# 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:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/61 "2014-11-16T14:02:42Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > If so, then it seems to me that if a software engineer claims that the program he writes is art, then it’s as much art as a painting. Which means - going back to the OP - that art studies are unnecessary since everyone else in college is already an artist. There’s no need to study art specifically because the study of anything is the study of art. And the study of history is unnecessary because college students have already spent their lives doing stuff. English majors take creative writing classes? _Why?_ I already speak English, and I can already create a piece of writing: _once upon a time there was a bulletproof superhero named Aloysius, and he had a hypnotic voice._ Done. Everything I write in English, while making it up as I go along, counts, right? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/62 "2014-11-16T14:08:54Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And the study of history is unnecessary because college students have already spent their lives doing stuff. English majors take creative writing classes? _Why?_ I already speak English, and I can already create a piece of writing: _once upon a time there was a bulletproof superhero named Aloysius, and he had a hypnotic voice._ Done. Everything I write in English, while making it up as I go along, counts, right? According to the logic of some people in this thread, yes. If nothing is “not-art”, then everything is “art”, and “art” is meaningless. A term is defined by its negative space - by what it _isn’t_. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/63 "2014-11-16T14:18:17Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > According to the logic of some people in this thread, yes. If nothing is “not-art”, then everything is “art”, and “art” is meaningless. A term is defined by its negative space - by what it _isn’t_. But you can define history in terms of what _has_ happened – including everything you’ve done – by excluding, say, _what hasn’t happened yet_. And even though that meets your “negative space” requirement, and fits your everyone-else-in-college line, you presumably don’t rail against history majors ‘unnecessarily’ studying history. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/64 "2014-11-16T14:29:04Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > According to the logic of some people in this thread, yes. If nothing is “not-art”, then everything is “art”, and “art” is meaningless. A term is defined by its negative space - by what it _isn’t_. Nobody has claimed this. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/65 "2014-11-16T15:10:14Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Ideas? Everyone’s got ideas. I got a zillion of them myself - doesn’t make me an artist. Well, the Idea behind a work of art is a bit more than that. 4’33" provokes energy and emotion across the spectrum of discussion - the nature of sound, of music, of Cage’s intent, of experience a performance of it, the seeming silliness of its archer-than-thou cuteness, etc. Ultimately, it works as the framing of an artistic Idea, even if many people hate it and what it seems to represent to them. In some way, Art wins that debate simply by creating and establishing the debate. Boo-yah. Now some Art ideas won’t stand the test of time - I do think we’ll be discussing 4’33", Pollock, Rothko, but perhaps not having a long term discussion about Hirst’s sharks in formaldehyde… But this started with the Art vs. Science “thing” in the OP - so I will say this: The power of accepting that Art starts with an Idea is hugely complementary and supportive of Scientific Inquiry. Opening your mind to the possibilities of wacky, different, challenging and blasphemous Art Ideas fits perfectly with how a mind should approach Science. ---
**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 16, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/66 "2014-11-16T16:20:11Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > So is there anything that isn’t art? Or can anything be art of someone claimed it was art? > > If so, then it seems to me that if a software engineer claims that the program he writes is art, then it’s as much art as a painting. The programmer’s claim isn’t important. It’s how the object is used that’s important. Does the computer program structure the sort of aesthetic engagement that we normally associate with things like paintings and symphonies? Is it engaging as thing unto itself, regardless of its functionality? If so, then, yes, it may be appropriate to call it art. However, as I told \*\*Chronos \*\*above, it’s important not to treat this as an ontological distinction. Art is not what something _is_, it’s what it _does_, and the doing is done in relation to individual viewers/listeners/readers etc. If we consider an object in the abstract (independent of the actual actions of individuals in relation to it) then yes, it will be impossible to neatly sort it into an ontic box – “art” or"non art". But if we look at the real-world behaviors of people in relation to these things then we can certainly say that “in situation X person Y treated object Z as art” and that there are commonalities across these sorts of aesthetic encounters that can be analyzed and discussed. Things are art the same way things are paperweights. Anything can be a paperweight if you use it to hold down papers. The fact that we can’t sort objects into “paperweight” and “non-paperweight” boxes does not mean that “paperweight” is a meaningless concept. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/67 "2014-11-16T16:22:41Z")
**Hamster King** - are we on the same page? I feel like we are…your discussion of what Art _does_ feels like it is centered on the Idea of Art… ---
**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 16, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/68 "2014-11-16T17:14:14Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > **Hamster King** - are we on the same page? I feel like we are…your discussion of what Art _does_ feels like it is centered on the Idea of Art… I think we’re kind of on the same page. Tying art to an idea makes the relationship between artist and audience a little too focused on communication for my taste. It turns art into a conduit, a way to get an idea from here to there. Which sometimes it is, but not always, and when it is a conduit its success at communicating a particular idea often comes at the expense of its ability to function as art. I’m more interested in reception than creation, although theories of reception certainly spill over into creative praxis. If I’m absorbed in a work I don’t particularly care if I’m engaging with it the way its creator intended, or if he intended anything at all. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/69 "2014-11-16T17:25:49Z")
Quoth Uncle Boris: > [@](#): > > “It’s a work of art,” he said. “You don’t have to know what it means.” ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/70 "2014-11-16T17:59:37Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > So is there anything that isn’t art? Or can anything be art of someone claimed it was art? > > If so, then it seems to me that if a software engineer claims that the program he writes is art, then it’s as much art as a painting. Which means - going back to the OP - that art studies are unnecessary since everyone else in college is already an artist. There’s no need to study art specifically because the study of anything is the study of art. In my mind, yes his program is art. It’s up to the viewer to determine if it’s any good and worth spending their time thinking about. Art is what you go around presenting as art. That’s fundamentally the change that Duchamp’s _Fountain_ made. He didn’t declare it to be true, he realized it was already true. I like Duchamp’s work in general a lot, but most of it is hard to defend, partly because he himself ran interference on finding their meanings (which in itself was an act of Dadaist art). _Fountain_ is one of his works with the clearest, most understandable idea. > [@Alessan](#): > > Ideas? Everyone’s got ideas. I got a zillion of them myself - doesn’t make me an artist. If you go around presenting your ideas as art, you’ve become an artist. Everyone else gets to be a critic at that point, so turning your ideas into art isn’t risk-free. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/71 "2014-11-16T18:41:15Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I think we’re kind of on the same page. Tying art to an idea makes the relationship between artist and audience a little too focused on communication for my taste. It turns art into a conduit, a way to get an idea from here to there. Which sometimes it is, but not always, and when it is a conduit its success at communicating a particular idea often comes at the expense of its ability to function as art. I’m more interested in reception than creation, although theories of reception certainly spill over into creative praxis. If I’m absorbed in a work I don’t particularly care if I’m engaging with it the way its creator intended, or if he intended anything at all. Hmm, processing this. But what about the fact that the Beholder wouldn’t even be deciding how they regard 4’33" if Cage hadn’t put it forth to be regarded as Art, or how they regard a cool set of blurs if Duchamp hadn’t put it forth as Nude Descending a Staircase? I get how central the Observer’s Gaze is, but I don’t see it as exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/72 "2014-11-16T18:52:53Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > If so, then it seems to me that if a software engineer claims that the program he writes is art, then it’s as much art as a painting. Which means - going back to the OP - that art studies are unnecessary since everyone else in college is already an artist. There’s no need to study art specifically because the study of anything is the study of art. I’m not sure how you’re getting at that conclusion. Let’s say that computer programming is art as much as painting is art. Why does that suddenly mean we don’t need to study painting anymore? Painting is as much art as sculpting, but that doesn’t mean there’s no need to study sculpting. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/73 "2014-11-16T19:30:40Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I said that art conveys emotion, not that it arouses emotion. Both a punch in the face and _Piss Christ_ certainly arouse emotion, but they’re not conveying it. Unless you’re trying to claim that the message Serrano was trying to convey was “Andres Serrano is a contemptible blasphemer”?.. As someone who’s worked at the National Gallery of Art myself, I can tell you that as far as professional art interpreters such as curators are concerned, when determining the “meaning” of a piece of art, the intent of the artist is almost entirely irrelevant. What counts is the reaction of the audience. And of course, they also agree that any given piece of art cannot be accurately defined as having one single meaning either. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/74 "2014-11-16T21:42:46Z")
Don’t think. Feel. That is art. ---
**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 16, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/75 "2014-11-16T22:43:29Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > But what about the fact that the Beholder wouldn’t even be deciding how they regard 4’33" if Cage hadn’t put it forth to be regarded as Art, or how they regard a cool set of blurs if Duchamp hadn’t put it forth as Nude Descending a Staircase? > > I get how central the Observer’s Gaze is, but I don’t see it as exclusive. Oh, certainly. Without the creator the work wouldn’t exist. But most of the time, the process by which something was created has no bearing on it’s worth. It doesn’t matter if the work was carefully planned, or an accidental fluke. It doesn’t matter if the artist labored for years, or tossed it off in fifteen minutes. It doesn’t matter if it’s original or plagiarized. The work’s worth resides in it’s ability to structure experiences for its audience, not in the manner of its creation. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/76 "2014-11-16T22:57:31Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Oh, certainly. Without the creator the work wouldn’t exist. But most of the time, the process by which something was created has no bearing on it’s worth. It doesn’t matter if the work was carefully planned, or an accidental fluke. It doesn’t matter if the artist labored for years, or tossed it off in fifteen minutes. It doesn’t matter if it’s original or plagiarized. The work’s worth resides in it’s ability to structure experiences for its audience, not in the manner of its creation. Ah, yeah. Punk vs. Beethoven. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617/77 "2014-11-18T07:31:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But it’s intended to convey emotion, and unless, like 4’33", it fails to move anyone at all, then it’s still art. I’m pretty sure the only emotion Leonardo intended with the Mona Lisa was regret that photography hadn’t been invented yet. Oh and maybe satisfaction at a payday. It’s a portrait, not a metaphor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-art/704617.md?page=3)