# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/41 "2011-11-06T01:17:46Z")
> [@jordanr2](#): > > I’d love to see how many critics you could dupe with something like this. Art critics _love_ to be duped, though. How else can you explain Manzoni pricing his canned feces by its weight in gold? I truly believe that was the whole point of his work. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/42 "2011-11-06T01:19:19Z")
> [@](#): > > In Cold Cuts, at the Espai d’art in Castelló, Spain, the California Conceptualist John Knight addresses the history of illegal American interventions since the 1950s. The show is articulated in the design-inflected, self-critical language that Knight has been developing since the late 1960s, when he turned from Minimalism and Conceptualism to work that specifically challenged the art system and its conditions. Since that point Knight’s practice has connected to a materialist tradition that has been lost for a long time in the United States, in which social critique is closely linked to the artist’s desire to transform the artwork’s modes of production and distribution. In his recent exhibition, curated by Michele Lachowsky and Joel Benzakin, Knight produced an installation in the Espai galleries and an artist’s book published for the occasion, whose instructions are oriented beyond the temporal and spatial confines of the show. > > The installation occupies the Espai in the form of a two-dimensional, apparently decorative pattern of large, colourful vinyl pentagons affixed to the floor and walls. The images and texts in these shapes reveal the central motif of the exhibition: the relationships between gastronomy, exoticism and US imperialism. Images of traditional recipes from countries such as Vietnam or El Salvador, press photographs from political events (such as the assault on the Palacio de la Moneda in Santiago, Chile in 1973) and texts referring to the activities of the US secret intelligence services 1950, on the one hand, denounce the US interventions into the internal politics of these states, and, on the other, point to the effects that these interventions have had in terms of dismantling and altering local cultures. > > In a succinct metaphor, the vinyl network of pentagons alludes to the ‘layers’ that hide underneath the anodyne and hermetic appearance of the Pentagon building in Washington, DC. Like the cold cuts from the exhibition title, these decals are layered all along the exhibition space, suggesting the repressed history of US foreign policy. But here is the best part: > [@](#): > > Knight’s message is clear. It exposes the discomfort - and, to some extent, the guilt - that many US citizens experience in relation to their country’s history. What makes this intervention different from other projects with similar intentions is its dialectical approach - the methodological inversion that the artist effects between the roles of exhibition and catalogue. Since the conventional function of the catalogue is to document or publicise the exhibition, here the reverse is this case: the exhibition functions as an advertisement for the publication. Cold Cuts is thus divided into two acts. The ‘first act’ is the display that occupies the exhibition spaces, which evokes a feeling of immediacy through a strategy of ‘over-design’ - a ‘vulgar’, unsophisticated appearance, similar to the one that can be found in sales conventions. These two elements, design and vulgarity, are a constant in Knight’s work: design was key to installation projects such as Journals (1978), JK (1982), Museotypes (1983) or Federal Style (1989).1 Vulgarity, as T.J. Clark has noted, is a constant in North American contemporary art - from Jackson Pollock’s paintings to Dan Flavin’s light sculptures and Dan Graham’s lists.2 This tradition adopts the most prosaic elements of daily life (and the type of design Knight adopt qualifies as such) as its main material. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/43 "2011-11-06T01:22:05Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > Poe’s law. Alright, I had to look up “recondite,” but other than that, that was a pretty straightforward (and insightful) post. What part of it did you find unclear? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/44 "2011-11-06T01:23:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Injecting race into the discussion is also bizarre. Considering that I’ve heard a preference for landscape pictures over modern “art” blamed on “White Western Imperialism”, not really. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/45 "2011-11-06T01:23:41Z")
Here’s a question for you sad pustules that aren’t even together enough in your thinking about art to be an inflamed hemorrhoid on a fat man’s pimple-ridden ass, if it’s so easy to deceive the public and critics into thinking rubbish is art and thereby make many millions: why aren’t you doing it? Get thee hence. Use a pseudonym if you must. Show us how it’s done. Oh, right. You suck. Sorry about your pointless, mediocre lives. I hope railing against the Evil Cabal for the Promotion of Art that Makes You Feel Inadequate and Irritable makes you feel a little less pathetic. Or, if you’re really motivated, maybe you can infiltrate the ECPAMYFII and subvert it from the inside, and thereby save civilization [del]millions[/del] a piddling small amount of cash! That’s the ticket. Go! In the name of humanity! **Der Trihs** , since you know so much, you fucking pillock, kindly point me to the headquarters of the Conspiracy. You know, so I can join up and spend my life making you feel stupid. Oh, wait, I can do that just by waking up in the morning. Idiot. ---
**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 6, 2011, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/46 "2011-11-06T01:28:01Z")
Cute. The first sentence states that the message is clear and then the rest of the paragraph descends into more and more esoteric theoretical thoughts, seemingly counter to the first sentence’s brazen declaration of clarity. Except the message is right there in the second sentence. That’s the message of the piece and it sounds, based on the description of the actual piece to, indeed, be fairly obvious. The rest is a rumination on contrasts between this work and other works and why the writer thinks this one is more powerful than other similar works. If he thought everything in that paragraph was self-evident, he’d have had no reason to write it as anyone could have gleaned as much from simply viewing the piece. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/47 "2011-11-06T01:28:06Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Is it possible to have a meaningful definition of “art” without imposing limits on its scope? Alternatively, is it useful to have a word with no meaningful definition? I don’t know. What I do know, is that as soon as someone draws a line in the sand with “past this line, There Can be No Art,” someone, maybe with great vision and imagination or maybe not, will sooner or later make a bold stride straight over it. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/48 "2011-11-06T01:29:00Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Alright, I had to look up “recondite,” but other than that, that was a pretty straightforward (and insightful) post. What part of it did you find unclear? Being unclear is not the issue, it’s the fact that it’s such pretentious twaddle. It’s like one of those “generate a mission statement” websites. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/49 "2011-11-06T01:29:05Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Here’s a question for you sad pustules that aren’t even together enough in your thinking about art to be an inflamed hemorrhoid on a fat man’s pimple-ridden ass, if it’s so easy to deceive the public and critics into thinking rubbish is art and thereby make many millions: why aren’t you doing it? Because I have ethical standards that preclude doing so, and wouldn’t find that kind of fake acclaim satisfying anyway. > [@Knorf](#): > > Oh, right. You suck. Sorry about your pointless, mediocre lives. See, this is just another example of what I’m talking about. It’s all about a self appointed elite trying to convince itself it is superior. We are mediocre; they are brilliant and talented. And if we fail to see that brilliance, it’s because we are such plebeian lumps, not because it doesn’t exist. > [@Knorf](#): > > **Der Trihs** , since you know so much, you fucking pillock, kindly point me to the headquarters of the Conspiracy. What “headquarters”? It’s a subcultural trend, not some cabal. ---
**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 6, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/50 "2011-11-06T01:31:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because I have ethical standards that preclude doing so, and wouldn’t find that kind of fake acclaim satisfying anyway. Isn’t that lucky. ---
**Author:** ![capybara](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/capybara/32/202_2.png) [@capybara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capybara)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/51 "2011-11-06T01:33:31Z")
The entire concept of ‘art’ is a shifting, contingent mass of a concept cluster that has no fixed definitive meaning through time and across places. Its differentiation from ‘craft’, ‘techne’, ethnographic artifacts, driftwood, etc etc etc etc is suggested solely by a bundle of loaded, culturally generated, non-universal notions, largely determined by a European intellectual culture that believed in a universal concept of beauty, for example, among other fantastically contingent constructions and discourses. At this place and time one sort of what we commonly–but not universally agree to-- call art happens to be of an avant garde experimental mode that is meant more for a specialized market and for the consideration of like-minded artists and critics than it is for everyman. Don’t take it personally. ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/52 "2011-11-06T01:42:52Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > Poe’s law. Am I supposed to feel insulted? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/53 "2011-11-06T01:43:58Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Considering that I’ve heard a preference for landscape pictures over modern “art” blamed on “White Western Imperialism”, not really. Well, **Der Trihs** , to no one’s great surprise, you’ve managed to miss the point on two levels. Firstly, the fact that someone you knew once made a bizarre statement about race, doesn’t justify a second, entirely unrelated statement about race. Secondly, my point was that **sh1bu1** was trying to make modern art out to be something particular to white people - when a more reasonable (although not one I personally agree with) racial criticism of the contemporary art establishment would be that it goes too far in the other direction, prizing non-white artist simply for being non-white. A position which your counter anecdote _supports_. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/54 "2011-11-06T01:44:56Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > Being unclear is not the issue, it’s the fact that it’s such pretentious twaddle. It’s like one of those “generate a mission statement” websites. To the contrary, it’s a direct and devastating rebuttal to one of the central misconceptions on which you’ve constructed your entire argument. ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/55 "2011-11-06T01:45:04Z")
Also, **sh1bu1** re: John Knight’s work, note this sentence from that critique: “when he turned from Minimalism and Conceptualism to work that specifically challenged the art system and its conditions.” In other words, not really relevant to the point I was making. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/56 "2011-11-06T01:49:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because I have ethical standards that preclude doing so, and wouldn’t find that kind of fake acclaim satisfying anyway. Riiiiiight. Cop out. Use a pseudonym. Whatever. > [@](#): > > See, this is just another example of what I’m talking about. It’s all about a self appointed elite trying to convince itself it is superior. We are mediocre; they are brilliant and talented. And if we fail to see that brilliance, it’s because we are such plebeian lumps, not because it doesn’t exist. You demonstrate plebeian lumpitude pretty fucking well. If you were slightly more sophisticated, you would just say, “that art sucks.” Slightly more, you might say, “that art does nothing for me, and I would never spend a dime on it.” Even more, and you might try to devote enough time to supporting and collecting art to influence the direction of at least some significant artistic venue and get that venue to avoid the art you think is of no value. But only a plebeian lump with the artistic understanding of fuzzy, brown goo in the corner of a roadside public restroom takes the step of “ZOMG! It’s not and can never be art!” That step makes you an idiot. > [@](#): > > What “headquarters”? It’s a subcultural trend, not some cabal. You said [there was a conspiracy](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14432647&postcount=40), dipshit. You can mockingly refer to a conspiracy, I can mockingly refer its headquarters. Get it? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/57 "2011-11-06T01:52:03Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Cute. The first sentence states that the message is clear and then the rest of the paragraph descends into more and more esoteric theoretical thoughts, seemingly counter to the first sentence’s brazen declaration of clarity. Except the message is right there in the second sentence. That’s the message of the piece and it sounds, based on the description of the actual piece to, indeed, be fairly obvious. The rest is a rumination on contrasts between this work and other works and why the writer thinks this one is more powerful than other similar works. If he thought everything in that paragraph was self-evident, he’d have had no reason to write it as anyone could have gleaned as much from simply viewing the piece. I agree. The review is a bit above my head, I admit - I might be able to follow it better if I’d seen the display itself - but it’s not written for a general audience: it’s specifically written for people with a strong grounding in art theory and history, and uses specialized language familiar to a specialized audience. It’s no different from what you might find in a forum dedicated to law, or medicine, or auto racing, or Dungeons and Dragons. Lots of specialized jargon to discuss minutia that’s only of interest to people deeply involved in the field. That doesn’t meant the art itself is inaccessible to a general audience. Indeed, from what I can find about it on the internet, the installation appears to be neither minimalist nor particularly conceptual: it apparently revolves around the contrast between distinct, recognizable images, which is a fairly conventional artistic technique. ---
**Author:** ![Weston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8797f3/32.png) [@Weston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weston)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/58 "2011-11-06T01:59:14Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Uh yeah, and the “modern art is all a bunch of hooey” pieces have been done to death. Stoners will like your work, though, so that’s nice. Apologies in advance if I’m wrong, but I guessing this was addressed to me. In response, I would merely refer you back to Creed’s Work No. 867. If I’m understanding your perspective correctly, that piece is worthy of being called “art” purely by virtue of the fact that it is possible _in principle_ for an observer to divine a unique insight from it. If that’s the case, then the fact that a performance piece like mine has already been done better by other people shouldn’t be a barrier to its inclusion in any modern art gallery. > [@The Hamster King](#): > > Yeah, but that’s true of most art. Museum culture is a THING, and it warps how we look at the art that it chooses to frame. But isn’t this kind of a circular argument? Take Creed’s Work No. 867, for instance. By framing a crumpled ball of paper inside the minimalist wing of a prestigious art gallery, he is certainly encouraging observers to form a different relationship to it than they would in everyday life. I’ll happily concede that much. But if _that alone_ is all that is necessary for an object, any object, to be labelled as “art” it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that there’s a lot of stuff on display which is in a gallery because it’s art, but is only art because it’s in an art gallery. In which case any of the stuff on my desk would be equally deserving of that spot. But we all know that if I tried to swap that bit of paper for my deck of playing cards - hell, if I even tried to swap it for another bit of crumpled white paper - I’d get in a lot of trouble. But why? What’s the difference? Why wouldn’t any object I replace that bit of paper with be equally as artistic? Equally as deserving? In what way would it be incapable of eliciting a different flavour of this exact same response, this warping of perspective? It seems to me that if what you’re saying is true, then far from us debating what _is_ art, the artistic establishment should be telling us what \*isn’t[/] art, and why. My suspicion, is that the only reason they haven’t done this, is because it would lead to a conversation they don’t want to have, whe Now, lest you get the wrong idea of what I’m about, I want to make it clear that I’ve only ever come across a select few “works” that I would _not_ call art. I like going to art galleries and I’ll freely confess that I’m baffled by a lot of the stuff I see. However, I don’t doubt the artistic merit of the works I don’t understand. Take Dali’s Lobster Telephone, for instance. I don’t get it. Probably never will. But it’s clearly been created for some non-utilitarian purpose and, no matter where you put it, some would find it interesting, thought provoking, aesthetically pleasing, or whatever. Same with the Kippenburger piece which inspired this thread. You could never say something like that about No. 867. > [@jordanr2](#): > > I could be wrong, but I suspect the majority of conceptual artists working in this terrain have no such intentions: art in this vein isn’t meant as some statement meant to wrench emotion out of you that you’re an insensitive moron for not getting, it’s a recondite gesture within particular currents of contemporary art history. If this is true, it does seem rather circular to me. Given the immense variety and scope of modern art, I find it difficult to understand how any gallery owner could justify the exclusion of any piece. ---
**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 6, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/59 "2011-11-06T02:05:50Z")
> [@Weston](#): > > Apologies in advance if I’m wrong, but I guessing this was addressed to me. In response, I would merely refer you back to Creed’s Work No. 867. If I’m understanding your perspective correctly, that piece is worthy of being called “art” purely by virtue of the fact that it is possible _in principle_ for an observer to divine a unique insight from it. If that’s the case, then the fact that a performance piece like mine has already been done better by other people shouldn’t be a barrier to its inclusion in any modern art gallery. No, it’s art if someone says it’s art, not because someone might say it’s art. You are absolutely free to perform your piece and I wish you the best of luck. I would not be interested in attending a performance, however because I doubt that you would be able to wring anything all that interesting from it. Others may have other opinions and that’s fine. ---
**Author:** ![Weston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8797f3/32.png) [@Weston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weston)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008/60 "2011-11-06T02:06:34Z")
> [@Me](#): > > My suspicion, is that the only reason they haven’t done this, is because it would lead to a conversation they don’t want to have, whe Somehow, I accidentally deleted the end of this sentence. It should read: _“My suspicion, is that the only reason they haven’t done this, is because it would lead to a conversation they don’t want to have, where they have to justify the inclusion of Creed’s work at the expense of something else.”_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/like-stupid-and-pompous-idiots-who-try-to-define-and-limit-what-art-is/602008.md?page=4)