Art discussion-- what is art/kitsch/garbage?

Cafe Society
1

Thought we’d give a happier home to the art-vs-somethingelse thoughts that were coming up in the last pitting of Thomas Kinkaide, painter of trite. GD just doesn’t seem right for this and it’s an aesthetic question, so here we are.
To get started-- MY thoughts:

First thought-- in an philosophy of aesthetics course I took back in the day, the question arose of whether art had to be beautiful-- could something like Hermann Nitsche’s (sp?) stuff be art? Professor pointed out that the word ‘aesthetic’, while currently used synonymously with 'beautiful," originally meant more of something that evokes feeling-- the opposite of this, of course, is ANaesthetic.

Thought #2-- can we really argue about things being art and not-art, or should the definition be inclusive and reworded as “good art versus not-very-good art”? Is there a value judgement necessarily implied in the term ‘art’?

thought 3-- is art a noun or a verb? In the last century the ‘found object’ sort of ‘art’ developed in which a regular thing in the world was presented in a modified context for aesthetic appreciation. Is art located in an object itself or in a mode of perception in the human subject?

Thought 4: is cooking an ‘art’ form? It’s a medium with a limited range of possibilities and such a set of codified rules that we might also call it a craft, rather? Difference between art and craft?

2

Thank you for a wonderful little nugget of insight there.

To me, no. Art is a category description, not a value assignment. I have no trouble describing things as Art even if I don’t appreciate or understand them. Art, to me, is in the intent. Cooking can definitely be an art, if you want it to be. To me, it is very much art, at certain levels.

3

The Powers that Be in the art world seem to have recognized quite correctly that a work art need not be popular to be great. Unfortunately, they seem to have incorrectly generalized that observation to say that a work of art which is popular by definition cannot be great art.
Taking this invalid generalization to an extreme, they have therefore concluded that only work which causes the bulk of the population to barf can be considered great art; in fact, that any work of art that causes the bulk of the population to barf is by definition Great art!

My tongue is a bit in my cheek here, but not by much…

4

Attributed, generally, to George Bernard Shaw. I’m not sure if his tongueposition was analogous to BrotherCadfael, in fact I’d be very interested to find out.

5

I think GBS had his tongue more or less permanently in that position…but I am not familiar with that specific quote…

6

Art is a self-contained work designed to communicate something. So, an actor’s part in a movie is not art, the movie itself is. In addition, contentless works are not art.

Art is art if the person creating it intends it to be art. Only the artist’s true intentions are involved, making it impossible to discern whether a given piece of work is art without being omniscient.

For instance, a given modern artwork may be DECLARED by an artist to be a “communication of human condition” or somesuch, but if they had in the back of their mind when they made it “heheheh, lets see what I can pull off now,” then the piece is not art.

But I give people the benefit of the doubt, so in general, if someone says a given work is art, I call it that. Now, GOOD art, maybe not.

Another example I like to use is the “I have a dream” and the “We will fight them on the beaches” speeches. If they had been done as poetry, they would have been art of the highest degree, but they were aimed at “functional” communication rather than art.

Which is not to say that an actor or a speech writer cannot show a good deal of “Artistry”, but that the work cannot be considered art unless it is relatively self-contained.

In other words, if the speeches were explained as a representation of what a person might say in that situation, rather than actually BEING that, then I would consider them art. But again, you have to take the writer’s word for that, rather than trying to guess.

(As sheer poetics go, btw, they are better than most 20th century poems.)

7

I love kitch, probably for the wrong reason: if I deliberately put stupid art in my home, and somebody sneers at it, I’ve already pulled a pre-emptive strike if the art was intended to be silly. (the only excetion to this is a small print of Franz marc’s “Blue Horses” that hangs in my bedroom, sneering at which would result in ejection from my home).

In my defense, I don’t know of much art that doesn’t have an inherent ridicule value anyway (sorry - that does include the Vietnam War Memorial, but that’s another thread).

Kitch, like all art, is in the eye of the beholder, but a few qualifications can be made:

If the artist is unaware of the laughability of his or her work, be it either too pompous or twee or, best of all, a combination of the two, then it is kitch.

If, however, the artist is aware of the silliness, and is playing it up, then it is not kitch but rather what used to be called Camp, or what is now known as Post-modern. This includes TV commercials or architecture or car designs that wink at us as if to say “how smart you are to see through the obvious con! Won’t you please buy me to prove it and get in on the winking yourself?”

Great kitch is made so when it works on multiple layers. My favorite example of this is the salt shaker of John F. Kennedy sitting in his rocking chair. Compared to Mt Rushmore or the Lincoln Memorial, a salt shaker is a silly enough version of a memorial, but the capper is the holes in the back of his head for the salt to come out.

There’s an old saw that goes “A laborer is one who works with his hands. A craftsman is one who works with his hands and his head. An artist is one who works with his hands, head and heart.”
Glurgy as it is, it’s always been a good working guide to the differences. This excludes the art of cooking or auto repair or sex, even if your’e doing these things for or with someone you love.

Art, as opposed to what is not art, should first give meaning to feeling, but beyond cooking or auto repair or sex; crafts which also fill this first criteria, art should attempt as unique and true a statement as possible about the experience of life.

8

What fun, Capybara! Love these parameters you’ve set up. Since we’re getting towards the bottom of the page (and hopefully with the blessings of the coding gods):

IMHO, No, Yes, and Sure, respectively. I believe that what art is & what is art must be re-evaluated constantly. Some art (Great Art) is timeless and ageless, such as Michelangelo’s “David”. Which breathes.

Other art is of its time and place, speaking to people in their current context - like the way many TV series aren’t funny a few years later while some always are. That doesn’t mean they weren’t worthwhile when their context worked.

Going one step further, I don’t think all art has to aspire to be Great Art, because a person can only create to the best of their abilities and then just see what happens. Critics and historians mock people for being mediocre, when in fact most people feel mediocre even when they actually are great. I don’t think we can truly know the value of our work, or decide what to do based on outcomes; we can only do it.

One more point - a H.S. teacher tried an experiment with his ceramics class. He divided them in half and told one bunch they would be graded solely based on the number of pots they threw. The other half only had to make ONE pot, but their whole grade would be based on it. The ones who did the better work, far and away? The quantity group.

I think there is, Art is definitely an accolade. But I wouldn’t want to be responsible for deciding that line on behalf of anyone else - except where true dreck is concerned. To call something “art” suggests, at a minimum, that it shows an intent and skill sufficient to carry out that intent.

What most people don’t know, and this is what irritates me personally, is that there is a grammar to art. There is a basic visual language consisting of (at least) contrast, value, line, hue, saturation, texture, perspective and scale. People break rules deliberately, but to not even know they exist is like when s u m w u n k a’ n t s p e l and insists on posting crap ya can’t READ.

Classic knower/known argument. Western thinking says it’s the human’s experience - check out Descartes on this. They’re the ones who argue that if a tree falls in the woods and no one’s there to hear it, then it doesn’t make a noise.

My hunch is that it’s a give/take experience, like live theatre. If the audience is a dud, the performers can’t overcome it. May the Force be with you.

Absolutely! (except not when I’m doing it). Given the number of possible outcomes and the potential for creating an individual signature, it’s gotta be art - certainly when some people do it.

For me the basic litmus test is: If you can give the materials to 10 reasonable adults, right off the street, and instruct them to pretty much the exact same product in one afternoon, then that’s craft.

If everyone’s outcome would be different, some of them gave up b/c they just didn’t care, and a few got so psyched they brought in additional materials and/or used the materials in innovative ways - that’s art.

If people still loved the resulting product 100 years later, that would be Great Art.

9

Ah, let’s try to keep this afloat after the board fart until the work-week starts again. Someone in the BBQ thread requested parameters–this is (at my devising) NOT in GQ (and requiring citations, etc) and IMHO-style discussion is welcome-- this is a humanistic forum, so go nuts. As they say “de gustibus non disputandum est” (there’s no disputing of tastes. . . in an objective way, which is to say there is endless disputing about taste. . . side question-- where does that phrase originate? Cicero?).
So. . . difference in art-object status? Jasper Johns’ painted sculpted similacra of Ballantine Beer cans (cast bronze, I think, painted to resemble the actual things very closely) (OR Warhol’s Brillo boxes). . . versus Duchamp’s not-similcrum, not-sculpted very real urinal “Fountain” (made from a. . . urinal.). Similar mass produced commercial appearance, similar effect BUT different kind of genesis. Is the crafted Johns somehow more legitimate, as an artwork?
(Johns)
(Duchamp)

Where does driftwood sculpture fit into all of this?

10

By far the catchiest thing I’ve heard TK called. Bravo!

  1. I definitely stand by the idea that neither an “aesthetic” nor art require beauty. Various definitions of aesthetic. I do believe we are conditioned and educated to respond to beautiful art and beautiful objects, however. Unfortunately, I also think this fosters a public that does not appreciate contemporary art.

  2. In some cases, I believe discussions of art/not-art are in order. For example, I believe those discussions were exactly what artists such as Duchamp and Warhol sought to initiate. Their works were engaging in a dialogue about the boundaries of art, and I think its irresponsible to turn away from the challenges their works present.

Having said all that, I do think its unfortunate that most art conversations break down into people hollering “That’s not art!” I do believe that creating a general understanding of good vs. bad art is in order.

Thought #2-- can we really argue about things being art and not-art, or should the definition be inclusive and reworded as “good art versus not-very-good art”? Is there a value judgement necessarily implied in the term ‘art’?

thought 3-- is art a noun or a verb? In the last century the ‘found object’ sort of ‘art’ developed in which a regular thing in the world was presented in a modified context for aesthetic appreciation. Is art located in an object itself or in a mode of perception in the human subject?

Thought 4: is cooking an ‘art’ form? It’s a medium with a limited range of possibilities and such a set of codified rules that we might also call it a craft, rather? Difference between art and craft? **
[/QUOTE]

11

Yikes. I didn’t mean to post that yet. Apologies. Let me continue where I left off.

I believe there is and it’s something I struggle with. My best comparison is to think of “art” like “sport.” I believe that people will fight over whether or not activities such as darts, pool, archery, whathaveyou are sports–because there is an implied and understood value in being called a sport and a subsequent lack of value to things which are denied entry into that category.

Doesn’t that context have something to do with objects being considered art? I think the museum/gallery context does bestow “art” status on objects and needs to be considered. For example, placing tribal objects in museums usually deprives them of their original context and reinvents them as objects d’art.

I think here we need to differentiate between the fine arts and the skill of something. The “art of cooking” refers to the latter; the former, in its most expansive form, includes poetry, music, painting, sculpture, and architecture (traditionally); I would further expand that to include theater, performance art, photography, film, dance, printmaking, illustration, digital art, probably some other things I’m forgetting. :slight_smile:

In general, I think people expect a craft–such as woodworking–to have a functional, as well as an aesthetic, appeal. Just like Duchamp and Warhol’s effort to challenge or expand the definition of art, I do believe those craftspersons who identify as artists create a positive and significant challenge for the artworld.

This time, I mean to hit submit. (Again, sorry, capybara, for my wholesale reposting of your OP!)

12

It’s interesting this comes up today. I just watched a recent episode of “Ultimate Kitchens” (don’t ask) on Food Network and at some point the hostess pointed out an “artwork” on a guy’s wall that appeared to be a smooshed chinese takeout container hanging on the wall. The homeowner explained it was by a Chicago artist who collects bits of garbage and actually painstakingly re-creates them in paints on wood. He then took the “container” off the wall and flipped it over to reveal that it was indeed an incredibly amazing reproduction, on wood. My first instinct was “wow, what a talent to be able to visualise and reproduce something that accurately!” My second instinct was "who cares? That’s what we have photography for…and why do we need a reproduction of a smashed takeout box when we could have an ACTUAL smashed take out box for about a thousandth what you’re charging for your fake one?

So in a nutshell, my answer to your question (despite several years of art school) is “I don’t know.” I do know this: Anne Geddes = GARBAGE. I can prove that in any court. Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

13

I have a certain fascination with bad art and kitsch, as well as good and great Art.

The Museum of Bad Art is all about art too bad to ignore. Part of the requirement for inclusion is that the piece is not intentionally bad. The painting "Lucy in the Field with Flowers " is the painting that caused the founding of the Museum, and is a wonderful example of bad art that is not kitsch. Spend a bit of time looking at stuff from MOBA and then go into a traditional Art museum and the result can be enlightening. There is much Great Art that I don’t like. The contrast between Great Art I don’t like and bad art helps me to see why something is Great Art I don’t like and not just bad art, although I think some bad art does make its way into museums occasionally.

Also looking at that collection and looking back through the art that I have made over the years was enlightening. I have worked in many media, and met with moderate success in many of them. I define success as getting a result I like. I have also developed skill in many media, and I define skill as getting the result I intend. In looking back at my art, I find two kinds of bad art, art that is badly executed, and art that ill conceived. I also find much that I like, but that is irrelevant here.

Art that is ill constructed is not always the first I have done in a medium, though often it is, but often the result of a bad day, or an experiment that went wrong. I did a ghastly portrait in white and black ink that is the best example of this. Though I am skilled at drawing portraits, my skill apparently fled that day. The features are somewhat out of proportion without any intention of them being so. The white ink reacted badly with the black to create unexpected effects that manage to draw attention to the worst aspects of the poorly drawn portrait. Worst of all the paper I used wrinkled where too much ink was applied. I keep it, NOT on display, but stashed away, as a record. It is bad and I knew it was bad halfway through. I tried to save it but failed utterly. Still, it helped me hone my skill.

The other type of bad art is the badly conceived. The kind of thing where the words “What was I thinking?” and “Why?” leap in to my mind when I see it. This is much more subjective. Much of it is reasonably executed, but fails in fundamental design. In my collection, still lifes of boring objects arranged in an indifferent manner make up most of this. Partly because this is what I can easily see for myself that it is not good. An outside critic might label far more of my works in this category, but I might argue. These works I keep, again stashed away, as a record, and are useful examples of technique.

Kitsch is something else. The Art Institute of Chicago has on display a little ceramic piece of boiled eggs cut into pieces and sitting on a plate. This is not a piece of modern art, nor a very ancient piece. It is not particularly well executed, the yellow of the yolk being an off color and not well applied. The eggs being arranged haphazardly on the plate in a manner that fails utterly to please the eye or elicit any other emotion. I can find no evidence that it was intended to be anything other than a sculpture of a plate of eggs. It seems to be where it is in the museum because of the age of the piece. I can’t for the life of me figure out why it is in the museum at all. It seems pure kitsch done without irony or particular skill. It isn’t even good kitsch like the saltshaker mentioned before.

14

Beautiful? No. I occasionally use the term “aesthetically striking” to refer to something which is not beautiful in the commonly understood sense, yet has a visual (or aural) impact. The word “beautiful” has been stripped of much of its depth through overuse, and no longer conveys more than a superficial attractiveness. I think art should have some distinctive aesthetic element, but that is not the same as being “beautiful”.

I don’t think there’s any use in quibbling over what is or isn’t art. I’m with the “art is what you call art” crowd, which leaves us free to move on to the “good art or bad art” question.

Of course, there are problems with that question as well, as it suggests a certain degree of functionalism (i.e. what is art for, or what should art do?). At a simple level, I usually say that art should be evocative (not to be confused with “provocative”), although if pressed I’d have to admit that that doesn’t really answer the question either.

If we agree that art is whatever we say is art, then “art-ness” is not an intrinsic quality of the object itself.

I came across a great quote from Italo Calvino the other day, which seems relevant here:

The main factor that transforms “found art” from random object to art is the context into which it is brought – the display case, the gallery, the photograph all say “this thing is art”, whereas on the street it’s just junk – except to those who carry with them their own perceptual frames for seeing art amongst the clutter.

Depends on how you do it. It could be mere labor (flipping burgers, for example), it could be a craft (working in a fancy restaurant kitchen putting together set menu items) or an art form (creating new dishes from imagination). I do all three, depending on the occasion and my mood.

15

Because it’s trompe d’oeil, which is extremely clever and difficult to do. I saw a National Gallery exhibition of art by a 17th-century artist (whose name I forget) which was filled with this sort of thing. My favorite piece was a painting of…the back of a painting. The artist always displayed it leaning up against a wall, hoping that people would turn it around to look at the painting, only to find the real back of the painting. Very funny, very clever, and a neat commentary on art.

Heh. “Baby in bee costume savaged by Weimaraner in top hat – film at 11”.

16

Jr8,
I do know of one back-of-a-painting-painting by a Cornelis Ghijsbrechts, but he’s not too well known. . was it a Hoogstraten show?
And on the Calvino quote-- in art history right now there’s a whole group pf people who discuss “frame theory”-- I think it originated in literature studies.
The notion of people who carry their own perceptual frames around is an interesting one. . . I think we once had a discussion in the same aesthetics class about ‘purposiveness’-- that art needed to be intended in some way. I thought then about the ‘picturesque’ in nature-- what happens when you run into the perfect beautiful tableau only to realize that it wasn’t crafted per se but just IS incidentally (unless, of course, you believe in a God as supreme artist)-- does the unintentionality of it make that scene impossible to consider art? Or is it a ‘found object’ for the moment?

17

That’s the one. I knew there was a good reason I couldn’t remember the name; I couldn’t even start to pronounce it. :wink: The easel painting is clever too, but the back-of-painting-painting is much better.

Is the landscape art? I wouldn’t think so. Even if we accept that art = beautiful and/or evocative, all beautiful and/or evocative things are not necessarily art. (Of course, if you throw the issue of landscape architecture into the mix it all gets rather messy, but we’ll set that aside for the moment.)

Try this example: on the hillside overlooking the French town of Dieppe, an artist has set up a large, slightly curved metal structure with a large rectangle cut out of the center of it, with a fixed seat a few feet behind it. If you sit down the entire town and harbor are framed within the metal rectangle. Does that make the town art? Or is the frame the art? Or is it, as I would assert, the view of the town through the frame that’s the art? If art is in the eye of the beholder, then the beholder is required for the art to happen (ye olde “tree falling in the forest” quandary). That doesn’t mean that the art must be intended, merely that it must be identified as art.

This is how “found art” works; in your example, what has been “found” is the view. So whether the view is captured as a painting or photograph, or merely exists as an ephemeral glance by the viewer, the view is the art. Painting or photographing it merely adds permanence (and transportability).

18

I know we’re not supposed to “pull up a chair” on SDMB, but I have to say how much I really Love reading all of these posts. Just amazing, both content and style.

And I agree with ** Voguevixen ** - it comes down to “I don’t know”. Isn’t that part of the fun? I read a long time ago that the original sin is to limit the “Is”.

Besides, what really torques my buns is how writers are granted all of this space for just creating, writing about this and that, in various lengths and with different intent. All of it counts and is discussed in great detail in legitimate publications, the NY Review of Books gives them plenty of space to do their thing and makes a real effort to ensure that books are evaluated in context. Whereas visual artists - well - if we haven’t produced the latest “Great Art”, then we’re failures. Or am I the only one susceptible to that?

Another thing that leaves me at a loss - wondering if you’ve experienced this, ** lee ** , is that I don’t seem to be able to separate my own good and bad work. Stuff I love upon completion often reeks within a few days, and I’ve nearly thrown out pieces that were later purchased (albeit cheaply, I’m not exactly moving in elite circles). What is the scoop with that?

jr8 - I think we’re on the same page, but for different reasons. I always kind of figured the artist’s job was to explain visually, through excerpts and interpretation, exactly what it is that makes said view so remarkable. I kinda thought it was the interpretation of the view that was the art - isn’t that why museums often relegate photographers to lower floors and back rooms? They’re just not quite sure they want to let them in the front door.

19

“If it commands attention, it’s culture; if it matches the sofa, it’s art.” – Robert Williams

20

Slithy Tove’s JFK salt shaker (a piece of kitsch I would be proud to own, by the way) raises another interesting point about the nature of kitsch – that it is mass produced. Back in my art histroy days, I was taught that this is a pretty good rule of thumb for kitsch. Things like the salt shaker, and Hummel figurines, and those geese that wear gingham clothing are reproduced in droves for a mass market.

Thus, I would hesitate to call Lee’s plate of eggs example “kitsch” as it doesn’t seem to be mass produced. (I’m not familiar with this work, so I’m assuming it’s not a Precious Moments - type breakfast series and certainly Lee would have more information than I do). I think there are artists who do attempt to capture some of the elements of kitsch-appeal in works of original art, and we can debate whether or not they are successful in conveying the intentions of the artist, but that still doesn’t make the piece itself kitsch. I would put (some of) Duchamp into this category.

It’s been ages since I’ve dusted off my copy of The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Walter Benjamin) but it’s an interesting read. I confess I’ve never really seen the clear line of demarkation that Benjamin seems to find between older means of reproduction (such as lithograhy) and modern mass production. Of course, it was also written in 1935, so goodness knows what poor Walt would make of the availability of art images on the internet. A few people mentioned that they would like to learn more about the field of art history – if anyone is so inclined, I would suggest reading this piece. Whether or not you agree with it, it’s generally considered one of THE most important 20th century writings on art (even after having cycled in and out of vogue a few times since its publication).
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction