Art and Popularity

Cafe Society
41

jovan:

Sure 2+2 was 4. It’s a direct result from mathematical axioms. I don’t know what your Philosophy 101 was like, but mine didn’t feel the need to question the truth of axioms. They follow by definition. At any rate, I don’t see how this relates to my statement that a piece of art exists (and has meaning) without the observer. As pointed out by MisterThyristor, what I said is neither axiomatic, nor a truism. You can argue whether a piece of art has meaning without an observer (thought I think it does). You cannot argue whether 2+2 equals 4.

And no, I’m not in the business in writing dictionaries. I do have a tendency to joke from time to time, however. You can go to http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_049.html to find out more.
To be honest, I merely thought you were being stubborn about semantics, so here you go: The general public is the set of all people who have the ability to understand the work in question. This will includes people can understand the language, or has access to something that can translate it for them. It pretty much excludes young children, mentally handicapped, the comatose, and animals.
I await your objection to this definition.

[PHIL 101]In the time of the dinosaurs did 2+2=4?[/PHIL 101]

I don’t know what this has to do with your question. But I’ll put it here anyways.
As for it being all about language, how can you simultaneously claim this and then several paragraphs later, claim that not everything can be expressed in words!??! These two claims are mutually exclusive.
[PHIL 101] A && (-A) = FALSE [/PHIL 101]
To elaborate:

  1. For any piece of art it’s all about language
  2. Hence it follows that every work can be expressed in words
  3. [Paraphrase]What’s the point of making a painting if you can express it in words[/Paraphrase]
  4. “The Last Supper” is a piece of art and subject to 1 because of 2. From 3 it follows that there was no point in making the painting

Yet you insist that 4 is not true, but 3 and 1 (thus also 2) are true.
Please make up your mind.

Re: Backstreet Boys. I wanted your opinion. Not what your opinion of what my opinion is. Believe it or not, I am actually interested in what you have to say!! Jeez…

As for the Japanese: I don’t speak Japanese, not fluently anyways. I took some a couple years ago but I only remember how to say “My Japanese is poor” and “Where’s the bathroom” :wink:

–Chorus

42

Chorus, it’s going to be hard for anyone to take you seriously in this debate–well, I should speak for myself: I can’t really take you seriously in this debate–if you can state unequivocally that Eyes Wide Shut is not art, without at least qualifying that statement–*". . . to me."

A urinal in a bathroom is not art; a urinal in a museum is art. It may be bad art to you; it may be art you don’t get; it may make you angry. But don’t you see, all those things are what makes it art.

Furthermore, it’s disingenuous of you to pretend to think that jovan meant that putting on your pants is art. How can we continue the debate if you go of into little hissy tangents every time someone is a little careless with a word here or there? You know perfectly well that jovan’s “everything” was meant to be all-inclusive within the scope of this debate, not in the context of everything outside of this debate. And again, it’s dishonest of you to take one thing I said (that to declare something is “not art” just because you don’t get it or don’t like it is arrogant) and pretend that I said another (that to express an opinion at all is arrogant). These tactics of yours only serve to tangle the debate up in silly little meta tangents; let’s try not to let this splinter into a bunch of "I never said that"s and "that’s not what I meant"s. Play fair: respond honestly.

In any case, I shouldn’t speak for jovan; it’s quit possible for you to make putting on your pants art, if you did it in such a way, or such a context, as to attach meaning to the act. That’s part of what makes us human: that it’s possible for the things we do to have meaning. You wanna know what I think? I think everyone’s an artist. Unless they refuse to be. I think every time we convey meaning from one person to another–or even attempt to do so–we’ve made art. Every time anyone takes an object or a substance or a sound or a deed and imbues it with meaning, through altering it or explaining it or reconceiving it or recontextualizing it, they have created art. Not necessarily good art, of course, but art nonetheless. It may be really bad art, if say no one gets the artist’s intention, but that doesn’t make it not art.

To maintain otherwise, as you have, is like saying “I don’t like spaghetti, so it’s not food.”

43

Chorus: about the 2+2 thing. There are philosophers who argue that concepts, ideas, meaning exist independently of the human mind. Even if there is no one to count 2, 2 exists. On the other hand others argue that all concepts, ideas and meaning arise from the human mind and that if there is no one to count 2, there is no such thing as 2. It’s a millenia-old debate that’s way, way out of the scope of this thread. I didn’t agree or disagree with you, I just hinted that your statement isn’t necessarily as obviously true as it appears.
Moving along. . . Ah, the general public. . .

This is like shooting grass in a lawn… You say: “For obect A to be art, it has to be understandable by the general public. The general public is the set of all people who have the ability to understand object A.” Write something like that in a computer program and you’ll end up with a spectacular crash.

You’ve yet to make a convincing case for the existance of that elusive general public, I’m afraid.

Oh, now I get what you don’t get.

From Merriam-Webster:

I did not mean language as in French, English and Urdu exclusively. Painting has its own languages i.e. its sets of signs and conventions that have understood meaning. Michelangelo used a different set of conventions from the one Jackson Pollock did. That is what is meant by language in this context.

RE: The Poster Boys From the Ninth Hell of Endless Trite (aka the BB). I gave you my opinion. Performers are artists. The PBFNHET are performers. Thus artists. They suck ass. Can we please forget about them? :frowning:

I should be fair and say that my Japanese answer was in the thick Osaka dialect I usually speak. I wasn’t showing off I really speak that way. Translation: “Dude, don’t ask me! If you wanna pee, than go, man, that ain’t none 'o my bidness!” :wink:

Lissener: Chorus was answering to Miller with the pant thing. I will try to put on my pants artistically next time though… Wish me luck!

44

This is my personal definition of art. It is created by a person or persons with the intention of expressing an emotion or opinion and evoking an emotion or opinion in the viewer/listener/perceiver. It CAN be aesthetic, political, social, sexual or religious, but it doesn’t HAVE to fit any of those particular areas of thought. Art can be created in any medium. Art may be controversial in form or topic, but doesn’t have to be. Each person must make up his/her own mind if something qualifies as art, and that qualification can and frequently does change over time.

Speaking for myself, as a photographer, I’ve always made pictures that I think look good. If anybody else likes them that’s fine, and usually somebody does like them. That’s not to say that everybody likes all my work, rather that everybody who has seen my work has liked SOME of it. I make art about the world as I see it; the details that attract my attention. It’s not overtly political, but some pieces may have political or social implications to the viewer. That doesn’t negate my intention, it’s simply another person’s perspective.

That’s the way I view art. I disagree with anybody who says art MUST be confrontational, or that art MUST be any specific thing.

45

lissener,
I find it painfully obvious that few people are taking me seriously in this debate. As for me stating unequivocally that EWS is not art without “to me”… well, let’s just say that as an opinion I find that the “to me” part is implied. And before you say so, I think it’s perfectly fine to present my opinion as fact. I expect others to do the same – this is a debate after all. Maybe I just play by different rules.

So… now it’s art if it’s in a museum. And you think my definition of art is out to lunch?

No, it’s disingenuous of you to not read the thread.
Here, paraphrased (the actual words can be read above), is what was said:

  1. I said “Not everything is art”. I meant this literally.
  2. Miller said “Well, you’re wrong. Everything is art.” Tell me again that he didn’t mean this literally as well. If he didn’t, it’s a mighty strong statement.
  3. He confirmed his statement by quoting art as “everything not directly related to survival or procreation” Again, he was not unclear. If he had not meant everything, why would he bother to cite this rather conclusive phrase.
  4. I pointed out the ridiculousness of that position (to me).

BTW, I notice that you didn’t scold jovan for the way he treated my (joking) “general public” definition. He treated it literally, just as I did. I have to wonder lissener, are you objective about the members of this board. Do you come down on people for misbehaving all the time, or do you need to come down on me because of my attitude?

As for the arrogant bit. I’ll amend that to say it’s only arrogant to express an opinion that you don’t agree with. Is that better?

Re: Play fair: respond honestly.
I think the problem is that I am responding honestly, you just don’t like my answers.

I like this idea (no, I’m not being sarcastic). Although I can tell that we won’t agree on what refusing to be an artist consists of. Maybe that can be for another thread. I think this one has been hi-jacked enough.

Agreed.

Point taken. I’ll try to come up with a better definition later. I must say, however, that I can’t accept the general public as being people “that think like me” (or you, whatever). To me, that is the exact opposite of what the general public should be. The general public is not like minded but should be made of different minded people (to me).

Thank you for clarifying the bit about language. To me, that wasn’t at all obvious.

BB are forgotten.

–Chorus

46

Actually, chorus was responding to me, and chorus had it more or less right in his interpretation. Putting on your pants can be art, if you choose to view it as art. This is the meaning I took away from Duchamps’ urinal: art is all around us. It’s just a matter of looking for it.

I work in a machine shop. I do most of my work on a mill, which is… Well, really hard to describe, which is why I’ll use the magic of the internet to link to a picture of one. These are simply beautiful machines. They’re artworks of functionality. The ones I work with are older models, and have this weird organic look to them, like giant, looming insects. They’re genuine works of art, for all that art was the last thing on the mind of the guy who designed them.

The point is, the art isn’t inherent in the artwork. The art comes in the perception of the work. And if you want to perceive art wherever you look, well, you don’t have to spend as much time in museums.

Ever read The Miller’s Tale section from The Canterbury Tales? The story climaxes with a rimjob and a red-hot poker in a very uncomfortable place. The entire story is an incredibly crude joke. And also part of the most revered works of the English language.

Oh, well Jesus, I’ve missed my calling. Here’s Moby Dick: This guy gets killed by a whale. There, now you don’t have to read the whole book, and I’m a better “artist” than Herman Melville. There’s a lot more to the movie than that. Hell, that was what I remembered off the top of my head after seeing the movie once in the theaters three years ago. There’s a lot that can’t adequately be described by words (which is why, I suppose, Kubrick was a filmmaker, and not a novelist) What makes this movie great is the atmosphere Kubrick created: slightly dreamlike, unclear, like noir, but misty instead of dark. This is a deeply textured, textual, emotional movie, that communicates itself almost entirely by sight and sound, not story. The plot is irrelevant, it’s mood that’s important here.

That’s certainly my position.

No, he can’t. No matter which artist you’re talking about. Even Thomas Kincaide’s half-assed, syrupy sentimental landscapes are art.

Is it possible for something that you don’t personally like to be art?

47

Sorry, chorus, but we’re gonna have to agree to disagree. I think that art is in the interaction between the artist and the observer. If anything the observer is more important than the artist – in such things as “found art” or even landscape photography such as Ansel Adams’, the observer is the artist. He takes what he finds and presents it to others as art. The art there is in the presentation.

Or jovan’s red line on a white wall – for him, for that moment, that image was art, yet it was obviously not created for that purpose.

I would rather take lissener and Miller’s position that everything is art, and there is either good art or bad art. Take it as a stipulation, if you prefer.

That way we can end this hijack and bring things back to the original question of whether popularity and quality are inversely proportional with respect to each other.

48

If they fail does this mean that they tried to be artists but failed so therfore they aren’t artists?

49

Jeez - helluva debate here - as good a use of the SDMB as I’ve seen.

Hmmm - Art:

Thesis: Art is relative - it is in the eye of the beholder; anything that can be perceived by a person can be interpreted as art, given the context in which it is presented and/or interpreted.

Anti-thesis: Art is absolute - there are criteria against which offerings can be assessed as to their “art-worthiness”, with some offerings rating higher than others on an absolute scale of Art - and there may even be a line across which some things are judged to be Not Art.

Synthesis: Art is an absolute concept with relative usefulness - Conceptually, art can be defined (with some work and debate, sure, but ultimately as some form of communication between the artist and the audience that exists above or alongside commerce or craft), but given the inherently relative nature of Man’s existence and ability to perceive, no useful absolute interpretation of this concept can be agreed upon.

50

Regarding the OP - Art and Popularity:

IMHO, there are two streams or cycles at work here - one for Art and one for Popularity. Both go about their own path, intersecting at various points, sometimes reinforcing each other, sometimes cancelling each other out.

Since Art (again, IMHO) is about communicating (in an intended or unintended way) to the audience, the question becomes -

Over time, what messages communicated by what artists endure?

Usually, the messages communicated by contemporarily popular artists are more likely to be either: a) lowest common denominator (e.g., sex, money, sex, fame, sex…); b) influenced by a social zeitgeist context that artificially inflates the relative importance of that art for a brief period. That is why few artists remain popular who were popular in their day, and some who were “fringe” artists rise up long after their deaths.

That is why when some artists exist at the intersection of Art and Popularity - the most obvious example in recent history is the Beatles - people understand, however subconsciously for the most part, the…hmmmm…uniqueness and importance of that juxtaposition. Also, there is more than a little hope in that perception - there have been many artists who appear to have achieved that same juxtaposition since the Fabs, but have quickly faded - we all like to claim that we were around when New Art was happening, so we hope our artists transcend…

51

::ignoring Chorus’ hijack of the thread::

(In a related note, what happened to Fenris?)

Disclaimer: Creative writing major here, so please read everything with a literature slant.

I think one of the main reasons popular works of art (in the “everything is art” sense) are not considered (good) art is that these works are very accessible.

They tend to be accessible because much, if not all, of their message meaning is “right out there” and obvious (even) to the public. Because so much of the meaning is allegedly obvious, I think critics often do not bother to dig any deeper to see if there is any further embedded meaning. (I mean, hey, they’re busy people too, right?)

IMHO, this obviously does not mean that popular works are, by definition, bad/not art. I think that the argument that an artist (author, director, what have you) subconsciously places meaning other than the obvious into a work is valid and that many works that are readily dismissed because of their popularity (for instance the backlash against Harry Potter) are worthy of closer examination and will indeed yield artistic “merit” when read closely.

I don’t have a strict personal definition of art, but I generally classify it as something that has embedded meaning (or, in the case of more visual mediums, aesthetic…“flourish”) that is not strictly functional. For instance, a urinal in a bathroom is a urinal (though it can still be visually “artsy”), and a urinal in a museum is symbolic of excretion and reception, etc., etc. And the higher the amount of embedded meaning (something directly proportional with the amount of “work” that needs to be done), the more artistic it is, IMHO.

I have the feeling that a lot of critics dismiss a lot of works (popular ones and otherwise) because of a number of factors.
A) They’re used to really dense works (think Ulysses).
B) Works that aren’t similarly dense don’t tax their close reading (insert medium specific skillset here) as/very much.
C) Deciding that hard work = artistic and light work isn’t, they dismiss and denounce some really good stuff.

Not to mention, of course, that quality is subjective.

52

I’ll try and keep this brief:

Miller, I admire the mill. It is truly a nice machine and I’m sure it took some skill to create. Unfortunately, I would not agree that it’s a piece of art. To me, I just see a very nice machine that can be appreciated on it’s own merits.
And to clarify the subject of bad art/not art. To me, both exist. What I consider not to be art may in fact be a beautiful thing ex., a flower. It’s not some exceptional degree of “bad art”.
No, I have never read “The Miller’s Tale”. Maybe I’ll look into it.
Re: Moby Dick. Re-read my example of “Veni vidi vici”. What I’m getting at is the same amount of information is communicated in as efficient a manner as possible. Kubrick bloated his film (IMHO). That’s all.

MisterThyristor,
I can agree to disagree.
Aside:
KKBattousai,
let’s just say it takes two to tango. Actually, this time it took Miller, lissener, jovan, MisterThyristor and I. If you care to read my original post, I addressed the OP, provided my own definition of art, and some examples. The rest of my posts were in response to posts by the aforementioned.
This is the second time I’ve been singled out when there are other guilty parties. I don’t care what you call me or say about me, as long as you are reasonable enough to point the finger all the way around.

–Chorus

53

I’m in agreement with those who say there’s no point arguing about what art is, instead we should talk about good art and bad art. I spent a couple of years studying in a university composition department, which is as wanky an artistic environment as you’re likely to find. I eventually came to the conlusion that the people around me were wasting much too much time arguing about art versus not-art, and said argument is really just a distraction from what’s important - ie trying to create good art.

As for art vs popularity, or if I may rephrase, good art vs popularity, I don’t pretend to have an answer, but I will offer some of my own experience (with classical music, because that’s what I’m educated in), all very much IMHO and YMMV. One of the things that makes for popularity in art is accessibility - can your average Joe Blow (dare I use the term General Public?) with no education in the field understand and appreciate the work. Hence the popularity of Britney vs Bebop (this is touching on jovan’s points about language above).

When I was a bit younger, and didn’t know as much about music as I know now (not that I know a huge amount now), I was madly in love with music by people like [sub]Andrew Lloyd Webber[/sub]. I didn’t mind classical composers like Rachmaninov or Tchaikovsky, but I thought JS Bach was just plain boring. These days, I whinge and moan if I’m forced to put up with ALW, and though I still like Rach and Tchaik, very few things do it for me like good performances/recordings of JS Bach. The difference between me now and me then is a few years’ education (and when I say education, I include not only hours spent in music history lectures, but also time spent listening to all sorts of different things).

The point is that education is important (again, it’s an issue of language), and that often good art is a little inaccessible - because that makes it all the more rewarding when you do manage to get right into it, and often the best bits are the bits that you can’t figure out easily. I frequently have this argument with my mother, who accuses me of being a snob because I prefer Bach to Rachmaninov, and because I firmly believe that if she had had my musical education, she would like Bach much more than she does.

So, I guess what I’m trying to say (hrm… what am I trying to say? It’s very late where I am) is that lots of good art is not popular, because you need some education to be able to appreciate it. I’m very definitely not trying to say that popular = bad art. The Harry Potter books, (thanks, KKBattousai) are an excellent example of great art that is fantastically popular. But opinions and definitions of good and bad art will always be subjective. Ultimately, the things that survive are the things that people still want to read/listen to/look at.

Again, all very much IMHO and YMMV :slight_smile:

54

If you read the thread, you’ll see that several people have disagreed with me. And so I say for the THIRD time: oh nevermind.

(Aside: And Harry Potter is so not great art. Sheesh.)

55

**I hate to be petty, but I so rarely get any credit around here anymore. So I’d like to point out that I was the first one to mention education as regards its relevance to this discussion (see my first post above). Nothing extra to add, just having a bad day . . . and this didn’t help . . . back to bed now . . .)

56

I recall that guitarist Robert Fripp once made a useful observation about the difference between what he called “popular culture” and “mass culture.”

To oversimplify, “popular culture” means that something is very good, almost everyone KNOWS that it’s very good, everyone says “Yeah!,” and everyone races out to buy it. Fripp’s examples include the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix and Bob Dylan."

“Mass culture,” on the other hand, means that something is crap, that almost everyone KNOWS it’s crap, and everyone STILL says, “Yeah!,” and rushes out to buy it. Examples? Well, there are too many to name.

I mean, even the teenagers who rush out to see the latest cheesey Jerry Bruckheimer action film KNOW that such films aren’t good, and readily admit they aren’t very good. If you ask them why they paid good money to see it, though, you’ll get either a blank stare, a shrug (“I dunno”), or an incoherent ramble about how, “Well, sure it’s crap, but it’s just something to do… besides, everybody’s going to see it, I figure I’ll see what all the fuss is about.”

There’s so much “art” out there that isn’t good, that nobody particularly likes, but which still sells like hotcakes. I strongly doubt whether McDonald’s is really anybody’s favorite restaurant, or Journey is anybody’s favorite rock group… but somehow,
people end up eating at McDonald’s all the time, and end up buying a lot of Journey CDs. Mass tastes seem to converge not around what’s good, but around what everyone agrees isn’t too awful.

57

Apologies, lissener - I had just schlepped my way through the entire debate above, and couldn’t remember accurately exactly who had said what the first time. I scrolled up a little, and found a reference in one of jovan’s posts, and that seemed close enough. No offence intended. :slight_smile:

And as for Harry Potter, I didn’t really mean Great Art, in the sense of Mozart and Shakespeare… though now I think of it, I don’t see why children’s literature shouldn’t be Great Art. At the time, I just meant that, being literature, the Harry Potter books are art, and boy, they’re great! If you still disagree, I think we might have to agree to disagree on this.

-tritone, who wrote that post very, very late at night (or early in the morning?) in a break from studying for an immunology test

58

And I must add, since I was the one who received undue credit, that, lissener, your first post echoed my sentiments and my own comments on language and culture were meant as a continuation of your post on education.

I wonder too, whatever happened to Fenris?
jovan - who has to go back to work on his first conceptual electro-noise top 40 album.

59

astorian, how did Fripp (or anyone else) decide which is popular and which is mass culture? Short of on-the-street polls, are there any, I dunno, market trends or data of any sort that can help differentiate the two?

All things considered it sounds like a very interesting distinction if one can find solid data to back it up.

60

No apologies necessary; as I said, bad day.

I agree that we’ll have to agree to disagree: I’m one of those people (what’re there, seven of us?) who thinks that the Harry Potter books are sloppy schlock. I read the first one, was appalled at the sloppy language, blandly derivative plot, and suspect subtext, then read the second one, and there isn’t a magic powerful enough to make me continue the series. I have described Harry Potter as Stephen King for kids. I am not a Stephen King fan. But anyway.

Yes, of course children’s literature can be great art. Grimm, Andersen, Twain, Dahl, Hoban, Alcott–some might even include Tolkien. Anyway, back to the thread at hand.