What is not art? [Archive]

Dr. Haight

29 Apr 2006, 06:21 PM

Lee

29 Apr 2006, 06:35 PM

I do not think that any of us can conclusively say what is and isn't art. The state of being 'art' is a subjective assessment, not unlike our subjective assessment of 'tasty.' However, this is quite different from the institutions of art and what qualifies as different kinds of art.

This topic can be confusing, because people can switch between two kinds of thinking: what they themselves cansider art and what other people consider art. For example, I can talk about modern art, because I recongise other people consider it art and it is part of the social institutions formed from those beliefs, I call it art, but only because I know that others consider it art. But by my own standards, I need not consider modern art as real art, because to me it contains no personal artistic value.

Bah, I could write an essay about this, but I am too lazy.

raincrow007

29 Apr 2006, 06:39 PM

I do not think that any of us can conclusively say what is and isn't art. The state of being 'art' is a subjective assesment, not unlike our subjective assesment of 'tasty.' However, this is quite different from the institutions of art and what qualifies as different kinds of art.

This topic can be confusing, because people can switch between two kinds of thinking: what they themselves cansider art and what other people consider art. For example, I can talk about mordern art, because I recongise other people consider it art and it is part of the social institutions formed from those beliefs, I call it art, but only because I know that others consider it art. But by my own standards, I need not consider mordern art as real art, because to me it contains no personal artistic value.

Bah, I could write an essay about this, but I am too lazy.

Wow, Lee. Not like you to have so many typos. You feeling okay?

Lee

29 Apr 2006, 06:44 PM

Wow, Lee. Not like you to have so many typos. You feeling okay?heh, always do that... something in my brain insists it is spelt 'mordern.'

Dr. Haight

29 Apr 2006, 06:46 PM

raincrow007

29 Apr 2006, 06:52 PM

Does it insist on 'cansider' and 'recongise' too? ;)

But to get back on topic, I'd agree with your statement about the very subjective nature of the perception of artwork. I've suffered through more insanely boring art history courses than the average person, and while I can appreciate the expression/counter-expression dynamic of some movements, the actual products really are visually distasteful or absurd. Good idea v. Bad aesthetics. Meh.

It's endlessly confusing to the public, I'm sure.

earwax

29 Apr 2006, 07:01 PM

If the intent was to challenge the definition of art, looks like it worked. Certainly has you thinking. Even if it was crap.

Lee

29 Apr 2006, 07:07 PM

--Lee,

I agree. However, as I tried to articulate, we can recognize something as "not art." Therefore, a line does exist and I believe we can all agree on what is not art. Yet, as you have stated, the area where it become subjective is very wide indeed. So, there is an objective line for which something is clearly "not art," even if someone is trying to convince us otherwise. At that point, in my opinion, it becomes a matter of words rather than a objective discussion of the art itself.Is there a line that exists which we can all agree on what is not art?

If Art is truly a subjective assessment, then to show that there is the line in question, you would have to ensure that every person who has, does and will exist does not cross that line. Obviously, this is an impossible standard to meet, there is no use in speculating about such a line.

Again, I think the confusion sets in with the social institutions and our personal assessments. Similar confusions crop up about science, there is science the method and there is science the social institution.

Basically, whether art is art is our own subjective assessment, we can have conflicting assessments and it doesn't matter, because it is our own private evaluation of a given sensory experience.

Talking about social institutions is very different, we can categorize types of art dependent on not only what we think is art, but what others think is art, we can entertain what is on the minds of others.

To illustrate, there are some individuals out there who like to eat feaces. Nobody is going to deny that they find feaces tasty, but it isn't about to find its way onto the menus of our top restaurants. The individual assessment of 'tasty food' and the generally agreed upon assessment of 'tasty food' in a society need not be the same and we can live with this dissonance quite happily.

The confusion of these categories underlies much of the argumnet surrounding questions of what art is and isn't.

However, I have only called 'art' a subjective evaluation, which doesn't tell us much. What makes that evaluation different to other evaluations, what is the evaluator looking for and why does it value different things differently? these are more interesting questions.

The psychology of art is bloody confusing, interesting though.

Lee

29 Apr 2006, 07:11 PM

Does it insist on 'cansider' and 'recongise' too? ;)British spellings :ph34r:

kuranes

29 Apr 2006, 07:33 PM

I've seen a lot of things that are classified as "art" which make me laugh. It seems the bigger these things are in physical size, the more pretentious they are, too. A photo of some kids on a playground slide is one thing, but blow it up, so that it is 5 times life size and . . .boy . . .you've got something. I've had a lot of discussions with people about this, where we skewer some of the "installations" etc. Hilarious stuff.

I enjoyed some of DuChamp's pieces, that I often assume started the trend, though. I think I would have felt ripped off if I had paid to see the famous John Cage music piece that consisted of nothing but rests, unless he performed other stuff too, that day. I guess this sort of thing was new back then, and its not new anymore, so that I don't even see a lot of this stuff as really being so "challenging" anymore.

cjs55

29 Apr 2006, 08:09 PM

These things have no lasting value. They are more a critique of art than art. Like John Cage's 4:32 or whatever it's called. This simply makes the statement that art can be made of every day sounds.

It's really quite simple and stupid by itself though. Art is human communication of the unspeakable. All cage said with that piece was...look, these random sounds around us can be art too!

And he could have just said that. All of these could just be essays. If you can write an essay about it and capture all it's trying to say...then it's missing the core part of what art is.

I like his idea, but it's not art, it's just a fucking essay, or even just a paragraph.

(Poetry is art because it conveys new and unique meaning through using words outside of their original purpose, so in essence is still part of the unspeakable [even though it's conveyed through manipulation of the spoken/written, the meaning of poetry is not in the words themselves but the unspeakable connections between them]).

joft

29 Apr 2006, 08:20 PM

art is not a property of objects but a way of perceiving or interpreting them

i can interpret a piece of modern art as an unconscious self-satirization of the artist, which is actually ironically sad as they tend to take themselves so seriously (or at least my perception of them is that they do). it could be a desperate yet unintended (or possibly intended?) statement about the human need to create or search for meaning or meaningless

if the artists left it open as to whether or not they were taking themselves seriously, would you interpret it any differently? I'm thinking of something like Crispin Glover (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=9180)

mgb

29 Apr 2006, 09:20 PM

Now, I know this seems, and vary well may be, a question that has been raised on this forum before. Yet, I will try to produce a different angle to this very old question, because I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

I would appreciate your feedback on the following "philosophical" statement:
Any piece of "art" whose explicit purpose is to challenge the definition of art is not "art".

I am skeptical of many works of modern "art" I have seen, like a canvas painted all in white, or a garbage bin under plexiglass. There is often the little blurb next to the "work" that explains its intent to challenge the definition of art in order to critique some aspect of society. Sometimes I am torn between dismissing the object as non-art, or simply as bad art.

I do not believe a definition of art needs to be affirmed in order to judge the merit of this argument. We can let the definition of art = X.

I am not arguing that the definition of art is fixed or that art cannot or should not be challenged. New styles, mediums, and subjects have been introduced that serve to en-richen art. This is why I used the wording "explicit purpose".

Please educate me.

Subjectivity kind of says that it's all art. I can see the benefit of a the dumpster with a plexi-glass cover to be honest. It would make a great example of post-modern society being "we are what we throw away". It's probably one of the last things we consider when we look at a dumpster, but it's something so telling. Not to mention that a great deal of identity theft and things like that comes from dumpster divers stealing info we've thrown away. It's a great reflection of our times. And I bet something no one ever takes a close look at, and yet, because we throw so much away, it's something intricately tied to who we are and our wasteful society as a whole.

In my opinion, art should be a reflection of the society it's produced in. That can happen in a lot of ways. Even on a white canvas.

Is there bad art? Sure. It still falls under the category of art though. A boxer who gets his butt kicked every fight is still a boxer.

kuranes

29 Apr 2006, 10:20 PM

. . . . . . . .It's probably one of the last things we consider when we look at a dumpster, but it's something so telling. . . . . . It's a great reflection of our times. And I bet something no one ever takes a close look at . . . . . . . . . . . .
In my opinion, art should be a reflection of the society it's produced in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Is there bad art? Sure. It still falls under the category of art though. A boxer who gets his butt kicked every fight is still a boxer.

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's great to look at those old photos of street scenes from the turn of the century. We don't have as many of those as would be desirable. And yet, at the time, people probably thought "So what ? It's just a street. Why take a pic of it? "

What we throw away. I wonder if brochures on transient technology will ever be collector's items in the future? It won't be the things actually SOLD today as "collector's items" to people who want to hoard them for future value ( poor suckers ) but instead the stuff that was thrown away as junk, and so is truly scarce, later. Maybe someday people will be buying a brochure on a "Newton" or "Lisa" in "mint condition", and the machines themselves will be worth even more, especially with moving parts being the typical point of failure, and the degradation of plastics etc.

I remember reading this one zine called Factsheet Five many years ago, which was a guide to zines. At that time even zines were kind of new to me, and so a zine ABOUT zines was definitely new. There were ads in the back by people trying to start their own zines and other little operations. Some offered to send you ( by subscription, you understand, even though they weren't asking much ) packs of their household junk. So things like used grocery lists, empty matchbooks, a collection agency letter that you had made notes on about an argument you were having with a penpal. Just junk we throw away all the time, but that has a slightly personal stamp to it, was fair game. I thought it would be fun to start up my own operation of this sort, but I never did.

It makes me think of Richard Brautigan's description of the library that takes any book that someone wants to write, even if its not published by an established publisher. Just some handwritten account in a spiral notebook. It would be fun to look through such a library collection.

coffeezombie

29 Apr 2006, 10:25 PM

Moved to creative theory

Dr. Haight

29 Apr 2006, 10:42 PM

Allow me to redirect the discussion. This dialog is suggesting to me that anything can be art. And although I understand that position, I do not hold it, personally. For example, I know scientific truths that are not art; I know that the pile of dog poop, that the dog just left in my front yard, is not art; the guy that just started bleeding from a severe blow to the head, is not art; and so on. Therefore, is art simply a emotional perception that cannot be considered on a logical basis? I suspect the answer is probably, yes; yet, I am still not convinced. And keep in mind, that using the words subjective and objective is to simplistic in my view; it's the canned, prescripted, and regurgitated answer to the question, and therefore, very unsatisfactory...for me.

I still believe that if we cannot agree on what art is (X, in this case), we maybe able to discover what art is not (-x), which, strangely enough, may give us the original answer. If that is possible, then art can be described in a logical manner, rather than with emotions, purely. Again, this could be as simple as, "Know Doctor Haight...it cannot!" However, I doubt it.

kuranes

29 Apr 2006, 10:56 PM

Lee

29 Apr 2006, 11:01 PM

Therefore, is art simply a emotional perception that cannot be considered on a logical basis?Just because it's emotional does not mean we cannot understand it logically. The old emotion-reason dichotomy is broken.

I suspect the answer is probably, yes; yet, I am still not convinced. And keep in mind, that using the words subjective and objective is to simplistic in my view; it's the canned, prescripted, and regurgitated answer to the question, and therefore, very unsatisfactory...for me.Probably because your working from a Cartesain Dualist position with what objective and subjective mean. This is also on my list of broken dichotomies.

I still believe that if we cannot agree on what art is (X, in this case), we maybe able to discover what art is not (-x), which, strangely enough, may give us the original answer. If that is possible, then art can be described in a logical manner, rather than with emotions, purely. Again, this could be as simple as, "Know Doctor Haight...it cannot!" However, I doubt it.What people mean when they say "art is subjective" is that art is a personal evaluation. If we can define anything as not art, then we have to discover those evaluations we make that are not artistic, what makes those evaluations different?

It isn't about the objects, it's about how we think about the objects.

Art can be symbolic and symbols can be arbitrary, this is why art must be a personal evaluation.

CoHo

29 Apr 2006, 11:01 PM

Art is anything that provokes uncontrolled thought and/or emotion

Anything can be art: a photo of a telephone poll that reminds you of your childhood, a sedan so patched in rust it makes you think of an evening thunderstorm.

It's all just methods to send communication.

Something widely accepted as art (http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bacon/1944/1944tri3.jpg) simply initiates these reactions in a larger number of people.

coffeezombie

29 Apr 2006, 11:11 PM

I personally consider anything art that I could not create myself, or an idea that I could not think of myself. I think too many people use the "evoke emotion or thought" definition for art. Shai Gar evoked a lot of emotion while he was a member here, but I wouldn't consider any of his posts particularly artistic.

kuranes

29 Apr 2006, 11:16 PM

Shai as an artist ? Hmmm. As they say there's bad art and good art.

Someone's "concept" of Shai Gar could be better art, perhaps. Look at how someone like Melancholeric subtly reframes Shai's posts, just by "praising" certain phrases that he considers "telling".

And if he were here right now, and CZ asked him about this, instead of answering in a "scientific" way, he would turn the conversation with CZ itself into a bit of humorous art, and maybe say that he didn't know what Kuranes was getting at.

Ka.avik

29 Apr 2006, 11:23 PM

I personally consider anything art that I could not create myself, or an idea that I could not think of myself.

I read a wonderful definition of art, in a graphic novel that talked about making graphic novels. that artist's definition is exactly the opposite of yours.

art is something you don't have to do/create, but do anyway because it makes you feel good. clapping your hands, humming to yourself, arranging your furniture.

drawing, painting.

Why do painters paint? Sometims it's for money, but it is commonly held that that is an artist who has sold out and no longer produces art. No, creating a painting is an act of delight, or of pain, or just an act like breathing, that keeps you alive and healthy. Ask any artist. Any good artist, and they'll tell you the art itself screams to be let out.

A painting, by this definition, is not art. There is, then, no piece of art, but rather, the act of you looking at a painting, is an act of art.

This definition has suited and assuaged my N, and I have kept it close at hand since I was exposed to it. So there.

coffeezombie

29 Apr 2006, 11:33 PM

art is something you don't have to do/create, but do anyway because it makes you feel good. clapping your hands, humming to yourself, arranging your furniture.

Well, I do agree with you in a certain sense. I've written things myself that I don't consider "art," but just wrote them because I felt "compelled" to do it, and people have told me how artistic they think what I created was, and I am always like, "This is nothing, really. I just did it because I wanted to" (or had to, in the case of certain school assignments).

So perhaps no true artist really thinks that what he or she creates is art, but that same artist can appreciate the artistic talent of what others can do that he or she can't.

Melody

29 Apr 2006, 11:34 PM

well, dr, since ur proffing abstract mathematical methods, i would say the 1 thing every1 would agree is not art is the null idea

...which is unthinkable and different from the empty idea, which is thinkable

or something

dunno if that hleps tho lol

kuranes

29 Apr 2006, 11:37 PM

or something

dunno if that hleps tho lol

I still think of Melody as being Matisse-like.

zhang_bob

30 Apr 2006, 12:07 AM

Art is any creation thats principal purpose is to show echoes or reflects of a message, mood, and symbolism for the viewer to interpret.

azurwarrior

30 Apr 2006, 08:34 AM

I'm way out of my league with mathematics. My mouse is malfunctioning, so I'm excusing all my spelling errors.
In fact, I may keep it that way for that reason. LOL.
Let me take a couple of shots at the question anyway.

(Now that I have excused myself for my incompetency, and with that disclaimer-WTH)...

art = x to a power of t (trancendency x value)

Can that translate into math? Probably not.
SO,
There's just something about soup cans, or dumpsters that they can be quite ordinary and also quite functional or canactually be art, for instance Warhol's work as mentioned earlier (or just about anything SEEN/PERCEIVED/INTERPRETED (etc.) differently. As has been said.
I don't know if I got that exactly right. It's probably oversimplified.
Again...
When I watch Antiques Roadshow, on PBS in the USA, I like to try and guess which items will be "priceless" and which won't make the grade as is just old in the space time continuim we have collectively agreed upon. That's probably not precise or "correct." Much less spelled correctly.
Anyway, I very often am right.
I have no expertise in these items, just a sense that there's something more
than common sense(?) would dictate.(Soup cans?) Something captivating or thought-provoking or just stands out for NO logical reason.
But these experts,who should know and I, who really should NOT know are often in agreement about these antiques.
These "assessments" are only just in my daydreaming sort of way. There's just SOMETHING special.
A right brain function? You guys would know, I don't know why I threw that in.
So. Back to...
Everyday life as art? -in 200 years, my house will be LOADED with valuables that are just ordinary now. As has been said. Worth more with age, but will they be "art?" then? Which ones? And why?
A final (I promise, ha ha) stab at cohesion.......
hmmm...The moon can be ordinary. We see it there at night, so what? But isn't that a profound question there?
Ok, the scientist: measure, Send a ship to the moon, What an astronomical feat! What's there? Color, shape, density, matter, history, relation, relativity (cool word) distance, clouded over? eclipsed? bathe the world in light, inspiration to poets, lovers, dreamers, scientists (admit it) scenery without color, the phases, displaced in time, displaced by time, used as direction, described, intuited, conquered?
AND,
Viewed with the eyes of Van Gogh, splashed and translated onto white canvass -very rare and uncommon ART.
I don't know how much of the question I answered. If any. I was only going to write a couple of sentances. Like "What is Art.":wtf:
That is on another thread. BTW

az

TelecomClone

30 Apr 2006, 12:45 PM

I would appreciate your feedback on the following "philosophical" statement:
Any piece of "art" whose explicit purpose is to challenge the definition of art is not "art". I don't think "art" that purports to communicate nothing in particular can be considered art. Similarly, "art" that exists simply to attack artform isn't really communicating anything in particular either - it is just a blank-canvass challenge. Open-barrel nihilism. That doesn't mean I won't enjoy watching the reactions that it provokes, but I'd have trouble actually considering it to be art.

tatsutahime6

30 Apr 2006, 02:38 PM

Actually someone could take the little piece of turf with dog poop on it, and, by directing our attention to it as a thing separated from its environment, be able to call it art. They might go to the trouble of spraying something on the poop, so that it would last longer and not stink so much. ( Last Caress might steal it before it gets to the museum. :) ) People would look at it and nod, recognizing something we usually "take for granted". Ha Ha. So we're "reframing" it. Perhaps this reframing is what people are getting at. The ability to do the reframing is on the human side. If there were no humans to look at it, would anything at all be art ?

Like Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup can. Just a soup can, but he reframed it as an icon of that age.

A photo of the man with the bleeding head could certainly be art. The man himself ? An interesting question. He could sit on a chair at the "exhibition" and people could note that the wound was getting better/worse as time went on. Yes, he could be art. The scientific truth could be typed on a piece of paper with marginalia and hand written foot notes, and be art. Just the truth by itself, as a concept "floating" in the limbo of other possible ideas wouldn't be considered art. But the process of discovering that truth amidst the limbo might be considered "an art".

Interesting that you mention both bodily excretions and Andy Warhol in the same post... as he himself made several oxidation paintings with urine. http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Warhol-Oxidations-Post-Gagosian-2002.html

mgb

30 Apr 2006, 06:24 PM

Actually someone could take the little piece of turf with dog poop on it, and, by directing our attention to it as a thing separated from its environment, be able to call it art. They might go to the trouble of spraying something on the poop, so that it would last longer and not stink so much. ( Last Caress might steal it before it gets to the museum. :) ) People would look at it and nod, recognizing something we usually "take for granted". Ha Ha. So we're "reframing" it. Perhaps this reframing is what people are getting at. The ability to do the reframing is on the human side. If there were no humans to look at it, would anything at all be art ?

Like Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup can. Just a soup can, but he reframed it as an icon of that age.

A photo of the man with the bleeding head could certainly be art. The man himself ? An interesting question. He could sit on a chair at the "exhibition" and people could note that the wound was getting better/worse as time went on. Yes, he could be art. The scientific truth could be typed on a piece of paper with marginalia and hand written foot notes, and be art. Just the truth by itself, as a concept "floating" in the limbo of other possible ideas wouldn't be considered art. But the process of discovering that truth amidst the limbo might be considered "an art".

I think what you are getting at is context. Art would become art because, in these cases, something everyday has had it's context changed by someone and become something more than it actually is. Art is exclusively a human endeavor then.*

*I know elephants can hold a paint brush, or whatever, but they are making it for the joy of humans, not other elephants.

In that way, yes a math equation, in the right context, could become art. I imagine there is quite a few people here that would purchase a calligraphic math equation to mount on their walls if they had the chance.

ApeTheDog

30 Apr 2006, 06:27 PM

As soon as somebody claims something is not art, it becomes art by that virtue.

Dr. Haight

30 Apr 2006, 06:37 PM

I don't think "art" that purports to communicate nothing in particular can be considered art. Similarly, "art" that exists simply to attack artform isn't really communicating anything in particular either - it is just a blank-canvass challenge. Open-barrel nihilism. That doesn't mean I won't enjoy watching the reactions that it provokes, but I'd have trouble actually considering it to be art.

Wow...one freaking allie, I thought I was completely alone on this one.

mgb

30 Apr 2006, 07:31 PM

Wow...one freaking allie, I thought I was completely alone on this one.

The problem is with your position, that eventually you have to draw a line somewhere on what is art and what isn't. I'm not sure where you intend for that line to be - you haven't really said yet - but I think when you draw that line you'll end up excluding a lot of stuff that inevitably percludes you from a lot of conversations about art.

Dr. Haight

1 May 2006, 12:07 AM

The problem is with your position, that eventually you have to draw a line somewhere on what is art and what isn't. I'm not sure where you intend for that line to be - you haven't really said yet - but I think when you draw that line you'll end up excluding a lot of stuff that inevitably percludes you from a lot of conversations about art.

I understand, yet I just want an agreement that a line exists, even if it is only in theory. However, the feedback in this thread, and in most commentary for that matter, ends in a "anything can be art" mentality that simply seems absurd to me. It causes me to revert to my nihilistic impulses and say that if everything is art, than nothing is art...and, I don't want to go there, since it is a very dark and lonely place.
And I, "haven't really said yet," because, quite honestly, I have yet to make sense of the topic or most of the commentary on this issue. Which, again, probably says more about me then it does about you guys. And as a stubborn, yet curious, individual, I'm going to pound this issue until I feel good about the answer.
Thanks for your help.

mgb

1 May 2006, 12:53 AM

I understand, yet I just want an agreement that a line exists, even if it is only in theory. However, the feedback in this thread, and in most commentary for that matter, ends in a "anything can be art" mentality that simply seems absurd to me. It causes me to revert to my nihilistic impulses and say that if everything is art, than nothing is art...and, I don't want to go there, since it is a very dark and lonely place.
And I, "haven't really said yet," because, quite honestly, I have yet to make sense of the topic or most of the commentary on this issue. Which, again, probably says more about me then it does about you guys. And as a stubborn, yet curious, individual, I'm going to pound this issue until I feel good about the answer.
Thanks for your help.

But not everything is art. A lot of things can be art, but they have to made into art by being captured in some way.

As for the line, you can't ask for consensus on it. That's an intellectual cop out. You have to come up with one since you think there is one, and then have it discussed from there.

And a discussion about everything being art is hardly nihilistic. Nihilistic would imply that there are no values associated with that object, no reason for it's being, when there are quite often many.

azurwarrior

2 May 2006, 04:40 AM

How can there be art without its opposite/nemesis?
Just like some people say without darkness, how can there be light?
Without hell, no heaven.....sadness/joy....war/peace......chaos/order.............. .up/down, even.

Do these sort of guiding principals/laws apply to art (assuming they ARE truth/laws inheirant in life/universe)?

(no answer)

If I was sitting in front of an empty canvas (page, score, blueprint, mound of clay, whatever) with the intention of creating a Masterpiece.......
It seems like the universe guards its secrets and cannot be depended on (or is that the self?) to relinquish a little and when?
It may deliver a flower. Or art. Someway.
Probably persistance helps? And technical proficiency. All that teachable stuff. ....
Plus...............??
Just some ideas.
az

LynRox

28 Jun 2006, 05:56 PM

Being an artist, I believe it to be a communication from the subconscious about something in the consience mind, be it internal or external in it's foundation. How great the piece is, to me, is based on the how well it has been decifered by the subconscious then extroverted into the world for all to see. A simple definition: a communication stemming from within that can be felt by all. Whether it is music, writing, acting, or painting.

Although, in society, arts' validity is placed on how much someone is willing to pay for it. :banghead:

Opposite art = death. All is art, it just varies in extremes. It is merely personal communication. I think what is individually important is what is being communicated and how. It is also Synchronicity in its purest form.

azurwarrior

28 Jun 2006, 08:38 PM

I have yet to make sense of the topic or most of the commentary on this issue. And as a stubborn, yet curious, individual, I'm going to pound this issue until I feel good about the answer.
Thanks for your help.

Me neither. I started a thread a while back "What Is Art?" (Not the same question, depending...) to help me to try to figure it out, but I'm still in the dark.

I just had this weird thought that even crude stick figures can be art-IF they originated in a cave 10,000 years ago...

So I'll post that real quick.
I'm at work, now. I'd better go...

htb

28 Jun 2006, 09:15 PM

I found this topic engaging in my fine arts undergrad until I realized that the deconstructionist elements of postmodernism hold sway culturally and academically; and that categorical exclusion is a source of intellectual raw material to make the kinds of things that elicit calls for scuttling the National Endowment for the Arts. So I learned to answer "everything is art," possibly depriving an iconoclast within earshot of a convention to violate.

Toonia

29 Jun 2006, 01:06 AM

I would appreciate your feedback on the following "philosophical" statement:
Any piece of "art" whose explicit purpose is to challenge the definition of art is not "art". We live in a unique era in which we have both global and historical perspective on aesthetics. With so many systems in place at once, we attempt to universalize a definition of art that can include everything. It has placed more focus on defining and questioning the definition of art. When art becomes solely focused on defining itself, it can end up in an endless feedback loop that culminates into a screaching crescendo of distortion.

Artistic expression tends to be a more focused, distilled form of expression than ordinary communication. To help sort this out, it is helpful to recognize the role of human expression on multiple levels:

Classical traditions of artistic expression:
*Associated with larger sociological structures both political and religious.
*Represent the ideals and philosophies of a society, the spirit of an age.
*Strive to express the height of human understanding and ability to communicate, seeking universal meaning and relevence. Often considered art for art's sake (a functional application is not necessary)
*Span generations forming traditions that intentionally build on themselves and develop a high degree of subtlety and complexity.
*Select individuals with exceptional skill are devoted to developing their ability for expression throughout their lifetimes. The artist speaks for humanity in profound terms. Expertise is necessary to accomplish these artistic endeavors.

Folk traditions of artistic expression.
*Associated with smaller sociological structure in which the members of the community are generally known to one another.
*Address the issues of living and the beliefs of people within a community - they express issues of personal relevence.
*The focus is often more practical creating functional objects, addressing issues of work, family, romance, loss.
*These also are passed down through generations, often with unintentional derivation.
*Working individuals express in free time as personal release. Artistic expression is an avocational endeavor. Varying degrees of skill are acceptable, depending on specific context. Sometimes select individuals express for the community, other times everyone is involved.

Individual meaning in artistic expression
*Personal relevance is the focus, so the context is unique with each person. The degree of skill, practicality, complexity, etc. is completely open-ended.

There has been a tendency in society to define art based on individual meaning only. The ecclecticism of the modern world can result in a kind of aesthetic nihilism. By attempting to find cohension amongst so many, often conflicting, aesthetic systems, many conclude that anything, or nothing, is art. I like to compare artistic expression of humanity to a vast library of books written in a thousand languages. We can enter the library, discover that we do not understand all these systems of language, and so conclude that any scribbling or marking on paper is language, since from our uninformed perspective it will all appear the same. Or we can assume all the contents are great literature because they are all present in the library. Upholding the ability to distinguish meaning amongst multiple systems is challenging, but of central importance for aesthetic understanding. There are certain aesthetic principles that present themselves in nature and in mathematics that generally form a backdrop over which humanity tells it's varied and imperfect stories. If we learn the languages of each form of expression, only then can we even entertain the idea of being able to evaluate aesthetically.

Dr. Haight

29 Jun 2006, 01:16 AM

--Toonia,

Where did that text come from?

Toonia

29 Jun 2006, 01:27 AM

--Toonia,

Where did that text come from?Those are my own thoughts and writing.

Ghost-Girl

29 Jun 2006, 06:29 AM

In my opinon, anything can be art, if it is described as such by whomever made it, or placed it or whatever. That sounds amazingly broad, but I can't make myself draw a line in the sand concerning what subjects or instances would be excluded from being called art.

However, I find it interesting that the technical proficiency of a work is often subordinated to the idea behind the piece, much like Pollock's splatter paintings. There wasn't much to them exactly, it was the idea of not using a brush in the same way it has been used for centuries that really appealed to the art market. Not all art has to be good (and good is a relative term) and not all art has to be useful.

In fact, it might be a requirement of art to be not useful. Gautier said that "There is nothing really beautiful but that which is useless; everything useful is ugly, for it is the expression of some want, and man's needs are ignoble and disgusting, like his poor infirm nature. The most useful part of a house is the toilet." This isn't saying that a toilet couldn't be art, but it would have to somehow be seperated from its usefulness first.

All that said, there is some pretty weird art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Beuys) out there.

Toonia

29 Jun 2006, 01:44 PM

In fact, it might be a requirement of art to be not useful. Gautier said that "There is nothing really beautiful but that which is useless; everything useful is ugly, for it is the expression of some want, and man's needs are ignoble and disgusting, like his poor infirm nature. The most useful part of a house is the toilet." This isn't saying that a toilet couldn't be art, but it would have to somehow be seperated from its usefulness first.That is an interesting perspective and has been held by many scholars. But, how would it apply to the tradition of Amish quilting? Or pottery? There is also a great many derivative images hung on walls for the sole purpose of decoration. I understand this perspective to some degree, except that I think that the mere act of expression serves an enormously useful purpose to a human being. It's not a purpose easily measured in the concrete world, it is an internal purpose, but of great importance nonetheless. The purpose is to bring meaning. Basically everything in nature serves some purpose, and it also serves as human beings primary mentor in aesthetics.