Is some of this stuff really art?
 

I am no art historian and only know what I like, which tends to be older and traditional paintings from the renaissance and upto the 1800s. I like impressionists, some folk art and although its not my thing, I can appreciate more abstract stuff like Kadinsky or Picasso or Dali (I know the latter two probably aren't considered abstract overall maybe but that's how I consider them).

But some of the so-called abstract art really isn't to me. What I mean here are paintings by Jackson Pollock and those that consist of just some geometric shapes. But then of course those who do like that kind of thing and rave about it, attribute all kinds of "meaning" to it. But Pollock's stuff in particular just looks like something from a 2nd grader's finger painting or splatter painting exercise.

Here is what I personally consider the standard for whether paintings (or their counterparts in sculpture - you know the twisted metal and used tire kind of stuff) is really art or not. And that is whether such an artist possesses the technical skill to paint according to traditional styles. I mean that if Pollock could paint something that would be considered by art critics a very good impressionist painting or a very good late 1800s american landscape type of painting, but instead chose to express himself through a different form, then I would respect that. But if he lacked that skill, which seems likely, then I think it very fair to label his stuff garbage that is admired by those participating in an emperor with no clothes psychological charade so that that they can consider themselves "progressive" and "avant-garde".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ock_Galaxy.jpg

Re: Is some of this stuff really art?
 

I dont like your definition, since just because someone is capable of producing "art", doesnt mean that everything he produces IS art.

To me art is not the process but the result. I would define art as "an arrangement of elements of the given medium/media in a manner that causes an impartial observer to react in a manner other than indifference and that requires an appreciable amount of skill ".

Ie art can please the senses, cause revulsion, make the observer think, etc, it just cannot leave the observer thinking "BFD", and is in the eye of each individual beholder.

A painting of geometric shapes might cause one observer to think "that shade of pink in the triangle creates a beautiful contrast to the black in the square", so its art to him. There is an "appreciable amount of skill" because the observers appreciation of the nuances of the color results from it being something he would not have thought of himself.

Another observer might think "anyone can draft squares and triangles and color them in"...so the artist has failed to demonstrate a level of skill that the observer appreciates.

The "impartial observer" requirement was added to differentiate things like the pride of a parent in a 4 year olds stick figure drawing of mommy and daddy. If an impartial observer sees elements of the drawing that both cause a reaction and requires skill, it is still art.

Your photo example? BFD, imo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: Is some of this stuff really art?
 

I would disagree with both of you, and would present as evidence for the defense exhibit 1:

http://www.thecityreview.com/s02pco3.gif

Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp

A broken urinal he found, signed, and displayed.

(Correctly) considered one of the most influential pieces of artwork in the 20th century.

Sold at Sotheby's in 1997 for $1,762,500. Not that commercial success is or should be the ultimate yardstick for the intrinsic worth of art, but it gives you a little bit of a barometer.


If you are interested in more, start here, and open your mind to the concept that Duchamp espoused with this concept he called "readymades": that art is elevated to art merely by the choice - by the will, if you will - of the artist.

[ QUOTE ]
Duchamp insisted that there was 'no beauty, no ugliness, nothing particularly aesthetic' about the readymades, so whatever the criteria for selection, aesthetic taste was to play no role. Nothing would distinguish a set of canonical readymades from a set of nondescript household objects, set out for purpose of garage sale. Nothing would prompt ordinary persons to think of them as art - which is part of what makes them intoxicating, conceptually speaking, as art. Without references to the readymade, neither the art history of the twentieth century nor contemporary philosophy of art can be grasped.

[/ QUOTE ]

/spent most of the art history portion of my education devoted to Duchamp

Re: Is some of this stuff really art?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I would disagree with both of you, and would present as evidence for the defense exhibit 1:

http://www.thecityreview.com/s02pco3.gif

Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp

A broken urinal he found, signed, and displayed.

(Correctly) considered one of the most influential pieces of artwork in the 20th century.

Sold at Sotheby's in 1997 for $1,762,500. Not that commercial success is or should be the ultimate yardstick for the intrinsic worth of art, but it gives you a little bit of a barometer.


If you are interested in more, start here, and open your mind to the concept that Duchamp espoused with this concept he called "readymades": that art is elevated to art merely by the choice - by the will, if you will - of the artist.

[ QUOTE ]
Duchamp insisted that there was 'no beauty, no ugliness, nothing particularly aesthetic' about the readymades, so whatever the criteria for selection, aesthetic taste was to play no role. Nothing would distinguish a set of canonical readymades from a set of nondescript household objects, set out for purpose of garage sale. Nothing would prompt ordinary persons to think of them as art - which is part of what makes them intoxicating, conceptually speaking, as art. Without references to the readymade, neither the art history of the twentieth century nor contemporary philosophy of art can be grasped.

[/ QUOTE ]

/spent most of the art history portion of my education devoted to Duchamp

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have supported my definition but I will supplement it by requiring it to cause a reaction other than indifference "at a viseral level" (as opposed to an intellectual level).

Garbage is garbage. The artist can not will me to think it is anything but garbage, and has failed to exhibit anything resembling skill nor made me react in any way other than BFD.

If someone wants to pay 1.7 million for anything for other than its resale value, then maybe its art to him...it still doesnt make it art to me.

It is also a fine line but goes beyond personal taste, likes or dislikes. There is music that I dont care to listen to (Wagner for example) that I can still consider art because I can appreciate the skill of the composer and recognize that others may not be viscerally indifferent to.

The garbage above does cause a reaction other than indfifference, but it is at an intellectual level ("Are you kidding me, anyone who thinks that is art is probably a pretentious art student"), not a visceral level.

Re: Is some of this stuff really art?
 

Pollock's large "drip" paintings, I'm talking at least 8 X 15 ft, are quite beautiful and overwelming in person. You really get a sense of his energy and movement. Pollock's idea was to become part of his paintings as he had to step on the canvas to work since they were so large. When Pollock was critized he stated that he wanted his audience to look at his paintings as they would appreciate a beautiful sky, vast field of flowers, a deep forest, etc.. He said that people had difficulty accepting his art because what he has doing was new and his ideas were a radical concept towards art at the time.

I've personally never attempted to recreate a Pollock but critics and other artists claim that Pollock's technique is difficult to recreate and there is careful thought behind his paint strokes. I believe them. His paintings do have a wonderful balance of thin strokes, thick strokes, globs, drips, long strokes, energetic strokes, etc.. There is also a thoughtful rhythm in many of the paintings although they appear random. So he wasn't just randomly dripping paint everywhere.



*the movie "Pollock" starring Ed Harris is very good and describes Pollock's artist ideas and turbulent life well, although the film is depressing.

Re: Is some of this stuff really art?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think you have supported my definition but I will supplement it by requiring it to cause a reaction other than indifference "at a viseral level" (as opposed to an intellectual level).

[/ QUOTE ]

I re-read your post more closely, and I'm not sure exactly what you're supporting.

I'm certainlty disagreeing with the OP. And I'm disagreeing with you if you're espousing that something created by an artist can be "not art". i.e. one of the most extreme examples possible, Duchamp finding a broken toilet, signing it, putting it on a pedastal, and bam its art. I do believe that Fountain is art. And I agree with the people that believe its a very important and influential piece.

[ QUOTE ]
Garbage is garbage. The artist can not will me to think it is anything but garbage, and has failed to exhibit anything resembling skill nor made me react in any way other than BFD.

If someone wants to pay 1.7 million for anything for other than its resale value, then maybe its art to him...it still doesnt make it art to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I would disagree with this.

My position, which echos that of Duchamp, is that anything an artist decides is art, is art.

An artist, is of course using the same logic, anyone who decides that they are an artist. Alternate even more circular definition - anyone who creates art, through the act of deciding that something is art, is an artist.

The mere act of declaring something art makes it art - the will of the artist shapes reality.

Re: Is some of this stuff really art?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think you have supported my definition but I will supplement it by requiring it to cause a reaction other than indifference "at a viseral level" (as opposed to an intellectual level).

[/ QUOTE ]

I re-read your post more closely, and I'm not sure exactly what you're supporting.

I'm certainlty disagreeing with the OP. And I'm disagreeing with you if you're espousing that something created by an artist can be "not art". i.e. one of the most extreme examples possible, Duchamp finding a broken toilet, signing it, putting it on a pedastal, and bam its art. I do believe that Fountain is art. And I agree with the people that believe its a very important and influential piece.

[ QUOTE ]
Garbage is garbage. The artist can not will me to think it is anything but garbage, and has failed to exhibit anything resembling skill nor made me react in any way other than BFD.

If someone wants to pay 1.7 million for anything for other than its resale value, then maybe its art to him...it still doesnt make it art to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I would disagree with this.

My position, which echos that of Duchamp, is that anything an artist decides is art, is art.

An artist, is of course using the same logic, anyone who decides that they are an artist. Alternate even more circular definition - anyone who creates art, through the act of deciding that something is art, is an artist.

The mere act of declaring something art makes it art - the will of the artist shapes reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

then we will agree to disagree. Someone calls themselves an artist, then smears feces on poster board and frames it didnt create art, they took a dump in an inappropriate place.

To claim that something is art because the person who created it considers it art is self-aggrandizing hooey to make the talentless feel like hes accomplished something.

Another example is Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup can. BFD. Maybe the original designer was an artist, but Warhol might just as well have picked up a Venus Paradise Mona Lisa and colored it in.

Re: Is some of this stuff really art?
 

My wife and I discussed this on Saturday, having stopped into the Smithsonian's modern art building to use the restroom on our way to the National Gallery of Art. That probably says a lot about what we enjoy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

We did spend some time there, however, both because we knew we'd see things we liked and because my best friend is a sculptor and I know it's tough to work on things that few people will ever appreciate.

We got to talking after looking over a blank black canvas, and a few others like this:

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...g06/664809.jpg

We did, however, enjoy this one. I couldn't tell you why.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...ing06/9128.jpg

I think it comes down to education. Once you learn a lot about a subject, you appreciate subtleties that don't mean anything to novices and often seem trivial or "stupid" to them. This is just supposition when it comes to art, since I have no real understanding of it, but I know how stupid I sound to my wife when I'm trying to explain the beauty of a well-written Linux shell script or a particularly nice ball in soccer. I'm willing to accept that a neon sentence saying "four words four colors" probably really is art, even it looks like a craptastic waste of time to me.

Martin

Re: Is some of this stuff really art?
 

I dont disagree that some things can have an intrinsic beauty that will reveal itself only to someone educated in the area, but i dont think that makes it art.

eg at some point I read an algorithm for ranking and comparing poker hands...I forget the details but essentially it created a bit string from the cards and the strings were directly comparable to each other..the higher valued bit string is the winning hand, without the usual "does card 1 = card 2, yes its a pair, check for trips" and so on. I thought it was an elegant solution to the problem, with a certain beauty to it, but I wouldnt call it art.

I also think there is a fine line between technical reproduction and art (in this case music). Someone might have incredible technique and be able to accurately play a piece from the written music, but it may be so devoid of the nuances of feeling that the composer intended that it doesnt become an artful performance.

I happened to disagree with a friends opinion that Keith Emerson was not an "Artist" (musician). Despite his prodgious technical ability, my friend didnt hear any "music" in what he played, he just heard notes strung together in the order and timing that the composer intended. While I disagreed with him, I understand his point and why for him it didnt reach the standard of art.

Re: Is some of this stuff really art?
 

[ QUOTE ]
His paintings do have a wonderful balance of thin strokes, thick strokes, globs, drips, long strokes, energetic strokes, etc.. There is also a thoughtful rhythm in many of the paintings although they appear random. So he wasn't just randomly dripping paint everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]



This seems like something an art critic stoned out of his mind would say, and should apply to a lot of 2nd graders' splatter/finger painting as well. It sounds like someone trying to find meaning in something essesntially meaningless, because they see others doing so and think it sophisticated to appreciate it.

Again I will say though, that if Pollock had the artistic skill to paint an extremely good impressionist or landscape painting, then I would be willing to give a little more credibility to his art form, though not much. But as I said, I suspect that he didn't possess that skill, and that neither do so many other abstract artists in whatever media they practice in.