John, you appear to be saying almost exactly the same things as me, that ‘art’ depends on the effect on the viewer irrespective of the creator, but ticking Agree where I did not.
If the snowflake, spider’s web or 4-year-old’s daub evokes something in the beholder, but the Mona Lisa does not, then the first three are “art” (representative of and created by the universe, spider or child) but the Mona Lisa is not, agreed?
Yes. That’s exactly what I was trying to say.
And I’d add that even the most abstract of art must represent “something” to the artist himself. Think of Jackson Pollack. I don’t claim to be an art expert, but doesn’t his art represent a process to him? It’s pure abstract art, but the viewer is drawn into it be relating to the energy (if you will) that went into creating it.
I got 10 out of 12, with my two errors being on the side of guessing they were art when they weren’t.
This mirrors my real take on art which is that it is completely subjective. If one half of the art pair (creator and viewer) sees something as art, it’s art. So number 7, which I called “art” and think of as art, is art.
(Number 10 I called art, but I just thought it was probably famous because I hated it.)
I’ve never understood such a black-and-white statement. Compare it to music. There are songs with clear lyrics and straightforward messages, and there are symphonies that have no meaning at all aside from the fact that they are beautiful.
I’ve seen many abstract paintings that I simply find beautiful to look at.
Ed
Actually, I like her work quite a lot. I was struck by her use of color the instant I saw the top picture. The colors she chooses and the interplay between them make her paintings both interesting and beautiful to look at, in my opinion…especially the second one.
Nor does prettiness in and of itself necessarily exclude a work from legitimacy as being art. Renoir himself famously said, “Why shouldn’t art be pretty? There is enough unpleasantness in the world.”
I prefer representational and/or impressionist art but I do like some abstract work and I would be quite happy to one of her paintings myself…especially one of the first two.
To be perfectly honest, I thin kit’s exactly the kind of gimmick some up-and-coming artist would use, then have the media fawning over it all with expressions like “Derbert Snerden’s ‘nothing’ series pushes back the boundaries of the acceptable and challenges conventions of value and tradition” or “Klomaas Jisbern’s ‘absence’ strips back the pretension of perception to it’s naked state; forcing us to turn our gaze inward” or some such utter wibble. The definition of ‘art’ is such that there is nothing that can be excluded as ‘not art’, neither can anything be demeaned as ‘bad art’.
This is the kind of question I don’t see any real reason to debate. The question is obviously just an extremely simple attempt by the Political Compass to have an easy “arch conservative” test question (of which there are several.)
It’s almost like they just put that question in because the people who crafted the test believe the conservative stereotypes that all cons hate art and anything that isn’t related to dollar signs. And that we wear three piece suits to fast food restaurants.
Anyways, I’m no art connoisseur, but there are certain artworks that I truly love. Titain is my favorite painter, and I like works in the same vein as his. Abstract art I don’t like at all, but it is art, and that’s really not up for much debat eimo.
The question doesn’t ask if abstract art is art. It asks whether or not abstract art that doesn’t represent anything is really art. I agree that abstract art is in fact art. Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with it’s status as art. If it has no meaning then it isn’t art, plain and simple. At least in my opinion.
Marc
Strongly Disagree.
Art Definition 2(a)
If the conservatives are bitching about liberals trying to change the definition of marriage, you’d think they’d be similarly outraged at those trying to change the definition of “art.” :rolleyes:
-4.15, -2.67
Totally agree. As I define it, the first rule in art is that it has to represent something.
The second rule in Art (with a capital “A”) is that it has to show that the artist has some sort of talent. And that talent is not, “Ha! I thought up calling a urinal a piece of art first!”
The third rule in art, it has to move you somehow. Again, that movement is not, “I can’t believe I just paid $12 in admission to see this crap!”
Put another way, art without rules is not art.
For example, commercials can be art. The rule (at least in America) is: tell me r show me something in 30 seconds. That might not be a complicated rule, but it’s rule enough.
While I might think that Picasso sucks, his work at least represents something and therefore is art.
As for Pollock and Rothko, no f-ing way. Mondrian’s lines and boxes? Are you kidding me?
As I’ve often told my wife, I think that this type of “art” should be referred to solely as “decorative art” and never simply as “art.” Lumped into this category would be various types of wallpaper, including the one with the trains or clowns you had as a kid. Is wallpaper art? If a Rothko is art, then why aren’t the walls of your office or cubicle art as well? “He thought of it first” is not a sufficient answer.
BTW, I’m glad to see that the compass got John Mace right! 
Not sure I understand-- are you saying that my score reflects what I think my beliefs are? I think lots of peple ended up pretty much where they expected to be.
Well, I nailed the quiz with 100% (well, actually 92%, but it turned out I’d misclicked one of the responses and got a “Skipped” instead of “Correct”). It was fairly easy to distinguish which were the “fake” pieces and which could be casually whipped up with a few minutes of computer time.
Strongly disagree with the question, incidentally. Art which symbolizes nothing but simply loks pretty is okey-dokey with me. “Art” and “pointless crap” are hardly contradictory, though. I’m inclined to use “art” in the same sense as “artifact”, meaning something deliberately created by a human. The definition is generic almost to the point of uselessness, I admit. Sue me.
Not quite - I’m saying your score reflects what I think your beliefs are! 
Based on what you’ve said in other threads.
Silly question, but I am interested in SM’s position on free will and determinism.
Well, as I said, I’d be surprised if this proposition had any horizontal “dollar signs” component at all, but you do appreciate that authoritarian governments have historically treated abstract art very differently to democratic or liberal governments, as those examples of Munch, Klee and Kandinsky in Germany and Malevich in the Soviet Union show?
So cubism is art but abstract expressionism is not? Well, OK, so long as you are comfortable with what seems to me an absurdly arbitrary threshold.
To avoid bifurcation, here’s a couple of other threads on that subject.
I looked at your first contribution in the first thread linked and pull my free will out of its mothballs to
…strongly disagree.
ie. your calculation outputs a different decision: as I said before to the free-will advocates, so be it. Start a thread, roger, and I’ll be happy to contribute. (Incidentally, any progress on your belief that humans, dinosaurs and trilobites co-existed?)
From The Real Frank Zappa Book (1988)
Sums up my feelings on the matter exactly. When you declare something to be art, it is art. You are inviting people to examine whatever exists within the frame as both a creation and a presentation, whether or not you are the initial creator or presenter.
You smear some paint on a canvas, put it in a frame, put it on the wall. It’s art. It may make everyone who sees it think they’re looking at a Madonna and child, or it may give some people one impression and others another and still others no impression at all, but that does not stop it from being art.
There are few things that reveal ignorance (at best) more than being a hard-liner about what is or is not art, what is or is not music, or whatever. There is no way the nature of art can be turned into a black/white, either/or issue. Anyone who thinks so is a moron. What is one person’s “garbage any child could do” is another man’s masterpiece. I’m not saying that there cannot be more or less universally agreed-upon standards; I’m saying it is impossible to draw anything like a clear line between art and non-art.
What one likes and dislikes, of course, is another story.
But then, I’m a fan of an art form that has always been essentially abstract–that frequently represents nothing in particular–and that is music.
Or, tell me exactly what the Prelude from the Suite #2 in d minor for solo cello, BWV 1008, by J.S.Bach is representive of…
Not realty. It’s just a matter of definition.
Orwell’s 1984 had a bit about a machine that could spew out those simple tunes for the proles. Modern pop music seems quite formalistic, perhaps a machine can be constructed that could make pop-hits. Perhaps a machine can be made that could produce Prelude from the Suite #2 in d minor for solo cello, by HAL. It would still be great music, but would it still be art? (and would you love it as much?) I guess I don’t have an answer anymore - but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t like it as much.