Is some of this stuff really art?

[itsmarty]

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:



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



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

[Copernicus]

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.