# 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:** 21
**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 11, 2011, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/401 "2011-11-11T11:58:33Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > To be honest, I really have to wonder at what point we can stop accepting random crap as art. Don’t get me wrong, I _know_ art is subjective. But what bugs me is shit like the classical music of the 50s-the 12-tone pieces. The pieces that sound like a bunch of pianos getting thrown down the stairs, or a bunch of people being thrown down a flight of piano stairs. Or 4:33. There has got to be _some_ limit to what is defined as music, at least… You’re just trying to wind me up now. Look, no one is saying that a lot of this music isn’t crap or that you have to like the stuff that isn’t crap. I hate Boulez, find most of Stravinsky’s mid- to late output tedious and think Morton Subotnick’s music sounds like someone attempting to dismantle a plugged-in video game console with a fork. Heck, I thought Gorecki’s Third Symphony was horrible and it sold vast numbers of CDs. It doesn’t mean it’s not music. It just means that it’s music that I don’t care for, and history will be the judge of whether it has any lasting merit. There are always people who try to test the boundaries of an art form, who go “Is _this_ music? how about _this_?” Cage was one of those people, and the debate that _4’33"_ instigated is a valid one. It’s part of the development of the artistic world. If the experiment fails, at least it was tried. ---
**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 11, 2011, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/402 "2011-11-11T12:27:50Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > […snip…] > > People are making the mistake that just because we can’t rigorously define art that this implies that there is no non-art: No-one here has said anything approaching this man-of-straw. > [@](#): > > Everything can be art, if someone states that it is. Nor this. Even the most out-there definitions of art in this thread stipulate _some_ minimum of artistic effort - _4:33_, for instance, is not _just_ accidental silence. It is _performed_ silence. The pile of bricks has to be assembled. Etc. Plus there’s also context to consider. There’s clearly some things that aren’t art - I wouldn’t consider a guy who told me “Step outside, see that Nature? That’s my artwork” to have done a work of art. But a guy who organised a blank gallery showing? Sure. The difference is in the context. > [@](#): > > If _anything_ can be art, if someone states that it is, then _anything_ can be pornography, if someone states that it is. :rolleyes: Seen any good ankles, lately? Anything can be pornography - if you treat it as such and in the right context. Balloons. Fruit. Jello… ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/403 "2011-11-11T13:38:53Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Seen any good ankles, lately? Anything can be pornography - if you treat it as such and in the right context. Balloons. Fruit. Jello… I could tell you things about Peter Pan… ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/404 "2011-11-11T20:17:36Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Can you maybe re-write this as something that makes an ounce of sense? Typo. I omitted the words “are fools” at the end. > [@Zeriel](#): > > I’m just amused that you won’t even TRY to define it, but you absolutely want to exclude things from it on your say-so. I’m not trying to define art. I’m pointing out that there’s a lot of foolishness and corruption in the art world, and this foolishness and corruption has a lot to do with elitism. In other words, if you’re “one of us” you’ll understand, if you’re not “one of us,” you’re a rube. That’s what leads some to angrily insist that cans of excrement or a bunch of steel girders welded randomly together are not art. People may ooh and aah over such things and say that they “redefine concepts” and “challenge boundaries,” but such people are just trying to convince themselves that they aren’t rubes. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/405 "2011-11-11T20:24:40Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I could tell you things about Peter Pan… And the Wizard of Oz? _There’s_ a dirty old man! ---
**Author:** ![Lobot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/406 "2011-11-11T20:29:06Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > There are always people who try to test the boundaries of an art form, who go “Is _this_ music? how about _this_?” Cage was one of those people, and the debate that _4’33"_ instigated is a valid one. It’s part of the development of the artistic world. If the experiment fails, at least it was tried. I really do think viewing this from an evolutionary standpoint helps. Or it helps me, at least. It’s like nature recombining and mutating genetic combinations–most attempts ultimately fail, but the ones that succeed define new paradigms. Without taking the risk, those successful combinations would never be discovered. And the failures will be forgotten with time. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/407 "2011-11-12T00:38:22Z")
Preface: vodka = fun. srsly > [@Gyrate](#): > > You’re just trying to wind me up now. > > Look, no one is saying that a lot of this music isn’t crap or that you have to like the stuff that isn’t crap. I hate Boulez, find most of Stravinsky’s mid- to late output tedious and think Morton Subotnick’s music sounds like someone attempting to dismantle a plugged-in video game console with a fork. Heck, I thought Gorecki’s Third Symphony was horrible and it sold vast numbers of CDs. It doesn’t mean it’s not music. It just means that it’s music that I don’t care for, and history will be the judge of whether it has any lasting merit. > > There are always people who try to test the boundaries of an art form, who go “Is _this_ music? how about _this_?” Cage was one of those people, and the debate that _4’33"_ instigated is a valid one. It’s part of the development of the artistic world. If the experiment fails, at least it was tried. But what is the point? I just don’t fucking get it. Again: when you could reproduce the music created by throwing a cat onto a piano, _something has gone wrong_. I could create a computer program to write crap like “_Mode de valuers et d’intensités_”, and you know what? People would be unable to tell the difference. At the point where a _fucking computer_ can replicate it with no problems and no questions asked, shouldn’t be time to reflect and say, “something has gone horribly, horribly wrong”? Instead, we’re taught about this music which nobody liked and which should’ve gone inconsequentially into the night without further attention as if it’s the next big thing in classical music! I mean, I could hold a whole fucking lesson over the difference between Judas Priest’s Painkiller and Death’s cover of the song, but that makes no sense because nobody fucking gives a fuck. Why give a fuck about this piece of musical garbage? And es, I _know_ It’s a subjective valuing. Deal with it–it’s the same valuing that 99.999% of _anyone who hears the piece_ will give it. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/408 "2011-11-12T01:15:18Z")
Just to clarify: I _know_ art is subjective, and music is too–12-ton musik and similar bullshit really shouldn’t bother me. You know why it does? Because we spend 3 weeks of music class talking about this shit. That’s more than we spend on Jazz, Rock, and Metal combined. Fuck that; I could go on and on about some niche parts of metal for the same length of time, and you know what? It’d probably be something that not only has more of an impact of music, but also that more people actually would listen to. -.- ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/409 "2011-11-12T01:30:53Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Preface: vodka = fun. srsly > > But what is the point? I just don’t fucking get it. Again: when you could reproduce the music created by throwing a cat onto a piano, _something has gone wrong_. I could create a computer program to write crap like “_Mode de valuers et d’intensités_”, and you know what? People would be unable to tell the difference. At the point where a _fucking computer_ can replicate it with no problems and no questions asked, shouldn’t be time to reflect and say, “something has gone horribly, horribly wrong”? What a bizarre standard. People can and have written computer programs that replicate all sorts of styles of music, and most people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between them and the composers they’re intended to emulate. And no one could tell definitively that the music was written by computer. > [@](#): > > Instead, we’re taught about this music which nobody liked and which should’ve gone inconsequentially into the night without further attention as if it’s the next big thing in classical music! I have never encountered this attitude. I perform and listen to a lot of contemporary classical music and the vast majority of it bears little resemblance to serialism or any kind of avant garde music. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Just to clarify: I _know_ art is subjective, and music is too–12-ton musik and similar bullshit really shouldn’t bother me. You know why it does? Because we spend 3 weeks of music class talking about this shit. That’s more than we spend on Jazz, Rock, and Metal combined. Fuck that; I could go on and on about some niche parts of metal for the same length of time, and you know what? It’d probably be something that not only has more of an impact of music, but also that more people actually would listen to. -.- “Music class”? Any particular one? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/410 "2011-11-12T04:17:20Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Even the most out-there definitions of art in this thread stipulate _some_ minimum of artistic effort Who are you to define what art should and should not consist of? Why is your stipulation of “_some_ minimum of artistic effort” any more valid than any other restrictions that people place on what constitutes art? > [@](#): > > Anything can be pornography - if you treat it as such and in the right context. Balloons. Fruit. Jello… Yeah, [sure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_050102-N-9593M-031_A_village_near_the_coast_of_Sumatra_lays_in_ruin_after_the_Tsunami_that_struck_South_East_Asia.jpg), [anything](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Sweet_Chestnut_Forest.jpg) can be pornography :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Lobot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/411 "2011-11-12T04:50:43Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Yeah, [sure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_050102-N-9593M-031_A_village_near_the_coast_of_Sumatra_lays_in_ruin_after_the_Tsunami_that_struck_South_East_Asia.jpg), [anything](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Sweet_Chestnut_Forest.jpg) can be pornography :rolleyes: Score! That tree is going straight into my spank bank. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/412 "2011-11-12T05:19:23Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > People may ooh and aah over such things and say that they “redefine concepts” and “challenge boundaries,” but such people are just trying to convince themselves that they aren’t rubes. So you’re asserting, basically, that anyone who appreciates art that you personally find useless or unaesthetic MUST be faking it? I suppose that doesn’t actually surprise me, coming from you. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/413 "2011-11-12T06:06:04Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > There are always people who try to test the boundaries of an art form, who go “Is _this_ music? how about _this_?” But it’s only an interesting question if the answer can be “no”. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/414 "2011-11-12T06:14:23Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Yeah, [sure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_050102-N-9593M-031_A_village_near_the_coast_of_Sumatra_lays_in_ruin_after_the_Tsunami_that_struck_South_East_Asia.jpg), [anything](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Sweet_Chestnut_Forest.jpg) can be pornography :rolleyes: Cakefarts. Goatse.cx, before the domain was taken away. Anything on the old [Ogrish.com](http://Ogrish.com) website and anything on the current [rotten.com](http://rotten.com). The entire emetophilia, scat, vore, furry, inflation, amputee, and feeder subcultures. The more frightening dark corners of the BDSM world. The woman who is happily married to the Berlin Wall. You do not want to get into a discussion about where the limits of pornography are. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/415 "2011-11-12T06:36:45Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > You do not want to get into a discussion about where the limits of pornography are. No matter what examples you give of extremes, some things simply are ‘not-pornography’ Find \*anyone \* who is sane and can claim that [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_050102-N-9593M-031_A_village_near_the_coast_of_Sumatra_lays_in_ruin_after_the_Tsunami_that_struck_South_East_Asia.jpg) is pornography for them. ---
**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 12, 2011, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/416 "2011-11-12T07:56:08Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Who are you to define what art should and should not consist of? They call me _ **Mr** _ **Dibble**. > [@](#): > > Why is your stipulation of “_some_ minimum of artistic effort” any more valid than any other restrictions that people place on what constitutes art? We’re not talking about _possible_ definitions here. We’re talking about definitions people have actually advanced. Don’t try and run away from your strawmanning by referencing an argument no-one has actually proposed in this thread. _If_ someone seriously proposes a “no restrictions” definition of art, and makes an argument to defend that, then we can have the discussion on why some restriction is necessary. Before that, it’s just you trying to divert attention from your shoddy argument. > [@](#): > > Yeah, [sure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_050102-N-9593M-031_A_village_near_the_coast_of_Sumatra_lays_in_ruin_after_the_Tsunami_that_struck_South_East_Asia.jpg), [anything](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Sweet_Chestnut_Forest.jpg) can be pornography :rolleyes: _Fap, fap, fap._ So, are you _seriously_ saying those are pornography? Because you seem to have missed the “if you treat it as such and in the right context” part of my statement. ---
**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 12, 2011, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/417 "2011-11-12T07:58:48Z")
My bolding > [@Polerius](#): > > Find \*anyone \* **who is sane** and can claim that [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_050102-N-9593M-031_A_village_near_the_coast_of_Sumatra_lays_in_ruin_after_the_Tsunami_that_struck_South_East_Asia.jpg) is pornography for them. _Now_ who is imposing restrictions? ---
**Author:** ![Lobot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/418 "2011-11-12T08:01:22Z")
Again, surely intent has to be at least _part_ of the equation. If an image/story/video/road sign/etc. is not intended to sexually excite, I think you’re already on shaky ground if you call it pornography. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/419 "2011-11-12T09:27:27Z")
> [@Lobot](#): > > Score! That tree is going straight into my spank bank. All in the eye of the [beholder](http://oglaf.com/stamen/). 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/420 "2011-11-12T10:52:59Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > What a bizarre standard. People can and have written computer programs that replicate all sorts of styles of music, and most people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between them and the composers they’re intended to emulate. And no one could tell definitively that the music was written by computer. I mean for all intents and purposes using something like java.random or something like that to essentially _randomly generate strings of notes_, and it would sound the same. You _cannot_ claim the same for virtually any other type of music. > [@](#): > > I have never encountered this attitude. I perform and listen to a lot of contemporary classical music and the vast majority of it bears little resemblance to serialism or any kind of avant garde music. > > “Music class”? Any particular one? German high school music class. It’s fucking stupid. > [@Polerius](#): > > Yeah, [sure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_050102-N-9593M-031_A_village_near_the_coast_of_Sumatra_lays_in_ruin_after_the_Tsunami_that_struck_South_East_Asia.jpg), [anything](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Sweet_Chestnut_Forest.jpg) can be pornography :rolleyes: Fap fap fap > [@sh1bu1](#): > > But it’s only an interesting question if the answer can be “no”. This. I mean, if I made a CD featuring mostly chainsaws and the sounds of trees falling down, would it still be music? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=22)