I don’t think anyone is going to succeed at creating an air-tight definition for art. In any case, I’m also certain you’re not going to argue it’s impossible for there to be art running on a CPU.
But if you want to call a CPU you made art in and of itself, go right ahead.
What this really amounts to is the co-opting of common, everyday words by a self-declared elite. For all the talk of “populism”, art and music are being redefined to be empty, meaningless concepts that are wholly unrelatable to the common man. They are being redefined in a massive circle-jerk where contentless statements are paraded merely for the ego gratification of the speaker.
Nonsense, through history there are more people who just want something decorative to fill the blank walls. Family portraits, pictures of flowers, scenes of daily life. Art is in general pretty vanilla. There are artists who like to push the envelope and spme people who are their fans, but the great mass of art has existed in plain vanilla form to decorate the walls in an innocuous manner.
beige, beige is good …
Another thought, outside of the edit window: of course one would not normally call a frame/container/etc. art in and of itself without something creative happening/framed/contained within it. And this would seemingly apply to a CPU as well. But you’re not going to be able to define an absolute boundary to distinguish the frame from the art within it, and to even try to pointless. After all, what if you hang an empty frame in a museum? The museum itself is also container for art.
Mostly, true. But, there have always been artists whose pushed boundaries, and they’ve probably always been the minority of artists. And the people who like it are also still probably in the minority. So what? It’s still art. Art doesn’t require a majority approval; that would be beyond stupid.
You stand on nothing but hot air.
And, don’t presume to speak for the “common man.” That’s actual pretentiousness.
How appropriate, you fight like a cow!
So would you prefer to actually detail how I’m wrong, or would you rather continue to insult-swordfight like the scurvy dog that you are?
ETA: If you want to live in Fantasy Land and believe that Joe Bloggs really digs a crumpled sheet of A4 paper, please, don’t let me interrupt your delusions
even sven, that last post was terrific, couldn’t let it pass without comment. This has been an interesting thread in general, sniping aside (not directing that at you).
My thought: Art is an interesting idea that requires some technique to find its expression. Sometimes the technique is exceedingly difficult to master, sometimes not. When I hear someone say, “anyone could do that” in reaction to someone else’s artistic expression, my response is, “But anyone didn’t. That guy did.” It’s the confluence of that guy’s artistic vision and his ability as a technician to express it; whether or not it’s interesting is a separate question. The fact that “my kid could have done that” doesn’t make it something other than art. We’re all artists inside our own heads, with poignant thoughts and emotions and reactions. But without some technique to translate it in a compelling way, it remains only our own vision.
By the same token, great technique without an interesting vision or execution is also unsatisfying. But my point is, I think there’s often a strong bias that to be a good artist, one must possess technique that the average person could not muster. Though I disagree, some people cannot get past that.
Technique without “artistic vision” is craftsmanship.
What is “artistic vision” without technique?
An unexpressed thought.
Hardly unexpressed.
or look for Marcel Duchamp’s “readymades”
True to a degree. I mean, Jackson Pollack had technique–it wasn’t conventional, but he was at least producing something that required a definable skill.
John Cage absolutely had skills as well, but 4’33" shows no indication of it. There is no technique on display, except for maybe the ability to provoke, which faeces-flinging monkeys display as well. It’s not exactly a well-honed skill.
So is 4’33" an unexpressed thought?
4’33" has tons of technique. It’s performance requires finding an audience, setting up a concert venue, placing the instrumentalists on stage, printing out sheet music, having a conductor control the entire sequence, etc. The entire operation is, in my opinion, very skillfully handled by the artist. Link.
If it’s expressed, it was via some technique. One that could perhaps be easily duplicated, but a technique nonetheless. I would say 4’33 is an artistic expression. Not one I find particularly compelling, but an expression. I Made French Toast For You’s link shows the way the expression manifested itself.
Umm… I didn’t say “modern art.” I said “conceptual art.” Do you have any evidence that conceptual art is popular?
But generally what they write about are showings at museums of modern art painted by dead people. They still promote various scam artists because they pretty much have to, or stop writing about art.
Also, I have a lit degree. You’re not going to convince me that the number of pages published on a subject correlates in any way to how esoteric it is.
“some technique” is not what was meant. When one speaks of artistic technique, it’s something that is learned, and cannot be easily duplicated.
For example, Pollock (whose art I dislike) had technique that could not be easily duplicated. People tried and failed. The 4’33" “technique” can be not just easily, but trivially, duplicated.
Oh, I am cut to the very quick. Your sharp wit is just too much for me. It must be your superior knowledge of art.
Through a combination of academic credentials, being born into the right class, and self-promotion, obviously. Perhaps you would like to point to some conceptual art that you really think is brilliant. I doubt it exists but I’d be glad to have my mind changed. So tell me, what’s good in conceptual art.
Well, that brings it back to an earlier point: it may be performance art, but it certainly isn’t music. I mean, neither the conductor nor the instrumentalists are required to have any musical talent–they may as well be actors who have never touched an instrument in their lives.
Honestly, having just watched it again, I go back and forth between finding it incredibly stupid and incredibly moving. Is it music? Not sure – there’s sheet music, instruments, professional musicians, sounds being made (albeit not by the instruments on stage)… Cage thinks that random sounds in the environment are music. You do not. I find that interesting, at least.
But I just wanted to point out that “technique” is found in all conceptual or performance art, even if it seems too “easy”.
