# Pretentious art crap **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 18, 2004, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086 "2004-01-18T10:12:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![moi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@moi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/101 "2004-01-30T04:03:25Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > Well, Kinkade is sort of like macaroni and cheese covered in maple syrup. I really wish there was a “snarf” emoticon for this very moment. 😃 While I don’t believe exactly as **Miller** does, your suggesting that his point then renders museums and galleries into “meaningless wastes of space, money and effort” doesn’t follow. If the exchange is the point when art happens, museums are the forum for that experience. Yae or nae? ---
**Author:** ![Beauty\_Personified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e480ec/32.png) [@Beauty\_Personified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beauty_Personified)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/102 "2004-01-30T04:19:48Z")
**Left Hand of Dorkness** , I’d like your reaction, and of course, anyone else’s, to [this painting.](http://www.novica.com/pictures/10/p79619_2.jpg) Is it good art? Heck, is it art? If so, why? I’d also ask anyone who might happen to recognize the artist not to say anything so that everyone can get a chance to respond. [/QUOTE] A beautiful piece, IMO. A lot of modern art really comes off as pretentious to me, even if I know nothing about the artist. (And, most of the time, I do no nothing about the artist of a piece. I simply look at it, and if I think it looks good, well, I can say I like it. I rarely ever think about whether it’s “art” or not.) That said, I sense no pretentions whatsover from this piece. ---
**Author:** ![Cryhavoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@Cryhavoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cryhavoc)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/103 "2004-01-30T04:35:00Z")
…they “don’t get it,” because they’re outside the privileged circle of understanding. Hamish Sometimes art is like a foreign language. It is no less valid because one does not understand it. It has to be learned to be appreciated. To fully appreciate Roman and Greek architecture, you have to understand why the different types of columns were used. To fully appreciate M.C. Escher, you have to see beyond the surface beauty and technical skill and understand the mathematical properties involved. It is not necessary that everyone understand every piece of art nor that they even like every piece of art. However, somethings do have intrinsic value even if we don’t like them. These arguments go with any art form. For example, I respect the skill and talent of DooWop singers. I just can’t stand the sound. All of this being said, I will admit that there is bogus art out there. The ‘artist’ had nothing more to say than ‘I will work for money.’ They have prostituted their time and talents. ---
**Author:** ![Beauty\_Personified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e480ec/32.png) [@Beauty\_Personified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beauty_Personified)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/104 "2004-01-30T04:49:31Z")
Cryhavoc: \>\> To fully appreciate M.C. Escher, you have to see beyond the surface beauty and technical skill and understand the mathematical properties involved. \<\< I do not enjoy math. If someone attempted to explain to me the mathematical properties behind an Escher piece, it might just turn me off, and leave me with less appreciation for the piece than I had before. Despite being ignorant of the math props, I will look at a piece and if I like it, I like it. ---
**Author:** ![Cryhavoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@Cryhavoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cryhavoc)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/105 "2004-01-30T05:00:34Z")
I also think they overcharge for crap. Materials and time, that’s what they should charge, not ‘what the market can bear’. GuanoLad Do you turn down raises because they are going to pay you more than ‘materials and time?’ Should we all be paid the same amount because we all have only 24 hours in a day? In capitalism we are all pretty much paid what the market will bear. The president of Disney is paid more than one of the ‘Mickey Mouses’ because his services are perceived to be of more value. Some musicians, athletes or actors make more money than other musicians, athletes or actors because of the level of their skills. Also, because they bring in more money for the teams and/or the media. Artists have no obligation to turn down a comfortable standard of living. Most never get the chance to accept a comfortable standard of living through their art. They have everyday jobs like the rest of us. Their art is either a way to supplement their income or to fulfill a personal need to express themselves. Socialism and communism would be the way to keep everyone from being paid more than ‘materials and time.’ ---
**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:** [January 30, 2004, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/106 "2004-01-30T06:35:00Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > Once again, assuming this to be true, the inevitable conclusion is that museums, artists, galleries and, indeed, art history are meaningless wastes of space, money and effort. Since art, in your world view, is created by the audience, not the artist, art museums – and the artists whose work fills them – are just a complex scam perpetrated on a gullible public. In effect, the museums trick people into interpreting random collections of stuff as art, therefore, the public experiences it as art. Come to think of it, this _does_ pretty accurately describe some museums and galleries I’ve seen. Nonetheless this probably says more about human nature than it does about art theory. You are, as you are probably aware, taking an extreme deconstructionist position here. Okay, didja miss the part where I said that some art is better than other art? Museums are useful because they are a convenient place to see a high number of works considered to be good in either the popular or the critical consensus. You should be careful jumping to conclusions like that. You could strain something. > [@](#): > > **Left Hand of Dorkness** , I’d like your reaction, and of course, anyone else’s, to [this painting.](http://www.novica.com/pictures/10/p79619_2.jpg) Is it good art? Heck, is it art? If so, why? I’d also ask anyone who might happen to recognize the artist not to say anything so that everyone can get a chance to respond. Abstract painting isn’t really my bag. Looks okay to me, though. Nothing thrilling about it. I wouldn’t buy a print. Who’s the artist? Is it that orangutan **Baker** was talking about? ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/107 "2004-01-30T07:16:17Z")
> [@Cryhavoc](#): > > Do you turn down raises because they are going to pay you more than ‘materials and time?’ Should we all be paid the same amount because we all have only 24 hours in a day? Yes, and yes. For the former, I got my raise anyway because they insisted, and for the latter that’s clearly not the way this end of the world works. Doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with it, though. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/108 "2004-01-30T14:19:39Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > **Left Hand of Dorkness** , I’d like your reaction, and of course, anyone else’s, to [this painting.](http://www.novica.com/pictures/10/p79619_2.jpg) Is it good art? Heck, is it art? If so, why? I’d also ask anyone who might happen to recognize the artist not to say anything so that everyone can get a chance to respond. I’m almost certain it’s art, though not necessarily in the way you’re asking. Check the two criteria: 1. Did someone manipulate materials? Undoubtedly yes. I don’t know necessarily whether a person applied paint to paper/canvas; for all I know, an orangutan did that. However, someone did photograph the canvas, digitize the photo, and make it into a website; criteria 1 is fulfilled. 2. Did the manipulator intend to create art? Again, I don’t know whether the paint on canvas was intended as art; if it was an accident in an art studio, it may not have qualified. However, in that case, the photographer/digitizer/etc. intended to turn it into art, almost certainly. (Devoid of context, I can’t be sure of this point; this may be a demonstration of the qualities of various paints when overlapped, not intended to have aesthetic value, in which case it wouldn’t match the definition I use. I doubt it, though). So yes, lacking surprising information, it fits my definition. Is it **good** art? That, I’ve got to judge by different standards, which are for me wholly subjective. Earlier I mentioned that I’m not particularly moved by visual art very often. Had you asked me to judge a muffin, a novel, a speech, I’d be much more in my element, and could offer a detailed critique of why I thought something was good or not. This? You’re not going to get a very smart answer from me. All I can say is that I kinda like it; it reminds me of a pushme pullyou, or perhaps an ostrich running east as a gazelle runs left. If it was done by a monkey, it’s remarkable, inasmuch as it does seem almost representational in a way that I didn’t think nonhumans made art. I get a strong sense of motion from it; I doubt it was accidental, and I think the artist probably had some fun doing it. So I kinda like it, which means that I’d consider it pretty good art. Of course, I kinda liked the chair, too, and I don’t particularly like the Mona Lisa. So I don’t have any claim to hifalutin visual art standards. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/109 "2004-01-31T04:05:32Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > \*\*I’m almost certain it’s art, though not necessarily in the way you’re asking. Check the two criteria: > > 1. Did someone manipulate materials? Undoubtedly yes. I don’t know necessarily whether a person applied paint to paper/canvas; for all I know, an orangutan did that. However, someone did photograph the canvas, digitize the photo, and make it into a website; criteria 1 is fulfilled. > 2. Did the manipulator intend to create art? Again, I don’t know whether the paint on canvas was intended as art; if it was an accident in an art studio, it may not have qualified. However, in that case, the photographer/digitizer/etc. intended to turn it into art, almost certainly. (Devoid of context, I can’t be sure of this point; this may be a demonstration of the qualities of various paints when overlapped, not intended to have aesthetic value, in which case it wouldn’t match the definition I use. I doubt it, though). \*\* Come now. I was obviously asking you to consider the piece itself, not the web page. In any case, the web page is not “art” even under your expansive definition. When someone attempts to make as perfect a replica as possible, surely, you do not contend that they are creating art? Reproducing art, perhaps, but not creating it. Otherwise, my scanner qualifies as the world’s greatest artist. Your definition, by the way, > [@](#): > > Suggested definition of art: material to which a person has made changes in an effort to turn it into art. is almost precisely the opposite of Miller’s, even though he likes it. You think that the artist intent controls. He thinks that the artist’s intent is completely irrelevant. More specifically, your definition is self-referential and therefore, largely useless. Your definition might be useful as part of the definition of an _artist_ but it tells us nothing about what art itself is. > [@originally posted by Miller](#): > > \*\*You should be careful jumping to conclusions like that. You could strain something. \*\* Not a bit. For you, all art is completely subjective. Nothing of the artist’s intent survives in the art work. There is, therefore, no point in having artists, since any object can be art. Why commission an expensive installation from a famous artist when any random pile of junk might do as well? The goodness or badness of the work, after all, depends on the subjective tastes of the viewer, not on anything put into the work by the artist. The trick, in your world view, is to get people to interpret something as “art,” rather than as a pile of rubbish. (Once they do, then, if they like it, it is good “art.” If they don’t, it’s bad “art.”) The best way to do this is to place the pile of rubbish in a museum rather than out by the curb. People expect to see “art” in museums and they see what they expect to see. By the same token, what is the point of having a critical consensus about art? Since art is an entirely subjective interpretation by the viewer, what meaningful “critical consensus” could possibly exist? You might as well have a “critical consensus” on whether chocolate ice cream is “better” ice cream than vanilla ice cream. If your theory is correct, then all art commentary is essentially an endless MPSIMS thread. Maybe it is . . . ---
**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:** [January 31, 2004, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/110 "2004-01-31T04:47:02Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > Come now. I was obviously asking you to consider the piece itself, not the web page. In any case, the web page is not “art” even under your expansive definition. When someone attempts to make as perfect a replica as possible, surely, you do not contend that they are creating art? Reproducing art, perhaps, but not creating it. Otherwise, my scanner qualifies as the world’s greatest artist. I think **Dorkness** ’s point was, whatever the intent of the person who painted the original, whoever took the time to scan it onto the web obviously intended it to be seen as art. At which point, under **Dorkness** ’s definition of art, it _becomes_ art, regardless of what it might have been before. > [@](#): > > Not a bit. For you, all art is completely subjective. Nothing of the artist’s intent survives in the art work. There is, therefore, no point in having artists, since any object can be art. Why commission an expensive installation from a famous artist when any random pile of junk might do as well? The goodness or badness of the work, after all, depends on the subjective tastes of the viewer, not on anything put into the work by the artist. Not at all. Quite a bit of the artist’s intent might survive. The artist’s intent might be translated prefectly clearly to anyone who looks at it. The better the artist, the more likely this is to happen. But when you observe a piece of art, the point isn’t to try to guess what the artist was trying to say, it’s to determine what the piece itself actually says. > [@](#): > > The trick, in your world view, is to get people to interpret something as “art,” rather than as a pile of rubbish. (Once they do, then, if they like it, it is good “art.” If they don’t, it’s bad “art.”) The best way to do this is to place the pile of rubbish in a museum rather than out by the curb. People expect to see “art” in museums and they see what they expect to see. The “trick” is to put a new idea out there in a new way, and see if and how anyone responds to it. It’s not about fooling people, it’s about seeing what works, and trying to refine that element as purely as possible. This is where minimalism comes in: how much effect can you get with the least amount of artifice. That’s what the chair is all about. I’m not arguing that all art should be like that. I think art should be defined as broadly as possible to allow as much variety as possible. If everything in a museum was a busted down chair, it’d be a crappy museum. But it’d also be a crappy museum if all it had was paintings of bowls of fruit. > [@](#): > > By the same token, what is the point of having a critical consensus about art? Since art is an entirely subjective interpretation by the viewer, what meaningful “critical consensus” could possibly exist? You might as well have a “critical consensus” on whether chocolate ice cream is “better” ice cream than vanilla ice cream. If your theory is correct, then all art commentary is essentially an endless MPSIMS thread. Maybe it is . . . Because it’s interesting to know what other people think. It’s interesting to understand why other people like art you like, or especially art you don’t like, because it gives you a wider view of the world and teaches you different ways of looking at things. It could even teach you to appreciate a work of art you previously didn’t see anything in. A critical consensus, or just critics in general, aren’t important in the sense of telling us what’s good and what’s bad, but in that listening to other people’s opinions can guide us to art that we might enjoy, and avoid art we probably wouldn’t. I haven’t seen _Freddy Got Fingered_, but I can safely assume that I won’t like it, because apparently no one else on the entire planet liked it. There’s a chance that this movie will be perfectly suited to my sensibilities and I’m missing out on a film that has the potential to be the best movie I’ve ever seen. But probably not. Instead, I’ll watch _Citizen Kane_. Everyone says this is a good movie, so there’s a good chance I’ll like it. But if it turns out that I like _Freddy Got Fingered_ and hate _Citizen Kane_, that’s still not a “wrong” opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Cryhavoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@Cryhavoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cryhavoc)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2004, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/111 "2004-01-31T06:04:59Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > Yes, and yes. For the former, I got my raise anyway because they insisted, and for the latter that’s clearly not the way this end of the world works. Doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with it, though. It sounds more like you really object to capitalism more than to the subjective nature of the value of art. The way of the world is that items or services are worth what the market will bear. It is not always fair. There are talentless hacks who make a great deal of money in all fields of industry and art. The there are people who have studied and enhanced skills who can’t make a living: for example, the computer techs., architechs, and accountants who have lost their jobs to cheaper sources of labor overseas. Would you agree that an artist who has studied and enhanced his/her skills over time, might just deserve to be paid a bit more than ‘time and materials’ as they have already put in years to reach the current skill level? ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/112 "2004-02-01T00:28:28Z")
No, I think I was simplifying the issue too much. I don’t have any problem with artists being paid what they’re worth. I don’t like ‘Art as Investment’. The people who buy art so that they will be able to sell it later for a profit are not people who appreciate art - they’re just in it for the buck. The subjective nature of how the artist decides what their art is worth is then influenced by this ‘Art as Investment’ precedent, which messes everything up. It just seems wrong to me. ---
**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:** [February 1, 2004, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/113 "2004-02-01T00:46:52Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > No, I think I was simplifying the issue too much. > > I don’t have any problem with artists being paid what they’re worth. I don’t like ‘Art as Investment’. The people who buy art so that they will be able to sell it later for a profit are not people who appreciate art - they’re just in it for the buck. > > The subjective nature of how the artist decides what their art is worth is then influenced by this ‘Art as Investment’ precedent, which messes everything up. It just seems wrong to me. I get what you’re saying, kinda. Not sure how this messes up anything else in the art world, though, unless you’re an art lover on a budget. How does this impact the Joe Average museum goer who never plans to buy an original work of art? ---
**Author:** ![Cryhavoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@Cryhavoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cryhavoc)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/114 "2004-02-01T05:05:46Z")
> [@TOTBP](#): > > Cryhavoc: > \>\> To fully appreciate M.C. Escher, you have to see beyond the surface beauty and technical skill and understand the mathematical properties involved. \<\< > > I do not enjoy math. If someone attempted to explain to me the mathematical properties behind an Escher piece, it might just turn me off, and leave me with less appreciation for the piece than I had before. Despite being ignorant of the math props, I will look at a piece and if I like it, I like it. I, also, do not enjoy math. However, a short, simple explanation of the math behind Escher’s work gave it a greater depth for me. It helped me to see that there was more to it than trippy looking prints. Somethings are pleasant to look at because of the nature of the item, others because of the skill and proficiency of the creator. I agree that you do not have to know the background of every work that you see to appreciate them. What I am trying to say is that there are reasons that a VanGogh or Monet is better than an Elvis on velvet or Kinkade, and sometimes knowing the reasons can bring more appreciation. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/115 "2004-02-01T06:46:00Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I get what you’re saying, kinda. Not sure how this messes up anything else in the art world, though, unless you’re an art lover on a budget. How does this impact the Joe Average museum goer who never plans to buy an original work of art? It doesn’t, I don’t think. Except laterally. That’s not really my provblem with it. As I said, people can like whatever they want to like, and the diverse kinds of art available is a good thing for that. To bring it back to the OP, in my mind this ‘Art as Investment’ phenomenon motivates some artists to try and create art that will be “appreciated” by the art snobs so that it will result in more money for their work, money that isn’t really due them for their skills and talents, but just by how they can superficially fulfil the expectations of what the pretentious snobs subliminally dictate. I’m not really explaining it well, I’m starting to sound as verbose as those I’m decrying, but I hope you can see how I think it’s corrupted some aspects of art, and why it bothers me. ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/116 "2004-02-02T16:36:29Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m glad you’re amused, but I’m afraid that this “chain of thought” bears no actual resemblence to anything I’ve said in this thread: > > **1. Art doesn’t exist.** > I never said that. In fact, I have been saying almost exactly the opposite. From post #66 Truth Seeker - ‘The end result is that if everything is “art” then nothing is “art.”’ Miller - ‘Yes, that’s exactly right.’ So your position seems to be that nothing is art but art exists. I you would like to spin the above in some other way I’m all ears. > [@Miller](#): > > **2. Artists don’t exist.** > I never said that, either. I said they’re irrelevent, insofar as judging the relative merits of any work of art should be done entirely by the merits of the work, not the merits of the artist. See above. If art doesn’t exist then there are no artists. You have also conceeded that the artist is irrelevant and need have neither skill or talant. > [@Miller](#): > > **3. Here is my definition of what constitutes art.** > I have not provided my definition of what constitutes art. Or rather, the only definition I have used has been purposely so broad as to be useless. So your position is that the definition you haven’t offered is overly broad. > [@Miller](#): > > **4. Here is my definition of who should be considered an artist.** > I’ve never said anything about who is and who is not an artist. A quote from another of your posts: “the artist doesn’t matter. Art doesn’t happen during the process of creation, it happens in the intellectual exchange between the work and the audience. How the artist created the work, and more importantly, what the artist intended the work to say, are entirely unimportant” I would say that this is a pretty explicit definition of what constitues an artist in your lexican. > [@Miller](#): > > Since I never said art doesn’t exsist, I never said that artists don’t exsist, and I never provided a list of what is required to be an artist, really, all I can say in reply to this paragraph is that the word you’re looking for is “defuse,” not “diffuse.” Well, no, actually it isn’t. I used precisly the word I intended. Maybe you could look it up. > [@Miller](#): > > I hate to be pendantic\*, but if I’m going to be “internally consistent,” wouldn’t that require that I _not_ continue to argue my points that you claim have up until now been contradictory? It’s a bit like saying, “If you’re going to keep killing people, at least stop commiting murder!” I thought I was being fairly clear there but let me try it again. “Your points” is, in this case, a collective noun encompasing all of your arguments on this issue. If you are to continue arguing on this issue you should reexamine what you have included in this collection and be certain that each element is consistant will all the others. As an example, you might recosider agreeing that art doesn’t exist but demanding your definition of it be accepted. ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/117 "2004-02-02T16:48:28Z")
Miller, I posted the above before I read the rest of the thread. Could you please make a short statement of what exactly your ideas are on this issue? The ideas you share in the last posts you put up have absolutely no relationship to the ideas you have been stating for the rest of the thread. You have come down on so many different sides of this discussion that we would need to move into the realm of extradimentional space to plot the impacts. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086/118 "2004-02-02T23:26:00Z")
> [@Degrance](#): > > From post #66 > > Truth Seeker - ‘The end result is that if everything is “art” then nothing is “art.”’ > > Miller - 'Yes, that’s exactly right. > > So your position seems to be that nothing is art but art exists. I you would like to spin the above in some other way I’m all ears. That is absolutely not what I said, and is a gross misstatement of the exchange. Let’s look at both quotes, in full: > [@Truth Seeker](#): > > The problem with this is that in your lexicon, the word “art” has no meaning. More specifically, by saying everthing is “art,” you are also saying that nothing is “not art.” Therefore, the sentence “This is art.” has precisely the same meaning as the sentence “This is.” The end result is that if everything is “art” then nothing is “art.” There is just as much art in the Louvre as there is in a Piggly-Wiggly. > [@Your's Truly](#): > > Yes, that’s exactly right. Arguments about what is and what is not art are meaningless. The only discussions that matter are, “Do you like this piece of art?” and “Why?” I was agreeing that the word “art” has no meaning, not that art does not exsist. I say that art has no meaning, because at that time, I had not yet seen a definition of art that didn’t exclude any number of works that I felt were definately art. **Left Hand of Dorkness** ’s post, which appeared immediately prior to mine, contains a definition that is somewhat tighter than mine, but still broad enough to be largely non-functional. The difference between “Everything is art” and “Everything that is called art is art” is not particularly vast, and neither is vert helpful for going into a museum and figuring out what in there counts as art, and what doesn’t. More on this later. FWIW, I was also agreeing that the local Piggly Wiggly\* has as much art as the Louvre. At least in terms of weight, if not necessarily quality. I was in no way saying that art doesn’t exsist. > [@Degrance](#): > > See above. If art doesn’t exist then there are no artists. You have also conceeded that the artist is irrelevant and need have neither skill or talent. I could have stated that better, and indeed, I later expressed the same concept in a way more closely mirroring my intent, although without expressly linking the two sentiments. What I was trying to get at when I said the artist is irrelevent was that, as an audience judging a work of art, the intent of the artist or the processes he used to create that work are not relevent to judging the worth of the work itself. I was trying to get away from definitions of art that rely on effort or skill, neither of which are quantifiable or necessarily identifiable. > [@](#): > > So your position is that the definition you haven’t offered is overly broad. Yes, that is my position. My definition was so broad that it doesn’t serve as a definition. This was deliberate, because I don’t think defining art is a useful or desirable goal. I liked **Left Hand** ’s definition because it’s easier to defend, but no more useful than mine. I’ll probably use it in any future debates of this nature in which I find myself. > [@](#): > > A quote from another of your posts: > > “the artist doesn’t matter. Art doesn’t happen during the process of creation, it happens in the intellectual exchange between the work and the audience. How the artist created the work, and more importantly, what the artist intended the work to say, are entirely unimportant” > > I would say that this is a pretty explicit definition of what constitues an artist in your lexican. No, actually that would be my definition of an audience. > [@](#): > > Well, no, actually it isn’t. I used precisly the word I intended. Maybe you could look it up. I stand corrected, although I’m not sure how the word “diffuse” makes sense in that context. Not really a point worth pursuing, though. > [@](#): > > I thought I was being fairly clear there but let me try it again. “Your points” is, in this case, a collective noun encompasing all of your arguments on this issue. If you are to continue arguing on this issue you should reexamine what you have included in this collection and be certain that each element is consistant will all the others. As an example, you might recosider agreeing that art doesn’t exist but demanding your definition of it be accepted. I don’t think I’m “demanding” that my position be accepted any more than anyone else in this thread. I’m merely presenting my thoughts on the subject. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me: I assume that anyone who’s still in the debate at this point is just as dedicated to their viewpoint as I am to mine. I certainly don’t expect to “win” this debate. I don’t think that’s even possible in the first place, as that would imply that there is an objectively correct answer to the question. As I’ve maintained throughout this thread, art is entirely subjective. > [@](#): > > Could you please make a short statement of what exactly your ideas are on this issue? The ideas you share in the last posts you put up have absolutely no relationship to the ideas you have been stating for the rest of the thread. You have come down on so many different sides of this discussion that we would need to move into the realm of extradimentional space to plot the impacts. I’m assuming by “last post” you mean the one where I said: > [@Your's Truly](#): > > The “trick” is to put a new idea out there in a new way, and see if and how anyone responds to it. It’s not about fooling people, it’s about seeing what works, and trying to refine that element as purely as possible. This is where minimalism comes in: how much effect can you get with the least amount of artifice. That’s what the chair is all about. I was afraid this would cause some confusion. Up until that point, I had been arguing art from the perspective of the audience. In that paragraph, I’m arguing art from the perspective of the artist. I realize that I’m contradicting what I just said about not considering the intent of the artist, but I didn’t really see a way to counter claims that the artist was trying to perpetuate a fraud without examining his possible motivations for creating his art. \*This is also a lie, actually, because I live in California, and there’s no such thing as a “local” Piggly Wiggly out here. But Piggly Wiggly is a much more evocative name than Safeway, so I’m running with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pretentious-art-crap/225086.md?page=5)