Apropos dreary and all-too-common threads such as this one, I hereby pit all of the pompous, ignorant, self-important clots such as this blithering idiot who take it upon themselves to try and arbitrarily impose limits on what art is or can be. I pit as well the usual morons who make baseless and sweeping generalizations about the motivations of artists. I know, it’s hard to accept that artists might go and make art that you neither like nor approve of. Life’s a piece of shit, when you like at it.
So, let’s go. Art must have limits! Clear, definable, and unassailable limits! (If you can’t beat 'em, join 'em. Or at least mock 'em.)
I hereby declare that art cannot make use of any fluid from by any creature or plant under heaven, must always exalt The Holy and Mighty Sky Fairy, and should always include the color blue. And it must annoy this living shit out of pillocks like sh1bu1 and the aptly named GuanoLad. Otherwise it cannot be art.
Agree with this. “limits” on art turn it into something less than art. Art has always been about pushing the boundaries. Granted, I don’t get the point of an exhibit like this (interestingly enough, this isn’t the first time something like this has happened, where the cleaning lady mistook an exhibit for damage or staining), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t art. It’s like a Pollock, or that one famous Urinal–if you don’t think it’s art, you probably don’t get it. This is not to say that there isn’t bad art, but to try to redefine art like that… pointless.
This is the distinction I think many folks miss - that “art” isn’t a value judgment but a convenient label for a human production, just as “book” can be a Gutenberg Bible or the instruction manual to a graphing calculator from the early '90s.
How about this for a limit? If your “art”, when removed from the confines of an art gallery, cannot be identified, even by an expert, as art (that is to say, a work created for the purpose of eliciting an emotional response from an observer), then it’s not art.
For example, Martin Creed’s Work No. 867 is a crumpled piece of white A4 paper. That’s all it is. It’s only in a glass case because otherwise it would blow away. And it’s only art because it’s in an art gallery. On the street, it’s trash. Quite literally, just a piece of garbage. Any significance it may have is conferred on it by its surroundings. It needs to be in a gallery. And if it can’t stand on its own merits as an artistic work, why consider it one?
I will now begin completion of the Petition to Be Reinstated to the APPGSA, Form Z-30-B, which is a lovely work of art unto itself. Especially when in triplicate. I dare someone to claim it isn’t!
The best thing to do with people who start saying “that’s not art” is to ignore them. It’s them that are missing out, it’s them who have shallow and uninteresting taste, and nothing they say can affect your appreciation of art. Leave them to their Thomas Kincaid paintings.
I will point out that, if your response to a work of art is that you don’t understand it, then you are the one who is lacking, not the artwork.
Is it possible to have a meaningful definition of “art” without imposing limits on its scope? Alternatively, is it useful to have a word with no meaningful definition?
If it’s in an art museum, and the artist calls it a piece of art, and the hundreds of people who come to see it everyday call it art, and art historians have been discussing the work for many years and all agree that it is art, IT’S PROBABLY ART. Even if you don’t like it.
The Kippenberger sculpture in question (from the previous thread) isn’t even that controversial! Off the top of my head, there’s that one artwork of the guy masturbating in the gallery, and another with that girl who stabs herself in the hand repeatedly, and that other one with the artist who takes photos of famous photos and calls them her own work…
There are plenty of artists working at the fine line between art and non-art… Kippenberger isn’t even close. Please shut up.
It’s possible for a definition to be meaningful without being precise. It’s also possible for a word to be used and understood without there being a simple definition.
I have a suspicion that the “meaningful” in “meaningful definition” is redundant, however, and that what you’re asking in your second question is if a word without definition can be useful, or conversely if a useful word can be without definition. It’s been a while since I’ve studied any philosophy of language, but I don’t think that’s a settled question.
I find the OP to be deeply inane. Of course there is a limit to what art is, if there weren’t a limit then there would be no point in labeling something as art since everything would be art. It’s like saying everything is yellow if you just squint your eyes hard enough. But at that point the term “yellow” loses the ability to be descriptive and you might as well leave it out.
I know people think they are very dangerous and avant garde when they can look at a urinal and see a deeper underlying meaning than the poor huddled masses, but that ship has sailed a hundred years ago. These days to be cutting edge you have to think that a woman giving birth in a gallery is art, despite the fact that millions of women around the world give birth every year without having to apply for a grant from some official designator of artistic merit. But no, if you are a white woman in an affluent country who knows people whose occupation in life is apparently to be as useless as possible then you get to be an [hushed tones]artist[/hushed tones]. The ultimate irony of course is that those who say there is no limit on art feel perfectly free to limit art themselves. Craftsmen and illustrators are not real artists. How could they be? What they produce is actually capable of being judged on its quality and appreciated on its merits.
And in my opinion, that attitude is the real point of a lot of so-called “modern art”. It’s deliberately made unappealing and meaningless, so the self-appointed artistic elite can pat themselves on the back for their imaginary superior taste and perception. If you don’t know ahead of time what it’s supposed to be about you won’t get it, and in the process reveal that you aren’t part of the club. It’s not so much art as it is a secret decoder ring.
It’s an attitude that has made modern art and architecture in general trend more and more towards ugliness and inhumanity, since anything that actually appeals to people isn’t “real art”.
Why make such an arbitrary distinction? When you single out an object and put it in a frame, when you construct a particular context for it to be encountered, you’re shaping the viewer’s experience in potentially interesting ways.
Most of what you see in most museums was never intended to be viewed in the way it’s displayed. The machinery of museum culture shapes our encounters with pieces in particular ways. And that machinery works just as well on a crumpled piece of paper as it does on a painted canvas.
