# 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:** 22
**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, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/421 "2011-11-12T13:29:36Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 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. Sound the same to whom? You? I’ll buy that. People who actually study this stuff? Doubtful. You are aware that serialism actually has rules, right? A simple random note generator would not be producing serialism. It would be producing random notes. > [@](#): > > German high school music class. It’s fucking stupid. Sounds like your issue is with the class, then, not the music. > [@](#): > > This. I mean, if I made a CD featuring mostly chainsaws and the sounds of trees falling down, would it still be music? Maybe. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/422 "2011-11-12T14:51:50Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > 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. So you’re saying that there’s no faking it in art? That people don’t do foolish things in the name of art? That there’s no such thing as bad art or corrupt art? That artists and art devotees are immune to status seeking, vanity and the herd instinct? Do you respect the aesthetics of a trailer park yahoo whose tastes in art run to Elvis on velvet and pink flamingos? If not, why do you deplore the tastes of yahoos without money, yet demand that I respect the tastes of yahoos with money? ---
**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 12, 2011, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/423 "2011-11-12T15:13:40Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Do you respect the aesthetics of a trailer park yahoo whose tastes in art run to Elvis on velvet and pink flamingos? Absolutely. It sounds like your snobbery cuts both ways. There’s low-brow art I like. There’s high-brow art I like. There’s even some middle-brow art I like, although I find that a bit more of a stretch. Of course, there’s lots of art I don’t like. But I acknowledge that people who like something I don’t are doing so HONESTLY. Or rather, no more dishonestly than I am, since the desire for the approval of others is always co-mingled with our aesthetic responses. I don’t automatically assume that people with tastes different than mine are deluded or dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/424 "2011-11-12T18:53:36Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Apropos dreary and all-too-common threads such as [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=630268), I hereby pit all of the pompous, ignorant, self-important clots such as [this blithering idiot](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14430726&postcount=47) 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14429776&postcount=10) 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. > > Who’s next? Go ahead and add to the list, those who presume to tell me what to like or not like. ---
**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, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/425 "2011-11-12T21:30:59Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > So you’re saying that there’s no faking it in art? That people don’t do foolish things in the name of art? That there’s no such thing as bad art or corrupt art? That artists and art devotees are immune to status seeking, vanity and the herd instinct? I would not accuse someone of being a faker or a fraud or a herd-follower without actual evidence of such. > [@](#): > > Do you respect the aesthetics of a trailer park yahoo whose tastes in art run to Elvis on velvet and pink flamingos? If not, why do you deplore the tastes of yahoos without money, yet demand that I respect the tastes of yahoos with money? I can be perfectly happy to say “I’m sure someone thinks that’s art” and “Hey, it fits the decor” when my dad buys velvet paintings and infinite-reflection Jesus clocks, so yeah, I do respect the aesthetics of people who like things I personally find unaesthetic. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/426 "2011-11-12T22:00:30Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > 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 hadn’t heard of 4’33" before, so I googled it. The first hit was [this.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E) I watched it and _really_ enjoyed it. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/427 "2011-11-12T23:23:45Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I would not accuse someone of being a faker or a fraud or a herd-follower without actual evidence of such. Here’s a clue. Selling or buying a can of excrement is a sure fire sign that something rotten is going on. If you believe otherwise, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. > [@Zeriel](#): > > I can be perfectly happy to say “I’m sure someone thinks that’s art” and “Hey, it fits the decor” when my dad buys velvet paintings and infinite-reflection Jesus clocks, so yeah, I do respect the aesthetics of people who like things I personally find unaesthetic. :rolleyes: So you’re refusing to admit there’s such a thing as bad art. You can quit beating that horse now. It’s quite dead. ---
**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 13, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/428 "2011-11-13T02:26:54Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > So you’re saying that there’s no faking it in art? That people don’t do foolish things in the name of art? That there’s no such thing as bad art or corrupt art? That artists and art devotees are immune to status seeking, vanity and the herd instinct? Think about…well, anything that people have subjective opinions about. Let’s take hipsters. I’m sure there are lots of status seeking, vain, herd-influenced hipsters that get really into obscure indie bands for the status of it. But, they are still actually in to that music. I don’t think there are any hipsters saying “Man, I just don’t get the Pixies. In fact, I kind of hate them. But I’m going to pretend to like them!” ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/429 "2011-11-13T02:32:42Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > :rolleyes: So you’re refusing to admit there’s such a thing as bad art. I interperet that as saying that it’s art no matter what he thinks of the aesthetics. That’s a pretty consistent view across the art world. Velvet paintings are definitely art, but like most outsider art they’re a “dime a dozen”. Certainly they are better than stuff you find at Hobby Lobby, but when you consider exhibits of large cities like Chicago, one has to be extremely exceptional to get anyone’s attention. The best in the trailer park kind of sucks in that light. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/430 "2011-11-13T02:34:39Z")
A huge part of the pleasure of much art is the smug satisfaction of knowing the philistines don’t get it. Let’s face it – if Joe the Plumber was there, marveling at how challenged his conception of art was by the ball of hair you’re admiring, you’d figure you’d made a mistake and push on to something else. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/431 "2011-11-13T02:37:30Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Think about…well, anything that people have subjective opinions about. Let’s take hipsters. I’m sure there are lots of status seeking, vain, herd-influenced hipsters that get really into obscure indie bands for the status of it. But, they are still actually in to that music. I don’t think there are any hipsters saying “Man, I just don’t get _the Pixies_. In fact, I kind of hate them. But I’m going to pretend to like them!” Your hipsters are listening to what is now classic rock. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/432 "2011-11-13T02:41:12Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Here’s a clue. Selling or buying a can of excrement is a sure fire sign that something rotten is going on. If you believe otherwise, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. So you don’t believe in free markets accurately setting prices and values, then. I wasn’t aware you were a commie. Get serious. Don’t use arguments here you wouldn’t stand for in a non-art-related thread. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: So you’re refusing to admit there’s such a thing as bad art. I’m refusing to admit there’s a universal definition of bad art, being that aesthetics are subjective. I mean, I fucking HATE Picasso, if I owned a Picasso reprint I’d put it out to the curb for the trashman. By your reasoning, Picasso isn’t art because I find no value in it. But wait, you say, many people DO find value in it. How many, then, to define it as “good art” or “bad art”? ---
**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 13, 2011, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/433 "2011-11-13T02:44:05Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > Sound the same to whom? You? I’ll buy that. People who actually study this stuff? Doubtful. You are aware that serialism actually has rules, right? A simple random note generator would not be producing serialism. It would be producing random notes. That’s kinda the idea–plug the rules in, and let it go wild. > [@](#): > > Sounds like your issue is with the class, then, not the music. It’s with both. Again, **Sh1bu1** brought up a great point–the question of “is it music” is only interesting if it can be answered with “No”. > [@](#): > > Maybe. Why not? This is the problem with art. There is no definition. If someone defecates on the floor of a museum, it could just as easily be an act of vandalism as an act of artistic genius (case in point: Martin Kippenberger). Hell, my publishing of a CD of completely bland, senseless, uninspired tripe (like, say, the average Phil Collins CD) and simply slapping it with an ironic title is enough to catapult it into high art! Assuming, of course, nobody else does it first. Something about it just feels horribly, horribly wrong. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/434 "2011-11-13T03:11:02Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > That’s kinda the idea–plug the rules in, and let it go wild. You’ve changed the parameters. This is no longer a random note generator. I could plug in a series of simple rules and have a computer program pump out perfectly serviceable (if a bit bland) tonal music. > [@](#): > > It’s with both. Again, **Sh1bu1** brought up a great point–the question of “is it music” is only interesting if it can be answered with “No”. Nobody (as far as I’ve noticed) has claimed otherwise. On the other hand, while something like _4’33"_ undoubtedly plays at the edges of the subject, and as such there is no clear answer as to which side of the line it lands on, it is difficult for me to see how something like _Mode de valeurs et d’intensités_ could fail to be music. Maybe you can explain it to me. > [@](#): > > This is the problem with art. There is no definition. If someone defecates on the floor of a museum, it could just as easily be an act of vandalism as an act of artistic genius (case in point: Martin Kippenberger). Hell, my publishing of a CD of completely bland, senseless, uninspired tripe (like, say, the average Phil Collins CD) and simply slapping it with an ironic title is enough to catapult it into high art! Assuming, of course, nobody else does it first. Something about it just feels horribly, horribly wrong. Did Kippenberger defecate in a museum? Must have missed that. What I don’t get is why anyone cares how other people feel about art. So far, here and elsewhere, the attitudes seem to be divided into three camps: 1. Such and such is art/music; 2. Such and such is not art/music; and 3. Such and such is not art/music and you are pretentious/stupid/elitist/whatever if you think it is. ---
**Author:** ![brittekland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@brittekland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brittekland)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/435 "2011-11-13T03:24:18Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I mean, I fucking HATE Picasso, if I owned a Picasso reprint I’d put it out to the curb for the trashman. By your reasoning, Picasso isn’t art because I find no value in it. To me, Picasso is the last high art/painting wizard there ever was. I know a lots people find Picasso pedestrian becuase there are so many crappy prints of his everywhere and his Spaniard odd subject matters can be odd and off putting. But as a painter “_ **of** formalism_” there is no one whose has the level of complete mastery as Picasso did. As far as I’m concerned “painting” hasn’t gone beyond where he left off. Remember to look at all Picasso’s work; if you hate his Blue period I can understand because I do too but that is one aspect of his work that allowed him to pursue his later works. His mid to later paintings are, to me, to die for. I get tempted to steal the pieces at museums. We all have tastes and opinions but if you are an artist keep 'em open and never write any artist OFF, at least the one who made it to ART HISTORY, because there will be a time when you come around and “get it”. Believe me I wrote many off as a neophyte haughty right out of art school baby (I did not understand Picasso as well then). One of Picasso’s quote say, I don’t want to see young painters imitate me, rather they ought to take it from where I left off (paraphrase). To me, Picasso would say no one really took “painting” any further than where he left off. I ask myself whenever I look at my work is, “what would Picasso say”. Don’t look at the weird ethnic Spanish subject matter. Look at what he’s doing, manipulations he does with his pictorial language; they are pure magic. They are pure poems… magic. Yes his paintings look like bad cartoons sometimes but\*\*\* if\*\*\* you don’t like his work because of that you are missing the point. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/436 "2011-11-13T03:29:13Z")
I think what would be really interesting would be if some people in this thread gave the rest of us a checklist as to what constitutes real art/music. ---
**Author:** ![brittekland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@brittekland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brittekland)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/437 "2011-11-13T03:30:42Z")
Let me add that you do have your right to hate Picasso though. And this discussion is outside of my field of vision. No one said it is for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/438 "2011-11-13T05:59:27Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I think what would be really interesting would be if some people in this thread gave the rest of us a checklist as to what constitutes real art/music. How about if you start and give us a checklist of what is not art. As has been pointed out again and again, if there is no limit to what a word means then the word becomes superfluous. If everything is art, then there is no art. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/439 "2011-11-13T06:37:31Z")
I can’t do such a thing, which is a lucky break for me, because I’m not the one who’s spent a whole thread exclaiming that some things aren’t art. But I would love to know, what are some positive attributes something must have to be art? Must it be representational? Must it demonstrate skill with tools? You’ve said before that a crumpled piece of paper is not art. Is it not art because anyone can crumple a piece of paper? Because by that logic a simple watercolor of a tree is not art as any 2nd grader can make a passable watercolor tree. I am saying, if there is such a thing as non-art, tell us what must art have. I’m only asking you to define a category you have already claimed exists. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for. ---
**Author:** ![Lobot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/440 "2011-11-13T07:34:31Z")
I’ll just stick my head in and reiterate that I believe art requires conscious aesthetic choices on the part of the artist. I’ll rescind my criterion that art should not be trivially reproducible, but instead add that it should be distinguishable from that which has no conscious aesthetic intent behind it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=23)