Not sure I’d know where to start. My brain is getting old and hurts too easily.
Mock me not! I have indeed been thinking much about evolution recently, although your question doesn’t interest me as much as it obviously should. I’m afraid I am something of a dinosaur myself. Last of a dying breed or some such. My 8 year-old believes animals evolved rather than were specially created, so at least she didn’t get the mutant gene.
Already done, fooling even music experts. Again, the question is “how can you say it is not art if you can’t tell the difference to something you definitely would call art?”.
Never my intention, my friend. But “progress” is most certainly what I got from hanging around this place for a while - I was merely inquiring if you’d experienced the same.
Producing art is an intentional act. I can’t tell the difference between some abstract art and the big blob on my kitchen floor caused by a broken mustard jar. One was intended to be art and represents something and the other as just an accident in the kitchen. I don’t care how abstract a piece of art is it represents something. In fact the very name “abstract” seems to suggest that it has some sort of meaning it’s just not being direct.
Marc
You are a newlywed man SentinentMeat. Would it matter a great deal to you if your wife didn’t love you but just was so good at pretending to love you, you couldn’t tell the difference?
This is just about the definition of a word. It’s not something I feel very strongly about. My previous definition in this thread included the highly subjective element of something meaning more than itself. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe art is something that is created the moment a conscious being sees something and only exists in the mind of the beholder. Maybe it’s all skill & techniques. I am pretty sure I would feel cheated if a piece of art I loved turned out to have been created by a unconscious machine ruled by inexorable mathematics.
Not that it makes much difference, but I notice that the computer program you mentioned could only mimic other artist’s style. Not create its own. Yah! Humans!
Yes, I appreciate that this is where you personally draw your line, Marc. My intention here was merely to explore other lines - this is by no means a ‘life or death’ proposition like some of the others, but interesting nonetheless.
Well, the equivalence is a little strained, but there would still be something called ‘love’ on my part regardless of the deception, just as I consider that the symphony’s audience experiences ‘art’ even if they have been deceived by a computer.
Again, if a human must create their own complete genre or style to be considered an artist, rather than produce works derivative of the style of another, then the number of ‘artists’ alive today might well fit in an elevator.
But suppose you LIKED the look of the blob on your kitchen floor. You shellaced the mustard to stiffen it, superglued the jar down, cut out the part of the linoleum (or tile or hardwood) where the whole mess rested, framed it, and stuck it on your wall.
I presume from your post that you wouldn’t do this sort of thing, but place yourself in the mindset of someone who would. Would anyone have the right to tell you it is not art?
They certainly would have that right though I might not agree.
Marc
I think the definition that included the word “beauty” captured the essence of it. The only way I know of to define art is by its effect on the observer. When you see art, you have an emotional response that leads you to think of it as beautiful–even if it isn’t attractive in the normal sense (I am thinking of art that is crap).
Intention does matter. Art is a way of communicating. When I try to create art, I am trying to communicate something to others, something that speaks of beauty–even if it speaks of beauty by demonstrating its opposite. When someone else “gets” the message, then I have created art. In the same way, if I log on here and type “a;dslkfjasd;flkjasdf;lkjad”, I may feel that I have created a message, but if no one else gets it, I have not communicated.
Different people appreciate different art. I have always sad that Rap music is not music, and if someone challenges me on it, I say it is not music to me: It does not have the effect on me that I want from music (neither does Jazz). However, that does not mean that it isn’t music to someone else. In fact, I believe that it is music to a lot of people; I’m just not one of them. In the case of Jazz, I think that I don’t “get” it because I lack a needed understanding of the technical aspects of music–it depends on a language that I don’t speak.
So, much of abstract art–Pollack is a good example–does nothing for me. To me, it is not art. However, there are quite a few people who believe that it is art and will pay great sums to own it. I have no problem with this, but I won’t pay any money for it (unless it were for the purpose of reselling it).
I don’t think there is even any reason to have this discussion without public funding of art. As I said, art is art because the observer thinks it is. If there are no observers who think it is art, then it isn’t. Public funding introduces the element of having one person pay to fund another person’s taste in art, which distorts the popular acclaim that would ordinarily define art. Historically, you were a great artist if people would outbid each other to own your art. If you couldn’t sell it, then you better find another way to make a living.
Given all this, to my mind anything that is created by humans in hopes of being recognized as art that is recognized as art by at least one other human is, in fact, art. Art that is believed to be art by a great many people is great art.
-VM
The comparison between painting and music is very tellling. Music, by its very nature, is abstract. The greatest piece of music you can imagine (whether symphonic or whatever) is not representative, and yet you would certainly say that it is art. Why does painting have a constraint on it that music doesn’t? Art is about the evocation of emotion in the observer. Whether that is accomplished thru representative means or non-representative means is immaterial.
I agree. Abstract art is just as much art as something more literal.
Marc
This question is silly. If you answer no, you simply show you are either: not educated in modern art, or you think that only things you like can be called art.
This question was settled circa 1920, if it is presented as art, then it is. Even if you did not make it. If you find it and think that it is art, then guess what? You just became an artist. Go present whatever you just found as art. Thank you, Mr. Duchamp, that was a smashing idea.
If you do not think that it is art, but someone has presented it to you as art. It is bad art, to you at least. Everyone is a critic, like it or not.
In short: the act of creation (even if it is just a change on how you view the object, you just created that thought about the object) is what makes something art. What it does to the viewer is what determines if it is good or bad art.
(on preview, I see Smartass kinda got this out already, I just cannot stop myself from hitting submit, I had something to say for once!)
There may be a lot more going on in abstract art than the majority of people consciously recognize. By pure coincidence I have here the Nov-Dec 2004 copy of American Scientist that addresses some of these issues and discusses some of the artists previously mentioned in this thread. The piece is available on-line as well.
As Zeki says later in the article, theories of aesthetics must ultimately be neurobiological (before the art buffs descend on me in a rage, I note that this statement does not rule out considerable vairation for appreciation of aesthetics). It’s very likely that some abstract artists stumbled upon concepts science has only recently begun to unlock.
To follow up on this and my previous post, think of a painting of a sunset.
At its heart, it is simply a collection of colored blobs (clouds) and lines (sunrays, horizon features). Because it represents something(s) familiar to us for which we have names, I doubt anyone would have a problem regarding it as art.
But take it out of the context of representing a sunset, and a set of colored blobs and lines considered as art is suddenly controversial. If you regard a sunset sky as simply a naturally occuring abstract expressionist painting, it’s not hard to see other such works as art.
Agree.
Art is something created by a deliberate act. Anything not deliberately done for a specific purpose while creating art detracts from its artistic value. There is no art without thought or consciousness, so art can come only from human beings.
At the same time, art is also a language. An artistic piece that communicates no thought or emotion from the artist to the observer is impossible.
Communication is nothing more than using symbols (like words or pictures or musical notes) to represent ideas or feelings. If an object represents nothing, it can’t possibly be communication or language, and can’t be used to convey meaning. If it conveys meaning and is useless for communication (because no part of it represents anything else), it is not art.
Much abstract art is done with deliberate communication in mind. I call this actual art. Other abstract art has no intentional communication from the artist, and therefore is art in name only, but not in fact.