# Like stupid and pompous idiots, who try to define and limit what art is. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 5, 2011, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008 "2011-11-05T23:33:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/221 "2011-11-07T11:26:05Z")
> [@jordanr2](#): > > Well, I should probably specify that _4’33"_ itself isn’t music any more than the written score of Beethoven’s 9th is music. Performances of it, though, certainly are. When an apple starts performing, do let me know! 🙂 Anecdotally, my wife teaches at a music conservatory and on occasion piano performance undergraduates will propose to perform _4’33"_ for their assessments, thinking that it’ll be no effort at all to perform and they won’t even have to practice. Most of them have failed. It doesn’t require one to strike the keys but there’s more to a performance than that, as they all found out. (Plus, it’s remarkably hard to gauge how long 4’33" is without a stopwatch.) ---
**Author:** ![Lobot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/222 "2011-11-07T11:29:28Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > (Plus, it’s remarkably hard to gauge how long 4’33" is without a stopwatch.) In the performance linked to earlier, the conductor had a clock or stopwatch. Was he cheating? ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/223 "2011-11-07T11:37:33Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > A couple of thoughts: > > First, this whole situation with modern art reminds me of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, which is “about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that are invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent.” > > Based on what I’ve seen elsewhere and also in this thread, the attitude of “if you don’t ‘get’ modern art you must be an idiot” is still alive and well. I haven’t seen anything in this thread that would lead to this conclusion. > [@](#): > > Maybe one day people will realize that the emperor really is simply naked. And again, I don’t see how this is at all relevant. > [@](#): > > Second, I find the whole modern art situation rather sad, to be honest. That is, sad for the participants in it. Basically, everything that was to be done with classical/representational art has been done and with great skill by past masters. So, what’s a young artist, eager to demonstrate his skill and creativity to everyone, to do? Well, he can start doing something ‘outside the box’. Once that has been done, what’s the next aspiring artist to do? Push the envelope even further. And so, after a century of this, to get any notice at all as a creative young artist you need to pull stupid stunts like a woman giving birth in a museum. The only thing that I’m curious about is what’s the next generation going to do to top this? > > I feel sorry for these folks. They have this tremendous energy and enthusiasm and creativity, and they are shackled by the fact that they were born too late and so they have to go to ridiculous lengths to out-do the works that were done before them. It’s easy for anyone whose notion of contemporary art comes from outraged news stories about eccentric Turner Prize winners to feel this way, but I wonder how much contemporary art - not just odd conceptual stuff, but contemporary art period - you’ve looked at. > [@](#): > > Finally, no definition of art can be complete and all-encompassing, but I’ll offer one: > “Art is that which is aesthetically pleasing to a non-negligible percentage of the people living in the culture in which the piece was made” I respect the effort to offer some kind of definition, but this one’s circular and vague: “aesthetically pleasing” in what sense, and how do we know? And what constitutes a “non-negligible percentage”? ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/224 "2011-11-07T11:46:52Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > [Here is an interesting piece on where of some of this is coming from](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=157): Not very interesting, I’m afraid. Can’t see any room to agree with the senseless idea that painting, “classical music” or literary fiction have diminished rather than just changed over time: I can’t find any room to pretend that the works of Gerhard Richter, Michael Pisaro or Jacques Roubaud are substantially inferior to their precursors rather than just _different_. Sturgeon’s Law seems crucial here. > [@](#): > > There is a wonderful quote on this from Gian-Carlo Rota, who was an artist of the mathematical variety: Assuming this is relevant is assuming too much. Any number of emblematic figures in contemporary art/literature/music would never regard themselves as geniuses. I think a more interesting approach could be to apply Manny Farber’s distinction between “white elephant art” and “termite art” - there are some people today working with grandiose things (the filmmaker Bela Tarr, making one Masterpiece after another, deliberately addressing lofty themes all the while) and some content to explore a small corner of their chosen practice, not trying to come up with a definitive statement about anything (musician Keith Rowe, for instance). Are there a ton of people in the arts who actually regard themselves as geniuses? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/225 "2011-11-07T12:19:56Z")
> [@Lobot](#): > > In the performance linked to earlier, the conductor had a clock or stopwatch. Was he cheating? Was the conductor being graded by an academic jury that has said “no stopwatches”? ---
**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 7, 2011, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/226 "2011-11-07T12:20:01Z")
Art, to me, is synonymous with intentionality - at some point, some person (and I’m willing to include chimpanzees and elephants here) must want to make something, and want to convey something by it. What that “something” conveyed is, is not _that_ important - it can vary from “look at the pretty colours” to “my tortured soul must be read in the spaces” to “hey, is this worth money?” , but the intent must be there. IOW, there can be no “accidental” art. And any craft/art distinction is, IMO, artificial. ---
**Author:** ![Lobot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/227 "2011-11-07T12:30:34Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Was the conductor being graded by an academic jury that has said “no stopwatches”? No, but surely if a trained, professional musician requires a stopwatch (although who know–he may well have been a homeless man who was offered free booze), isn’t it a rather arbitrary distinction to refuse students the same privilege? ISTM that the academic jury is imposing these further restrictions because they know no musical talent or skill is involved in a pure performance of the piece, and so they’ve constructed other (near impossible) challenges to punish the students who see the piece for what it really is. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/228 "2011-11-07T15:17:10Z")
> [@jordanr2](#): > > I haven’t seen anything in this thread that would lead to this conclusion. There are several posts in this thread, esp. in the beginning, that are full of this attitude, and are extremely belittling to people who expressed negative opinions about modern art. Pure ad-hominem attacks that question the person’s intellect for the mere sin of questioning modern art. I’m surprised you didn’t notice any. > [@](#): > > It’s easy for anyone whose notion of contemporary art comes from outraged news stories about eccentric Turner Prize winners to feel this way, but I wonder how much contemporary art - not just odd conceptual stuff, but contemporary art period - you’ve looked at. I’m far from an aficionado, but I have been to several modern art galleries/museums, including NY MOMA and SF MOMA, and the feeling I get whenever I visit these is the same as the one expressed in my previous post, namely of brilliant people trying too hard because they were born too late. > [@](#): > > I respect the effort to offer some kind of definition, but this one’s circular and vague: “aesthetically pleasing” in what sense, and how do we know? And what constitutes a “non-negligible percentage”? I agree. It was left intentionally vague, since any attempt to define the above terms would run into all sorts of problems, which are beyond the scope of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/229 "2011-11-07T15:40:22Z")
Hey, **Knorf** , I basically agree with you on all points and also, as a side note, wonder if you are this much of a douchebag jerkoff in real life. Seriously, what the fuck? ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/230 "2011-11-07T16:09:53Z")
> [@jordanr2](#): > > …It’s easy for anyone whose notion of contemporary art comes from outraged news stories about eccentric Turner Prize winners to feel this way, but I wonder how much contemporary art - not just odd conceptual stuff, but contemporary art period - you’ve looked at… Yes! It’s quite easy to sit on your can & become outraged by artistic controversies that make it to the front page. Or the more well-traveled websites. How many people here have actually checked out the galleries in their home town? The [McMurtrey Gallery](http://www.mcmurtreygallery.com/) is quite respectable & features a lot of representational work. [Moody Gallery](http://www.moodygallery.com/Exhibitions/exhibitions_past.html) (part of the same gallery row on Colquitt Street) has weirder stuff–but still more accessible than the works those angry anti-elitists here seem to be arguing against. Hey, you can buy [Kermit Oliver](http://www.hooksepsteingalleries.com/artists/thb_oliver.shtml)’s classically excellent stuff at Hooks-Epstein (still on Colquitt); but you can’t buy much, because it sells out quickly. My city also boasts [The Art Guys](http://www.theartguys.com/). Who do some conceptual stuff–with a twist. Hey, there’s a special event this month! (Social significance? Sure. But fun will be had.) > [@](#): > > On Saturday, November 19, 2011, a public ceremony will be held at The Menil Collection to dedicate the planting of the live oak tree from The Art Guys Marry A Plant . The tree was planted on the grounds of The Menil Collection on March 29, 2011 and was formally accepted into the permanent collection on June 2, 2011 as a gift from The Art Guys. “The Tree Dedication Ceremony of The Art Guys Marry A Plant” will include speakers Lawrence Weschler and James Surls. The tree is located in Menil Park on the grounds of the Menil Collection just southwest of the Rothko Chapel. This event will take place rain or shine. Please contact The Menil Collection for more information. The grouches would prefer to replay art-world controversies that were old when Picasso was young… ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/231 "2011-11-07T16:15:12Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Based on what I’ve seen elsewhere and also in this thread, the attitude of “if you don’t ‘get’ modern art you must be an idiot” is still alive and well. I don’t have that attitude. I have the attitude that, if you claim that there is nothing to ‘get’ about modern art, you must be an idiot. If you don’t understand that distinction, you are also an idiot. The same goes for anyone who claims 4’33’’ isn’t music. It’s not a piece of music I care for - my tastes in avant-garde music run much more to noise than silence - but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognise it’s importance. Although I prefer the piano original to the orchestral reworking. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/232 "2011-11-07T16:24:15Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I don’t have that attitude. I have the attitude that, if you claim that there is nothing to ‘get’ about modern art, you must be an idiot. If you don’t understand that distinction, you are also an idiot. > > The same goes for anyone who claims 4’33’’ isn’t music. It’s not a piece of music I care for - my tastes in avant-garde music run much more to noise than silence - but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognise it’s importance. Although I prefer the piano original to the orchestral reworking. Please see my comments in the post I didn’t make. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/233 "2011-11-07T16:33:46Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > You’re right. The entire art scene is a conspiracy to make you feel inadequate. :rolleyes: No, not the entire art scene, but an awful lot of it. In _Breakfast of Champions_, Kurt Vonnegut remarked that modern art is a conspiracy to make poor people feel stupid. There’s a lot of truth in that. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/234 "2011-11-07T16:37:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The same goes for anyone who claims 4’33’’ isn’t music. In my book, anyone who claims/believes 4’33" is music, is not only an idiot, but a pretentious idiot beyond hope of redemption. ---
**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 7, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/235 "2011-11-07T16:45:09Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Based on what I’ve seen elsewhere and also in this thread, the attitude of “if you don’t ‘get’ modern art you must be an idiot” is still alive and well. > > Maybe one day people will realize that the emperor really is simply naked. I’m sure you failed to appreciate the irony of making these two statements back to back. Throughout this thread there have been numerous claims that people who like abstract or conceptual art are deluded poseurs. On the other hand, no one on the other side has been arguing that anyone HAS to like non-representational art. Or even that there’s anything wrong with you if you don’t. They’ve only been pointing out, repeatedly, that it is POSSIBLE to do so HONESTLY. If this position makes you feel like I’m implying that you’re an idiot, all I can say is that that’s certainly not my intent. I didn’t adopt my artistic tastes in the hope that they might possibly insult a random stranger on the internet. ---
**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 7, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/236 "2011-11-07T16:48:45Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > In my book, anyone who claims/believes 4’33" is music, is not only an idiot, but a pretentious idiot beyond hope of redemption. If we call it “an exercise in close listening” instead of “music” is it okay to like it? ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/237 "2011-11-07T17:05:09Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Throughout this thread there have been numerous claims that people who like abstract or conceptual art are deluded poseurs. On the other hand, no one on the other side has been arguing that anyone HAS to like non-representational art. Or even that there’s anything wrong with you if you don’t. They’ve only been pointing out, repeatedly, that it is POSSIBLE to do so HONESTLY. > > If this position makes you feel like I’m implying that you’re an idiot, all I can say is that that’s certainly not my intent. I didn’t adopt my artistic tastes in the hope that they might possibly insult a random stranger on the internet. First, very nice post. This thread started as a slam to people such as myself who fail to see the artistic merit in conceptual art. Apparently while it is acceptable for us to like or not like specific works art, it is not within our purview to have an opinion on what is and is not art. For some reason though, it is OK for the cognoscenti to have opinions on what art is, as long as the definition is ever expanding and without limit. For someone used to a certain form of logical reasoning, the idea that you can use a term to describe something that has no limit on its definition make no sense. It is similar to multiplying both sides of an equation by 1. I am certain that everyone of you has an idea in your mind of what comprises art. I don’t know if you are unable or simply unwilling to say what it is. ---
**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 7, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/238 "2011-11-07T17:17:59Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > This thread started as a slam to people such as myself who fail to see the artistic merit in conceptual art. No. It started as a slam against people who try to force their tastes on every else by arguing that anyone who likes conceptual art is either deluded or a scam artist. I posted this in other thread, but it bears repeating. [“It’s okay to not like things. It’s okay but don’t be a dick about it.”](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI&feature=related) You were pitted, not because you don’t like conceptual art, but because you were being a dick about it to people who do. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/239 "2011-11-07T17:29:34Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > In my book, anyone who claims/believes 4’33" is music, is not only an idiot, but a pretentious idiot beyond hope of redemption. I have the same book. As well as a stack of literally pristine 4’33" Cds that I’m willing to sell to all the pretentious morons that want to “listen” to it. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/240 "2011-11-07T17:43:16Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > If we call it “an exercise in close listening” instead of “music” is it okay to like it? I like “a dumbed iconoclastic musical masterpiece for the utterly deaf” better – but sure, love it away. How many CDs would you like to buy from me? Only $5.00 a (silent) pop. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=13)