Art: What is it not?

[Invictus_88]

Stop Him

Unchi-tan

And "beginner" is defined by how much you know, not by how long you've been drawing.

ONLY TO YOU.

I mean, how easy must it be to "win" an argument in your own head by redefining words to your own idiosyncratic standards! "Why, no, beginner doesn't mean one who is beginning, it means one who hasn't achieved a level of skill that only I and the Art Lords can determine! What? No, years of unchanging use in the English language doesn't mean a thing if I up and decide it means something new on Planet Unchi!"

Sakes.

If I might interject, Unchi is correct. An elderly Indian goatherd doesn't possess experienced English skills through speaking broken English all his life, just as a fifteen year old literary prodigy doesn't possess beginner-level English because they are young.

I have been painting since I was six and am now twenty-two, but I would defer to someone of sixteen who had chosen to focus more on art and to acquire a better technique or outlook.

It's not simply Unchi and I, either, as companies recruiting linguists, managers and designers will assess candidates on skill and merit quite apart from the raw amount of time that these people have been pursuing their specialisations.

[Bomberman]

Major Malfunction

Bomberman

No, The Subject is Art.
My media is anything I can get my hands on.

Saying "any kind of media can be used to create art" is not the same as saying "anything can be art". The fact that Duchamp made a piece of art out of a bicycle wheel does not mean that bicycle wheels are art; the fact that Picasso made art using oil paints doesn't mean that everything made with oil paints is art. You seemed to be suggesting otherwise in your previous posts.

Yes it is.
You could call the rest of the bike art.
You could call a tube of oil paint Art.
Just because I said "create" as a habbit doesn't disprove the theory.
Similarly when I say "media" I'm talking about what the 'art' is acctually made from.

Anything and everything can be art. It depends on if you want to look at it that way.
I do; in a majority of case but I obviously dont wonder round saying to everyone " look at this art, oooh and that art, and this is art too!"
But to take an object you've found or created out of any media to create a contraversial piece (in the sense of 'is it art?') makes it Art in a declaritive way. As oposed to the many other possibilities how art could come about.

[Invictus_88]

Bomberman

Yes it is.
You could call the rest of the bike art.
You could call a tube of oil paint Art.
Just because I said "create" as a habbit doesn't disprove the theory.
Similarly when I say "media" I'm talking about what the 'art' is acctually made from.

Anything and everything can be art. It depends on if you want to look at it that way.
I do; in a majority of case but I obviously dont wonder round saying to everyone " look at this art, oooh and that art, and this is art too!"
But to take an object you've found or created out of any media to create a contraversial piece (in the sense of 'is it art?') makes it Art in a declaritive way. As oposed to the many other possibilities how art could come about.

You still say that everything 'can be' art rather than that everything is art.

This is broadly true. Art can be created from most things. Bits of newspaper, wax, leaves, dried glue, fecal matter, blood...etc.

You have still not made clear what you think it is that makes art art rather than not-art.

[Bomberman]

Invictus_88

Bomberman

Yes it is.
You could call the rest of the bike art.
You could call a tube of oil paint Art.
Just because I said "create" as a habbit doesn't disprove the theory.
Similarly when I say "media" I'm talking about what the 'art' is acctually made from.

Anything and everything can be art. It depends on if you want to look at it that way.
I do; in a majority of case but I obviously dont wonder round saying to everyone " look at this art, oooh and that art, and this is art too!"
But to take an object you've found or created out of any media to create a contraversial piece (in the sense of 'is it art?') makes it Art in a declaritive way. As oposed to the many other possibilities how art could come about.

You still say that everything 'can be' art rather than that everything is art.

This is broadly true. Art can be created from most things. Bits of newspaper, wax, leaves, dried glue, fecal matter, blood...etc.

You have still not made clear what you think it is that makes art art rather than not-art.

Okay well if you want me do be as simplistic in language as possible. (I forgot I was on gaia)

Everything is Art; And Everything can be Art in a more traditional sense if placed into an exhibitive space etc. Because thats whats required in the majority of cases for people to acctually view a piece as "art"

[Invictus_88]

If everything you see is art, why're you bothering to study 'it'? You could read economics, marine biology or gender studies and be just as art-centric as you are at present.

[Bomberman]

Invictus_88

If everything you see is art, why're you bothering to study 'it'? You could read economics, marine biology or gender studies and be just as art-centric as you are at present.

By that same logic why study anything?

Theres fish in the sea, money in the banks and people with oposite genders?

I don't mearly study art, I'm a practicing artist too; got a book published of photography. I've had a sculpture in a museum in Newcastle. I'm just doing what I like doing and if it gets me somewhere then fair enough. I'm only 19, I'm not bothered about anyone over simplifying my chosen subject just because they're not happy about the concept that in theory everything is art.

[Invictus_88]

So actually, you're a hypocrite.

Well, at least there's now some clarity to this discussion.

[xi hou jun]

designed freedom

Two people sit down to paint a sunset. One is a classically trained artist. The other is a person with at best primary school knowledge of technique. Both re-create what they see. Are both paintings art?

Yes, although I'm sure that Nina will disagree. One might be bad, it might be amateur, it might show no understanding of the principles of art, but it is still art.

The definition of art itself is pretty simple. It's just the definition of 'good' art that is so difficult, and so subjective. Unfortunately, some people will always confuse their opinions with facts, but this kind of self-aggrandized delusion cannot be avoided, only ignored.

I think it might make an interesting study to try to discover why some people are so threatened by the thought that unskilled art is still art.

[A BAD CASE OF HERPES]

[Stop Him]

Invictus_88

Ironic that you paint me as a prudish moralist in order to discredit my objectivist definition of art, given that last year I composed a 6,000 word essay arguing that art need not conform to a moral standard. But hey, you weren't to know this so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you innocently misunderstood my post.

Deliberately or not, by selecting those particular things - and only those things - as examples, you were making an appeal to moral outrage. That's a function of your writing more than any other misapprehension.

And what was the "objectivist" part? I missed that.

Invictus_88

My objection to your standards is not a moral one, but a semantic one. You say that anything created by a person, for any sort of gratification, is art.

Not exactly. "Gratification" as opposed to necessity. "Necessity" is being used rather broadly, I'll admit, since beyond food, water and a certain amount of shelter most of us don't really truly need a lot of things in order to live in the most basic manner, but I apply that to things that are related to necessity: we feel gratification when we are hungry and eat food, but that is a function of our need. A brick used to make a house serves the need of shelter, a fridge protects the food we require. This is not gratification, not art - though the way in which the fridge is decorated or the shape and arrangement of the brick(s) may very well be art.

Invictus_88

This applies to the most un-artistic things: Child pornography to crush videos, fridges to bricks, beer to cocaine.

Only: It doesn't. A refrigerator or a brick I've addressed. Beer or cocaine? Intoxicants used to create a personal dampening or enhancement of living itself, more related to necessity ("I need to relax, I need to get fired up" ) than anything else. Although, the way in which beer is brewed can turn on a number of optional variables and ingredients - which do not necessarily serve the utilitarian function of getting someone drunk. Art. Psychedelics could be used to enhance a ritual of some sort. Art.

Having no experience with child pornography I can only speak to adult porn as an example: though the purpose would seem to be based on necessity - biological drive to mate, or a substitute for fulfilling that drive - every choice made beyond that is of an artistic nature: what "story" there is, if any, composition, lighting, any of the things that go into any other movie. Even a crush video, even - admittedly theoretically - child porn.

Which is not to say that any particular example of the same definitively is or is not art, but that it could be, based on which things it contains, based on sorting elements by the criteria I've set forth. If morality isn't a factor, if disgust and outrage can be set aside, it's possible to analyze these things properly, with a more objective eye.

What additional standards would you require, and how do you (or do you) present them as being "objective"?

Invictus_88

If I might interject,

As if I could stop you,

Invictus_88

Unchi is correct. An elderly Indian goatherd doesn't possess experienced English skills through speaking broken English all his life, just as a fifteen year old literary prodigy doesn't possess beginner-level English because they are young.

You're confusing time with proficiency. The goatherd has plenty of experience, but little proficiency. The prodigy has to start at some point - though he may progress rapidly. Unchi didn't say I was "beginner-level", but that I was a beginner. That was a poor choice of words, if she meant the former.

Perhaps she ought to seek greater proficiency.

[Unchi-tan]

Oh man. I only now just got it.

You kids don't know the difference between an artist and an artisan, do you? Here's a dictionary definition of both, since you are all so fond of dictionaries:

Dictionary: art·ist
n.

1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
3. One who works in the performing arts.
4. One who is adept at an activity


Dictionary: ar·ti·san

A skilled manual worker; a craftsperson.

Man. That goddamn elitist dicionary! rolleyes

Also, here's some quotes for you:

E.H. Gombrich

I do not deny in the introduction [of his book] that a visual artist must have a special feeling for shapes and colors, much as a musician must be sensitive to sounds and rhythms, but those who have read the book may also remember that I come back to my theoretical position in what was originally the concluding chapter of the book, now Chapter 27, and that I there introduce a metaphor by way of clarification. Let me quote (page 594) "To produce a perfect pearl the oyster needs some piece of matter .... round which the pearl can form . If the artist's feelings for form and color are to crystallize, he too needs such a hard core -- a definite task on which he can bring his gifts to bear." It is here also, that I tell the readers what I propose to call Art. I quote again: "It is a secret of the artist that he does his work so superlatively well, that we all but forget what his work was supposed to be, for sheer admiration of the way he did it."

Yeah, see, art is not about skill at all.

Bonus awesomeness:

E.H. Gombrich

As an historian I had to confront the fact that the art of our century lacks the kind of cohesion or continuity that provided my story with its narrative thread. I believe that this discontinuity has been hidden or masked in the mind of many critics by an implicit belief in the inherent logic of progress. It is this belief that my late friend the philosopher, K.R. Popper, called "Historicism," the metaphysical faith in the inevitable rightness of any historical development. This faith, which certainly reacted back on the art of the century regards any criticism as blasphemy.

Let me say in conclusion, as my final point, why I do not share this faith. Having experienced the rise of the Nazis in my formative years, I have an instinctive abhorrence of all collectivist creeds. I am an individualist and wholly allergic to the cry of "We, we, we" whether it results from sectarianism, nationalism, racism, or what I might call 'periodism', that invokes the so called spirit of our age. I don't believe that we have a moral duty to go with the times, on the contrary, we may rather have a moral duty to resist the pressures of collectivism that are menacing our civilization.

And before you tell me that I picked my "favorite historian" based on personal bias, I disagree with Gombrich about a lot of things, especially his opinion on expressionism which happens to be my favorite movement. He was however an historian of tremendous importance, someone who knew his s**t, and the fact that I personally disagree with him does not make his point invalid because I'm just this one insignificant person with limited knowledge of something that he is an expert about.

Okay, guys? This is what I mean when I say "fact". Facts are things that can be backed up by arguments said or written by people with a vast understanding of the subject. The things that I posted are not "my personal opinion". They are things that I learned in years and years as a student, then as a professional. The stuff you're all spilling out? That's pretentious art student bullshit mixed with a little bit of unskilled amateur bitterness. What you're posting is personal opinion. Not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is fact that can be backed up by anyone who understands what art is.

My personal opinion was very clearly labeled as such. "Do I personally feel that such and such belongs in a museum? No," I said. In a previous thread, "do I personally feel that Andy Warhol was a genius? No. But..."

Everything that I presented as fact is indeed fact, and whenever I expressed my personal opinion I made it a point to say so.

I didn't post this before because I know that there will be a "hurrr durrr that is Gombrich's personal opinion derpa derpa durp" reply from at least one of you. But I was asked to cite a credible source here, so I'm doing that for the sake of informing you and offering you undeniable proof that you are so completely ignorant about art that you somehow managed to convince yourselves that the idea of standards does not apply to it and that this is all a matter of personal opinion. I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. Art is not about personal opinion at all and not everything is art. End of story.

Also Jun, it's nice that you took some time to try and discover who I am in real life for whatever (not creepy at all) reason, but Nina is just a nickname that I use on the internet and a pen name that I use to sign some of my experimental work. It has no connection to my real name (or to my real work) whatsoever.

[Itstimeforsun]

I believe that you can never say what art is, because it depends on who you are and what you believe in. 4laugh

[Stop Him]

Unchi-tan

Dictionary: art·ist
n.

1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.

You will note that this definition does not put any quantitative measure on that value, just that it must have some. Which is in essence what I have maintained: that even a little aesthetic value to anyone can qualify a work as art. It also does not say how radical the imagination, how much talent, or how much skill is required.

Take a moment to bandage up your foot where you've shot it.

Unchi-tan

Okay, guys? This is what I mean when I say "fact".

But all of that was not, in actuality, a "fact". That was an opinion - based on thought and experience, an informed opinion, but in the end, based on that dude's own value judgments, not on anything more concrete.

Unchi-tan

Facts are things that can be backed up by arguments said or written by people with a vast understanding of the subject. The things that I posted are not "my personal opinion". They are things that I learned in years and years as a student, then as a professional.

An opinion formed by assimilating the opinions of others is still your own opinion. That an opinion passes through many hands does not make it any less an opinion. A respected opinion is no less an opinion than a disrespected opinion.

Unchi-tan

I didn't post this before because I know that there will be a "hurrr durrr that is Gombrich's personal opinion derpa derpa durp" reply from at least one of you.

E.H. Gombrich

my theoretical position

It is here also, that I tell the readers what I propose to call Art.

I believe

It is this belief

I do not share this faith.

I don't believe

Why, so it is!

Unchi-tan

But I was asked to cite a credible source here, so I'm doing that for the sake of informing you and offering you undeniable proof that you are so completely ignorant about art that you somehow managed to convince yourselves that the idea of standards does not apply to it and that this is all a matter of personal opinion. I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. Art is not about personal opinion at all and not everything is art. End of story.

For someone who claims they don't know how to write, you sure expect your writing to somehow be convincing or definitive.

"It just is it just is it just is!"

Yeah, sure that works.

[Unchi-tan]

Stop Him

[Major Malfunction]

Stop Him

An opinion formed by assimilating the opinions of others is still your own opinion. That an opinion passes through many hands does not make it any less an opinion. A respected opinion is no less an opinion than a disrespected opinion.

Well, now that you've successfully argued against the very existence of human knowledge, I think we're done here.