Objectivity and Art

[Mister George Kapland]

Kingstonalloy

I don't think there is such a thing as objective art. But there is such a thing as someone drawing a squiggly line, calling it art in order to be a troll, and then a group of people calling bullshit and saying it isn't art. Then it becomes not art.

Hows about you quit talking.

[Kingstonalloy]

Mister George Kapland

Kingstonalloy

I don't think there is such a thing as objective art. But there is such a thing as someone drawing a squiggly line, calling it art in order to be a troll, and then a group of people calling bullshit and saying it isn't art. Then it becomes not art.

Hows about you quit talking.

Then linking me to pictures of art that aren't objective. emotion_eyebrow

[Mister George Kapland]

Kingstonalloy

Mister George Kapland

Kingstonalloy

I don't think there is such a thing as objective art. But there is such a thing as someone drawing a squiggly line, calling it art in order to be a troll, and then a group of people calling bullshit and saying it isn't art. Then it becomes not art.

Hows about you quit talking.

Then linking me to pictures of art that aren't objective. emotion_eyebrow

What you described is "Non-Objective art" which is a branch of art distinct from "Representational Art" and "Abstract art" which still represents things.

[Kingstonalloy]

Mister George Kapland

Kingstonalloy

Mister George Kapland

Kingstonalloy

I don't think there is such a thing as objective art. But there is such a thing as someone drawing a squiggly line, calling it art in order to be a troll, and then a group of people calling bullshit and saying it isn't art. Then it becomes not art.

Hows about you quit talking.

Then linking me to pictures of art that aren't objective. emotion_eyebrow

What you described is "Non-Objective art" which is a branch of art distinct from "Representational Art" and "Abstract art" which still represents things.

You mean that a piece of notebook paper that has a small, pencil-drawn squiggly line on it by someone who's intentionally being an antagonistic a** just to troll art is worthy of being hung in the Louvre next to the Mona Lisa?

[Mister George Kapland]

Kingstonalloy

Mister George Kapland

Kingstonalloy

Mister George Kapland

Kingstonalloy

I don't think there is such a thing as objective art. But there is such a thing as someone drawing a squiggly line, calling it art in order to be a troll, and then a group of people calling bullshit and saying it isn't art. Then it becomes not art.

Hows about you quit talking.

Then linking me to pictures of art that aren't objective. emotion_eyebrow

What you described is "Non-Objective art" which is a branch of art distinct from "Representational Art" and "Abstract art" which still represents things.

You mean that a piece of notebook paper that has a small, pencil-drawn squiggly line on it by someone who's intentionally being an antagonistic a** just to troll art is worthy of being hung in the Louvre next to the Mona Lisa?

Did I ******** said that? Or did I say it was art? Please, tell me where I said the words "Deserving of a museum". Show them to me. Please, bold them, highlight them, email them to my friends and family.

Furthermore, people "troll" (which is a stupid word used by stupid people who don't understand what trolling is) the art world all the time. Or have you never heard of "Piss Jesus"?

[JlZZ MASTER JAMES]

depends on the style but in general no because art in general is not linear and if it was it would become boring

[Kingstonalloy]

Mister George Kapland

Kingstonalloy

Mister George Kapland

Kingstonalloy

Mister George Kapland

Kingstonalloy

I don't think there is such a thing as objective art. But there is such a thing as someone drawing a squiggly line, calling it art in order to be a troll, and then a group of people calling bullshit and saying it isn't art. Then it becomes not art.

Hows about you quit talking.

Then linking me to pictures of art that aren't objective. emotion_eyebrow

What you described is "Non-Objective art" which is a branch of art distinct from "Representational Art" and "Abstract art" which still represents things.

You mean that a piece of notebook paper that has a small, pencil-drawn squiggly line on it by someone who's intentionally being an antagonistic a** just to troll art is worthy of being hung in the Louvre next to the Mona Lisa?

Did I ******** said that? Or did I say it was art? Please, tell me where I said the words "Deserving of a museum". Show them to me. Please, bold them, highlight them, email them to my friends and family.

Furthermore, people "troll" (which is a stupid word used by stupid people who don't understand what trolling is) the art world all the time. Or have you never heard of "Piss Jesus"?

You told me to shut up when I was talking about how art isn't objective and is always subjective, yet there are select panels that look at particular pieces and deem them each to be a worthwhile piece of art to be showcased in particular museums, which was the context of the overall posts that I made in this thread, which included the little quote snippet... taken out of context and emphasized incorrectly.

I can't quote parts where you said something related to art being shown in museums, but I can show you a bunch of quotes where I mentioned how art is distinguished in certain ways, judged in certain ways, and how I used that to best explain how art might be considered remotely "objective" by people, while still stating the fact that art is subjective.

So you're basically saying empty words by trying to show how I said something when I actually said a lot more stuff that basically elaborated upon what you said when you tried to show how I said something that wasn't actually what I said. So who knows.

[Mister George Kapland]

Kingstonalloy

You told me to shut up when I was talking about how art isn't objective and is always subjective, yet there are select panels that look at particular pieces and deem them each to be a worthwhile piece of art to be showcased in particular museums, which was the context of the overall posts that I made in this thread, which included the little quote snippet... taken out of context and emphasized incorrectly.

Is that why I told you to shut up? Or was it your blah-de-blah about "Someone drawing a squiggly line and calling it art [...] and then a bunch of people say it isn't art!"

But, I mean, you're probably right. Why would I have any idea as to why I told you to shut up.

EDIT: And I didn't emphasize anything in your post, you did that. neutral

[RiioBunni]

By my own standards it must be visually pleasing. I am not really interested in this whole 'art' movement that states ugly indescribable works can be called art depending on what the artist is saying. I personally enjoy art that has the most sense of naturalism. It is intriguing ne. I would say it is subjective.

[village midget]

Tuken

village midget

Tuken

village midget

Tuken

Art is everything, and art is nothing. It matters on the POV of so many different aspects. smile

pov meaning point of view? Isn't that necessarily subjective? Also anything can be art but art is not everything and it isn't nothing either. Nothing is nothing.

It matters on the interpretation, like I've been saying. POV meaning point of view, but not just from personal rational. If art can be anything it can everything and it can be nothing. It doesn't have to be anything. It matters on the implication of interpretation.

How can a point of view not be from a personal rationale? I didn't say art can be anything, I said anything can be art. Maybe that's the same thing...to be honest I ******** hate this poncy ethereal type of art dialogue, it is the stuff of pretentious bullshit that puts so many people off art...but we're in it now, so this is my last stab:

Art cannot be nothing, if it is art then it's art. If an artist has a show which is an empty white cube space - essentially physically nothing - the art is not nothing, the art is the concept and the audience and the space, the lack of art, the void, whatever, but the fact that somebody has decided to arrange this "nothing" as an art piece means it is something.

Everything can be art, dependent on intent or appropriation. That is not the same as "art is everything" because art is art, it's a reflection of humanity it's an exploration of ideas or a narrative or a remix of things that have gone before to express something about us humans to us humans. It is also man-made (or unmade, or presented). Wild grass growing in a field without human intervention is not art. Grass which has been grown in a field by somebody with the intent of creating an artwork, or even the same wild grass appropriated by somebody with the intent of producing an artwork, is art.

Trying to limit art is a poor way of showing we're only human. Who said that to represent nothingness there can't be anything there? That's limiting. Maybe a true way of showing that nothing is there, we have to show something is. As for the grass comment- our conversation can't even decide on what's art, so I don't think we're ready to start talking about the artist.

The picture above, by the tads of definition you've given me, is nothing. It is a piece of art called "Magic Lights," that was painted by an elephant named Kaew. And because no human actively did anything to create this piece, to move the brush, to paint, it does not exist within the art community- just like wild grass.

It is nothing. Yet here it is.

Nobody in this thread said that to represent nothingness there can't be anything there. confused I said art cannot be "nothing". Only nothing is nothing. Art is something, even art which has no tangible presence. I think we are talking at cross-purposes.

I don't see how you can attempt to define art without considering that there is necessarily an artist. Kaew's painting is art, but the artist is the human who set the elephant up with the equipment and published the results. Kaew is only an instrument/tool in the process. The art community was aware at the time, it was news and then like all novelty side-show gimmicks it faded into obscurity.

Neither the elephant painting nor the grass are nothing. I am really beginning to wonder what you mean when you say nothing because it is not what I understand it to mean.

[village midget]

Mister George Kapland

Kingstonalloy

Mister George Kapland

Kingstonalloy

Mister George Kapland

Hows about you quit talking.

Then linking me to pictures of art that aren't objective. emotion_eyebrow

What you described is "Non-Objective art" which is a branch of art distinct from "Representational Art" and "Abstract art" which still represents things.

You mean that a piece of notebook paper that has a small, pencil-drawn squiggly line on it by someone who's intentionally being an antagonistic a** just to troll art is worthy of being hung in the Louvre next to the Mona Lisa?

Did I ******** said that? Or did I say it was art? Please, tell me where I said the words "Deserving of a museum". Show them to me. Please, bold them, highlight them, email them to my friends and family.

Furthermore, people "troll" (which is a stupid word used by stupid people who don't understand what trolling is) the art world all the time. Or have you never heard of "Piss Jesus"?

Kingstonalloy

You are both getting some things wrong.

1) A group of people evaluating something and declaring it "not art" does not instantly mean it's not art.
2) Non-objective art is Abstract art, it's not distinct from it.
3) The squiggly line may well be worthy of being hung in the Louvre, it has made a pretty strong statement about the interior workings of the art establishment and value judgement after all.
4) It's called "Immersion (Piss Christ)" by Andres Serrano, and it didn't troll the art world, it made a commentary which was controversial about the commercialization of Christian icons.
Marla Olmstead is a better example of an art world "troll". She was a four year old who's parents marketed her paintings as Abstract art, generated a media frenzy and people started talking about her as the next Jackson Pollock, her paintings sold for tens of thousands of dollars etc, then 60 minutes did an expose and accused the Dad of helping her (as if the fact her paintings were just a kid's paintings was not enough) and she was dropped by the art establishment like a hot potato. There is a killer documentary about her called "My Kid Could Paint That" which I highly recommend.
5) Trolling is horrible expression to use beyond the bounds of the internet.

[Tuken]

village midget

Tuken

village midget

Tuken

village midget

Tuken

Art is everything, and art is nothing. It matters on the POV of so many different aspects. smile

pov meaning point of view? Isn't that necessarily subjective? Also anything can be art but art is not everything and it isn't nothing either. Nothing is nothing.

It matters on the interpretation, like I've been saying. POV meaning point of view, but not just from personal rational. If art can be anything it can everything and it can be nothing. It doesn't have to be anything. It matters on the implication of interpretation.

How can a point of view not be from a personal rationale? I didn't say art can be anything, I said anything can be art. Maybe that's the same thing...to be honest I ******** hate this poncy ethereal type of art dialogue, it is the stuff of pretentious bullshit that puts so many people off art...but we're in it now, so this is my last stab:

Art cannot be nothing, if it is art then it's art. If an artist has a show which is an empty white cube space - essentially physically nothing - the art is not nothing, the art is the concept and the audience and the space, the lack of art, the void, whatever, but the fact that somebody has decided to arrange this "nothing" as an art piece means it is something.

Everything can be art, dependent on intent or appropriation. That is not the same as "art is everything" because art is art, it's a reflection of humanity it's an exploration of ideas or a narrative or a remix of things that have gone before to express something about us humans to us humans. It is also man-made (or unmade, or presented). Wild grass growing in a field without human intervention is not art. Grass which has been grown in a field by somebody with the intent of creating an artwork, or even the same wild grass appropriated by somebody with the intent of producing an artwork, is art.

Trying to limit art is a poor way of showing we're only human. Who said that to represent nothingness there can't be anything there? That's limiting. Maybe a true way of showing that nothing is there, we have to show something is. As for the grass comment- our conversation can't even decide on what's art, so I don't think we're ready to start talking about the artist.

The picture above, by the tads of definition you've given me, is nothing. It is a piece of art called "Magic Lights," that was painted by an elephant named Kaew. And because no human actively did anything to create this piece, to move the brush, to paint, it does not exist within the art community- just like wild grass.

It is nothing. Yet here it is.

Nobody in this thread said that to represent nothingness there can't be anything there. confused I said art cannot be "nothing". Only nothing is nothing. Art is something, even art which has no tangible presence. I think we are talking at cross-purposes.

I don't see how you can attempt to define art without considering that there is necessarily an artist. Kaew's painting is art, but the artist is the human who set the elephant up with the equipment and published the results. Kaew is only an instrument/tool in the process. The art community was aware at the time, it was news and then like all novelty side-show gimmicks it faded into obscurity.

Neither the elephant painting nor the grass are nothing. I am really beginning to wonder what you mean when you say nothing because it is not what I understand it to mean.

Now we have even more of a problem. We can't even decide on what it is a tool- while on top of what an artist is or what art is. You said "..but the artist is the human who set the elephant up with the equipment and published the results. Kaew is only an instrument/tool in the process." By that logic graphic designers aren't artists. For an example, a client that paid for a graphic design is the artist, not the graphic designer. The graphic designer is merely a tool the client used. Or maybe the Subway sandwich artist that made your lunch isn't technically the cook, but that Subway's owner, because in technicality that sandwich artist was hired as a tool to make your sandwich.

When I say that art is everything, and art is nothing, I mean that while looking at the idea of infinite perspectives. Just because one perspective exists, and might seem to make one art piece go in one direction, doesn't mean that the other perspective that pulls it into a whole different direction isn't just as right or just as wrong. That is why I believe we can go on forever talking about what art is, but if we for a moment say what art isn't, we have lost what art is. I am no more right than you, and you are no more wrong than I. smile

[village midget]

Tuken

village midget

Tuken

village midget

Tuken

It matters on the interpretation, like I've been saying. POV meaning point of view, but not just from personal rational. If art can be anything it can everything and it can be nothing. It doesn't have to be anything. It matters on the implication of interpretation.

How can a point of view not be from a personal rationale? I didn't say art can be anything, I said anything can be art. Maybe that's the same thing...to be honest I ******** hate this poncy ethereal type of art dialogue, it is the stuff of pretentious bullshit that puts so many people off art...but we're in it now, so this is my last stab:

Art cannot be nothing, if it is art then it's art. If an artist has a show which is an empty white cube space - essentially physically nothing - the art is not nothing, the art is the concept and the audience and the space, the lack of art, the void, whatever, but the fact that somebody has decided to arrange this "nothing" as an art piece means it is something.

Everything can be art, dependent on intent or appropriation. That is not the same as "art is everything" because art is art, it's a reflection of humanity it's an exploration of ideas or a narrative or a remix of things that have gone before to express something about us humans to us humans. It is also man-made (or unmade, or presented). Wild grass growing in a field without human intervention is not art. Grass which has been grown in a field by somebody with the intent of creating an artwork, or even the same wild grass appropriated by somebody with the intent of producing an artwork, is art.

Trying to limit art is a poor way of showing we're only human. Who said that to represent nothingness there can't be anything there? That's limiting. Maybe a true way of showing that nothing is there, we have to show something is. As for the grass comment- our conversation can't even decide on what's art, so I don't think we're ready to start talking about the artist.

The picture above, by the tads of definition you've given me, is nothing. It is a piece of art called "Magic Lights," that was painted by an elephant named Kaew. And because no human actively did anything to create this piece, to move the brush, to paint, it does not exist within the art community- just like wild grass.

It is nothing. Yet here it is.

Nobody in this thread said that to represent nothingness there can't be anything there. confused I said art cannot be "nothing". Only nothing is nothing. Art is something, even art which has no tangible presence. I think we are talking at cross-purposes.

I don't see how you can attempt to define art without considering that there is necessarily an artist. Kaew's painting is art, but the artist is the human who set the elephant up with the equipment and published the results. Kaew is only an instrument/tool in the process. The art community was aware at the time, it was news and then like all novelty side-show gimmicks it faded into obscurity.

Neither the elephant painting nor the grass are nothing. I am really beginning to wonder what you mean when you say nothing because it is not what I understand it to mean.

Now we have even more of a problem. We can't even decide on what it is a tool- while on top of what an artist is or what art is. You said "..but the artist is the human who set the elephant up with the equipment and published the results. Kaew is only an instrument/tool in the process." By that logic graphic designers aren't artists. For an example, a client that paid for a graphic design is the artist, not the graphic designer. The graphic designer is merely a tool the client used. Or maybe the Subway sandwich artist that made your lunch isn't technically the cook, but that Subway's owner, because in technicality that sandwich artist was hired as a tool to make your sandwich.

There are some people who would say that graphic designers are not artists, along with architects, industrial designers and fashion designers, for that reason. As designers they operate as an agent between the client, who is the originator, and the product. I do think of design as a type of art, although it is separate in my mind, a designer brings innovation and creativity that the client lacks in themself to the table. I would argue that the elephant is merely a tool because it is not human and lacks the ability to conceptualise as we do. Subway does not make art, they make shitty sandwiches from a formula the "sandwich artist" is hired as a tool.

Quote:

When I say that art is everything, and art is nothing, I mean that while looking at the idea of infinite perspectives. Just because one perspective exists, and might seem to make one art piece go in one direction, doesn't mean that the other perspective that pulls it into a whole different direction isn't just as right or just as wrong. That is why I believe we can go on forever talking about what art is, but if we for a moment say what art isn't, we have lost what art is. I am no more right than you, and you are no more wrong than I. smile

I don't understand approximately 33.3% of what you just said but I agree with the last sentence wholeheartedly.

[Tuken]

village midget

Tuken

village midget

Tuken

village midget

How can a point of view not be from a personal rationale? I didn't say art can be anything, I said anything can be art. Maybe that's the same thing...to be honest I ******** hate this poncy ethereal type of art dialogue, it is the stuff of pretentious bullshit that puts so many people off art...but we're in it now, so this is my last stab:

Art cannot be nothing, if it is art then it's art. If an artist has a show which is an empty white cube space - essentially physically nothing - the art is not nothing, the art is the concept and the audience and the space, the lack of art, the void, whatever, but the fact that somebody has decided to arrange this "nothing" as an art piece means it is something.

Everything can be art, dependent on intent or appropriation. That is not the same as "art is everything" because art is art, it's a reflection of humanity it's an exploration of ideas or a narrative or a remix of things that have gone before to express something about us humans to us humans. It is also man-made (or unmade, or presented). Wild grass growing in a field without human intervention is not art. Grass which has been grown in a field by somebody with the intent of creating an artwork, or even the same wild grass appropriated by somebody with the intent of producing an artwork, is art.

Trying to limit art is a poor way of showing we're only human. Who said that to represent nothingness there can't be anything there? That's limiting. Maybe a true way of showing that nothing is there, we have to show something is. As for the grass comment- our conversation can't even decide on what's art, so I don't think we're ready to start talking about the artist.

The picture above, by the tads of definition you've given me, is nothing. It is a piece of art called "Magic Lights," that was painted by an elephant named Kaew. And because no human actively did anything to create this piece, to move the brush, to paint, it does not exist within the art community- just like wild grass.

It is nothing. Yet here it is.

Nobody in this thread said that to represent nothingness there can't be anything there. confused I said art cannot be "nothing". Only nothing is nothing. Art is something, even art which has no tangible presence. I think we are talking at cross-purposes.

I don't see how you can attempt to define art without considering that there is necessarily an artist. Kaew's painting is art, but the artist is the human who set the elephant up with the equipment and published the results. Kaew is only an instrument/tool in the process. The art community was aware at the time, it was news and then like all novelty side-show gimmicks it faded into obscurity.

Neither the elephant painting nor the grass are nothing. I am really beginning to wonder what you mean when you say nothing because it is not what I understand it to mean.

Now we have even more of a problem. We can't even decide on what it is a tool- while on top of what an artist is or what art is. You said "..but the artist is the human who set the elephant up with the equipment and published the results. Kaew is only an instrument/tool in the process." By that logic graphic designers aren't artists. For an example, a client that paid for a graphic design is the artist, not the graphic designer. The graphic designer is merely a tool the client used. Or maybe the Subway sandwich artist that made your lunch isn't technically the cook, but that Subway's owner, because in technicality that sandwich artist was hired as a tool to make your sandwich.

There are some people who would say that graphic designers are not artists, along with architects, industrial designers and fashion designers, for that reason. As designers they operate as an agent between the client, who is the originator, and the product. I do think of design as a type of art, although it is separate in my mind, a designer brings innovation and creativity that the client lacks in themself to the table. I would argue that the elephant is merely a tool because it is not human and lacks the ability to conceptualise as we do. Subway does not make art, they make shitty sandwiches from a formula the "sandwich artist" is hired as a tool.

Quote:

When I say that art is everything, and art is nothing, I mean that while looking at the idea of infinite perspectives. Just because one perspective exists, and might seem to make one art piece go in one direction, doesn't mean that the other perspective that pulls it into a whole different direction isn't just as right or just as wrong. That is why I believe we can go on forever talking about what art is, but if we for a moment say what art isn't, we have lost what art is. I am no more right than you, and you are no more wrong than I. smile

I don't understand approximately 33.3% of what you just said but I agree with the last sentence wholeheartedly.

Before I want to continue I want to clarify I didn't mean to say that sandwiches are an art piece (however they can be), but I was just using the connection as a another example. Also, thank you for agreeing with the last sentence. Even if you didn't understand what else I was saying, that was essentially the heart and soul of what I meant. Now to disagree some more, lol.

You mention, "I would argue that the elephant is merely a tool because it is not human and lacks the ability to conceptualise as we do." I see your point, and your reasoning behind it. However, I do not agree with it because art doesn't come from just humans. Generally speaking, art made from humans is much more appreciated than anything else. Just because elephants may not have the same mental conscious as us, does not mean they aren't artists. Are humans that have severe mental disabilities and can't communicate not artists? What level of consciousness must another species have to be considered an artist? Or does it not matter? Maybe this is just species discrimination?