....art

[Meatplow]

i'm reading the Industrial Culture Handbook, this interview with Throbbing Gristle is graphic.

Genesis: I used to do things like stick severed chicken's heads over my penis, and then try to masturbate them, whilst pouring maggots all over it...

In Los Angeles, in 1976, at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (LAICA), Cosey and I did a performance where I was naked, I drank a bottle of whiskey and stood on a lot of tacks. And then i gave myself enemas with blood, milk and urine, and then broke wind so a jet of blood milk and urine combined shot across the floor in front of Chris Burden and assorted visual artists. I then licked it off the floor, which was a not-clean concrete floor.

Then I got a 10-inch nail and tried to swallow it, which made me vomit. Then I licked the vomit off the floor and Cosey helped me lick the vomit off the floor. And she was naked and trying to sever her omnibus to her navel with a razor blade-- well, she cut it from her omnibus to her navel with a razor blade, and she injected blood into her omnibus which then trickled out, and we sucked the blood from her omnibus into a syringe and injected it into eggs painted black, which we then tried to eat. And we vomited again, which we then used for enemas.

Then I needed to urinate, so I urinated into a large glass bottle and drank it all while it was still warm. (This was all improvised.) And then we gradually crawled to each other, licking the floor clean.('cause we don't like to leave a mess, y'know; after all, it's not fair to insult an art gallery). Chris Burden, who's known for being outrageous, walked out with his girlfriend, saying, "This is not art, this is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen, and these people are sick."

In Amsterdam we did a performance in the red-light district. The people in the theater asked, "What kind of lighting do you want?" and we said, "Oh, just put on all the red lights." Then we played tapes of Charles Manson's LP, Lie, cut-up with soundtracks of trains going through thunderstorms, and we went through all all different kinds of fetishes. Sleazy cut his throat and had to kind of do a tourniquet on his throat, and Cosey and i did this thing of spitting at each other and then licking all the spit off, and then licking each other's genitals, and then having sexual intercourse while her hair was set on fire with candles. There was an audience of around 2,000 people.

And each day it got heavier, so that on Easter Sunday I was crucufied on a wooden cross, whipped with 2 bullwhips, covered in human vomit and chicken wings and chicken legs, while I had to hold burning torches - people in the audience could hear the skin burning on my hands. And then i urinated down Cosey's legs while she stuck a lighted candle up her omnibus, so there were flames coming out of her omnibus. Just ordinary everyday ways of avoiding the commercials on the television....

Art has to make a statement that has meaning, if it doesn't you're just acting the sandwich

but if art doesn't have a meaning but has a certain uniqueness to it's aesthetic is this not art as well?

Nope, it's just objectively pretty. My walls are painted well, doesn't make them art.

architecture and the design of a house (including the way the walls are painted) is an art

I'll disagree. There's a difference between being able to appreciate beauty in something, and something being purposely constructed/designed/whatever as a form of art. A meadow full of flowers is not art, but it is beautiful aesthetically. Unless you believe in god..

>>.>>
<<.<<

sandwich

everything is art in a post-modern world

i might take this to PNWI this will be fun

resolve this argument

[Aaron]

Please edit my vulgar language, gentle sir.

[sweboy]

It's art if the artist thinks it's art.

[Meatplow]

Please edit my vulgar language, gentle sir.

what should I use in place of the offending words?

[Aaron]

erm, sandwich

[Meatplow]

done, and done

[RunAmokRampant]

It's art if the artist thinks it's art.

its art even if the artist doesnt think its art, its any person experiencing it that makes that decision.

[Knifeboy]

"i might take this to PNWI this will be fun"

please don't. it's been done to death

[Meatplow]

i'm drunk and really have little else to do with my night other then eat cereal please don't complain

[Aaron]

To me, it has to make a statement about something; simplistic acrylics [monet for example] is making a statement that life is beautiful and is paying homage to the moment by attempting to capture it, performance art has a statement behind it too albiet harder to interpret, but when an artist's primary focus is on offending, then to me it's no longer art and just wierd behaviour.

[Knifeboy]

I am not complaining! Just posting for the sake of posting. I am as bored as you

[Meatplow]

To me, it has to make a statement about something; simplistic acrylics [monet for example] is making a statement that life is beautiful and is paying homage to the moment by attempting to capture it, performance art has a statement behind it too albiet harder to interpret, but when an artist's primary focus is on offending, then to me it's no longer art and just wierd behaviour.

so it turns from art into exploitation?

I am not complaining! Just posting for the sake of posting. I am as bored as you

haha yeah man its all good

[siva_chair]

What is there to debate here exactly?

[Aaron]

It turns from art to not-art. Depends on the medium and subject. It's just like reproductions to me, isn't really art as there's no real substance to the person who's created it's motivation beyond money.

[Meatplow]

It turns from art to not-art. Depends on the medium and subject. It's just like reproductions to me, isn't really art as there's no real substance to the person who's created it's motivation beyond money.

this would assume exploitative material is being made by people who make commercial gains

a lot of the underground transgressive artists in the late 70's didn't make squat

[Aaron]

Yeah, but in non-dollar terms it's exploitive as they've gained recognition.

[JohnXDoe3]

their is good art and bad art. ultimately art is in the eye of the beholder

[Meatplow]

Yeah, but in non-dollar terms it's exploitive as they've gained recognition.

this not always true and certainly not always a motivator

[GreyHam]

if anything is capable of being called art, then the word 'art' loses all intrinsic worth

people eating and drinking piss and ****, shitting and pissing it out, giving themselves enemas with it and repeating the process, is not art in my opinion. what exactly is it meant to show? what is it doing? is it portraying an aesthetic beauty, either realistically or stylistically? is it highlighting a social injustice, or a flaw in human nature? does it make us question ourselves, and our own beliefs? in fact, does it offer any sort of debate whatsoever, short of 'is this art or not'

a few months ago we had the odd man who starved (or pretended to - but thats another debate) a dog to death in a gallery, the idea being that dogs starve worldwide all the time, that there are thousands upon thousands of abandoned domestic animals that perish due to the neglect of people, but that people only care about these things when they are confronted with them directly. now, wether what he did is moral or not is subjective - the fact that it suddenly focused worlwide attention on this one animal rights issue is something that is worthy.

people shitting on each other isnt art - its fetish. its a bit like the age old idea of 'is this art or pornography' (ive always viewed art as stimulating a persons appreciation of the beauty of the human form, wheras pornography stimulates erotic desires. one is for watching, the other for wanking)

the word art is too generic for my liking nowadays. calling people like this 'artists' likens them to pioneers in painting, music and theatre. alternatively, you can collect 5 of the most talentless people, give them sticks, strings and an amplifier, ask them to make noise for half an hour and call them 'musicians'

or...get them to cum on each other as well and voila...the throbbing gristle formula

[elmntrs]

typing "i'm an idiot" would have sufficed

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

:rolleyes:
art is a creative idea turned directly or indirectly turned to reality by the creator


thats it thats all it is
there doesnt have to be any meaning for it to be art
it doesnt have to make a statement or be pleasing to the eye/ear/nose
it just has to be an idea and then it has to be made

[niobium]

art to me has to have a profound or lasting effect on the viewer, something that can form a bond

[BridgeToSolace]

Is the piece called "The Aristocrats!" ?

[Amit]

It's art if the artist thinks it's art.

thread ends here

[Meatplow]

i am inclined to agree

[BridgeToSolace]

So if I fart and I think it's art, I'm an artist?

Awesome.

Someone get me a degree.

[Amit]

well there's also how the artist's culture receives it

just because you don't understand the concept of ethnocentricity doesn't mean you have to be snarky about it

[BridgeToSolace]

The artist's culture's reception having an influence on perception as art is a huge limitation on "it's are if he thinks it's art"

[Amit]

The artist's culture's reception having an influence on perception as art is a huge limitation on "it's are if he thinks it's art"

but that's still subordinate to the artist since he is part of that culture too

[BridgeToSolace]

One can be a member of culture to varying degrees, however.

But I need to take a sociology course before I can commit to that statement.

[Amit]

that only makes your view even more tenuous

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

art to me has to have a profound or lasting effect on the viewer, something that can form a bond

so in other words something can or can not be art depending on who sees it, and you can't tell if something is art until you've shown it to someone?


i think art encompasses a lot more than good art. most art is terrible, but it's still art.

[Jude]

its art if i think its art

[BridgeToSolace]

Probably :(

I don't value art that requires the observer to "figure it out". It becomes more about me than about the artist at that point. I don't care what I think your piece means. I care what YOU think it means.

But oh well.

[PerpetualBurn]

What the artist's intent was is pretty irrelevant to what makes something art.

We can't know for sure by looking at a piece of art work whether someone poured their heart and soul into it, or whether they're a soulless bastard who just happens to have an eye for what people want to see.

We can conjecture, but the artist's intent is always separate from the interpretation.

The only general quality of art is that it's produced by man. Not that it's pretty, skillfully done, clever, or tasteful.

Of course making a public fetish display is artistic. But the term artistic doesn't and can't imply all that people here seem to want it to.

[niobium]

so in other words something can or can not be art depending on who sees it, and you can't tell if something is art until you've shown it to someone?


i think art encompasses a lot more than good art. most art is terrible, but it's still art.i guess. if it's art to only the creator and the person shows it to no one, then we don't really get anywhere

[italic zero]

i like throbbing gristle

[halfdeadhippo]

Art is anything that is made or created by a human being or by human beings that has some meaning to the viewer beyond application. For example, even though a painting is just pigment on canvas, the viewer sees the image of a person. Context is important, also. A well-made and beautiful chair is still just a chair until its placed in a context where its beauty becomes more apparent than its application (sitting in it).

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

:rolleyes:
art is a creative idea turned directly or indirectly turned to reality by the creator


thats it thats all it is
there doesnt have to be any meaning for it to be art
it doesnt have to make a statement or be pleasing to the eye/ear/nose
it just has to be an idea and then it has to be made

why are yall still talking about what art is? this is what it is^ not really a debatable thing tbh
it cant just be whatever the artist says it is cuz there has to be an idea in the first place
if i say im going to not clean my room for 6 weeks and see what it looks like then i could call that art
but it wouldnt work the same way if i just decided my already messy room was art because there would be no idea there that i created

then you have artists who are more big time who can sketch up an idea to be carved in stone and have a team actually do the carving. they arent the ones literally making it but they invented the idea and are the driving force behind its creation.

[PerpetualBurn]

Art is anything that is made or created by a human being or by human beings that has some meaning to the viewer beyond application. For example, even though a painting is just pigment on canvas, the viewer sees the image of a person. Context is important, also. A well-made and beautiful chair is still just a chair until its placed in a context where its beauty becomes more apparent than its application (sitting in it).

I disagree that something is not art simply because no one appreciates it.

This implies that my painting is not art until someone else decides it is, at which point, surely this should mean it was art all along.

[McP3000]

art
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

[Meatplow]

why are yall still talking about what art is? this is what it is^ not really a debatable thing tbh

well some of the finest minds the world has ever seen has been arguing over it for years, i'd dare say it is a debatable thing

[PerpetualBurn]

art
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

There's always someone who doesn't understand how a dictionary works.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

well some of the finest minds the world has ever seen has been arguing over it for years, i'd dare say it is a debatable thing

and who would those minds be
i dont think i ever heard of franco de goya debating it or de vinci or duane hanson or donald judd

[Meatplow]

anne frank, henry rollins, popeye

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

i thought you meant great artists

[Meatplow]

i yam what i yam

art, 2008

[Surf]

and who would those minds be
i dont think i ever heard of franco de goya debating it or de vinci or duane hanson or donald judd

lol

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

i guess. if it's art to only the creator and the person shows it to no one, then we don't really get anywhere

you're missing the point though. whether something is or isn't art does NOT depend on whether or not people have seen it. the mona lisa would still be art even if it had been locked away the day it was painted. the fact that you don't "get anywhere" is completely irrelevant.

[siva_chair]

Art is something that is created by human beings (or I guess one could say intelligence) that is appealing to the senses or emotions of a human. What else is there to discuss?

[djtdub105]

andy rooney did a piece on 60 minutes about how he doesn't like modern art. some of it made sense, but he just came off as a cranky old man

[siva_chair]

Imagine that he is a cranky old man

[PerpetualBurn]

Art is something that is created by human beings (or I guess one could say intelligence) that is appealing to the senses or emotions of a human. What else is there to discuss?

So it's not art until someone's appreciated it? What is it before that?

[RNR]

The artist appreciated it after he finished it.

Art is something that is created by human beings (or I guess one could say intelligence) that is appealing to the senses or emotions of a human. What else is there to discuss?

Senses AND emotions. A picture of a landscape appeals to our sense of beauty, however it has no statement and doesn't appeal on an emotional level. It is not art.

[808]

It is art.

[RNR]

It is art.

If it doesn't appeal to us on an emotional level and doesn't mean anything, it is still art? What's the difference between art and craft? Explain yourself and prove that you have worth to this discussion instead of just contradicting me.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Art is something that is created by human beings (or I guess one could say intelligence) that is appealing to the senses or emotions of a human. What else is there to discuss?

So bad art isn't art then?

[siva_chair]

So it's not art until someone's appreciated it? What is it before that?

If it doesn't appeal to the emotions and senses of anyone (including the "artist" that created it) then I don't know why it would be called art.

So bad art isn't art then?

Well "bad" is a pretty subjective and vague term so I don't know what you are saying here. What constitutes "bad" art?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Well "bad" is a pretty subjective and vague term so I don't know what you are saying here. What constitutes "bad" art?

You're the one who said it has to appeal to the senses. Exact quote:

Art is something that is created by human beings (or I guess one could say intelligence) that is appealing to the senses or emotions of a human. What else is there to discuss?

In other words, your definition says that if it doesn't appeal to senses it isn't art. Bad paintings don't appeal to most people's senses, but then again some good paintings don't appeal to some people's senses. Your definition is essentially meaningless because it hinges on whether or not people like it, which is again purely subjective. To decide if something is art, do you need to poll the viewers and come up with a minimum approval rating? Or can you not decide if something is art until enough people have seen it and liked it?

[siva_chair]

You're the one who said it has to appeal to the senses. Exact quote:



In other words, your definition says that if it doesn't appeal to senses it isn't art. Bad paintings don't appeal to most people's senses, but then again some good paintings don't appeal to some people's senses. Your definition is essentially meaningless because it hinges on whether or not people like it, which is again purely subjective. To decide if something is art, do you need to poll the viewers and come up with a minimum approval rating? Or can you not decide if something is art until enough people have seen it and liked it?

No that is silly if it appeals to someone's senses it is art to that particular person. I don't see what is so hard to understand here.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

No that is silly if it appeals to someone's senses it is art to that particular person. I don't see what is so hard to understand here.

Your definition isn't hard to understand, I just disagree with it. I don't really get how your definition of art can depend so much on whether it's good art or not. If I draw the world's crappiest painting, it's still art, it's just bad art.

[siva_chair]

Your definition isn't hard to understand, I just disagree with it. I don't really get how your definition of art can depend so much on whether it's good art or not. If I draw the world's crappiest painting, it's still art, it's just bad art.

It doesn't depend on whether or not it is "good" or "bad."

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

It doesn't depend on whether or not it is "good" or "bad."

yeah except for that appeal has purely positive connotations

[siva_chair]

yeah except for that appeal has purely positive connotations

That has nothing to do if whether it is viewed as "good" or "bad" by the majority of people, though.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I don't see how you can apply your definition to bad art and conclude that it is art. You specifically said something can be art to you and not art to someone else, so art you don't like isn't art because it doesn't appeal to you.

[siva_chair]

I don't see how you can apply your definition to bad art and conclude that it is art. You specifically said something can be art to you and not art to someone else, so art you don't like isn't art because it doesn't appeal to you.

You haven't defined what constitutes bad art. Art is art. I made no attempt to categorize art as "good" or "bad."

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

You haven't defined what constitutes bad art. Art is art. I made no attempt to categorize art as "good" or "bad."
This is heading into "define 'it'" territory. I don't really see the point in continuing this argument.

[PerpetualBurn]

If it doesn't appeal to the emotions and senses of anyone (including the "artist" that created it) then I don't know why it would be called art.

If I write a piece of music, and it means nothing to any of the people that hear it, and then in fifty years time, it evokes feelings in some person, it's suddenly become art. That's stupid.

[McP3000]

There's always someone who doesn't understand how a dictionary works.
no i was just posting a purposefully obviously and stupid answer to the OP's question. It wasn't meant to be serious.

[GUTS]

If I write a piece of music, and it means nothing to any of the people that hear it, and then in fifty years time, it evokes feelings in some person, it's suddenly become art. That's stupid.

that exaple is stupid. music evokes feeling when you listen to it wether you want it to or not. If it means nothing to people, then they are experiencing a feeling of nothingness or indifference to that piece of music. nice try though.

[Smokey D]

Siva's definition can be made right by inserting 'meant to appeal' in to it.

ie Art is anything created that is meant by the artist to appeal (or even to invoke any sense/feeling) to somebody else.

[RNR]

Appeal means that the object likes it. So I suppose we shouldn't have been using the word. Threads like this help us find our definitions of things by others contradicting us. I like it :)

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

idk i just disagree with all yalls answers which require someone to experience it for it to be art
is a hermit who lives in a cabin and paints all day without seeing a single person not an artist?

[Smokey D]

The hermit is still experiencing it.

[Aaron]

There's a difference between entertainment and art, in my opinion. Art leaves a lasting impression on the audience, entertainment's effect is short lived.

[SugarCoatedSour]

I art art. art?

[Smokey D]

There's a difference between entertainment and art, in my opinion. Art leaves a lasting impression on the audience, entertainment's effect is short lived.

Problem with that is the experience of being merely entertaining and leaving a lasting impression is completely subjective and we're trying to come up with an objective definition.

Plus the boundaries are way too muddy.

[GUTS]

There's a difference between entertainment and art, in my opinion. Art leaves a lasting impression on the audience, entertainment's effect is short lived.

Thats a whole other thread :smoke:


The best art: Sex.

[Aaron]

Hardly. Read this original post. Who's quoted in it?

[GUTS]

This Is Not About You!

[SugarCoatedSour]

Well art is an interpretation of symbols that are inherent in nature and idolatries that humans have been imprinted with over the tens of thousands of years. Entertainment is merely a statement of influence derived from art (influenced by art). Which essentially means there is no bad art just art that happens to be more convinced of its origin or one that grows abstractly out of itself.

[siva_chair]

Siva's definition can be made right by inserting 'meant to appeal' in to it.

ie Art is anything created that is meant by the artist to appeal (or even to invoke any sense/feeling) to somebody else.

Thank you that is what I meant. I thought that I said that but I guess I left that part out.

[Iscariot]

thread ends here

what if the artist is an idiot and doesn't realize that what they're doing isn't actually art

[McP3000]

what if the artist is an idiot and doesn't realize that what they're doing isn't actually art
Well that still leaves the problem of the individual subjectively defining the artist, the same thing we're doing right now with art.

[beans]

salvador dahli, great painter
no idea what any of it means

francis bacon
a lot of wierd ****
still love his paintings
no idea what any of them mean
unless they're self portraits that is

i dont need to understand the painting to like it. They're meant to be looked at

[Smokey D]

what if the artist is an idiot and doesn't realize that what they're doing isn't actually art

The only person who can be an idiot by failing to realise what they're perceiving is art is the viewer.

The artist can just be really really bad at what he does.

[Iscariot]

what a cop out

[Smokey D]

It's not a cop out. It's 100% consistent, compared to your arbitrary and subjective definition.

[Iscariot]

no the entire "if you say it's art then it's art" argument is a complete cop out and a means for idiots looking for attention and publicity to get away with eating their own feces

[Smokey D]

There's no doubt those people are idiots. But I can't think of any consistent reason why what they do should not be considered art.

[PerpetualBurn]

Siva's definition can be made right by inserting 'meant to appeal' in to it.

ie Art is anything created that is meant by the artist to appeal (or even to invoke any sense/feeling) to somebody else.

So it's not art if I do it for my own pleasure?

And again, deciding what is and what is not art based on the artist's intent doesn't seem feasible. How can we ever know the creator's intent?

If we find a piece created by someone long deceased, your definition implies we can never know if it's art or not.

that exaple is stupid. music evokes feeling when you listen to it wether you want it to or not. If it means nothing to people, then they are experiencing a feeling of nothingness or indifference to that piece of music. nice try though.

Then every sound we ever make is art.

[Smokey D]

Now you're just being a pedant. Of course if the artist does it for his own satisfaction/appreciation or whatever it's still art.


And again, deciding what is and what is not art based on the artist's intent doesn't seem feasible. How can we ever know the creator's intent?


The only intent that is relevant is whether it was created to be observed/experienced in some way. Most of the time this can be inferred, but if it can't be it is impossible to call the object in question art. I struggle to think of such an example, though.


If we find a piece created by someone long deceased, your definition implies we can never know if it's art or not.

No. For the most part it can be inferred.

[siva_chair]

So it's not art if I do it for my own pleasure?

If you did it for your own pleasure it would be meant to appeal to your senses or emotions, now wouldn't it?

[PerpetualBurn]

The only intent that is relevant is whether it was created to be observed/experienced in some way. Most of the time this can be inferred, but if it can't be it is impossible to call the object in question art. I struggle to think of such an example, though.

No. For the most part it can be inferred.

You can never truly know if you're looking at a piece of art, or a completely soulless piece of trickery.

If we find a vase from long ago, how do you suppose we know if it was ornamental or practical?

Our ability to know about it's creation doesn't affect what the piece actually is.

[beans]

pretty good point there actually

[siva_chair]

You can never truly know if you're looking at a piece of art, or a completely soulless piece of trickery.

If we find a vase from long ago, how do you suppose we know if it was ornamental or practical?

Our ability to know about it's creation doesn't affect what the piece actually is.

Objectivist v. Relativist positions.

[Smokey D]

You can never truly know if you're looking at a piece of art, or a completely soulless piece of trickery.

I think a work of trickery that manages to fool people into thinking it's art would still be art. Actually, that's pretty much what Dadaism and related schools are.

If we find a vase from long ago, how do you suppose we know if it was ornamental or practical?

Er, that distinction is useless. It can be both.

Our ability to know about it's creation doesn't affect what the piece actually is.

What?

I suppose a work can be converted into art by the appreciation of the audience, but that just changes who the artist is and not the definition of art.

[PerpetualBurn]

You have to draw a distinction otherwise you'd have to assume everything is art.

And your definition is based on our ability to infer the creator's intent. I'm saying that how we view an object doesn't alter what the object is.

How do you suppose, if we find this vase, that we interpret the creator's intent?

[siva_chair]

You assume art is an intrisic value in something.

[Smokey D]

You have to draw a distinction otherwise you'd have to assume everything is art.


A distinction has to be made somewhere, perhaps. But I don't see why objects can't be both.


And your definition is based on our ability to infer the creator's intent. I'm saying that how we view an object doesn't alter what the object is.


Yes it does.


How do you suppose, if we find this vase, that we interpret the creator's intent?

Er, generally you look at it. The skill involved, the aesthetic effect of the art etc all combine to give rise to the inferrence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Athena_Herakles_Staatliche_Antikensammlungen_2301_ A_full.jpg

It is obvious, for example, that vase is art. Classic Greek vases also functioned as wine amphamorae. Hence, both art and practical.

[Smokey D]

You have to draw a distinction otherwise you'd have to assume everything is art.


A distinction has to be made somewhere, perhaps. But I don't see why objects can't be both.


And your definition is based on our ability to infer the creator's intent. I'm saying that how we view an object doesn't alter what the object is.


Yes it does.


How do you suppose, if we find this vase, that we interpret the creator's intent?

Er, generally you look at it. The skill involved, the aesthetic effect of the art etc all combine to give rise to the inferrence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Athena_Herakles_Staatliche_Antikensammlungen_2301_ A_full.jpg

It is obvious, for example, that vase is art. Classic Greek vases also functioned as wine amphamorae. Hence, both art and practical.

[PerpetualBurn]

A distinction has to be made somewhere, perhaps. But I don't see why objects can't be both.



Then what's the distinction that we can infer from?

Yes it does

Things are what they are irrespective of what we call them or think them to be.

Er, generally you look at it. The skill involved, the aesthetic effect of the art etc all combine to give rise to the inferrence.

But that implies that the artist was good at what he did. Or that what appealed to him, is what appeals to you. Maybe he made it ugly or bland purposefully. Maybe a vase that looked unskilled and boring was exactly what he strived for. But you can't know that. You can guess. You can conjecture, maybe often accurately. But you don't know. Your definition means you can never know what is art and what is not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Athena_Herakles_Staatliche_Antikensammlungen_2301_ A_full.jpg

It is obvious, for example, that vase is art. Classic Greek vases also functioned as wine amphamorae. Hence, both art and practical.

I'm asking about subtleties.

What would you think if you found this?

http://www.dollhousecollectibles.com/productimages/G8276.jpg

[siva_chair]

PB how do you measure the intrinsic value of art if it is in fact objective?

[Smokey D]

Then what's the distinction that we can infer from?


As I say, I'm strugging to think of an example where artistic intent would not be obvious.

I dunno, a butter knife would in most circumstances not be a work of art. A jewelled ceremonial dagger, on the other hand, would be both artistic and practical.


Things are what they are irrespective of what we call them or think them to be.

Not if what we do has the effect of converting something into something else.

But that implies that the artist was good at what he did. Or that what appealed to him, is what appeals to you. Maybe he made it ugly or bland purposefully. Maybe a vase that looked unskilled and boring was exactly what he strived for. But you can't know that. You can guess. You can conjecture, maybe often accurately. But you don't know.

If I knew nothing about the work, I would be unable to call it art. But it would nonetheless still be art.

Your definition means you can never know what is art and what is not.

Not reallly. There are a lot of things we know are art.

There might be a few things on the margin which present difficulty, but they are pretty inconsequential. And as you say, if a thing is what it is no matter how we define it, then it doesn't matter whether we recognise a work as art or not.


http://www.dollhousecollectibles.com/productimages/G8276.jpg

I suspect it would be practical, but a robust inferrence could only be drawn by looking at the aesthetic culture of the society which produced it. Ultimately it might be impossible to make any such inferrence, but as you say that shouldn't change what it is.

If we took a work which was not intended to be art and placed it in a setting where it took on artistic dimensions, it would become art.

[PerpetualBurn]

As I say, I'm strugging to think of an example where artistic intent would not be obvious.

I dunno, a butter knife would in most circumstances not be a work of art. A jewelled ceremonial dagger, on the other hand, would be both artistic and practical.

But the butter knife could quite easily be art, just made by a very limited artist. You can't tell the creator's intent in the butter knife. And your listing characteristics doesn't really get to the crux of the issue, because it could easily have none of those characteristics, and still be art. So I think I'm still at a loss for the defining feature.

Not if what we do has the effect of converting something into something else.

Agreed. But that's actively changing it. Not the item changing because I think of it differently.

If I knew nothing about the work, I would be unable to call it art. But it would nonetheless still be art.

Again, agreed. But this still leaves me at a loss in your definition as to how we know that something is not art.

Not reallly. There are a lot of things we know are art.

There might be a few things on the margin which present difficulty, but they are pretty inconsequential. And as you say, if a thing is what it is no matter how we define it, then it doesn't matter whether we recognise a work as art or not.

It's inconsequential in a practical way, of course. But as for the philosophy as to precisely what encapsulates art, it's pretty damn important.

I suspect it would be practical, but a robust inferrence could only be drawn by looking at the aesthetic culture of the society which produced it. Ultimately it might be impossible to make any such inferrence, but as you say that shouldn't change what it is.

If we took a work which was not intended to be art and placed it in a setting where it took on artistic dimensions, it would become art.

Let's say I made that pot. And it's the best I could do.

You'd never be able to tell that it's art. You don't think that's a problem?

[Aaron]

It's not a cop out. It's 100% consistent, compared to your arbitrary and subjective definition.
Why shouldn't you be able to be subjective when you're dealing with your individual emotional response to a subject?

[siva_chair]

PB how do you measure the intrinsic value of art if it is in fact objective?

......

[Smokey D]

But the butter knife could quite easily be art, just made by a very limited artist. You can't tell the creator's intent in the butter knife. And your listing characteristics doesn't really get to the crux of the issue, because it could easily have none of those characteristics, and still be art. So I think I'm still at a loss for the defining feature.

In which case it would just be bad art. I don't see the difficulty.

[quote]Again, agreed. But this still leaves me at a loss in your definition as to how we know that something is not art.

I've already said that sometimes it might be impossible to make the correct judgment.

It's inconsequential in a practical way, of course. But as for the philosophy as to precisely what encapsulates art, it's pretty damn important.

Why do you keep on bringing up how we need to know what art is when you're saying that interpretation is irrelevant?

Let's say I made that pot. And it's the best I could do.

You'd never be able to tell that it's art. You don't think that's a problem?

Not really. If art is of such a low quality that artistic intent is so difficult to infer, it probably wouldn't make a huge difference whether it existed or not.

Why shouldn't you be able to be subjective when you're dealing with your individual emotional response to a subject?

Because that just speaks to the quality and subjective impact of the work and not whether it's art. My argument is that the character of the audience's response is largely irrelevant.

[Aaron]

So is mine, but it should be defined that art is subjective in how people respond.

[Smokey D]

So is mine, but it should be defined that art is subjective in how people respond.

But different people respond differently to different works. So I might call a piece art and you might call it trash and who are we to believe? If the goal is an objective definition, then we cannot rely on subjective experience.

[siva_chair]

Why does art need to have an objective definition?

[Smokey D]

Because all things have objective definitions. That's what definitions are.

[siva_chair]

Because all things have objective definitions. That's what definitions are.

If art is not an absolute value, and depends and varies with human experience it is not objectively quantifiable.

[Smokey D]

Er, that doesn't mean we can't give it a definition. That just means we shouldn't use value or quality as a barometer of what is art. That's what I'm saying.

[siva_chair]

Er, that doesn't mean we can't give it a definition. That just means we shouldn't use value or quality as a barometer of what is art. That's what I'm saying.

I know and I have been agreeing with you on this. I already gave a definition a while back.

By not giving it an objective definition I meant we should have to objectively quantify art. If a plain pot aesthetically appeals to me, then I could justify in calling it art. If a jar with a turd in it aesthetically appeals to you, you certainly can consider it art even if I do not find it pleasing at all.

[Smokey D]

Nah, I don't think that's a good definition. I see it as a two part process. First, the question of whether it is art or not. This is based on the intention of the creator, and, to a much lesser extent the treatment of the piece by the audience. Second, we determine whether it is good or bad and that is a purely subjective interpretation.

Something can be aethestically pleasing and not fit the definition of art.

[siva_chair]

Nah, I don't think that's a good definition. I see it as a two part process. First, the question of whether it is art or not. This is based on the intention of the creator, and, to a much lesser extent the treatment of the piece by the audience. Second, we determine whether it is good or bad and that is a purely subjective interpretation.

Something can be aethestically pleasing and not fit the definition of art.

Ok so what is the definition of art if it is not "human activities, creations, and expressions that are appealing to the senses or emotions of a human individual."

[elmntrs]

things that aren't aesthetically pleasing aren't art

[Smokey D]

Ok so what is the definition of art if it is not "human activities, creations, and expressions that are appealing to the senses or emotions of a human individual."

It has to be intended to create some sort of emotion in the viewer. Simply being appealing isn't enough. We already went through this.

[siva_chair]

It has to be intended to create some sort of emotion in the viewer. Simply being appealing isn't enough. We already went through this.

Sure, but activities, creations, and expressions all imply intent, really.

[Smokey D]

Not if it's purely functional.

[siva_chair]

Expression.

[Smokey D]

Er, a butter knife doesn't express anything.

[siva_chair]

No, the word expression implies the intent you are looking for.

[PerpetualBurn]

In which case it would just be bad art. I don't see the difficulty.

Then none of the things you listed indicate whether the piece is art or not. Because even lacking all of those things, we have a piece of art.

And even including all of the things you listed, the dagger may have just had those added on for the sake of it.


Why do you keep on bringing up how we need to know what art is when you're saying that interpretation is irrelevant?

We need a definition of what art is. And I'm saying yours is a bad one.

Not really. If art is of such a low quality that artistic intent is so difficult to infer, it probably wouldn't make a huge difference whether it existed or not.

Philosophically, it's hugely important.

[DekWannaBFlea]

What practical purpose could you derive from defining what art is? Defining something doesn't make it more or less true to the audience.

[SugarCoatedSour]

There is a purely utilitarian purpose to definitions which is why it has no place in art. Art however has no boundaries and can easily make comments or statements on utilitarian ideas.

The one said that every sound we make can be considered art was semi-right. Well you can take it as far as you want for the sake of art, because everything we do is art. Hell, killing Arabs and people raping little children is all part of the same play. Which means we humans (one's with a conscious and lucid thought process) are creators of some bad art.

[RNR]

I think that for it to be art, the artist has to intend for it to be art. But other than that, I think that you're right.

[okay]

Er, a butter knife doesn't express anything.

Depends on how you interpret it. Art is largely based on how the viewer interprets it, because the artist will never be around all the time to explain his thoughts. The artist can make something with an intent of his own, but that is of small importance in respect to how the piece will be viewed.

There is a purely utilitarian purpose to definitions which is why it has no place in art. Art however has no boundaries and can easily make comments or statements on utilitarian ideas.

The one said that every sound we make can be considered art was semi-right. Well you can take it as far as you want for the sake of art, because everything we do is art. Hell, killing Arabs and people raping little children is all part of the same play. Which means we humans (one's with a conscious and lucid thought process) are creators of some bad art.

I know it may seem contradictory to what i wrote above, but intent is also an important aspect, you can't just run around and say walls are art because they're made to block stuff.

[SugarCoatedSour]

Most artists aren't meant to even explain or justify their work. Art is the main point of communication and after that words are only a detractor.

[RNR]

A butter knife has no artistic meaning unless you fabricate one, and we know as a fact that there was no artistic intent when making it. For it to be "good" art for me, the artist must make a statement and must try to eliminate ambiguity. if the artist can't explain it, it's bad, and if viewers don't show some trend of interpretation, it's bad.

[Amit]

all it takes for something to be art is for someone to think of it as art

all other stipulations are hilariously ethnocentric

[okay]

A butter knife has no artistic meaning unless you fabricate one, and we know as a fact that there was no artistic intent when making it. For it to be "good" art for me, the artist must make a statement and must try to eliminate ambiguity. if the artist can't explain it, it's bad, and if viewers don't show some trend of interpretation, it's bad.

What other artistic meaning isn't fabricated?
Say you go to a show, and there's a butter knife on a pedestal. You should wonder then, why would the artist put it on the pedestal, if there is any statement behind it, etc. That is clearly art, as it can be analyzed and critiqued.

[RNR]

Ok I agree that it's art if the artist thinks it is. But to me, that's bad art. I'll never be able to give it meaning and the artist made no effort to present it in a way that has meaning. I could fabricate something, but it wouldn't be what the artist is thinking.

Unless the artist is trying to get people to stress the importance of presentation and think critically about art. If so then good on him. Although that's a bit overdone and unnecessary. In which case it's still bad art to me.

[okay]

Well thats precisely what he's probably doing, art requires a lot more thought than just looking at a pretty picture and thinking 'that's pretty'.
Welcome to modern art, RNR.

[DekWannaBFlea]

Ok I agree that it's art if the artist thinks it is. But to me, that's bad art. I'll never be able to give it meaning and the artist made no effort to present it in a way that has meaning. I could fabricate something, but it wouldn't be what the artist is thinking.

Unless the artist is trying to get people to stress the importance of presentation and think critically about art. If so then good on him. Although that's a bit overdone and unnecessary. In which case it's still bad art to me.

That's the point. Art is subjective. You can call art, bad art. Now, that doesn't mean people can't criticize your opinion.

[RNR]

art requires a lot more thought than just looking at a pretty picture and thinking 'that's pretty'.


When did I ever say that art should only appeal to our aesthetic sense of beauty?

The knife on a pedestal art is vague and every viewer will interpret it differently. The artist has failed to communicate his message and the art is therefore bad.

[okay]

When did I ever say that art should only appeal to our aesthetic sense of beauty?

The knife on a pedestal art is vague and every viewer will interpret it differently. The artist has failed to communicate his message and the art is therefore bad. In my opinion.

You're missing my point, the artist's message is irrelevant, what mostly matters is how the piece effects the viewers.

[RNR]

In my opinion, an artist can not throw **** on a wall and say "find your own meaning" and be a good artist.

[Amit]

why not

[SugarCoatedSour]

Yes, the important thing is to draw the views and or correlate the opinions. The latter being more so a humanizing after effect of being human and being different but the same. But essentially art is that sense of meaning, the sense of association to certain ideas or images that are aspects of the world strung together with the imagination. The point is hardly to feel as the artist has felt, or to directly understand what it is he/she is going for, those are speculatory, the point is more closely related to evocation.

[RNR]

why not



I think that an artist should have to have a message and attempt to communicate their message to be a good artist, that's my opinion and I don't have to justify it.

[okay]

you're thinking too Romantic/Neo-classic. its time to come into modernism, and when you're nice and ready, we can get you into post-modernism.

[RNR]

All right, well do you think an artist should strive for?

[Amit]

I think that an artist should have to have a message and attempt to communicate their message to be a good artist, that's my opinion and I don't have to justify it.

then why post it if you can't justify it like a real man

an artist doesn't have to have jack **** in his art you ethnocentrist

[Iscariot]

hey guys leave rnr alone he just appreciates real art

/punches

[SugarCoatedSour]

^ Iscariot, you're depressing...you need to go back to the army. I can't help but equate your personality to that pic of the joker.

Artists make art because they are the ones who do as the feel. The audience is trapped in their culture pocket and art is that thing that tempts them to come out. They like the feeling of it, but they can't live in that feeling because it drives you crazy. That feeling is a culminating uncertainty about every second, it's literal feeling moment after moment. An artist (true artists, most of them "crazy" or "eccentric") makes art to evoke feelings of disgust or indifference or extreme pleasure viewed from outer space as the main perspective is floating away in a balloon. The point is that art is a depiction of that uncertainty as it would play out in colour or sound, or any damn circumstance the artist wants. But the reaction is all that matters to the artist (assumedly).

(replace uncertainty with any metaphysical jibber-jabber term you'd like)

[Iscariot]

:lol:

i love it when you take me seriously and try to put me in my place it gives me a huge boner

[RNR]

then why post it if you can't justify it like a real man

an artist doesn't have to have jack **** in his art you ethnocentrist

He has to express his idea for me to like it. Are you trying to tell me what I like?

[SugarCoatedSour]

:lol:

i love it when you take me seriously and try to put me in my place it gives me a huge boner

I'm sorry, really isn't my place to be giving you boners.

[okay]

He has to express his idea for me to like it. Are you trying to tell me what I like?

Well just because you don't like something doesn't mean it has no artistic merit whatsoever, you are no arbiter of aesthetics.

[Smokey D]

Then none of the things you listed indicate whether the piece is art or not. Because even lacking all of those things, we have a piece of art.

The only quality required to classify something as art is whether it was made by a person for an artistic purpose.

I can see how sometimes we're going to get it wrong, but we get stuff wrong in all classification exercises so I don't see why we need to be worried.

And even including all of the things you listed, the dagger may have just had those added on for the sake of it.

Just for the sake of it translates as for the sake of decoration or art ie artistic intent ie it is art.

We need a definition of what art is. And I'm saying yours is a bad one.

But it's not. It works in all circumstances. What is a good one?

Philosophically, it's hugely important.

Philosophically, I've provided an extremely robust definition. Your problems with it seem to arise from the practical difficulties of determining artistic intent, which seems at odds with your argument that the world is everything that is the case.

Depends on how you interpret it. Art is largely based on how the viewer interprets it, because the artist will never be around all the time to explain his thoughts. The artist can make something with an intent of his own, but that is of small importance in respect to how the piece will be viewed.

A butter knife only takes on artistic meaning if it's put into an artistic context, in which case the butter knife alone is not art but it is the act of placing it in that context which creates art.