A theory on interpretive problems with Modern Art

[Eonwe]

[QUOTE=Miller]

Granted, but the question becomes, “What is this ‘something?’” Consider a sunset. Now take a picture of that sunset. Is it art now? Why? It’s the exact same image, the same sequence of photons hitting the retina, producing exactly the same image in my mind. But now it has meaning. Why is that? Is the artist a necessary intercessor in assigning that meaning? Can I not look at the sunset myself, and find my own meaning there? Can I not, therefore, look at the picture of the sunset, and find my own meaning, independent of any intent of the artist?

[/QUOTE]

But the difference between an actual sunset and a photo of one is that the photo has been presented to you because someone felt that that specific image had value of some sort, would you agree? As soon as you insert that intercessor into the process who is selecting what it is you look at, that persons intentions must certainly be significant in the experience of viewing art.

I don’t see why it’s a problem. If I see a particular painting, and am deeply moved by it, why does it matter in the least if anyone else was moved by it, or if the artist intended me to be moved in the way that I was? Am I supposed to discard my emotional reaction to a particular work, simply because it is out of step with the mainstream? I looked at the painting, and I felt what I felt, and that’s entirely valid regardless of any exterior considerations.

If I were an artist and painted things intended to cause great joy that always seemed to cause great sorrow . . . eh, maybe you’re right. If the most evocative piece of tragedy is penned by someone who had intended to write something light and funny, he’s certainly failed at his objective, but the work itself might be genius.

That’s because you misunderstand the purpose of artistic discussion. It is not to determine what the artist intended. If that were the entire purpose, we wouldn’t need art at all, we’d just need mission statements from the artist. But art isn’t a window, it’s a mirror. When you ask someone, “What does this painting mean to you?” the answer does not shed light on to the nature of the artist, it sheds light on to the nature of the interpreter. The joking interpretation you offered Waterlillies hypothetical is a wonderful answer. I would love to meet someone who genuinely held it, and listen to their explanation for that interpretation, because the mind that would start at that painting, and arrive at that interpretation, would be incredibly fascinating. It would not tell me more about Waterlillies, but I don’t need anyone to tell me more about Waterlillies: I can just look at the painting myself, and determine what I need to know about it from that alone.

I like this paragraph. I don’t know how I feel about it yet, I need to think more.

I also liked your Melville example.

I think, though, that opinions about a work of art must have some degree of objective benchmarking that can be done, within the closed system of ‘culture.’ I’m sure no one in their right mind would pay me grant money to put my messy desk top on display in a museum. Yet it is a unique amalgamation of materials, textures, and shapes, that tell a fascinating story about the ‘artist,’ if you can read the clues. Why is that? Is it just chance, or is it that generally we are drawn (no pun intended) towards specific things in art?

[The_Hamster_King]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
The trouble with this analogy is that there is an objective way to distinguish good football from bad football.

If the quarterback throws an interception, no one can reasonably argue that this was good football.

If you are an art critic, you just say that he was making an ironic observation of the futility of rigid gender roles in a post-modern society, and you’re golden.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
The rules of football are agreed upon by consensus. If enough people decided that throwing an interception should be a good thing, then the rules would be rewritten.

Same for the “rules” of art. There are criteria for judging good and bad art that are just as objective (and abitrary … and open to amendment) as the rules of football. Art appreciation often involves analyzing a work within the context of different “rule sets” or critical approaches. The interesting thing is that a particular work of art can mean many different things depending upon which “rule set” you’re judging it by … .

(Of course, I’m not really arguing that art is objective. I’m merely pointing out that football is subjective … or at least as subjective as all social constructs are.)

[Shodan]

The rules of football are agreed upon by consensus. If enough people decided that throwing an interception should be a good thing, then the rules would be rewritten.

Same for the “rules” of art. There are criteria for judging good and bad art that are just as objective (and abitrary … and open to amendment) as the rules of football.

Really?

Who makes up this consensus that decides?

Regards,
Shodan

[capybara]

ME!
RAWR rawr rawr rawr!

[Reassumes a calm mudra. I am turning the wheel of the law.]
That’s all. Carry on. Interesting discussion, but not enough time to get involved, and I would probably . . . get. . . involved. If it makes anyone feel any better, I’ve spent years with the same questions and it never gets easier. Perhaps no definitive answers, especially since 1911 or so, but still interesting to discuss.

[fessie]

Didja think I was anywhere near right, capybara? I’m really curious…

[capybara]

I don’t see anything particularly wrong with it, but you don’t regard the great amount of art, especially in the religious realm, that wasn’t meant to be beautiful, but rather evocative, didactic, or serving whatever other purpose. Beauty was for a great long long time secondary. Look at the verist Roman portraits, or the Röttgen Pieta or the Isenheim altar. That’s not a pretty Christ there. If you start to think of art in terms of function and context rather than as a set of physical or material features-- it it ‘pretty’? Why or why not? Is it that blue line there?-- it changes things and a lot of these ‘good art/bad art’ issues disappear. Did it get the job done? What was the job? A lot of what we call art, historically, is only very loosely related to what we think ‘art’ is supposed to do. The aesthetic approach to art is largely a modern concern-- it was always there but it was never all that was there. I think the big problem of modern art is its context-- a lot of people are expecting it to function in a 19th-century, aesthetic, public museum context, but things have changed and, as I said in another thread, frequently it’s not “for” you anymore, but a sort of formal or conceptual experiment meant for others in the art ‘scene’.
Damn you, Fessie! You got me spewing!

[CJJ]

[QUOTE=Miller]

If you really believe that, then any utterance concerning a work of art is valid.

Yes, that’s exactly true.
[/quote]

I think at this point, our notions are so diametrically opposed that it would be difficult to find common ground in the discussion. There’s also a cruel irony to this debate, as we’re really discussing whether or not there is any oint to debate itself (at least with respect to works of art). Nevertheless…

[QUOTE=Miller]
Doesn’t that lead us right back to the idea that art is a popularity contest? Let’s say, for example, that a writer publishes a story that is critically well received. But I happen to disagree with the critical consensus: I think the story is stupid and poorly conceived, and does not contain the deep message commonly attributed to it. Am I, objectively, incorrect, because the commonality of interpretation disagrees with me?
[/quote]

You are not incorrect because you disagree with the commonality of interpretation. You may be incorrect because your interpretation does not account for certain factors present in the work, or because it makes connections that aren’t really there; the way to figure that out is to mount the argument, defend it, and see if it moves consensus.

But even if it doesn’t, you’re free to continue mounting your argument; I personally would consider the exercise pointless unless I took the feedback from other critics as an opportunity to re-examine my interpretation. But if I decide my subjective experience trumps all, I become the annoying crank at parties who just won’t shut up about his wacky conspiracy theory (not to say I’m far from that as it is:) ).

Discussion about art doesn’t just inform you about other viewpoints; it ought to get you to re-assess your own, based on the plausibility (read: objective justification) of these alternative viewpoints. Otherwise its just–and I apologize for the vulgarity here–masturbation.

What if the author weighs in on the debate, and says that he dislikes the story he wrote, that it was just done for a quick paycheck, and that the meaning many found in his story was never intended to be there? Is he also incorrect, because he disagrees with the common interpretation, or does the common interpretation become discredited because the artist didn’t intend it to be there? Does that invalidate the emotional and intellectual reaction felt by the people who enjoyed the story?

Really, how often does this happen? And even when/if it does, isn’t the artist an equal part of the interpretive community? Let him mount an argument; if he says “No, I didn’t intend for X when I created the work,” that’s certainly powerful evidence against X, but it doesn’t necessarily trump the pro-X interpretation.

[CJJ]

[QUOTE=capybara]
I don’t see anything particularly wrong with it, but you don’t regard the great amount of art, especially in the religious realm, that wasn’t meant to be beautiful, but rather evocative, didactic, or serving whatever other purpose. Beauty was for a great long long time secondary. Look at the verist Roman portraits, or the Röttgen Pieta or the Isenheim altar. That’s not a pretty Christ there.
[/quote]

This is an excellent point capybara. Let me clarify that “artistic purpose” does not necessarily mean a devotion to aesthetics.

If you start to think of art in terms of function and context rather than as a set of physical or material features-- it it ‘pretty’? Why or why not? Is it that blue line there?-- it changes things and a lot of these ‘good art/bad art’ issues disappear. Did it get the job done? What was the job?

Again, I completely agree with this; I wish you’d have piped up earlier

A lot of what we call art, historically, is only very loosely related to what we think ‘art’ is supposed to do. The aesthetic approach to art is largely a modern concern-- it was always there but it was never all that was there. I think the big problem of modern art is its context-- a lot of people are expecting it to function in a 19th-century, aesthetic, public museum context, but things have changed and, as I said in another thread, frequently it’s not “for” you anymore, but a sort of formal or conceptual experiment meant for others in the art ‘scene’.

My interpretation of this is that the art ‘scene’ does have objective interpretive “standards” (sorry, don’t have a better word for this), but that these depend so much on certain features of the scene that they aren’t necessarily extensible as-is to the public at large.

[B.Serum]

[QUOTE=CJJ*]
Do you believe either (1) yes, modern art is–at least in part–plagued by artists who take advantage of a system that discourages any assignment of criteria to art, or (2) no, I don’t agree that the issue exists, but I think it’s the reason a lot of armchair critics poo-poo modern art.
[/QUOTE]

(Sweeping generalizations from a guy who went to a 4-year art school)

I kind of agree with your #1, but I don’t think it’s a matter of people deliberately trying to take advantage of a system, so much as these people are afflicted with the overwhelming urge to create. They are creating for themselves, not for others and the only criteria for evaluation is simply how well does that creation satisfy their muse – a question only they can answer. It is self-indulgent by design. If anyone else happens to like the work that they put in a gallery and they can earn some coin, even better.

But I don’t know that the overriding goal is to take advantage of “the system” so much as that they need to make tangible the ideosyncratic concepts that are bursting to get out of their individual systems.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=CJJ*]
there is a “something” to a work of art beyond the mere physical details. As Eonwe pointed out, without this “something”, art is indistinguishable from experience.

[/QUOTE]

Art is indistinguishable from experience, IMO. “Art” just happens to be non-accidental experience. But it doesn’t necessarily do to drag “intent” into it - sometimes, the “intent” is as simple as “I Made You an Experience. Experience It, Damn It”.

I think that’s the artistic genius of the sadly misunderstood, much-maligned Christo and Jeanne-Claude. All they “intend” is that their beautiful work be experienced. The only meaningful difference between The Gates and a Vermont autumn is that The Gates had to be set up and maple trees just happen.

[QUOTE=Eonwe]
But the difference between an actual sunset and a photo of one is that the photo has been presented to you because someone felt that that specific image had value of some sort, would you agree? As soon as you insert that intercessor into the process who is selecting what it is you look at, that persons intentions must certainly be significant in the experience of viewing art.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree. I mean, if that’s the way you look at things, then the intent of a Leonardo or a Rembrandt (as artist) becomes secondary to that of their patrons, who are often the persons who choose their subject matter and have final say. I’m sure you’re not suggesting Mona Lisa’s husband’s intentions matter much in looking at the painting, though, are you?

Ultimately, the sunset’s the sunset. The extra bit that’s there, that you see as the art? That’s you, that is. Sure, knowing more about the artist or the subject can enhance enjoyment, as does knowing the symbolic language of various kinds of art. But it’s always your interpretation of the artist’s intent, not his actual intent. You’ll never know his true intent even if he makes a statement - he could have changed his mindset since painting, he could be fooling himself, he could just be lying. Plus there are all those works whose intent we only guess at - what’s the intent behind the Venus of Willendorf - “Mother Goddess” or “I Like Big Butts”?

I think this is actually a nice parallel to Liberal’s GD thread a little while ago, about the ultimate subjectivity of our experiences.

[Blake]

Can an armchair critic get word inhere? Good. I’m prepared for some laming for what I’m about to post, so let me give you some background. I’m not an artist by training or tendency, I’m a scientist. My artistic tendencies are limited to gardening a bit of writing and woodworking. I’m one of those people who would happily say “I don’t know much about art”. I’m not an ignoramus or philistine, I’ve read a lot, I even know a little art history. But for the most part I loathe modern art (and I use the term modern art to encompass the artworks themselves, as well as the artistss, the critics and the entire industry/movement that supports them)

Why? Well ultimately I loathe it for the same reason that I loathe psychism and the same reason that I loathe televangelism: it’s snake oil. This seems patently true to me. These things all take money from people on the pretence that they are producing something of value without ever being able to provide any objective evidence at that this is true. And yes, modern art takes money form people. Our taxes pay for museums and they pay for the art displayed in those museums, they pays for museum staff, they pays for college lecturers, they pays art grants and so on and so forth. Modern art takes money, and it takes money on the basis that it is producing something of worth to society.

There is a rather blatant “Emporer’s new clothes” scam going on. As I said, I have only a cursory interest in modern art, yet I have lost track of the number of examples where the elite were caught out talking shit, when the it was discovered blithely stated that the fact they were talking shit wasn’t important. To give an example that has stuck in my mind “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” by Picasso. Thousands of words were written in the importance of this painting and the importance of the positioning of the figures, particularly the squatting figure. It was attributed to sexuality and gender relations and all sorts of crap but one thing that everyone agreed on was that the positioning had a very deep and special significance selected specifically by Picasso to provide message. Just read the WIkipedia article to see what I mean. Years after Picasso’s death someone going through is old junk found that the picture was direct copy of a cheap mass produced postcard of some African women. The positions hadn’t been altered from the original. The woman was squatting simply because she was pounding millet in a bowl. Picasso had plagiarised someone’s postcard photo. When this was discovered nobody was pilloried, nobody was sacked, nobody was even embarassed. They simply stated that the work was still important and that Picasso had known the significance of the original composition in the photo and that was why he reproduced it. It is rare to even find a critique of the work that mentions the postcard, yet I have seen reputable books with reproductiions of the postcard and the painting and there could be no doubt that one is copied from the other. In an internet search I could only find one passing reference to the fact that he used ” postcards of African women for models”.

A classic “Emporer has no clothes” scenario. The art elite had produced and swallowed so much bullshit on the work based on nothing that they had to keep saying it even when it was provably untrue. And this isn’t an isolated incident, including one discussed on these boards 12 months ago about a critically acclaimed and hung artist plagiarising works. But what these few incidents do more than anything else is show there is no reason to accept that the rest of modern art is not just bullshit. It is almost impossible to prove that the industry is bullshit simply because there is no external reference. If in those rare cases where we do find an external reference it turns out to be bullshit, yet the industry continues on regardless that doesn’t give me any faith in the rest. The whole industry is no different to postmodernism, or many modern literary trends. All have been similarly proven to be so much “emporer has no clothes” baloney by some examples that the industry then dismisses as “atypical” or “irrelevant”.

When this sort thing happens, when the people who control the industry and decide what should be displayed and so forth, are shown to be producing nothing but hot air why should I give modern art any credit? We are told, as in the OP, that the art can only be appreciated by people with a background in modern art. When we find out that the people who have the most education and longest background in art have been blowing smoke up each other’s arses where does that leave us? The uneducated can’t appreciate it, yet it seems that any appreciation that the educated have is nothing more than mutual masturbation.

Which brings me to my next reason for viewing modern art as snake oil and a promulgation of ignorance: why isn’t there any independent confirmation of the abilities of the people making the rules? We are told that modern art can only be appreciated by the educated. But what evidence is there that even the educated can actually appreciate the art rather than simply stroking their engorged egos at public expense? When I wa sin Australia in the early 90s there was a kerfuffle when some modern art piece (sculpture IIRC) was displayed upside down at the National gallery and nobody noticed for several days. I have hear dof similar incidents elsewhere though never form reputable sources. To me that says a lot. If the educated tramping through couldn’t even recognise it was upside down then how could they appreciate it?

Why is it impossible to do a simple double blind test on this? Give a group of the modern art elite, especially gallery directors, a collection paintings to examine. Then get their assessments. If the majority don’t give the same assesement then their is clearly an emporer’s new clothes event happening here. If the educated can’t reach independent consensus on modern art then it isn’t a case of only the educated can appreciate the art. It tells us that nobody can appreciate the art. Has this ever been tried? And if not why not?

I have seen many modern art pieces that are, quite simply, nonsense. You can see a couple of examples here. A blank canvas? A posterised reprint of a journal article? Are people supposed to have respect for this nonsense? Am I supposed to believe that with sufficient education this suddenly becomes deeply meaningful? And if this is the case then the question I have to ask is, why have any respect for it? Anyone over the age of 6 could have produced those works, seriously, anyone. Does it really surprise the people in art circles that art that could be produced by a 6 year old gets no repsct? Or that the average person is suspicious when they are told that they just can’t appreciate” such blatant nonsense because they are uneducated?

And this is why the whole thing seems like snake oil to me. The whole modern art industry seems like massive scam propagating ignorance and raking in money fro the elite by claiming to have insights that laypeople don’t have. I have no respect for those sorts of institutions no matter what flavour snake oil they sell.

Let me make it clear that I don’t expect art itself to meet objective standards, that would be self defeating. What I do need to see to convince me this isn’t a massive scam or elaborate circle jerk is that the people meet objective standards. I’m sure 200 years ago every art critic in the world would have agreed that Rembrandt was a better painter than me, and there would be consensus as to why. The art itself would have been appreciated for subjective reasons, but the people would have been able to objectively explain why Rembrandt was worthy of hanging and I was worthy of being hanged for my efforts. Today I seriously doubt any of the elite who claim to have the education needed to appreciate art could do that. If I produced a pink wall rather than a blank canvas or I did a bad drawing of a horse rather than some “appreciated” artist I fail to see how anyone, regardless of education, could tell me they can appreciate one work but not the other.

I appreciate there is a lot of modern art that isn’t blank walls, bad drawing and plagiarised postcards, but the fact that some of it is precisely that and yet slips through makes me disinclined to take someone’s word that the rest is genuine and could be appreciate dif I had the education. That line is common to every snake oil scam in history.

[Cheesesteak]

Blake, you’re focused on the idea that in order to be a good artist, you need to have good technical art skills. However, modern art is not about technical skills, it’s about conceptual skills. It’s about imagination and stretching the limits of what can be considered art, not ultra precise brush strokes and exact color matching. You want to judge it by a measure it is specifically not encouraging in its artists, you’re bound to find it lacking.

You may loathe modern art, but ask yourself what art you’d have if it wasn’t for modern art. Would there even be anything to talk about?

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=fessie]
Why?

Why make that demand of art?

I’ve got no beef against that as a personal preference, but why limit what others can appreciate?
[/QUOTE]

Let’s look at what I said again…

@Mangetout

If it is even slightly capable of communicating something in accord with the intent of the artist, then it’s art. If the only way we can all ever know what we’re supposed to be thinking/feeling about it is by reading the guide book or the little plaque on the wall, it’s pointless bullshit.

What could it be that others could appreciate, that exists outside of this definition?

Let me re-word my definition, to make it clearer what I am and am not saying:

-If the artist intends something - otherwise, it’s called ‘accident’, not art

-If anything about that intent is expressed or embodied in the work in such way that it has some effect on the intended audience - otherwise, it does nothing (that’s the beauty of it).

-And if that effect happens, or could concievably happen, to one person or more in the audience.

Then it works as art.

Otherwise, what have you got? If nobody can understand what they’re supposed to think of it, unless told, then it’s the telling, not the work, that is the art.

Art has to be something, otherwise it’s anything.

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=Miller]
There are no right or wrong answers in art.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but are there right and wrong definitions of what the term ‘art’ might mean?

[fessie]

This thread is really frustrating to me because nothing I say seems to matter. And I’m a representational artist; I can draw you. I understand something about the creative process.

Plus I don’t even LIKE all the “celebrated” art; I get the point, I just don’t want it. But so what? It’s not like all the Art Gurus have an annual meeting where they decide what is and will always be. It’s not like they control art. There are millions of artists in this country. People buy all kinds of art.

You mention televangelism, Blake - honestly, what I’m reading is a kind of Biblical literalism. Whatever YOU grew up thinking was “art” is all that can ever be. Where did THAT definition come from, and why is it the “right” one?

As capybara pointed out, many of the things that “Fine Art” used to do had nothing at all to do with “beauty”. It was what we now call graphic art! Commercial art. Design.

Now, if you’re an artist and “how to paint” has already been covered by previous artists a hundred years ago, and representational images are at everyone’s fingertips via the camera, and beautiful imagery has been co-opted by perfume ads, and God is dead, and the history books are full of half-truths and our technological solutions are killing us – what’s left?

A fucking blank wall.

That’s just one interpretation, but hey.

Whether one is very diplomatic about it, like CJJ*, or more blunt like Blake, it boils down to “I don’t understand that. Therefore it’s a sham.”

You’ve got one art historian, 2 artists and 3 art fans saying “Well, there’s this…and this…and this…”

But your reply is simply “No. If it’s not X, then it doesn’t count.”

Well, fine. If all you want to do is approach art with what you came with, and leave unchanged, then that’s what you’ll experience. It’s up to you.

[CJJ]

[QUOTE=Blake]
To give an example that has stuck in my mind “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” by Picasso. Thousands of words were written in the importance of this painting and the importance of the positioning of the figures, particularly the squatting figure. It was attributed to sexuality and gender relations and all sorts of crap but one thing that everyone agreed on was that the positioning had a very deep and special significance selected specifically by Picasso to provide message. Just read the WIkipedia article to see what I mean. Years after Picasso’s death someone going through is old junk found that the picture was direct copy of a cheap mass produced postcard of some African women. The positions hadn’t been altered from the original. The woman was squatting simply because she was pounding millet in a bowl. Picasso had plagiarised someone’s postcard photo. When this was discovered nobody was pilloried, nobody was sacked, nobody was even embarassed. They simply stated that the work was still important and that Picasso had known the significance of the original composition in the photo and that was why he reproduced it. It is rare to even find a critique of the work that mentions the postcard, yet I have seen reputable books with reproductiions of the postcard and the painting and there could be no doubt that one is copied from the other. In an internet search I could only find one passing reference to the fact that he used.
[/QUOTE]

I’d like a citation to the fact that “everyone agreed (that)…the positioning had a very deep and special significance selected specifically by Picasso to provide message.” I also read the Wikipedia article on this painting, and while they do mention that this figure was derived from African tribal masks, they don’t mention anything about postcards; perhaps you were thinking of a different article?

I have never seen the postcard, and am aware that Picasso made sketches in advance of the painting that show different details, such as the presence of two men. Given the obvious, radical departure in the painting from the kind of images you normally see on postcards, I find it hard to believe Picasso just “copied” the image.

[MrDibble]

Blake, if Les Demoiselles d’Avignon actually looked exactly like a picture postcard of African ladies, you* might* have a point somewhere in that screed. Of course, if African ladies really looked like that, well, I’d never leave the house.

Can you appreciate that Picasso created something new, for which the postcard only serves as a basis?

Can you also appreciate that the criteria for appreciating art are not the same as appreciating science? Double-blinds and repeatability are pointless distractions in an experience that’s inherently subjective, a dialogue between the art and the viewer.

Just because a bunch of critics get it spectacularly wrong doesn’t invalidate the art work. All it does is devalue their criticism.

I think I agree with Cheesesteak - too much emphasis on technique and realism. I must admit, as soon as someone makes the “Any six year old…” argument, as you did, Blake, I immediately discount everything they say thereafter. Six year olds splash paint about and draw stick figures because that’s all they can do. They don’t try and play clever clogs with blank canvases (which I cynically laugh at, but there you go) - that’s what adults do.

[CJJ]

[QUOTE=fessie]
Whether one is very diplomatic about it, like CJJ*, or more blunt like Blake, it boils down to “I don’t understand that. Therefore it’s a sham.”

You’ve got one art historian, 2 artists and 3 art fans saying “Well, there’s this…and this…and this..”

But your reply is simply “No. If it’s not X, then it doesn’t count.”

Well, fine. If all you want to do is approach art with what you came with, and leave unchanged, then that’s what you’ll experience. It’s up to you.
[/QUOTE]

The fundamental problem is not that “I don’t understand that”, but that I have the suspicion, in some cases, that a declared work of art does not contain anything to understand; that it could–again, in some cases–have been assembled randomly. If there’s nothing there, what can I do but “leave unchanged” by the art itself?

The artistic goal/purpose may be too complicated to express simply, it may contain enough details to keep people talking for years, it may even be somewhat out of the reach of the artist him/herself. Nevertheless, a work of art should have, inherent in itself and the fact that it was created at a particular time/place/culture/circumstance, a goal or purpose.

Many works of art over the centuries have answered the question “What is art?” in a myriad of different ways. I have no problem that artists’ various answers to this question–in the form of their artwork–could conflict. But I have a problem if they don’t bother to answer the question, and would characterize the artistic activity as pointless if it doesn’t attempt to answer it.

A sharper art critic might note that an artist who declines to answer the question is still meeting a goal or purpose: namely, that the question itself is irrelevant. I can accept this possibility, but this attitude leads to interpretive problems because you can’t really say much else; it would be like trying to determine the various hues of a void, or the size difference between two empty sets. Such questions are nonsense.

[CJJ]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Can you also appreciate that the criteria for appreciating art are not the same as appreciating science? Double-blinds and repeatability are pointless distractions in an experience that’s inherently subjective, a dialogue between the art and the viewer.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll pipe up and agree with this, with the qualification that, although the art experience may be inherently subjective, it is not completely subjective.

[Malthus]

[QUOTE=fessie]
This thread is really frustrating to me because nothing I say seems to matter. And I’m a representational artist; I can draw you. I understand something about the creative process.

Plus I don’t even LIKE all the “celebrated” art; I get the point, I just don’t want it. But so what? It’s not like all the Art Gurus have an annual meeting where they decide what is and will always be. It’s not like they control art. There are millions of artists in this country. People buy all kinds of art.

You mention televangelism, Blake - honestly, what I’m reading is a kind of Biblical literalism. Whatever YOU grew up thinking was “art” is all that can ever be. Where did THAT definition come from, and why is it the “right” one?

As capybara pointed out, many of the things that “Fine Art” used to do had nothing at all to do with “beauty”. It was what we now call graphic art! Commercial art. Design.

Now, if you’re an artist and “how to paint” has already been covered by previous artists a hundred years ago, and representational images are at everyone’s fingertips via the camera, and beautiful imagery has been co-opted by perfume ads, and God is dead, and the history books are full of half-truths and our technological solutions are killing us – what’s left?

A fucking blank wall.

That’s just one interpretation, but hey.

Whether one is very diplomatic about it, like CJJ*, or more blunt like Blake, it boils down to “I don’t understand that. Therefore it’s a sham.”

You’ve got one art historian, 2 artists and 3 art fans saying “Well, there’s this…and this…and this..”

But your reply is simply “No. If it’s not X, then it doesn’t count.”

Well, fine. If all you want to do is approach art with what you came with, and leave unchanged, then that’s what you’ll experience. It’s up to you.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I’m new to this party.
I have also in my time been an artist, albeit one who did representational work. I can well understand why people who are not artists, art critics or art historians are not swayed by the opinions of those who are.

Seems to me to be a classic case of appealing to authority - to paraphrase, ‘I’m an expert, so my views have more weight’. That is all very well where the “expertise” is in something like physics, where right and wrong can be weighed and measured - I’d believe an expert physicist where the question involved, say, nuclear reactions.

It cuts no ice, however, when the expertise is in a subject where the experts themselves adamantly claim there are no objective standards. If so, how can they be “experts” and in what sense is their “expertise” worth anything?

My own opinion: there are many, many different things which make up “art”. At the very least, it should be either something that displays some form of creative mastery of a media, and/or act so as to increase the level of conciousness in the viewer in some respect.

The problem with much of modern art is that it does neither. It strives, or rather pretends, to “increase conciousness” by repeating ad nauseum the stale symbolic tricks that have been recycled now for decades. Putting a toilet on the wall - increases conciousness by its shock value, questioning the value of art itself, which was a very valid thing to do - once. Pulling similar tricks now = no real shock value, no increase in conciousness, stale, boring and worthless as “art”.

One may say that endlessly repeating images of the Virgin Mary in Medieval art was also “stale”. I’d point out that at least in those cases, there were other purposes served - devotional or whatever - and that the representations themselves had varying artistic merit as to mastery of the various media used. Much of modern art has no purpose other than ‘increasing conciousness’ in various ways, does not even pretend to, and I see no reason not to judge it on those criteria - and criticising it for lack of originality and lack of effectiveness on its own terms.

Thus, I am sadly forced to agree that Blake has a good point.

Indeed, I’d add to it. As always, art reflects society. Much of modern art has gone from being shocking (in the first half of the 20th century) to now being safe and conformist. It is stuff that can easily be displayed in the lobby of a business - not, heavens forbid, for its esthetic value, but merely to display “edginess”.