# 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:** 28
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/541 "2011-11-15T18:14:22Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > I don’t get this. Years ago I made a painting, and now it’s sitting in my office. I didn’t seek permission to paint it, nor to hang it. Does that mean it’s not art? Whose permission should I have asked? [**His**](http://www.filmakersmagazine.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/bruno-400x280.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/542 "2011-11-15T18:16:48Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > I’m not sure I agree with this. Like I asked upthread, if I paint something and then put it in a room where no one will ever see it, is it then not art? No. What is the purpose of art? The most basic, bottom level purpose of art is to convey meaning. If truly nobody will ever see it, and you don’t tell people about it, it is not art because it conveys no meaning. ---
**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 15, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/543 "2011-11-15T18:17:03Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > You see, it isn’t the flaming bag of poop in itself which is art, but the aesthetic experience of the event. This is a kind of performance art, its purpose being to express the ephemeral nature of human existence which, despite its ephemerality, nevertheless possesses deep spiritual value. Though transitory, the flames of the burning bag are as beautiful and powerful as the restless spiritual energies that move our souls, while the poop expresses a profound contempt for crass materialism such as the owning of a front porch. The homeowner’s effort to douse the flames with his foot marvelously illustrates the futility of attempting to escape the dreadful realization of the empty and meaningless existence to which the homeowner’s relentless pursuit of wealth has brought him. Seldom has so simple and yet so eloquent a statement captured so perfectly the rich and multi-faceted complexities, conflicts and joys of the human condition. As such, it reflects the fears and ambivalent hopes of our strange times as manifested in such social and political movements as the Arab Spring and #Occupy Wall Street, and gives us greater insight into our epoch and our souls. I eagerly await further works by this artist. An intriguing and idiosyncratic interpretation. I doubt most people would have that sort of response to a bag of flaming poop, but if that’s what you actually experienced then clearly poop resonates powerfully with you on a metaphoric level. Still, I think the audience for flaming poop art is a pretty narrow niche. I don’t think you’re going to find a lot of pieces that service your curious taste. But … to each his own. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/544 "2011-11-15T18:18:22Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > I don’t get this. Years ago I made a painting, and now it’s sitting in my office. I didn’t seek permission to paint it, nor to hang it. Does that mean it’s not art? Whose permission should I have asked? See the “art requires both a producer and a consumer” definition from YoDoc. Since you are the producer, and you own it, and it’s in your office, and all the people who look at it are not willing consumers but have this painting thrust on them, it’s not art. No matter how wonderful your painting is. At least according to YoDoc. Maybe you should convince one of your coworkers to come to your office solely for the purpose of looking at your painting. Then it will suddenly become art since there will have been at least one “consumer”. ---
**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 15, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/545 "2011-11-15T18:20:37Z")
> [@YoDoc](#): > > No. What is the purpose of art? The most basic, bottom level purpose of art is to convey meaning. I disagree. What is the meaning of Pachelbel’s Canon? Art is something structures an aesthetic experience. An aesthetic experience is something that is interesting in and of itself, not because of the utility it provides. Meaning may emerge as a by-product of having an aesthetic experience, but it is not essential to it. ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/546 "2011-11-15T18:25:54Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > See the “art requires both a producer and a consumer” definition from YoDoc. Since you are the producer, and you own it, and it’s in your office, and all the people who look at it are not willing consumers but have this painting thrust on them, it’s not art. No matter how wonderful your painting is. At least according to YoDoc. > > Maybe you should convince one of your coworkers to come to your office solely for the purpose of looking at your painting. Then it will suddenly become art since there will have been at least one “consumer”. I never said that every person who sees it must consent. Further, hanging on a wall does not compelled one to experience it. Lastly, art may be art in one moment, and not in the next. If You produced it and consumed it, it is art. To people in your office, it is representative of your taste in art, but they do not have to consume it. It has already been consumed. The flaming bag of poo example gets is not art because it is a performance piece where one of the performers is unaware of and does not consent to their role. If the flaming bag of poo is art, then rape and assault can also be art. ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/547 "2011-11-15T18:28:36Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I disagree. What is the meaning of Pachelbel’s Canon? > > Art is something structures an aesthetic experience. An aesthetic experience is something that is interesting in and of itself, not because of the utility it provides. Meaning may emerge as a by-product of having an aesthetic experience, but it is not essential to it. So the purpose, then, is simply the aesthetic? Nothing higher ever intended? ---
**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 15, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/548 "2011-11-15T18:31:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Under what definition is art without consent not art? Experiencing art _as art_ requires an element of play. The viewer needs to be able to freely explore the possibility space created by the work. If you’re forced to look at something, or forced to look at something in a particular way, your feeling of freedom and agency evaporates, and with it the possibility of a satisfying aesthetic encounter. Playing in a playground is fun. Being _forced_ to play in a playground when you don’t want to is not. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/549 "2011-11-15T18:34:29Z")
> [@YoDoc](#): > > If You produced it and consumed it, it is art. Cool. Coming back to the bag of poo, I produced it, placed it on your porch, lit it, then I consume it as art. It’s art then? > [@](#): > > The flaming bag of poo example gets is not art because it is a performance piece where one of the performers is unaware of and does not consent to their role. First of all, it doesn’t have to be “performance art”. It can just be a static physical piece of art. Second, I am the performer and I consent and I consume it. The other, wanna-be performer that opens the door and sees it is not the consumer. ---
**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 15, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/550 "2011-11-15T18:35:49Z")
> [@YoDoc](#): > > So the purpose, then, is simply the aesthetic? Nothing higher ever intended? Higher? Some of us might consider the aesthetic the highest good … . 😉 Lots of art is created with the \*intention \*of transmitting a particular meaning. And lots of art succeeds in transmitting the meaning it was intended to. But the success or failure of the transmission of meaning is not essential to how art functions. If it was, we could merely read the notes next to the paintings and ignore the canvases. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/551 "2011-11-15T18:36:11Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Experiencing art _as art_ requires an element of play. The viewer needs to be able to freely explore the possibility space created by the work. In my example I am the viewer who is freely exploring the possibility space created by the flaming bag of poo. Is it art? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/552 "2011-11-15T18:41:09Z")
What is interesting to me is that some people really don’t want to put restrictions on the definition of “art”, considering every trivial stupidity like crap in a can or a crumpled piece of paper “art”, but then pounce on the flaming bag of poo in my example and twist themselves in pretzels trying to explain it as not constituting art. Why? Just admit that it’s art and that when you destroying it you’re vandalizing it (at least according to one definition of “vandalize”). At least you would be consistent. ---
**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 15, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/553 "2011-11-15T18:43:14Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Cool. Coming back to the bag of poo, I produced it, placed it on your porch, lit it, then I consume it as art. It’s art then? For you, yes. And if I want to \*understand \*your actions and your experiences, I can only do so by regarding the bag as a work of art. However, that doesn’t mean that the bag of poop will function as a work of art _for me_. I can intellectually grasp that you are having an aesthetic encounter with the bag of poop without actually having the same experience, just as I can intellectually grasp that someone might be in love without being in love myself. Simple respect means accepting that your personal response to the bag of poop should be treated as genuine and meaningful _to you_, even if I don’t respond the same way. Your taste runs to burning poop, mine does not. You have a curious and idiosyncratic aesthetic, but clearly it works for you, so you should go for it. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/554 "2011-11-15T18:48:56Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > For you, yes. And if I want to \*understand \*your actions and your experiences, I can only do so by regarding the bag as a work of art. > > However, that doesn’t mean that the bag of poop will function as a work of art _for me_. I can intellectually grasp that you are having an aesthetic encounter with the bag of poop without actually having the same experience, just as I can intellectually grasp that someone might be in love without being in love myself. > > Simple respect means accepting that your personal response to the bag of poop should be treated as genuine and meaningful _to you_, even if I don’t respond the same way. Your taste runs to burning poop, mine does not. You have a curious and idiosyncratic aesthetic, but clearly it works for you, so you should go for it. I didn’t ask whether it will “function as a work of art for you”. I asked whether it is art. Of course, you may answer that it is not art for you, that is, you don’t consider it art, but you seem to really work hard to avoid saying that. Why? ---
**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 15, 2011, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/555 "2011-11-15T18:50:54Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > What is interesting to me is that some people really don’t want to put restrictions on the definition of “art”, considering every trivial stupidity like crap in a can or a crumpled piece of paper “art”, but then pounce on the flaming bag of poo in my example and twist themselves in pretzels trying to explain it as not constituting art. Whether something is or is not art depends on context. Suppose I show you a colored piece of paper. Is it money? How do you distinguish between a banknote from an imaginary country and one from a country you’ve never heard of? The same piece of paper that IS money for one person, ISN’T money for someone else. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/556 "2011-11-15T18:56:43Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Whether something is or is not art depends on context. > > Suppose I show you a colored piece of paper. Is it money? How do you distinguish between a banknote from an imaginary country and one from a country you’ve never heard of? The same piece of paper that IS money for one person, ISN’T money for someone else. You keep making that comparison, but it is false. Money has to be accepted as such by a large number of people to be money. People in this thread keep insisting that art doesn’t. It needs just a few people, or even one. Also - in what context is “Mona Lisa” not art? ---
**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 15, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/557 "2011-11-15T18:57:35Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I didn’t ask whether it will “function as a work of art for you”. I asked whether it is art. Of course, you may answer that it is not art for you, that is, you don’t consider it art, but you seem to really work hard to avoid saying that. Why? Because, as I’ve already explained, “art” is a description of a function, not a property. An object is a piece of art if it functions as a piece of art, just as an object is a piece of money if it function as a piece of money. Everything MIGHT be art. Most things aren’t, because no one chooses to regard them as such. If I know that something functions as art for YOU, I’ll show some regard for it, since I’m a nice guy and I don’t want to spoil your fun. But if you don’t clue me in, it’s not my fault if I accidentally throw the bag of poop that you liked so much in the trash. ---
**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 15, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/558 "2011-11-15T19:02:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You keep making that comparison, but it is false. Money has to be accepted as such by a large number of people to be money. People in this thread keep insisting that art doesn’t. It needs just a few people, or even one. Money is an abstract medium of exchange. If two people decide that they’re going to use cigarettes as money, then they’re money. > [@](#): > > Also - in what context is “Mona Lisa” not art? If you’re freezing to death, the utility of a painting as fuel can outweigh its potential to structure an aesthetic experience. It ceases to be art when it becomes kindling. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/559 "2011-11-15T19:06:50Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > If you’re freezing to death, the utility of a painting as fuel can outweigh its potential to structure an aesthetic experience. It ceases to be art when it becomes kindling. Just because it can be kindling doesn’t mean it ceases to be art. It is still art. You are just destroying it in order to be warm. ---
**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 15, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/560 "2011-11-15T19:18:10Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Just because it can be kindling doesn’t mean it ceases to be art. It is still art. You are just destroying it in order to be warm. And what makes it art? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=29)