartedly agree with you.

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.

I agree that her performance is strong and deliberate. She's really doing musical notes, but in a similar way car engines produce musical notes. She doesn't seem to be worried about what musical notes she's producing, just like cars.

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.

Well, certainly any piece, random or not, has a beginning and an end, doesn't it? You can describe something as a progression, but I don't think that's what makes something art. A child playing or making similar sounds can intuitively make a progression. The child might begin with a long and strong shout and then run out of breath, and then play along, slowing down, then making shorter but more frequent shouts, then slowing down again, etc. When children start to cry they also make a progression. We can even interpret a dog barking as progressive, but that's unlikely to be labeled as art.

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 completely agree with the first sentence. As for the second, I'm not willing to test your hypothesis.

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

Never mind. It was a poor joke. You talked about art and Art, and while I understand what you were saying, your distinction was a no true Scotsman fallacy. This is a semantic discussion about what art means, and both your art and your Art were referring to the same concept we are discussing.

 

[BillyJoe]

It depends on how you define art to begin with. As it has been said, art is a nebulous concept. In my usage of the term, the audience is what makes something art by just considering it art. Usage gives meaning. Which makes the term quite irrelevant to me.

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 not a fan of Pink Floyd

Masters of the pure note!

I agree that her performance is strong and deliberate. She's really doing musical notes, but in a similar way car engines produce musical notes. She doesn't seem to be worried about what musical notes she's producing, just like cars.

Then you're saying her performance was not deliberate?

Well, certainly any piece, random or not, has a beginning and an end, doesn't it? You can describe something as a progression, but I don't think that's what makes something art.

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.

I completely agree with the first sentence. As for the second, I'm not willing to test your hypothesis.

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?

You talked about art and Art, and while I understand what you were saying, your distinction was a no true Scotsman fallacy. This is a semantic discussion about what art means, and both your art and your Art were referring to the same concept we are discussing.

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.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

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 ?

Belz, honestly, I think you sometimes fail to infer an implied answer from a post. If I say "Did I ever claim the patterns were not similar?" can you not infer that what I'm basically saying is "I never claimed the patterns are not similar", and again, I don't see the relevance on the patterns being similar or not being similar. But feel free to enlighten me on it.

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.

Okay... good for you, I guess.
Again, Belz, you're presenting your personal tastes and views. How is this relevant to the discussion?

I don't know if you see what's happening here. The whole reason you and I got into an argument is because in this thread people are trying to address the question of "what is Art?", while keeping away from personal prejudices, which means, we cannot project our own inner biases and personal tastes when trying to objectively address the problem. Since you continue to do so (and since everytime I point this to you, you accuse me of doing something "obvious"), then I have to infer that you're simply commenting on your personal tastes, yet not trying to seriously discuss the question "What is art" in a way that's objective, without projecting your personal biases and prejudices.

So again, thanks for sharing your personal tastes. Now I know what types of art you like and what types of art you don't like.... but for the record, you're derailing the thread and you've wasted my time. I thought I was having a discussion with someone who was trying to give his two cents on what art is, in an objective unbiased way... as opposed to just sharing his personal tastes.

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 ?

Read above, regarding the confusion of whether you're trying to engage in an objective discussion of what is art, or just sharing your personal tastes.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

All that is required to become a god is to be worshiped as a god.

I was told once that the above, or something very nearly like it, was said by Anton LaVey. Whether he actually said it or not, I do not know, nor do I know the original context or intended meaning of the quote, regardless of who said it. My own interpretation is simply that the meaning of the word god, while concrete in certain specific contexts, is generally so nebulous and dilute that if you can convince any one person to claim you (or anything) are god, then nobody else has any more right to claim you are not.

The same is true of the word art. Art, like music, like money, like god, is a human thing. If not for us, it would not exist at all. It is whatever we say it is. Through the years, various competing interpretations of what it is have rendered the word all but useless outside of specific contexts in which all participants in the conversation are already in agreement. As it stands now, art means nothing, anything, or possibly everything. Arguing about it is pointless. There can be no winner.

^This. So much this.

 

[BillyJoe]

...Abstraction is the conscious elimination of nonessential information. It is meant to represent something, regardless of whether you see it....Representational art gives us figures and images that are immediately recognizable.

I think that's a good point. Representational art is easy to appreciate because it is immediately recognisable. Abstract art is difficult to appreciate because it requires much more of the viewer.
The thing I don't understand is why those who do not understand abstract art practically boast about it, whereas they would not boast that they do not understand calculus.

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe said: 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?

Belz said: The answer to your question is in the part of the post you QUOTED and were RESPONDING TO:
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.
Really, Billy. Are you even reading my posts anymore ?

At this point I would ask you to go back and read your post #179. Monkey Ghost said that he considered the Jackson Pollock art. You replied "Yeah. Ugly art". Then you likened the Jackson Pollock to "a 3 year-old threwing a bunch of paint buckets on a canvas". Finally you said "What about this" and produced your own picture.
It seems to me, Belz, that you are the one not reading your posts.

Are you or are you not aware that patterns can spontaneously emerge from randomness ? Wouldn't you call those "random patterns" ? And isn't that applicable to works of arts such as this one ?

So now you're saying the patterns are accidental? That Pollock "threw a bunch of paint buckets on a canvas" and accidentally produced a pattern? It seems to me you've fallen down your own hole and desperately trying to claw you way out.

I'm sorry, but that DOESN'T answer my question. What distinguishes the two [random from pattern]?

I have given you my version and CaveMonster has given you a few as well.
But still you ask the question.
What distinguishes an adolescent from an adult?

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

Belz relpied: Hopefully at least YOU understand what the hell you meant, there.

I suppose I should have drawn you a picture.

BillyJoe said: You at least did produce a picture of random lines, but failed to see how the Pollock was not random.

Belz replied: And you're not helping by simply stating that I'm too stupid to understand. Why don't you explain it to me ?

Why don't you go back and read the post where I have tried to do just that. And Cave Monster's post #210.

 

[Belz...]

I'd like to clear this up. Abstract art is no more "make up as you go along" than art that is representational. Abstraction is the conscious elimination of nonessential information.

Abstract art contains essential information ???

Perhaps you meant "art should be representational"?

I believe I said that.

Representational art gives us figures and images that are immediately recognizable. In this case, I'd have to ask why art should be 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.

Furthermore, what's wrong with art being "made up as you go along"? Why should that alter its value?

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

 

[Belz...]

Belz, honestly, I think you sometimes fail to infer an implied answer from a post.

Actually, I do it on purpose: extrapolating intent from partial information doesn't lead to understanding but to friction. Just take what I say to be what I mean.

I don't see the relevance on the patterns being similar or not being similar. But feel free to enlighten me on it.

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 ?

Again, Belz, you're presenting your personal tastes and views. How is this relevant to the discussion?

We're discussing art and I can't present my personal opinion ? You think any discussion about art is going to be objective ?

I don't know if you see what's happening here. The whole reason you and I got into an argument is because in this thread people are trying to address the question of "what is Art?", while keeping away from personal prejudices, which means, we cannot project our own inner biases and personal tastes when trying to objectively address the problem.

Then we can close the thread right now.

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

 

[BillyJoe]

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

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

The thing I don't understand is why those who do not understand abstract art practically boast about it, whereas they would not boast that they do not understand calculus.

You base this assertion on what, exactly?

 

[BillyJoe]

You base this assertion on what, exactly?

Well, there are some examples on this very thread but..

what

I'm upset Cuz I'm having trouble finding the derivative Cuz I don't get calculus

I don't get Calculus and I struggle

I don't get Calculus. It's a nightmare! I did my best, and I got some problems right here and there, but I will never fully understand it

exactly

I don't get abstract art. Who wants to look at a bunch of squiggly six-eyed people when you can get those really pretty cat paintings

I love the fall picture of fruit rearranged into a head. Art used to take some real time and creatively to make. I don't get abstract art.

I don't 'get' abstract art as it looks like any ten year old child with a water color set could do better

----------------------

So, yes, it seems not getting calculus is seen as a failure by those who don't get it, but not getting abstract art is seen as a positive, almost a point of honour, by those who don't get it.

 

[tsig]

I dislike the word “art” because of these kinds of debates. The word is almost useless. I use it because it’s easy sometimes, as a really broad, general category. However, when it comes to specifying what is or is not art, there are so many opinions that the word is almost useless.

I draw and paint, and I sometimes refer to myself as an artist, but I prefer not to. I’d rather call myself a painter or a sketcher or a house-portrait renderer.

I used to work with a guy named Aurthur and everything he did was a work of Art.