I see your point. I am talking about the definition of “Art I like” rather than art in general. Crappity, crap crap!
Lissener:
quote:
“From my experiences in “debating” with you, Scylla, I’ve come to expect that you will not very likely be debating in good faith: that you will latch onto an
issue (whose principles are not necessarily very important to you) merely because you happen to be in an argumentative mood, and you will go down
sputtering with the ship rather than allow yourself to participate in an honest exchange”
You have had how many debates with me? One? FYI I have quite a long history of debating on this board, and pride myself on admitting when I’ve beeb proven wrong. I can provide several cites if you like. Freedom of speech in all its forms is VERY important to me.
Your main problem seems to be that I disagreed with you. I’ve seen you do this in several other threads. If somebody disagrees with you, you accuse them. They are a bad debater, they’re prejudice, they’re idiots, they’re assholes, they don’t understand your experience, etc., etc. You do this quite a bit.
I see your art as accounting definition to be lacking. You can insult me and drag in past debates all you like, but it’s still a cheesy and unsatisfactory definition. It doesn’t work. C’mon, lighten up and have a smiley
But…is this art? I just went to the exhibit, well actually, I’ve been twice already. This is an interesting debate in my mind. In many senses I would call it art, but then I’d be forced to refer to the design of the Imac or the Beetle as art. So I refer to it as a design exhibt. But, then it calls into question if some of my favorite artists can be called artists? Is Sol Lewitt simply a very talented graphic designer? Arrrrgh. And then I think that the dilema it causes in my mind makes it art. An Imac never forces me to ponder the nature of art. But, do theses shoes cause others to ponder this? Is it art for me and design for others? Does this mean that no definition of art can be reached? Then I go and have a few beers and start thinking about simpler things.
What do others think.
“Art is why I get up in the morning
but my definition ends there…” --Ani DiFranco
This I totally disagree with. Good art can lead you subtly, or it can grab you by the balls and drag you, or it can challenge you to follow it, or it can even push you away.
I look at those who separate “art” from “not art” the same way I look at those who won’t listen to a band unless they know “what kind of music they are”–rock, alternative, jazz, etc. Drawing such stark lines between the categories makes it easy to write off those who don’t fit into one. If you refuse to consider something as “art” unless it meets a previous definition of “art”, you’re missing out on a lot.
But damnit. Don’t you know that everything after cave paintings and the occasional sculpted clay isn’t art. It’s, it’s… crafts…yeah that’s it. We have art (cave paintings, and sculpted clay) and crafts (those things by Monet, etc).
This reminded me of a good exhibit I saw at the deYoung. It was done by and artist, and exhibition curator. He took 18th and 19th century english utiulity objects, and displayed them as one would African or other indigenous objects. i.e. Completely out of context, stripped of their functionality, often displayed wrong, with his assumptions of what they must mean. It was quite enlightening.
Clearly I’m getting myself in trouble by tring to define art itself. (Thanks a lot Gaudere)
I’m perfectly willing to go with: “If it works for you, then it’s art.”
There are lots of things that to mind don’t qualify as “art,” but are nevertheless clever, or entertaining. I see the urinal on the wall as the latter.
THe more I read it the more I want to backpedal and go with Gaudere’s quote:
“Art is the perception that a thing is intended to be more than its component parts or its bare utilitarian value created by a
consciousness for an aesthetic or emotive purpose.”
Both of these are valid definitions of art. The artistic process depends on extracting meaning (hopefully) from the world and placing it into another or new context. I believe Gaudere’s quote is refering to the Gestalt aspect of the artistic process. Isn’t it funny how having to articulate a concept so often crystallizes it much better than just thought? It’s why I enjoy being on these boards.
It’s interesting and I think extremely relevant to art’s essential indefinability that Gaudere’s understanding of art feels as right to me as my own, though they don’t really overlap. The way I’ve always tried to describe what art is has been from the perspective of the artist–the process–and Gaudere’s is from the perspective of the one who experiences the art–the perception.
I think Gaudere’s approach comes closer to addressing the question at hand, which concerns itself with judging whether a given work, in this example pissing into “The Fountain,” is art.
As a work of art crosses the artist/viewer barrier, it doesn’t change, but it is of course two entirely different things to the two consciousnesses involved in the exchange.
. . . But that doesn’t mean it’s not art. “Artistic content” doesn’t come into it: you’re still talking about your subjective judgement of where it belongs along your own good art<--------------->bad art continuum.
By pointing out that it’s your own subjective judgment I’m not suggesting that this is any less valid a discussion, only that this is distinct from a discussion of whether is is art.
And what does it mean to ask if it “stands on its own as art”? I don’t see that this is relevant. Art does not have to exist without context.
“And what does it mean to ask if it “stands on its own as art”? I don’t see that this is relevant. Art does not have to exist without context.”
No I agree, but in this case if you take away the context there is very little left to consider as art.
Does it work as an inside joke? Yes.
As a statement? Yup
As irony? sure.
As an original piece of artwork? Not so much.
which is what makes it a poor piece IMHO.
On a seperate note, I also need to admit that after looking at Gaudere’s JESUS PISS link, that is not the work I thought was being referred to.
I remember a similar photo that was simply a crucifix in a bucket of urine. I thought that was what was being referred to. That’s where I got that dichotomy of religion stuff. The Serrano photo is pretty nice.
I think you can call pissing in the Fountain “art” if you consider that much of art is about rebellion, often against the constraints of traditional art. Duchamp did a very similar thing when he painted a moustache on the Mona Lisa. Fortunately, he didn’t feel the need to paint one on the actual Da Vinci work, just a representation.
I can’t say I’m any too keen about an art form that promotes vandalism against other works of art - that seems to be taking “deconstruction” a mite too literally.
Um, couldn’t we say that art is in the eye beholder?
If I like it, it’s art to ME. If I don’t like it, who gives a shit.
I think I can explain why CAtholics get so steamed about stuff like this:
As for the Mary portrait: to Catholics, Mary is not just the mother of Christ, but the mother of us all. Jesus bequeathed her to us when he was on the cross, and it’s not so much that Catholics are Mary-worshippers, it is more that to us, Mary is our mother too. It is if it were a portrait of our own mother. (that’s why SOME, not ALL Catholics become upset.) Personally, to me, I don’t care either way. If I don’t like it, I simply don’t have to look at it, problem solved.
So I like my pre-Raphaelites done by John Waterhouse. That is art to ME. The following links are my two favorite paintings:
Ophelia: http://www.jwwaterhouse.com/paintings/ophelia_02.jpg
I’ve missed a bit of the discussion, but I wanted to explain to oldscratch my understanding of what we consider “art” versus “craft”, to hopefully explain how a pair of shoes can be “art”. Remember when I mentioned my thought that the essential nature of art is that it was useless? The reason we generally don’t see shoes or cars or forks as “art” is because they have a utilitarian purpose. However, they are not purely utilitarian, and that’s where the “art” is. After all, a car could just be a metal box on wheels if we want pure functionality, or a plain “cheese-wedge” look if you take aerodynamics into account. But we add a bunch of “useless” metal and paint and leather to create aesthetic and emotional impact; that’s the art. The “art” of cars does have a message: Volvos say “I am conservative and solid”, Miatas say “I am sexy and agile”, Land Rovers say “I am strong and rugged”. Heck, many artists would be hard-put to make a piece of art that speaks as clearly and aesthetically as a good car design. And I think some motorcycles are some of the most beautiful pieces of modern art that I’ve ever seen. However, people generally don’t see these cars or motorcyles as art because they’re functional too, while if they were just big metal sculptures they’d be readily accepted as art. There is a very strong bias that art must be non-functional, and to a certain degree I agree with it; it’s in the “unnecessary” parts of objects, added in simply for aestethic or emotional impact, that the “art” lives. This is why a painting (which is pretty much completely lacking in utilitarian function) is seen as “art” while a beautiful car (which has a great deal of art in it, but is also functional) is seen as “mere” product design. The part that is art is the part that we see as existing for sheerly artistic or emotional appeal, rather than utilitarian value.
With very useful objects we feel uneasy calling them “art”–anything that is both useful and artistic we tend to call “craft”: pottery, architechture, product design, weaving, clothing, etc. This also probably explains why artists who make money are often seen as “commerical” and less of artists than so-called “starving artists”; if your art makes you money, it is useful, so we we have a little niggling feeling that it’s not really as “arty” as art that is no use at all besides its emotional and aesthetic impact. Now, I personally don’t bother much with the “art” v. “craft/design” distinction; “craft” is simply “a piece of art that also has a useful purpose in addition to its ‘useless’ art”. But generally, the more un-utilitarian a thing is, the more likely people are to consider it art.
It’s clear from your implied agreement of (at least, your failure to contest) Gaudere’s elegant contradiction to your statement that it’s “silly . . . to try to make art about art” that you understand the value of context. (What is the artistic value of the poem Gaudere quoted without the context of poetry?)
But my far more general suggestion that context is not necessarily an evil in itself inspires a thin contradiction from you, that if you strip away the context you devalue the art that relies on it. This is oxymoronic in that it implies at the same time:
A) art that depends upon a particular context is somehow “lower in artistic content” and
I certainly agree with this, but wish it weren’t the case.
I haven’t really ever attempted to explain (or even understand) why, but I think I may be even more fascinated by the applied arts (architecture, advertising, etc.) than the pure arts (painting, sculpture, etc.). There are several points here, none of them any more central to why I feel this way than then next.[ul][li]I have a kind of respect for the artists who makes something “real” (i.e., useful) with their art, while I find that I often see “pure” artists as more self-indulgent (ditch diggers vs. navel gazers).[/li][li]The “art” inherent in a car design or a print ad is usually not the primary conscious goal of the artist, and is therefore often sublimated to the explicit concerns of the “craftsman.” I’m not sure why, but this interests me.[/li]The vocabulary of “craft” is shared by pretty much any conscious member of a culture, and is not the exclusive province of a rarified Artist caste.[/ul]I suppose this may just be my having come of artistic age during the postmodern era, when the perceived boundaries between art and craft were intentionally blurred or even turned about. But I find I’m much more impressed by art that ignores or subverts that boundary than by art that carefully stays clear of it.
I concur lissener, applied art / industrial design has always fascinated me with the ability to merge art and utility. When Ettore Buggatti was confronted about the extreme ornamentation in his car engines and designs, he retorted, "Function follows form!
I also am very interested with applied arts, lissener, although my talent primarily lies in painting and a certain slapdash freedom that works well with paint but thwarts the kind of painstaking care necessary for truly exceptional crafts-work. Still, when I was in art school I would work until 2 am on the pottery wheel, simply because actually creating a thing you can use was fascinating to me. Even just making the frames and stretching the canvas for my paintings gives me much more satisfaction than simply buying the pre-made canvases. I still have a definite bent towards the practical; I tend to eschew the trendy, arty aspects of design and prefer clear, classic layout and typography. I got turned down for a job by a hip design company once, but it was probably for the best; I was flabbergasted by their brochure, which was “distressed” metallic type on dark gray paper (well-nigh unreadable), and their business cards were in honest-to-god 4 point type! (I wondered if they were trying to limit their pool of potential clients to 20-somethings with excellent eyesight, since no one else could possibly read their stuff! Although in all honesty, they’re excellent designers; they just seemed to value “art” over actual utility, which is anathema to me when I am creating something with the express mission of communication. Their brochure/cards certainly said by their design “we’re a trendy, cool design company”–which is good since you couldn’t hardly read any of the text! )
)