# The Art World - I pit thee **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 4, 2012, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159 "2012-07-04T00:08:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/41 "2012-07-04T13:24:41Z")
> [@Fiendish\_Astronaut](#): > > I remember I was showing my photography work at a gallery and I got chatting to some old man art journalist. Better change your name to Viagara, you old dick swinger enabler, you. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/42 "2012-07-04T13:26:50Z")
Yup, that [recent trend](http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cerne-giant/) of dick waving is quite annoying… So, the OP is pitting the old guy for being too generous with the word “art.” The old guy who actually found something to enthuse about in **FA** ’s own precious snapshots. Was this long ago showing the last time the OP went to a gallery? Or just the last time _he_ showed anything? Of course there’s pretension in the art world; but there’s good stuff, too. The OP needs to get out more. Or perhaps he ought to channel his energy into improving his own work… ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/43 "2012-07-04T15:02:18Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > If a person takes a random picture of a sunflower, and it happens to be excellently lit, properly framed and composed, it isn’t art, it’s just a good picture. That person didn’t suddenly become an artistic photographer just because one of his works wound up interesting to look at. It doesn’t matter, though. Whether I accidentally take a picture that makes people fall out of their seats or I did so intentionally, the result is the same. If no one can tell that one is “accidental”, then it doesn’t matter ultimately. There are “idiot” savants that create breath-taking sculptures and paintings. Ask them what their intention is and they wouldn’t be able to tell you. Ask them why they chose the materials they did, and they would look at you like YOU’RE retarded. But they are creators, transforming matter into an evocative state. What are they if not artists? I seriously doubt the ancients were sitting around, arguing that the cave painting by Ugg is art but the ceramic bowl by Err is not. And even if they did, so the fuck what? 50,000 years later, the cave painting and the ceramic bowl are equally exhalted, both creators and “intentions” completely unknown. All that matters is how cool they look. And really, that’s all that matters to most people. It’s only the rarefied few who care what an artist is really trying to say (and that number is dramatically reduced when what they have to say isn’t readily apparent). ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/44 "2012-07-04T15:18:41Z")
art is what you can get out the door and make some money on. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/45 "2012-07-04T15:19:40Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You and me both, sister. I think I welcome them in a slightly different way. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/46 "2012-07-04T15:55:15Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Yeah no… there are zero threads of that description. Well _all_ threads are about that; how dare you try and put limits on what is and is not a thread about what is and is not art. Here is a thread picked at random: [Like stupid and pompous idiots, who try to define and limit what art is. - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=630410) ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/47 "2012-07-04T16:01:32Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > It doesn’t matter, though. Whether I accidentally take a picture that makes people fall out of their seats or I did so intentionally, the result is the same. If no one can tell that one is “accidental”, then it doesn’t matter ultimately. Two scenarios: 1. A person with actual psychic abilities (I know, I know, but bear with me) accurately predicts the lottery. 2. A million people claiming to be psychics but not having the ability predict the lottery and one of them is right. Are they the same? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/48 "2012-07-04T16:33:07Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > Two scenarios: > > 1. A person with actual psychic abilities (I know, I know, but bear with me) accurately predicts the lottery. > > 2. A million people claiming to be psychics but not having the ability predict the lottery and one of them is right. > > Are they the same? I don’t care as long as either one agrees to share their winnings with me. I’ve got a question for you: I create an impressive glass mosaic of an image closely resembling a rainbow arching over a valley. I give it to you on your birthday. You love it. You want it installed on your living room wall, it’s so beautiful. You say, “This is the most beautiful rainbow in the world, **monstro**. Thank you!” I say: “A rainbow? You idiot! That’s not a rainbow. That’s the tears my heart has shed over the billions of people who have lived without knowing the joy of the vaginal orgasm! How dare you oversimply my work by calling it a rainbow! I don’t even know why I bother!” Does my “intended message” change how you perceive my art? Will you still install it on the wall for your friends to see? Will you correct their misperceptions every time they rave about the beautiful rainbow hanging up in your house? Another question: You have a two-year-old daughter. She likes to finger paint. One day she brings home something from daycare that you absolutely love, and you pin it up on your cubical wall at work. An art collector just happens to visit one day and says he’ll buy that painting for $4,000. Do you inform him that it’s just child’s playstuff, completely unintentional and carrying only sentimental value, or do you hand it over and hope Baby still likes to paint by the time you get home? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/49 "2012-07-04T17:01:23Z")
“Art” describes function, not essence. It’s like the word “paperweight”. A thing becomes a paperweight when you use it to hold down papers. A rock on the beach isn’t a paperweight. A rock on my desk is. Same essence, different function. A work of art is anything that structures an aesthetic experience. The proper question isn’t “Is this thing art?” it’s “Does this thing function as art?” ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/50 "2012-07-04T17:08:44Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I’ve got a question for you: > > I create an impressive glass mosaic of an image closely resembling a rainbow arching over a valley. I give it to you on your birthday. > > You love it. You want it installed on your living room wall, it’s so beautiful. You say, “This is the most beautiful rainbow in the world, **monstro**. Thank you!” > > I say: > > “A rainbow? You idiot! That’s not a rainbow. That’s the tears my heart has shed over the billions of people who have lived without knowing the joy of the vaginal orgasm! How dare you oversimply my work by calling it a rainbow! I don’t even know why I bother!” > > Does my “intended message” change how you perceive my art? … > > Another question: > > You have a two-year-old daughter. She likes to finger paint. One day she brings home something from daycare that you absolutely love, and you pin it up on your cubical wall at work. An art collector just happens to visit one day and says he’ll buy that painting for $4,000. Do you inform him that it’s just child’s playstuff, completely unintentional and carrying only sentimental value, or do you hand it over and hope Baby still likes to paint by the time you get home? If I just had a different take on something I enjoyed than the person who created it, I would still hang it on the wall. I have to admit that it would change my view of it, and if the views of the artist were repugnant (unlike orgasms) then I might decide not to hang it even though I like how it looks. I could see that with a beautiful piece of Chinese calligraphy: if I found it was the character for “shit” then it would clearly change my view of it. The second is easy: take the money and run. I think those are good example of the elusiveness of defining “art”, but I still roll my eyes at the “everything is art” crowd. Am I consistent in my beliefs? Probably not. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/51 "2012-07-04T17:16:06Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > “Art” describes function, not essence. > > It’s like the word “paperweight”. A thing becomes a paperweight when you use it to hold down papers. A rock on the beach isn’t a paperweight. A rock on my desk is. Same essence, different function. > > A work of art is anything that structures an aesthetic experience. The proper question isn’t “Is this thing art?” it’s “Does this thing function as art?” I think that is a great definition. In the old days, we had a printer that used a wax-like ink. Over time, excess ink would fall to the bottom and harden into beautiful pahoehoe-like shapes. I wish I had taken one of those and framed it. I would have considered that “art” once it was on display, but not when it was just lying in the bottom of the printer. ---
**Author:** ![Bartman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@Bartman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bartman)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/52 "2012-07-04T17:16:48Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > I’m fine with a wide view of art, but for some reason there are a large number of people who will defend to the death the notion that “everything is art”. There are a couple of multi-page threads on it. Well I’m not willing to go that far either. I just found the OPs complete dismissal of the idea as baffling. > [@fumster](#): > > When I drove to work this morning there were a number of conscious decisions that had to be made: freeway or surface roads, get going in the right direction by going around the block or do a three-point turn, brake hard for the yellow light or continue through it. I guess I could consider my commute a work of art and deem myself an artist, but that is just wankery. And this is well past where I draw the line. In my definition art has to be about communication. Which I believe I said in my first post. I take a couple thousand pictures a month. Most of them are art. Most of them are pretty bad art mind you. But they are art. However I’ve probably taken in excess of a thousand so far this year, where I was simply taking a test shot, or some other non-communicative purpose. I sat one afternoon while watching TV taking pictures of my foot to test a SD card; the card _was_ bad. None of those were art… because there was never an intent to communicate. I have hundreds of “grain test” shots taken at various ISOs and f/stops with all my bodies and lenses against both flat black and flat white backgrounds. None of those are art. Again because there was no communication. But in **Cheesesteaks** sunflower example. Hell yes, the badly composed sunflower picture is art. The photographer created the image in order to communicate something. Now in the example it may be technically bad art (poorly composed, poorly exposed, out of focus, and more). And the message may be insipid (whoa, look at that big ass sunflower). But to me it has to be art. Otherwise what is our definition? It isn’t based on the quality of the equipment. It isn’t based on any specific particular choice. If I have my camera set to Aperture Priority it doesn’t make something less art, than if I have it on full manual. Neither does a fully automated tool like an iPhone. I’ve seen curated shows of iPhone photography. I can’t be the fact that the OP calls himself an artist, and his mom doesn’t. That is pretentious dickishness of the first order. It can’t be the intent of creating art… to many artistic pieces are eventually shown where they were never originally intended as art. > [@fumster](#): > > There is a distinction to be made between a snapshot and a photograph taken with with the intent of creating art, just as there is between writing a book of prose and filling out a check. There is no clear line that separates them, but neither is there a distinct boundary between blue and green. If we say “everything is blue” then we lose the power to distinguish colors. But I would argue that, that is still too exclusive. As long as there is creation with an intent to communicate… that is sufficient to me. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/53 "2012-07-04T17:24:04Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Okay, so, what is art, then? Art is something that can be observed, plus context. A good pratfall can be art. Perhaps not fine art, but it can be art. The glory of the artist is the ability to shape, create, and refine both the observable part and to provide the context. Is it possible to create accidental art? I think so, but I also think that relies heavily on the context surrounding it. For example, the ‘9/11 cross’ has deep meaning to people, despite being a random event. The real test of the artist is how much of the meaning the artist can share with the observer. So yes, the toilet on the wall? Art. The first time, at least. It has meaning. It has context. It shapes feelings and emotions. In fact, it’s saying pretty much the same thing I am now. After the first time, not so much, though. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/54 "2012-07-04T17:30:27Z")
Is everything art? No, I’m going to say not, because they don’t express meaning. The rainbow in glass is _bad art_ from the artist’s perspective, because it doesn’t communicate the intended meaning. On the other hand, to the rest of the world, it’s good art, because it communicates the things a rainbow does, evoking relief and joy after torment. Is my commute art? Depends. It’s possible to communicate meaning through it. I can cut everyone off and get to work faster, or I can be polite, and make people’s days better. I can form emotion in those involved. It could be considered performance art in that manner, but the thing is, the people viewing it don’t recognize it as artificial generation of context, so I’m going to say it’s not. It might be possible to frame it so a third party could, though. Mmm. This is part of, I suppose, why Kinkaide is bad art. Given all the messages he could pass with his art, the only one he does, is ‘it’s a building that is kinda pretty’. And, I suppose, why I consider Norman Rockwell a great artist, despite using perfectly pedestrian techniques and tools. He communicates. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/55 "2012-07-04T17:31:25Z")
> [@Bartman](#): > > In my definition art has to be about communication. Communication is overrated. I don’t want the artist to tell me things. Art like that is boring. I want him to structure an experience. I want him to create a garden for me to wander in. Maybe when he builds the garden he has a particular destination in mind, and maybe he doesn’t. I don’t care, so long as my journey is fun and I arrive at someplace interesting at the end. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/56 "2012-07-04T17:33:45Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > I think those are good example of the elusiveness of defining “art”, but I still roll my eyes at the “everything is art” crowd. Am I consistent in my beliefs? Probably not. Everything isn’t art. But maybe I’m too right-brained to care enough to nail down a precise definition and then beat other people over the head with it. I know art when I see it, and that’s good enough for me. I haven’t been formally trained in art outside of finger painting in elementary school and a couple of community pottery classes. I’ve never been given my own show at a gallery. My work has never been critically reviewed in an industry publication. If someone were to ask about my “intentions”, I wouldn’t know what to say besides, “I like purple, so that’s why I painted that tin can over yonder purple.” And yet people have expressed emotions in response to objects I’ve created and have gone home with those objects in tow through no coercive action on my part. I’m no different from Mom snapping pictures because she thinks they’re purty. And yet I feel very much like an artist. I don’t know what other word is out there that would apply to me. I’m not stealing the professional artist’s thunder by doing what I do, so I don’t know why should give a fuck what I call myself. In the end, I’d rather create than waste time thinking about it. Which is what the OP should probably do. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/57 "2012-07-04T17:39:12Z")
> [@flatlined](#): > > Here is a great example of [dick swinging art](http://www.nataliekrol.com/comissions/silver_tornado.html). And here I was fully expecting a meatspin link. I spend too much time on the interwebs. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/58 "2012-07-04T17:39:12Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > Well _all_ threads are about that; how dare you try and put limits on what is and is not a thread about what is and is not art. Here is a thread picked at random: [Like stupid and pompous idiots, who try to define and limit what art is. - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=630410) I don’t see anything in that thread which says or implies that “everything is art.” What am I missing? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/59 "2012-07-04T17:43:47Z")
It looks like you’re confusing “there are no limits on art” with “everything is art.” But that is not what is meant by those saying “there are no limits on art.” They’re not saying everything is art–they’re saying anything could be art. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159/60 "2012-07-04T18:12:38Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > It looks like you’re confusing “there are no limits on art” with “everything is art.” But that is not what is meant by those saying “there are no limits on art.” They’re not saying everything is art–they’re saying anything could be art. That’s a meaningful distinction only if at some point someone is willing to say something that _could_ be art isn’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-art-world-i-pit-thee/627159.md?page=4)