Because art is partly about the skill and talent of the artist. Painting a really good representation of a chair requires skill and talent. Creating a really good sculpture of a chair requires skill and talent.
Finding garbage in an alley and throwing it in a gallery requires no skill or talent. Nor is it art.
I made a little web page and uploaded two pictures of “art.” I am curious for your opinions. Suppose these two drawings are done by two different artists. Suppose that both artists claim that they were aiming for a “realistic likeness” of a person in profile. Suppose that both artists claim that they feel that they have successfully represented a “realistic likeness” of a person in profile.
If you were a teacher or critic (or just an interested bystander who was asked their opinion), would you “judge” one of these works to be “better” than the other? Would you tell either artist here (if they asked) that they perhaps they needed to hone up some skills if they were, indeed, aiming for a “realistic likeness,” or would you simply assume that perhaps one drawing was not as “accessable” to you?
In a nutshell, I’m asking—would you feel entitled to judge these two works of art?
Some of Shakespeare’s plays are seldom performed because some of Shakespeare’s plays simply aren’t very good. It’s not because they’re more inaccesible than others. Titus Andronicus is as straightforward as a slasher movie, but until Julie Taymor’s movie a few years back, it languished in relative obscurity. Richard III is an extraordinarily hard play to follow if you don’t understand British history, but it’s also the single most commonly performed of the Bard’s plays.
This seems to be an entirely arbitrary distinction.
A few?
Bullshit. I’ve got no problem saying one piece of art is better than another. What I won’t do is say that some pieces of art aren’t art. Lord Byron is absolutely a superior poet to William McGonagall. (Although Byron isn’t nearly as funny) That doesn’t mean that what McGonagall wrote wasn’t poetry.
SPOOFE: Quantify exactly how much “skill” and “talent” is required of an artist before his work qualifies as “art.” If you can’t, I suggest that’s a meaningless benchmark.
Incidentally, does anyone have a cite for an “artist” who has admitted that his art is a con? Every other post in this thread takes for granted the idea that there are hordes of con-men succesfully passing crap off as art and laughing all the way to the bank. I’m just wondering if there’s any basis for this assumption beyond the knee-jerk reaction of, “I don’t get it. It must be some sort of trick.” I mean, if this is as common as people here seem to believe, someone, somewhere must have cracked and admitted that he’s full of it.
**
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.
Given your approach, your claim that you’ve “got no problem saying one piece of art is better than another” is also suspect. How can you say this? If everything can be art to someone, then, presumably, everything can be “good” art to someone. It’s just that you, personally, don’t “get” some art as much as you do other art. How can you say that your subjective impressions are really any more valid than anyone elses, including the artist’s?
Suggested definition of art: material to which a person has made changes in an effort to turn it into art.
Note that this isn’t a definition of GOOD art; it’s simply a working definition of art.
Therefore, if someone moves a chair from a dump to a museum in an effort to create art, they’ve created art. If they point at the chair at the dump in an effort to create art, they’ve not created art. If they photograph the chair at the dump, then the photograph is art, but the chair is not. If they move the chair to a park and then photograph it, the photograph is art, and the chair itself is art only if the person intended it to become art.
How does that work?
yosemitebabe, I’d have no trouble telling person #1 in your example page that they were less successful at creating a realistic drawing than person #2 had been, especially if I get to clarify what I mean by “realistic” (what I mean is, “that looks more like a photograph to me.”) I’d also have no trouble telling person #1 that they had moved me less than person #2 had moved me with their artwork. I would not tell person #1 that they had created worse art, except inasmuch as they asked me purely for my opinion.
And mangetout, I was thinking about your example of how the modern artist can turn anything you say into a justification of their artwork; I think my answer may not be so cooptable. Just say, “it doesn’t do anything for me,” and then if they respond to that with justification, point out that they’re describing what their own artwork does for them.
You can go on to describe how children speak to express before they learn to speak to communicate, but that might be pushing the issue.
Daniel
So, you’re saying that for something to be art, it has to be popular?
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 don’t believe I’ve ever claimed that my subjective impressions are more valid than anyone else’s. The entire point of my argument is that art is completly subjective, and that there does not exsist a standard by which one can judge what is and what is not art. The best anyone can hope to do is judge what art they like and what art they do not like.
story time!
I’m an art major. I started as Digital Media, then thought about Photography my junior year. I’m working on my BA (need 12 hours of drawing for a BFA, I don’t like drawing, I’m not planning on doing art for anyone but me, so why not switch to a BA?) Now, I really enjoyed my photography classes. Last semester though, I had a new prof - the kind where the idea is more important then the art. So, even if the art was crap, if you could do the BS, you’d get the A.
I hated it. That’s not to say that same of what he (the prof) talked about was worthless - some of it was interesting and I could see ways to use what he talked about. (We did a LOT of how-to-interpret-photographs-thousands-of-ways)
But it wasn’t what I was interested in. This was my third photography class, I was still learning some basics and wanted to improve. I told him I wasn’t going for a BFA, nor an MFA, that I was doing this only for my benefit and I was more interested in improving my techneque then learning how to talk the art talk.
This prof also told the class that basically, we had to find a photographer whose idealology and photographs we liked, and then style ourselves after them since “there’s no original thought” and “it’s important to find your place in the photographic continum.”
I just wanted to learn to take photographs I enjoy!
My mother is bi-polar (this becomes important). Her whole family has a history of depression/bi-polar disorders. I’ve been fortunate to not have depression - the seed is there - but my lifestyle keeps me sane and I fight to stay sane. (This is not to say that those with depression/BP are not sane - but my mom has impressed some strange ideas into my head about the importance of staying “normal” - I’m sure some of you can relate.)
(Here’s how the above relates)
The prof had me lumped in with the seniors (I’m a senior, but only by year - this was my third photography class). I was with kids who’d taken a class a semester of photography. I felt VERY out of place. Our first project was to study an artist we wanted to emmulate. I didn’t know who I should do - most artists I truly enjoy have a sense of serenity in their work. Like Don Hong Oai. This wasn’t good enough. I was given Garry Winogrand instead. As a shy and introverted person I could immediately see how great this was for me! [/sarcasm] Telling my prof that this was a bad match didn’t work - “How do you know til you try it?”
So I did. And I turned out to be right!
So, knowing the prof, I printed some photos anyway, then listed how they failed.
He loved this idea, and wanted to keep me working on my “OCD Perfectionism.”
My prefectionism is something I’ve been trying to kill - it’s what starts pulling me towards depression. Again, tried to tell prof, got explained to, nothing changed.
It’s the most unhappy I’ve ever been. I didn’t eat right, my sleep shedule was all over the place and I actually cried in front of this man! (I rarely cry, so this was big)
I was hoping to switch back to my old prof, but the joy I found is gone. All I find in myself when I think of photography is dread and fear and sadness.
If I never see that man again…
I always get to these threads after they’re on page 20, so forgive me for going hog wild here:
[ul][li] …anything that requires a long explanation by the creator has probably failed. Hamish[/li]I, personally, don’t feel that the chair in the original link requires a long explanation from the creator. Like many contemporary works, I feel that it does require the viewer to ask and answer some questions on his/her own. For example, I think Miller made some great points on page one about the chair and its potential interpretation. In response, smiling bandit asked, “Do you have the same experience every time you go into someone’s home? IS this chair special because the artist picked up a peice of crap and dumped it in the museum with no effort?” Simply, the answer for me is “yes.” The museum has an effect as a place; it confers a status on an object. To me, it’s simpler to think not that the artist pointed a fairy wand and poof turned the chair into art, but that by placing the chair in a gallery setting the artist drew our attention to it–giving us a blank space to wonder about the chair. Often, in every day life, there’s a lot of clutter, and maybe we don’t think about the “lives” and meaning of the objects around us. Maybe you do, but not everyone does; the artist is creating a space of opportunity for this to happen.
[li] Is there no circumstance under which you’d admit that some piece of ‘art’ was actually garbage? Stonebow[/li]I think my problem here is that I don’t feel I have a developed enough definition of “art” to make declarations about art and not-art. Every time I go into a new museum or read a new book, my ideas about art expand. With that said, however, I am comfortable forming opinions about art that I find to be good and bad.
[li] …they “don’t get it,” because they’re outside the privileged circle of understanding. Hamish[/li]This, I think, is one of the ways that many contemporary artworks hit a speed bump with a general public. I don’t believe that many artists are trying to be elitist or priviledge a certain knowledge–really, what’s more common than a chair? Unfortunately, many of us are set with a specific idea of what Art is–paintings on canvas; sculptures from wood, metal, stone; etc. Mixed media and works from found objects, rather than bringing in a greater audience, have led to people feeling “duped” or mocked. More on this below…
[li] Art is a crock of shit 75% of the time, it really is. It’s a big joke, and the artists know it. GuanoLad[/li]I often suspect that much post-modern art is a bad joke that gets taken to far… Truth Seeker
Lots of modern art isn’t meant to communicate anything beyond “You don’t get how ironic I am being, so I am better than you.” Shodan
I really, really sincerely believe that artists are not taking the piss at the general public. I do believe they are attempting to communicate, albeit some less successfully than others. Additionally, while art is a big business, very few artists are getting rich from it; they’re not lining their pockets and making fun of the average person all in one go.
[li] I also think they overcharge for crap. Materials and time, that’s what they should charge, not ‘what the market can bear’.[/li]My objection is Art As Investment. both by GuanoLad
Can’t argue anything here. I really don’t understand the art market nor do I want to. I really just don’t experience art in any way that relates to a price tag. For this reason, I kind of skimmed over any of the posts that were hardcore about such-and-such work costing such-and-such amount and being a total rip-off/sham.
[li] But just trying to make a statement is not enough to be considered Art - it’s more like Philosophy. GuanoLad[/li]I think the two are becoming more and more closely related. But that could be me channelling Arthur Danto…
[li] …follow in the footsteps of people who actually knew how to draw and paint and did so brilliantly… fessie[/li]Please do not assume that because an artist works in found objects, mixed media, or scribbles s/he is unable to draw and paint skillfully. Just as a traditional painter chooses a color, these artists have chosen their media, usually with thought and intent. There’s a purpose behind putting an actual chair in a gallery space as opposed to drawing, painting, photographing, or otherwise recreating it.
[li] Of course they’re fussy around you; you’re the Art Museum Guy. What, did you think they’d just let you fling the rocks around any old way, while helping them set up the piece, and say “Don’t worry about it, just put them anywhere”? masonite[/li]Personally, I’ve experienced artists who react every which way–both in the manner you described so mockingly and the manner in RTA’s post. I really have a hard time making across-the-board predictions about artists’ behaviors/motivations. I feel the same way about teachers and doctors and secretaries…
[li] Ditto to what delphica said about seeing works online, in magazines, etc. vs. in an exhibition, in a gallery setting. This isn’t just pretentious art crap here. Works of art convey more, I would say, but at the very least, different things in person than they do smushed down to 100 x 100 pixes at 72 ppi. Sometimes it’s the context of the exhibition; sometimes it’s merely the size of the work. Point is: Seeing things in person does better equip you to make a judgement on any work. Also ditto to delphica’s comments about artspeak.[/li]
[li] I love comic strips and other bits of pop culture making fine art references. I have a Calvin and Hobbes example on a tee-shirt, where Calvin states, I wanted to be a neodeconstructionist, but Mom wouldn’t let me.[/li]
[li] Finally, I think it’s unfair to conmpare any art of today vs. Picasso. The name itself equals “art god.” Realistically, we just don’t have the perspective on contemporary art to make this comparison feasible. Additionally, it’s even more unfair to compare this chair to Guernica; maybe if we were looking at how contemporary artists responded to 9-11 or a similar tragedy, I could tolerate the comparison. (Additionally, many people look at Guernica and are confused and feel that they better understand the work after a 3-5 sentence “explanation” has been provided.)[/ul][/li]
Because it’s quite early in the morning, I’m going to add the final note to what is possibly my longest post ever: I’m just responding to people’s posts; I have no animosity toward any of you nor did I intend to convey any through my tone in any of the sections above. I get a wee bit passionate about this, but I mean it all in good spirits. 
No. But if it fails to have an effect upon the viewer (other than anger and disgust that someone claims that a junkyard chair is art), then it is simply “artistic” masturbation on the part of the creator.
I agree that those questions are good questions. I disagree that anything at all can be classified as art. If that were true, as Truth Seeker points out, the word itself becomes meaningless.
I’m not cynical enough to believe that all modern art is pretentious crap. And I don’t classify something as “non-art” just because I don’t like it, or don’t “get it”. I admire artists. I am envious of their skill and talent. My fundamental premise is that art requires manifested talent. I think this is what sets off the negative reactions you are reading here. If there is no special talent manifest via the object being exhibited, then the perception is that the creator is snickering in the metaphorical background for having put one over on the audience.
Even museums can make a huge mistake in their perception of art. “Who’s afraid of red, yellow and blue” by Newman was destroyed by a mad man. For restaurations the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, paid millions of dollars. They had to get “the artist’s touch” back, you know. The piece went back to the museum, everyone was very pleased and praised the restaurator for having such a good insight in Newman’s work.
Months later they found out that the restauration was done with house paint and a roller.
*the artist’s fine brush etc. etc. *
Well, this chair had an effect on me. So it must be art, right?
It appears to me that the word is meaningless, at least in so far as nobody seems to be able to come up with a good definition for it. Although Left Hand of Dorkness has one of the better ones I’ve seen.
“Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art.”
“A lady friend of mine asked me, “Well, what do you love most?” That’s how I started painting money.”
“Art is what you can get away with.”
Andy Warhol
[QUOTE=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./QUOTE]
He he he!
“There is no art!”
“You are right THERE IS NO ART! So let me tell what constitutes art.”
Miller you just shot your own argument in the foot. You have made the artist irrelevant. If there is no art then there is no artist. There is just some clown drawing your attention to something. This requires no skill and certainly no talent. The guys in the ranger suits at the park do as much.
Thanks – I think this definition is as broad as possible and helps us get away from asinine arguments about whether something really is art.
Remember that the word has the same root as “artifice”: there has to be some human change made to something in order for it to be art. Once you’ve got the human change in there, I submit, the only additional requirement for something to be art is that the person making the change made it intending to be creating art.
You may be tempted to require some specific type of change to a material in order to consider something art: can merely moving something from one place to another qualify it as art? I do not think specifying the type of change is a good idea. It only embroils you in trivialities and legalistic semantic discussions. Leave the definition as open as possible, and save your judgments for the quality of the art.
The discussion about whether something is good art or bad art is, of course, a matter of opinion; it is still, however, a vastly more interesting discussion than whether something is art at all.
Daniel
I’d argue that this definition is so broad that it renders it meaningless. It’s art if the artist says it is? Moving something from one location to another is art? That sounds simply like rationalization to obscure a lack of talent.
I typically dislike posters who drag out dictionary definitions because they tend to be nothing other than red herrings. However, in my searches to see what the online and hardcopy dictionaries have to say I find phrases like…
“conscious use of skill”
“creative imagination”
“aesthetically pleasing”
“sense of beauty”
I think traditional attributes like these are what the general public uses to judge whether or not something should/could be classified as art.
Perhaps these traditional attributes are outdated. I’ll admit to that possibility. But the pedantic neo-artists will drag me kicking and screaming into that new world.
Perhaps you’re missing the part where I said it’s not a definition of GOOD art.
The problem with putting words like “beauty,” “skill,” and “creative” in the definition is that these words are all subjective. Once you put these words in, there’s no bright line between what’s art and what isn’t, and you end up with what I contend are asinine discussions over whether a particular work really is art.
So what if it is art? So what if it isn’t? What does that tell us?
Stipulate that art is defined primarily by an intention to create art, and then discuss the merits of any particular piece. Does the artist claim it’s art for her to roll around in a barrel while chewing on a cow’s tongue? Fine, that’s art, every bit as much as it’s art for another person to recite Hamlet’s soliloquey. But the first one is bad art, inasmuch as it doesn’t move me or help me understand my relation to the world or fill me with pleasure; the second one is good art, inasmuch as it does all three.
And my definition isn’t so broad as to be meaningless. Let’s apply it to several things:
Far from being meaningless, my proposed definition is very easy to use, and neatly divides things into art and non-art, allowing us to move on to the interesting discussions about the quality and qualities of specific pieces.
Daniel
First of all I want to thank you for not deriding those of us who have difficulty removing quality from any pragmatic definition of art, as ignorant rubes. I for one, appreciate it.
I have a view that art must have some inherent quality to it, or it’s not art. Is that subjective? Sure. And I can see how that causes disagreements, which to your credit, your definition avoids.
Assuming there is no insincere or dishonest intentions involved, then I suppose I might actually be able to live with this. Maybe. It is VERY hard for me to see that really BAD art (your definition) should still be called art (the traditional definition).
My second favorite statement about art comes from Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein. Jubal Harshaw(whose favorite artist is the sculptor Rodin) is talking to Ben Caxton. Jubal starts off with:
*“Mmm, one does have to learn to look at art. But it’s up to the artist to use language that can be understood. most of these jokers don’t want to use language you and I can learn: they would rather sneer because we ‘fail’ to see what they are driving at. If anything. Obscurity is the refuge of incompetence. Ben, would you call me an artist?”
“Huh? You write a fair stick.”
“Thank you. ‘Artist’ is a word I avoid for the same reason I hate to be called ‘Doctor’. But I am an artist. Most of my stuff is worth reading only once…and not even once by a person who knows what little I have to say. What I write is intended to reach the customer–and affect him, if possible, with pity and terror…or at least divert the tedium of his hours. I NEVER hide from him in a private language, nor am I seeking praise from other writers for ‘technique’ or other balderdash. I want praise from the customer, given in cash, because I have reached him—or I don’t want anything. Support for the arts–MERDE!. A government supported artist is an incompetent whore…!”*
The sentiments expressed above are how I feel about art. I want something I can understand, or at least be able to understand with a minimum of overly pretentious explanation.
True story. Here in Topeka, years ago, there was an orangutan at our zoo who did finger paintings. As a fund raiser for the zoo, these were sold, they were a lot of fun. Then Djarkarta Jim had one of his paintings entered in a childrens art contest. Called “Train from Tokyo” the artist was listed as D. James Orang, seven years old. BTW, that was his real age. The painting won first prize, and you should have heard the squawking when the artist’s photo was printed!
Personally, I like a lot of this stuff people are complaining about. If you want to consider something like that Heinlen quote, personally I think it takes a lot more “high falutin art thinkin’” to appreciate the Mona Lisa than it does that chair. I consider the ability to appreciate modern art often a lot more “common” than the ability to appreciate a Monet. I don’t know artists who “sneer” because people fail to see what they’re driving at. That’s a bit of a straw man.
The main thing I like about modern art is how it gets you to look at the world around you.
Just look at that chair. It looks like there’s an invisible 450 pound man sitting in it. Look at how the legs are leaning in and straining. That fabric is a mess like someone’s had their feet on it for years. Haven’t you ever walked into someone’s house, and just said, “man, that’s an awesome chair. You can tell someone’s put in a lot of TV watching in that chair.” And that’s all you need to get out of looking at that chair. It doesn’t need to be “art”. It’s just a ugly looking used chair. No one is forcing you to buy it or look at it. Just where does people’s anger about these things come from?
Why not stick a urinal on the wall? It’s got form and texture and contrast and negative space. Is it “Mona Lisa”? No. But does it help you appreciate the design of objects, consider form vs. function in things around you? Maybe not, but it does me.
You know, on my drive to work everyday, I drive by a piece of public art: a great big rooster on a pedastal cut out of inch thick sheet metal right in the middle of Baltimore. It didn’t take much skill; you could have done it in shop in high school. But man I love that thing. I drive by it right when the sun is coming up. It reminds me of a rooster I used to hear growing up. He’s got a great rusty color like some of the buildings around him. You don’t find roosters in the middle of the city. It’s just great.
And then, right down the street is a fireplace (right out in the open) with stockings hanging from it. I think it looks like an amateurish piece of junk. BUT SHIT, I’m willing to allow that it resonates with some people like the rooster does with me.
You know “art” is just a word. Just because it means “Monet” or “Da Vinci” to YOU, doesn’t mean that’s its definition. It can be arbitrary. It can be ugly. It doesn’t need to require skill. There’s a place for that, too.
And I don’t know how many of these “modern artists” many of you know. I know several people who make their (somewhat measly) living making art. And in pretty much every case, these people have excellent technique and skill and understanding of color/texture/perspective. But you don’t always see it in their work, or in a single piece (like that chair). They use it when they have to and sometimes use it in ways they dont’ teach in school.
And people I know who make things like that chair don’t think they’re above you or expect you to understand it’s sub-text, it’s semiotics. There’s a place for that kind of talk within the art-world, but they might just think its a cool looking chair. I do.
Dammit, my post got et! To summarize, I have no hidden agenda here; I just think that the word “art” is MORE explanatory and MORE useful if such a thing as “bad art” can exist. Give the word a value-neutral definition, and then you can attach any value-laden words to it that you want.
All I can say about the chair was that I personally found it evocative, and so it did something for me. A piece like “Black canvas #42” doesn’t do squat for me. I personally consider the former to be good art and the latter to be bad art. If someone else has a different take on it, well, bully to them.
Daniel