But that’s the point - Art is by definition subjective. That’s the joy of it!
<P>
It was my OP. My problem wasn’t whether the chair was Art or not. If the artist decides that it is, if the gallery wants to put it there then fine. I wanted to know why it needed the incomprehensible ArtSpeak to justify it as Art. Why can’t it have used plain regular English? Why couldn’t it have simply said “It represents a History of use. The beauty is in the realness” or whatever. Proper words most people can grasp, instead of pseudo-philosophical bullshit.
<P>
And why do they think they can charge a shitload of money for it? What the hell is wrong with the Industry that they can get away with that?
<P>
Art is what you like. Art is not everything, Art is not what sells well at an Auction, Art is not an Investment. It’s just the kind of stuff you enjoy and that deliberately evokes an emotion or an idea (and if it’s the idea or emotion the Artist intended, then perhaps that’s considered Good or Successful Art).
Oops. I put paragraph tags in. I must be still asleep.
Granted, and understand that I’m not so much arguing with you as with other folks in the thread. At least, not until you say:
I don’t like this definition at all. By this definition, there’s no such thing as bad art, and I don’t hate any art at all, because if I hate a piece, then it’s not art. Nobody out there hates modern art, by extension, because if they hate it, then it’s not art to them. That just gets weird and confusing.
I don’t say that “food is what you like,” for the same reason. There’s definitely shitty food out there, but I don’t say that it’s not food; I say that it’s shitty food. And then you can say, “What are you talking about? Twinkies are the bomb!” and we can get into an argument that way :). I just think it weirdifies the language to slip value judgments into words that don’t need them.
Question: if “art” refers to “what you like” (specifically, I assume, “those materials/energies manipulated by a person in order to create art that you like”), is there a single word referring to “those materials/etc…” that you DON’T like? I mean, you can call it crap, but what’s to distinguish crappy “art” (by my definition of art) from crappy spelling, or a crappy car, or a crappy dice game?
If you have such a word, then you’ve got a set of definitions that I’ll grudgingly admit work, even though I don’t use them myself. Otherwise, by defining art as the stuff you like, you actually limit your ability to talk about the stuff you don’t like.
Daniel
Okay, allow me to clarify.
There’s art, which is sculpture or painting or drawing or collage or whatever. Which in your analogy is food.
And then there’s Art, or “Art”, which is what we’re arguing about. To continue with your analogy, that’s Gourmet Expensive Only-Rich-Snobs-Like-This-Godawful-Crap Grand Food with a capital F. It’s a subsection that seems to be in a world of its own.
Bad Art is so hard to quantify. It’s really just when a majority of people do not like it. But a minority of people DO like it (including the artist, some of the time), so to them it’s Good Art. So is it really Bad? Who decides? Why should this ever be an absolute?
So the “pretentious art crap” in the title refers not to the work itself but to the blurb about it?
If that’s what you’re saying, then I guess I’d just have to point out that people often DO talk about art using everyday English. Art critics don’t always do this, but some are rather famous for being blunt and direct. The visual arts are similar to movies in this way–some people talk about movies simply, while others use high-fallutin’ cinema-speak. Neither of these options reflects upon the movie itself; it’s merely a fault of the cinema culture.
See LHoD’s point about “Food is what you like.”
Agreed, though there is some art that asks you to think about what life, objects, etc. would be like if everything were art. And there are some artists who approach life as if everything they do is art.
Plenty of things make/cost money. Art happens to be one of those things, some of the time.
This distinction makes no sense to me. No one talks about Food. We talk about gourmet food, but I don’t think that’s exactly where you’re going with this definition? To me, all fine art is like gourmet food; I can’t think of an artistic equivalent to, say, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. Are there types of art that people find confusing or arcane? Yes. Are there types of art that people find boring? Yes. Similarly, the first time I ate sushi, I found it confusing; pork chops, canned spinach, and mandarin oranges are just a few of the foods I find uninteresting. But they’re all food; no special category exists for them.
Why for art? How does it improve our dialogue?
Well, my entire point all along has been that art requires neither skill nor talent. So you got that much right, at least. Good art (whatever that is) generally requires both, but someone who has neither, still makes art. It’s just that his art is probably going to suck.
I’m not sure how the artist being irrelevent shoots my argument in the foot, since that’s been a basic underpining of my argument all along, although I don’t think I’ve stated it explicitly yet. But here goes: 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.
And I’ve met some park rangers who, as part of their duties, have developed monologes every bit as interesting and entertaining as anything Spaulding Grey ever wrote, so I guess you could call them artists, too.
Oh, and sorry, but I don’t see any of those Warhol quotes as indicative that he thought anything that he was doing was not intended to be art, merely that he had an unusually capitalistic take on what “art” is. None of them indicate that he felt the art he was selling for ungodly sums was, in actual fact, worthless.
If quality is inherent, then it exsists regardless of outside factors. If it is subjective, then its exsistence varies depending on the audience. Something cannot be both inherent and subjective at the same time.
And this proves what, exactly?
I think this is a false dichotomy. I’ve been defending the chair you linked to as art, but I think you can find better art just by tuning into almost any television network. Something doesn’t become “more art” just because somebody with an art history degree and an impenetrable prose style likes it.
Really, bad art is the simplest thing in the world to quantify. Do you like the work? No? Then it’s bad art, at least as far as you’re concerned. Even if no one else on the planet agrees with you. There are people out there, smart, educated people, who don’t like Shakespeare, and can explain why they don’t like him at length. It doesn’t mean that Shakespeare is actually bad, nor does it mean that the people who don’t like him are wrong. There are no absolutes, and there are no final authorities on what makes art good or bad. It’s something that varies completely from one person to the next.
The problem with trying to define art by popularity is that a great many artists were either totally obscure or publically reviled during their lifetimes, and ony achieved fame well after their deaths. Vincent van Gogh is probably the best example: during his life, he never sold a single painting. Now, his paintings are among the most valuable works of art on the planet. Herman Melville was virtually forgotten for fifty years because he was basically a post-modern author writing in an industrialist society, and no one understood what the hell he was doing. It wasn’t until the early 20th century that his work was rediscovered and given its rightful place in the canon of Western literature. If you want to argue that art is determined by mass appeal, you are in the unusual position of arguing that these works somehow spontaneously became art decades after the men who created them were dead.
You don’t distinguish between different levels of food quality?
Fast Food, Regular Food, Exotic Food?
I do. If you don’t, then I guess we’re talking at cross purposes.
Originally, yeah. But I have no beef with how it’s developed.
That’s now what I meant. Everything costs money, but not everything (personally I’m not sure about ANYTHING) should triple its cost just because it’s popular with the snooty Elite.
Okay, interesting issue. BTW, this entire thread has been really interesting, thanks for starting it.
Back to the money … I guess I’m just a capitalist at heart, because the prices that art (or “Art” even) garners seems to be what the market can bear. Galleries have to make money to stay open, artists need to make money so they have enough time to produce art and don’t have to spend 8 hours a day working at Mickey D’s. Not all art in a particular show is going to sell, and it’s not always possible for the gallery owner and/or artist to predict what is most likely to sell. Therefore, all the art needs to be priced at a level so that if, say, half of it sells, the artist receives enough payment to support his standard of living. Granted, if none of the art sells, and the artist cannot support himself, then that might be a message from the market to the artist to find another job. But if it is selling, who am I to say that the artist should lower his prices for the principle of the thing?
I do think the market is somewhat inflated these days … but I still think there’s a difference between observing art inflation, and somehow commanding the market to lower its prices. I will be satisfied with laughing at people who paid outlandish prices for pieces whose market value goes down the toilet.
I found this quote today when going through some old files and somehow it seems appropriate to this discussion. It’s from Muhammad Yunus, who started the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh in 1983. They make very small (<$100) business loans to destitute women so that they can start small enterprises (“micro-businesses”), selling things like mustard oil, bamboo stools and clothing. This enables them to support themselves, breaking the cycle of poverty. The organization now works with women in the U.S. as well. Yunus was a successful professor of economics before he started the Grameen.
Anyway, what he said is:
It seems to me that artists have the same obligation, to be useful to another human being, rather than focusing on the big thoughts with which they might entertain themselves.
That’s why I don’t like exclusionary artwork, or artists who just create crap and pawn it off on people who don’t know any better.
It isn’t the artist being irrelevent that shoots your argument in the foot. It is your contention that art and artists don’t exist. It is this chain of thought that you have presented that I find laughable.
- Art doesn’t exist.
- Artists don’t exist.
- Here is my definition of what constitutes art.
- Here is my definition of who should be considered an artist.
You can’t have it both ways. If art does not exist then it can have no definition. If artists don’t exist than you can have no list of what it requires to be considered an artist. You are trying to diffuse the arguments all those who disagree with you by conceeding that art doesn’t exist. Then you are trying to garner acceptance for your personal definition of what art is.
If you are going to continue to argue your points than at least make them internally consistant. If you are going to define “art” then conceed that it exists and that yours might not be the only possible definition.
Your criteria was not somebody who confessed that their art was worthless. Obviously that would be impossible because it is in fact, right or wrong, worth a great deal. You asked, “Incidentally, does anyone have a cite for an ‘artist’ who has admitted that his art is a con?” I think all three of Warhol’s quotes speak directly to that point. He was, very frankly, admiting that he created his “art”, not for any merit it might have, but because of the pay check it provided.
I do! I do!
But note the second word in each pairing. It’s all food. If you say that fast food isn’t food, then you make it difficult to talk about the quality of different types of food.
Yes, there are different kinds of art. There’s bad art, there’s postmodern art, there’s cubist art, there’s performance art, there’s good art. Note the second word in each pairing; that common word makes it much easier to compare and contrast the different types of art with one another.
What I’m arguing is a semantic issue: call it all art, and then talk about whether it’s good or bad. Stick your value judgments in the adjective slot, not in the noun slot. It makes the language work better.
Daniel
I do, and we can have a conversation on that basis. I don’t however talk about food and Food; nor do I talk about art and Art. It just seems forced.
I understand your frustration…I feel the same way about expensive couture, antiques, collectibles. But I don’t hold either the maker or the object itself to blame for this. I guess I just assume it’s some market forces thing that I can’t control. <shrug> I’m actually kinda sorry to hear that this is such a major part of your art experience.
Damn. I hate it when I say something stupid without realizing it, and having it pointed out by the “opposition”. Miller, you are most assuredly correct. Inherent attributes are not subjective. But I still think that (good) art has an inherent quality about it. [see below for why I added “good”.]
Double damn. I think I’m being lured over to the Dark Side of this argument. (or is it the Dork Side?)
I think in order for this to work though, one has to have faith that the creator of the art had an intention to create good art, and not pretentious crap. Regrettably, there is no way to prove an honest intent. Sigh. Assuming honest intent to create art, then I think I can agree that there is good art and bad art; great art and horrible art; but all art nonetheless. In my opinion, the junkyard chair isn’t even a good attempt at art.
That’s true of a lot of things: art, like murder, is defined by intention.
(the analogy may not hold up, but it’s a fun little soundbite)
The junkyard chair may not be a good attempt at art, but the way I use the word art, it’s undeniably art. Even if the artist was trying some pretention crap because they believe pretention crap is art, then it’s still art.
Personally, as I said, the chair does something for me. I may not pay $10,000 to take that piece into my home, but I’ll enjoy seeing it in a museum far more than I’ll enjoy seeing yet another landscape.
Daniel
Just to add/reiterate a couple points.
Firstly, I think the “talk” is a way for artists to intellectualize their work amongst themselves. If that’s enjoyable to them, then fine. Secondly, I think it IS part of the marketing. Educated people with extra TIME and MONEY buy this kind of art. If making your piece mean something BIG gets people to buy it, then so be it.
If you don’t want something that makes you think in terms such as the design and context of everyday objects then buy a Thomas Kinkade and have a nice picture of a cozy cabin hanging on your wall.
Why does that intellectualizing make anyone angry is the question. Suckering rich people out of their money shouldn’t make you a fraction as angry as, say, the State lottery suckering poor people out of their money.
Still, as I kind of got at yesterday. . .take something like that chair. I didn’t read the original Dave Barry piece but he’s probably saying something like “my old drunk uncle created a chair just like that after sitting in it for 50 years. I guess he’s an artist.”
And, to me, THAT’S THE POINT! You put the chair in a different context (an art gallery) and it just gets you thinking about things, maybe seeing them and appreciating what’s around you every day. It’s not pretentious. Its as simple as art can get.
What does a Monet painting do to you? Makes you think of a nice bridge over a stream with lily pads and willow trees. Probably reminds you of something you knew as a child. He’s able to do it with brush strokes, color, and technique.
What’s that guy do with that chair? He gets you to think of your favorite seat at home, comfy chair, wearing down a bit. How’s he do it? Creates a funny old chair with out of date fabric, bent legs, torn fabric, mashed up padding.
You ever have a buddy with a great looking hat he’s had for years, with sweat stains, and dirt stains on it and you just know its a great hat? Same thing. Why do you appreciate a hat like that, or a great looking broken-in leather jacket? I think Warhol was saying some of the same things. . .can you appreciate Marilyn Monroe’s face? A Campbell Soup can? Are they just images that you pass by on a daily basis or things with their own style and design?
I think if the chair had been put in a context with a lot of other used items ina living room - like a rug, a sideboard, a kitschy picture on the wall - it would feel a lot less pretentious, and people would understand the concept a lot better.
It’s not. I’m an artist. I do visit galleries and exhibitions sometimes and enjoy them immensely. My problem is that the precedent of reselling works of art ten years later at five times what it was originally bought from the artist (who gets nothing now), is setting up a false expectation that the artist is allowed to charge exorbitant amounts of money for something that isn’t worth that much even if you factored in its genius and obvious skill. It just messes things up.
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.
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.
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. As Left Hand of Dorkness has stated, far more eloquently than I’ve been able, arguing what is or isn’t art is a futile discussion.
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.
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.”
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!”
And I’ll be happy to concede that someone else has a valid definition of art as soon as someone presents one that doesn’t have gaping holes in it. So far, only Dorkness has done that to my satisfaction. This is, after all, a debate, and “Let’s just agree to disagree,” generally makes for a boring one.
I don’t see how you can interpret any of the quotes you provided to be evidence that Warhol thought he was conning anybody out of anything. Warhol liked money. That doesn’t make him a confidence man, it just makes him venal. The starving, penniless artist is a cliche, not a requirement. What I hoped to see was a quote along the lines of, “Those suckers paid me ten grand for that piece of shit!” Warhol says nothing like that, at least not that you’ve quoted.
I win! I win! 
As someone once said, “Never attribute to malice what can be explainable through incompetence.” Barring evidence that the artist does not earnestly believe what he is making is art, it’s simply bad manners to assume otherwise.
*This is a lie.
Heh, heh. Thoroughly brilliant. Thanks for the chuckle.
GuanoLad:
**Well, Kinkade is sort of like macaroni and cheese covered in maple syrup.
**
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.
Left Hand of Dorkness, I’d like your reaction, and of course, anyone else’s, to this painting. 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.
