# In defense of Art **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 14, 2014, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617 "2014-11-14T13:08:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/21 "2014-11-14T18:19:48Z")
> [@JoseB](#): > > The other day I was linked to a YouTube video by a Spanish aspiring actor, movie director and video maker. > > I found it interesting and deserving of discussion. > … > The video of Elio González in reply to this comment, in my opinion, is a thing of beauty. I think it deserves to be seen. > > I will link to the version with subtitles in English and the original version with only Spanish-language audio. I don’t suppose you could link to the text somewhere? Many of us here on the SDMB are on record as _hating_ to have to watch a video to get information—and in this case, for those of us who don’t speak Spanish, we’d just be reading the text anyway, only really, really slowly. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/22 "2014-11-14T18:22:17Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Well, look around your house. How many books, or paintings, or albums do you own where you know the name of the person who made it? Now compare that to the number of “useful inventions” around your house whose inventors you can name. That is a great point. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/23 "2014-11-14T18:51:46Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > Bad art is not a threat to art. There have been talentless hacks churning out bad art as long as there’s been art. This. In fact, good art needs bad art to exist as part of the overall art ecosystem. Poseurs, frauds, and hangers-on are all part of a healthy art scene and misguided attempts to cull “talentless hacks” are as damaging to the spirit of art as straight-up censorship. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/24 "2014-11-14T19:01:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Sure, art is valuable, so long as you’re actually talking about art. The real threat to art doesn’t come from the pragmatists or the engineers or the accountants-- It comes from the talentless hacks that insist that anything’s art if its creator claims that it is. It is absolutely art, if the creator claims it is. Any other notion about what art is leads nowhere good. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s worthwhile art, “good” art, nor that it will be valued or remembered by future generations, of course. There’s never any such guarantee. But it IS art. No art in itself can ever harm other art; what a ridiculous idea. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > This. In fact, good art needs bad art to exist as part of the overall art ecosystem. Poseurs, frauds, and hangers-on are all part of a healthy art scene and misguided attempts to cull “talentless hacks” are as damaging to the spirit of art as straight-up censorship. Well said. ---
**Author:** ![JoseB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/joseb/32/1530_2.png) [@JoseB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoseB)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/25 "2014-11-14T19:12:13Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I don’t suppose you could link to the text somewhere? Many of us here on the SDMB are on record as _hating_ to have to watch a video to get information—and in this case, for those of us who don’t speak Spanish, we’d just be reading the text anyway, only really, really slowly. Unfortunately, no. What Elio says is not written anywhere. The video is 6-7 minutes long, and I do not have the time or patience to spend roughly 20-30 minutes checking the video and typing the subtitles. Besides, I think that this would infringe on Elio’s copyright to his work. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/26 "2014-11-14T19:43:55Z")
Art is that which conveys emotion. And an emotion of annoyance at how crappy the piece is doesn’t count. A portrait can certainly convey emotion, and thus can be art, but non-representational pieces can, too. One of my favorite examples here is a wrought-iron piece, about 4’ square, that hangs on the wall at the Cleveland Museum of Art. It doesn’t look like anything in particular, but it’s absolutely dreadful. Literally. As in, when you look at it, you get an absolute feeling of dread. Now, _that’s_ art: It does an extremely good job of conveying that emotion. On the other hand, what emotion is conveyed by a urinal, or a crucifix in a jar of piss? If you get anything at all from such an installation, it’s from the artist’s statement, not the piece itself. The artist’s statement attached to such a piece is art (usually pretty bad art), but the piece itself is not art at all. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/27 "2014-11-14T21:07:48Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > That is a great point. That is a trivial point. A reasonable amount of being a working artist (musician, painter, actor, writer, etc) is getting your name out so that people will buy what you create. The artist _is_ the brand. The creator of a better device hides behind a brand and in a very large number of instances the brand does not reveal who invented the item. Generally, the item is sold based on its usefulness, not who created it, though this isn’t always true (see Apple). How many artists can you name and what they do? How many brands and what the brand sells? I guarantee that the number of brands\>number of artists for the vast majority of people. So the publicity needed to be an artist is very different than the publicity needed to sell an invention. Slee ---
**Author:** ![Octarine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/22d042/32.png) [@Octarine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Octarine)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/28 "2014-11-14T21:18:14Z")
While everything in that video is true, it didn’t quite resonate with me simply because his premise - that artists aren’t respected is today’s society - is one that I don’t think is widespread, at least in the region I live. I mean, sure, you’ll always come across the disapproving uncle or random obnoxious Youtube commenter, but all in all I think artists in general are more respected than they’ve ever been. In Michelangelo’s day, artists were seen as workmen; the commissioner would give exact specifications for a painting or sculpture, and all the artist was was the middleman who created it. Nowadays telling someone “I’m a writer” or “I’m a composer,” to my mind, elicits quite a lot of respect. Jokes about big egos, impracticality, and MOMA notwithstanding, I don’t get the impression artists are seen as losers. Is it just me? Has anyone else here encounted widespread disregard for creative types? ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/29 "2014-11-14T22:09:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Art is that which conveys emotion. And an emotion of annoyance at how crappy the piece is doesn’t count. A portrait can certainly convey emotion, and thus can be art, but non-representational pieces can, too. One of my favorite examples here is a wrought-iron piece, about 4’ square, that hangs on the wall at the Cleveland Museum of Art. It doesn’t look like anything in particular, but it’s absolutely dreadful. Literally. As in, when you look at it, you get an absolute feeling of dread. Now, _that’s_ art: It does an extremely good job of conveying that emotion. On the other hand, what emotion is conveyed by a urinal, or a crucifix in a jar of piss? If you get anything at all from such an installation, it’s from the artist’s statement, not the piece itself. The artist’s statement attached to such a piece is art (usually pretty bad art), but the piece itself is not art at all. Leaving aside for a moment whether or not that’s a good definition for art, here’s the thing; _you don’t get to decide what other people feel_. If someone is genuinely moved by a urinal on a wall, they’re moved by a urinal on a wall. It’s art to them, even if it’s not art to you. More to the point, you still haven’t articulated how this sort of thing is a threat to art. Duchamp hung a urinal on a wall 97 years ago. What damage has been done to art? ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/30 "2014-11-14T23:12:07Z")
For one, we have to listen to people argue against art bring of value because of things like that damned “fountain.” ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/31 "2014-11-15T00:30:12Z")
I’m trying to imagine a world with no art. No music whatsoever. No movies. No TV, except the news. No games. No books except non-fiction. No paintings or other visual art. No architecture except strictly utilitarian. Cars would be boxes on wheels. No clothing except utilitarian. Same for hair styles. Everyone’s walls would be bare. I couldn’t stand living in such a world. ---
**Author:** ![JoseB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/joseb/32/1530_2.png) [@JoseB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoseB)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/32 "2014-11-15T00:43:26Z")
> [@Octarine](#): > > While everything in that video is true, it didn’t quite resonate with me simply because his premise - that artists aren’t respected is today’s society - is one that I don’t think is widespread, at least in the region I live. I mean, sure, you’ll always come across the disapproving uncle or random obnoxious Youtube commenter, but all in all I think artists in general are more respected than they’ve ever been. > > In Michelangelo’s day, artists were seen as workmen; the commissioner would give exact specifications for a painting or sculpture, and all the artist was was the middleman who created it. Nowadays telling someone “I’m a writer” or “I’m a composer,” to my mind, elicits quite a lot of respect. > > Jokes about big egos, impracticality, and MOMA notwithstanding, I don’t get the impression artists are seen as losers. Is it just me? Has anyone else here encounted widespread disregard for creative types? I have seen it. The deep disregard, I mean. That kind of attitude is not that rare, at least in my experience. A friend of mine is a rather good and passionate musician, fighting to make herself a place in the music world. Her father openly despises what she does, thinks that she will never “be” anybody, and refuses to help her. I have seen others who laugh at and dismiss young, struggling actors as being “sissies” who are not to be taken seriously because they don’t have a “real job”. I would imagine that it depends on cultural background and expectations. N.B.: By the way, I should mention something – the Spanish term used in the video does not exactly translate to “loser”. It is _“muerto de hambre”_, which literally means “somebody who is dying of hunger”. The implications are, roughly, _“someone who is doing something that won’t provide him with a living; someone who will never amount to anything and should be leaving his useless endeavors aside and try to do something profitable instead”._ ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/33 "2014-11-15T01:01:51Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Art is that which conveys emotion. And an emotion of annoyance at how crappy the piece is doesn’t count. A portrait can certainly convey emotion, and thus can be art, but non-representational pieces can, too. One of my favorite examples here is a wrought-iron piece, about 4’ square, that hangs on the wall at the Cleveland Museum of Art. It doesn’t look like anything in particular, but it’s absolutely dreadful. Literally. As in, when you look at it, you get an absolute feeling of dread. Now, _that’s_ art: It does an extremely good job of conveying that emotion. On the other hand, what emotion is conveyed by a urinal, or a crucifix in a jar of piss? Disgust? Anger? A feeling of childish glee at the at the transgressive nature of the work? Or possibly people might just find the pieces aesthetically pleasing, even if you don’t? Why is this hard to grasp? It’s like saying a still life isn’t art because you find fruit mundane, so it’s just an intellectual exercise on the part of the artist to make you re-think how you look at everyday objects (which it may be, while also being beautiful). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/34 "2014-11-15T01:20:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Art is that which conveys emotion. There are plenty of pieces of art that I enjoy without associating a particular emotion with them. For example, I find Matisse’s [Woman in a Purple Coat](http://www.henrimatisse.org/images/gallery/woman-in-a-purple-coat.jpg) inordinately pleasing to look at. But I don’t feel any particular emotion other than “Boy, I really like looking at this painting.” Trying to define art by what it accomplishes – “art evokes emotion” or “art conveys deep truths” – inevitably excludes things that shouldn’t be excluded. Art is something that structures a particular attitude of engagement. It is something that we enjoy for its own sake, not because it accomplishes something. (Although it may do both.) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/35 "2014-11-15T02:27:29Z")
Fake art like the urinal or Cage’s 4’33" or whatever is a threat to art because there’s only a limited niche for art. For every grant, or gallery, or performance venue, or whatever, that goes to frauds like that, that’s one less that can go to art. Plus, there’s what might be called the Syndrome effect: When everything’s art, nothing is. If art is to mean anything, there must be some distinction between art and non-art. If we go around calling everything art, then the logical response is “So what? So why should I give a damn about art, then, if everything is art?”. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/36 "2014-11-15T02:56:28Z")
First, we don’t “go around calling everything art”. I can think of literally thousands of objects in space I observed or came into contact with today that absolutely no one claimed was art. Second, what you call “fake art” plenty of people - even smart ones (heck, even some art history majors) - consider real art. Unfortunately, you don’t get to be the arbiter of what’s real art or dictate people’s aesthetic reactions. Third, even if we did call everything art, I don’t see why it would be logical to dismiss art altogether. I’d imagine most people would still be moved by the art they considered great and not bother themselves with the art they didn’t care for, much like they do now (and always have). ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/37 "2014-11-15T15:11:40Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Fake art like the urinal or Cage’s 4’33" or whatever is a threat to art because there’s only a limited niche for art. For every grant, or gallery, or performance venue, or whatever, that goes to frauds like that, that’s one less that can go to art. Seem like something you should be able to quantify. It’s been 97 years since _Fountain_, 62 since _4’33"_. 53 since _Artist’s Shit_ which I presume you also find fake. Are people not creating as much art? Putting that art in galleries? Going to galleries, and concert halls? If those sorts of things are damaging to art, it seems like there should be some measurable effect. > [@](#): > > Plus, there’s what might be called the Syndrome effect: When everything’s art, nothing is. If art is to mean anything, there must be some distinction between art and non-art. If we go around calling everything art, then the logical response is “So what? So why should I give a damn about art, then, if everything is art?”. First of all, this is just a gigantic strawman, since no one has said “everything is art”. Furthermore, I at least am able to still enjoy great art, great music, and great food despite the existence of Kinkade, Nickelback, and McDonalds. And I’m still curious about my earlier question: if I am honestly and truly moved by _Fountain_ or _4’33"_, what then? Still not art, because you don’t feel it? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/38 "2014-11-15T16:01:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **woodstockbirdybird** : > > Unfortunately, you don’t get to be the arbiter of what’s real art… But they do? If I say that 4’33" isn’t art, and someone else says that it is, what makes them right and me wrong? ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/39 "2014-11-15T16:43:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But they do? If I say that 4’33" isn’t art, and someone else says that it is, what makes them right and me wrong? Well, there’s the fundamental problem. You’re not going to be able to come up with a definition for art that is entirely objective; there has to be a subjective element to it. You’re definition “that which conveys emotion” is obviously fundamentally subjective (I assume there’s more to it than that; a punch to the nose conveys emotion–I wouldn’t call it art). The difference is that if you don’t consider _4’33"_ art, I don’t really care. No skin off my nose. But if I consider it art, you apparently need to tell me I’m wrong. You’re the one telling other people what to think. In other words, art doesn’t have to be the same for everybody. In fact, it _can’t_. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/40 "2014-11-15T17:10:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But they do? If I say that 4’33" isn’t art, and someone else says that it is, what makes them right and me wrong? Your problem is ontological. You believe reality contains a thing that we call “art” and this thing possesses certain inherent properties and that if look closely we should all be able to agree what those properties are. So if someone says 4’33" is art you take that is an ontological claim. Someone is making an assertion about the nature of some feature of reality. And this assertion seems to be at odds with your own experience so it needs to be refuted. 4’33" cannot be art for them and not art for you because things have definite properties that are independent of observers. But reality does not contain a thing called “art” with certain inherent properties. We use the label “art” to execute what Karen Barad calls an “agential cut” – to bracket a slice of reality in order to do useful things with it, to structure certain actions or utterances. In other words, art (the thing, not the label) is whatever we need it to be for the purposes at hand. Now, one of those purposes is talking with each other about art. So my agential cut needs to be similar enough to your agential cut so that when I say “art” you converge on a conception that is close to my own. My art needs to overlap substantially with your art if order for us to talk to each other. But there’s no reason to assume that this overlap will be perfect. (In fact, it’s unlikely that it will be.) The fact that our bracketings don’t match doesn’t mean that one of us is right and the other is wrong. It simply means that we have different uses for art and different ways of engaging with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617.md?page=3)