# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/341 "2011-11-08T22:01:23Z")
A friend of mine just pointed out that 4’33"=6’9". I don’t know if that actually sheds any light on the question, but I thought it was an insightful observation. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/342 "2011-11-08T22:27:07Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > A friend of mine just pointed out that 4’33"=6’9". I don’t know if that actually sheds any light on the question, but I thought it was an insightful observation. [Mae West] You keep the 6’; I’ll take the 9" [/Mae West] ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/343 "2011-11-08T22:42:12Z")
I sent an email to a friend of mine who won the Van Cliburn Amateur Competition. My question: “Do you think Cage’s 4’33” is “music”?” His response: “Of course not.” ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/344 "2011-11-08T23:01:29Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > It looks like we’re never going to agree. And I don’t think that there is a “right” answer to this anyway. If there is a question, there is a right answer, or it isn’t a question. Sometimes, of course, the answer is to punch the guy who asked it square in the nose, and then laugh at him as he rolls on the ground clutching his bloody schnozz. ---
**Author:** ![Lobot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/345 "2011-11-08T23:02:39Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > If, on the other hand, you assume that the primary goal of a work of art is to structure an experience, then lots of different types of art start to make more sense. Many forms of art are less about telling you something specific and more about creating an interesting mental space to explore. When I talked about “expressing ideas”, I was talking about pieces such as a blank canvas. I mean, there is no other objective content there beyond a pure idea, so what else can be said about it (as opposed to what’s going on inside your own head)? Maybe the point of some art is to “structure an experience”–I can buy that. But I think it misses the mark with a lot of classical art. I would say that the objective aesthetics of the piece (per, for example, Aristotle) were an end in and of themselves. In other words, art has shifted from an emphasis on the objective qualities of the piece to the subjective experience of the individual. And I think art is poorer for it. ---
**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 9, 2011, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/346 "2011-11-09T00:43:07Z")
> [@Lobot](#): > > Maybe the point of some art is to “structure an experience”–I can buy that. But I think it misses the mark with a lot of classical art. I would say that the objective aesthetics of the piece (per, for example, Aristotle) were an end in and of themselves. In other words, art has shifted from an emphasis on the objective qualities of the piece to the subjective experience of the individual. And I think art is poorer for it. I disagree. Aristotle’s understanding of aesthetics was cramped by the narrow range of examples available to him. (Not really his fault, of course. We moderns have thousands of years of artistic production from the entire world community at our fingertips. He didn’t.) Art, even in Aristotle’s time, has always been about the subjective experience of individuals. Pieces only APPEAR to have objective worth when all the individuals looking at them come from the same “interpretive community” (ala Stanley Fish). All art is originally intended for consumption by a particular community – usually the artist and his patrons. Some pieces wind up being more “timeless” or “placeless” than others, but this isn’t a particularly good indicator of artistic worth. For example, Hollywood action films are designed to appeal to a very broad international audience, but that doesn’t mean that they’re objectively better cinema than a well-done character piece that appeals to a narrower demographic. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/347 "2011-11-09T03:44:56Z")
> [@I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](#): > > I think _any_ well-drawn large cat is worthy of being called art, not just your traditionalist cougar. And I don’t care if you think I’m a pretentious snob. _Any_ large, well-drawn cat? Wow - you’re thinking waaaaay outside the box here, son. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/348 "2011-11-09T04:43:14Z")
I found the [**perfect vocals**](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GMHl7bmlzw&feature=player_embedded#!) to go with 4’33". Enjoy! ---
**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 9, 2011, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/349 "2011-11-09T06:29:29Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > Question for those who say that intention is part of art: I know of a store that sells big painted wooden slabs that say “BEACH–\>”. They were not originally intended as art, but are being sold as art. _Are_ they? I mean, by this, are they somehow being recontextualised - put in a box frame, mounted as a collection, etc. If so, then yes, (although the intent and hence the art is in the recontextualisation, not the original manufacture, although even that can be art if using nice calligraphy etc.) If not, then no. > [@](#): > > Question for those that think that art needs a certain amount of veiwers: Suppose that I paint a masterpiece, and hang it in a room where I don’t allow visitors. I will be the only person to ever enjoy it. Is it art? Definitely yes. ---
**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 9, 2011, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/350 "2011-11-09T06:33:09Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > So, the difference between your masterpiece and a load of feces, both of which you allow no one to see, is that most people would enjoy looking at your masterpiece and no one would enjoy looking at your load of feces. Here’s where your point falls apart - there is a non-trivial amount of people who _would_ enjoy looking at someone’s shit. ---
**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 9, 2011, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/351 "2011-11-09T06:37:35Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > But the act of listening to silence, and even paying attention to silence, as enjoyable as it is to some people, already has a name: meditation. No reason to call it ‘music’.[…] > > It may be cute if done once, but if this guy became famous and thousands of people would go to galleries around the world to see this art, it would be pretentious, because walking around a room with nothing on the walls, talking to people, and chit-chatting about random stuff already has a name: it’s called a party. So your point is that everything should only and ever have one name, and fit into one category? That’s stupid. Something can be a party AND art. And something can definitely be b[oth music and meditation.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suizen) \*4:33 \*is hardly original there. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/352 "2011-11-09T07:28:00Z")
> [@Lobot](#): > > You can only play at the narrow end for so long before you’ve said all that _can_ be said. Ye of little faith. Humanity is infinitely creative, and has infinite capacity to create meaning. The invention of nihilism wasn’t the end of human thought, and the invention of conceptual art is certainly not the end of art. What we tear down, we then rebuild, tear apart, reconfigure, re-imagine, and pull things we never imagined out of the ether. Yes, you’ve hit the tail end of a very minimalist trends. But what will follow is probably something you can’t even conceive of because it hasn’t been thought of yet. Just when you think everything that could be invented has been invented, the artists come in and invent something visionary. That’s why they are artists, that’s what artists did. ---
**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 9, 2011, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/353 "2011-11-09T10:31:05Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So your point is that everything should only and ever have one name, and fit into one category? That’s stupid. Something can be a party AND art. Funnily enough, Cage has [been there and done that too](http://johnsonsrambler.wordpress.com/2004/01/20/john-cage-uncaged-barbican-centre-london-16th-18th-january-2004/). (Check out the last entry under “Ground Floor”). I was there - not in the dinner party ensemble but in another chorus elsewhere. The atmosphere was surreal and bizarre, with random chunks of music and noise starting and stopping and blending and coming at you from all directions. Was it earthshattering? No.l Was it interesting and fun? Yes. Was it art? Ayup. Was it good art? That’s up to you. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/354 "2011-11-09T11:40:04Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > That’s where you’re wrong. I love art, and have taken some time to look at collections I enjoy. That’s why dirty, bad, _wrong_ art offends me. I’ve already mentioned right here a showing I loved, which brught me nearly to ecstasy with awe and wonder. I still have no idea how the guy managed those shots. You may be an exception. You should continue to look at art and find what you like. At least you know that the “art world” is not monolithic. There is no snooty detached professor declaring what is and is not good art. > [@](#): > > The reason I despise so many damn “art lovers” is that they fawn all over shit and pass by the really great stuff. Some of these so-called artists should be mocked, so I mock them. It’s like Kaiser Wilhelm all over again, except this time it’s the art establishment which has the keys to the kingdom and is pimping hack work and stuffing the quality works into the attic. And then you go off again acting as if there is some monolith of “art lovers”. There isn’t. In the 40’s some people enacted to then modern art the same way you do now. You presume to understand what others see in some art, but you don’t. There is no gate keeper on what is and isn’t art, not even you. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/355 "2011-11-09T12:01:37Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > _Are_ they? I mean, by this, are they somehow being recontextualised - put in a box frame, mounted as a collection, etc. If so, then yes, (although the intent and hence the art is in the recontextualisation, not the original manufacture, although even that can be art if using nice calligraphy etc.) If not, then no. They have hooks on the back for mounting on a wall. I can’t imagine that they’d be repurposed for anything other than to be enjoyed as a decoration of sorts. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/356 "2011-11-09T15:16:21Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So your point is that everything should only and ever have one name, and fit into one category? That’s stupid. Something can be a party AND art. And something can definitely be b[oth music and meditation.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suizen) \*4:33 \*is hardly original there. You’re missing the point. First, from your link, we see “Suizen is a Zen practice consisting of playing the shakuhachi bamboo flute”, so there is _actual_ music that is part of that meditation Second, I didn’t say that you can never have something that falls into two categories (e.g. music and meditation). It’s just that when that thing fails to include one category, no reason to keep calling it that. Something can be both a thirst quencher and a cup of juice, but if we create a beverage that has no traces of juice in it and is simply a cup of water, yes, we can still call it a thirst quencher but not a cup of juice. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/357 "2011-11-09T15:20:16Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Funnily enough, Cage has [been there and done that too](http://johnsonsrambler.wordpress.com/2004/01/20/john-cage-uncaged-barbican-centre-london-16th-18th-january-2004/). (Check out the last entry under “Ground Floor”). > > I was there - not in the dinner party ensemble but in another chorus elsewhere. The atmosphere was surreal and bizarre, with random chunks of music and noise starting and stopping and blending and coming at you from all directions. Was it earthshattering? No.l Was it interesting and fun? Yes. Was it art? Ayup. Was it good art? That’s up to you. Well, there _was_ some performance, so yes it was art. That is different to inviting everyone to a place where the exhibit is nothing but the visitors themselves. Honestly, if some of you in this thread who are in the art world are able to pull off this feat, I’d be great to read about it. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/358 "2011-11-09T18:36:49Z")
Say whatever you please, someone who would pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a can of human excrement, because he’s been told it’s fine art, is pretty much on the same level as the trailer park yahoo who gives his welfare check to a TV preacher. When some hack takes advantage of the ignorance and gullibility of others to gain prestige and money, he’s corrupt. The difference between Michelangelo and the shit can dude is the same difference between Thomas Aquinas and Oral Roberts. There’s good art, there’s bad art, and there’s corrupt art. ---
**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 9, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/359 "2011-11-09T18:42:30Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Say whatever you please, someone who would pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a can of human excrement, because he’s been told it’s fine art, is pretty much on the same level as the trailer park yahoo who gives his welfare check to a TV preacher. What if I pay that because I (a) have been told it’s fine art, and so (b) hope to re-sell the can for yet more tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars? ---
**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 9, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/360 "2011-11-09T19:02:48Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > You’re missing the point. No, I’m disagreeing that your point was valid, that’s not the same thing. > [@](#): > > First, from your link, we see “Suizen is a Zen practice consisting of playing the shakuhachi bamboo flute”, so there is _actual_ music that is part of that meditation And you’ve had several actual music academics tell you in this thread that _4:33_ is music. Or even “actual”[weasel] music. So same difference. > [@](#): > > Second, I didn’t say that you can never have something that falls into two categories (e.g. music and meditation). No, that’s why I didn’t say you _said_ that, I said that was your point. Because taken to the extreme, and given the subjective nature of art, that’s the implication - there’s _always_ someone who can say “I don’t see how this is art” > [@](#): > > It’s just that when that thing fails to include one category, no reason to keep calling it that. “When \*I \*fail to see how it includes one category” =/= “fails to include one category”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=19)