I guess you missed where I said that if someone frames it as art, it becomes art.
If I vomit on the sidewalk, no it is not art.
If I vomit on the sidewalk and someone cordones it off with tape and puts up a sign saying, “A Critical Review of Post-Modern Art”, then it has become art.
But just because it’s art doesn’t mean it is no longer a pool of disgusting vomit. It just means someone has decided it means the vomit communicates something to them. We are perfectly free to shout back at them, “When are you going to clean this shit up?” Art does not imply value.
there is hobby art where a person does it because they want to. they may spend huge amounts of hours making and repairing/redoing a piece of art to be what they want or at least as good as they can get to what they want. good stuff no matter how it looks.
there is commercial art where at some point an artist will make what sells whether they like it or not. they will only put as much work into it to get it to a point that sells. even if it isn’t the quality it could be, then using the right marketing will make it sell.
there is lots of beauty in all kinds of places. there is healthy thriving nature. there is dead and decaying nature; rotten wood and slime are spectacular. the most brilliant colors i’ve seen are things like crystal growth under polarized light on a microscope slide. nature on a macroscopic and microscopic level shows awesome symmetry. i’ll have that on my wall any day.
You liked my definition upthread, but I’m not sure you fully understood it.
Function makes something art, not essence. If a thing structures an aesthetic experience for me, then it is art. It the same thing does not structure an experience for you, then it is not art. The same object can be both art and not art depending upon who is looking at it and how.
Say, I hand you a brightly colored piece of paper covered with numbers and pictures.
“What’s this?” you said.
“It’s money,” I say. “It’s a ten kopek bill from Ostslavia.”
“Cool,” you say. “How much is it worth in dollars?”
When did the paper turn into money?
“It’s not worth anything,” I say. “I’m just kidding. There’s no such place as Ostslavia.”
When did the money turn back into paper?
Paper becomes money when people treat it as money. An object becomes art when people treat it as art.
I am not questioning the OP’s assessment that the art world is a tight circle of dick wavers, and I will define what I mean by dick waver: that would be artists creating works with the intention of waving a bigger ego centered accomplishment, a big name, etc. in a sort of competitive display.
What I am questioning is - might there be a more satisfying approach for the artist? I mean outside of an Emily Dickinson style self imposed social seclusion, which could only come out of wealth and luxury in the first place. Artists will create, and dick waving may be out of forced necessity crucial to marketing and the survival of the artist, but is this all there can be, and is this all there has ever been?
I am not suggesting that people who are touched by the beauty, truth, or meaning they glean from the art are not finding value, or that the art is necessarily lower in value just because the motive to create comes from the desire to wave one’s dick.
Who knows how long it has been important for the artist to wave his or her dick, or conform to the rule of the better, bigger, newer style of dick waving. Maybe there is no other way to go, given the spark needed to be creative.
But in thinking about how a cave painting must have satisfied an artist, that it was possibly painted in the dark, and that possibly no one ever saw the art… it just gives me cause to think about the need for dick waving.
I think you might enjoy The Painted Word, by Tom Wolfe. He reals that many of the art darlings of the '60s were just the result of two rich guys battling over who had was better at “discovering” the next major talent. Of course I’m using “discover” here in the sense of "find some unknown bastard with a semblance of talent, throw a huge opening and deem him to be the next genius. Short, but good read.
And a majority of the great masterworks of the past were commissioned by rich guys to show off how rich they are. The more things change, the more things stay the same.
I think that you are an awesome person, and I’m not going to argue with you about what art is. Personally, I don’t like Picasso and had to google Satyagraha to find out what it was was.
I tossed those pics into this thread because I thought they were something that people would laugh at.
But…if you want to protect the “art” that is a stainless steel steer, you are welcome to don gloves, pick up a weedeater and allow it to be shown to the world again. The artist could do the same thing, but she hasn’t bothered. Nobody can see it now, nobody cares enough to try to protect it or display it. I’ll bet a LOT of art was burned up back in the day because the people who had it thought it was better to use it for kindling.
Yes, I am a philistine. I like things to look pretty. If you gave me some of your art, I would probably proudly display it on my wall because I like how it looks. I wouldn’t have a copy of The Scream on my wall, no matter how edgy it looks. Its not pretty to me. I do have a very wonderful (to my eyes) sandstone piece of art hanging there. I never thought of it as art, I thought it was pretty and wanted it in my home.
Not really. The modern art gallery changed things. As is relayed in the book, a rich guy in the art world could just take some average upstart, declare him the next Hopper, Sargent, Picasso…give him an exclusive showing at a swank gallery with great fanfare and PRESTO: the art world has its next star.
Well, you should question the OP’s assessment, because the OP’s is a fucking moron. I mean, seriously, an old man from his local coupon flyer says “All photography is art,” and compliments him on something he didn’t intend to include in his pictures, and from this he concludes that the entire art world is full of “dick wavers?” That’s not merely a stupid conclusion, that’s a conclusion that’s directly at odds with the evidence he claims led him to the conclusion. “All photography is art,” is the complete opposite of “dick waving.” It’s the democratization of art. It’s defining art in a way that covers the largest number of people possible, and it’s explicitly inclusive of people who are in no way a part of the art world. And he’s using this as evidence of elitism! I mean, I’m the first one to argue that there are no wrong interpretations of art, and everyone’s opinion is valid, but what the OP is saying is just flat out stupid.
So, yeah, I’d be careful about using anything the OP says as a launching pad for your own ideas about art. But getting back to your question, there’s nothing that needs to be “done” about it. The people at the top of the art world tend to have large egos, true - but I think that’s the same of anyone who is in the upper echelons of their career. It takes a lot of drive and ambition to succeed on an international level. That much drive and ambition usually comes packaged with a healthy dose of ego. There are plenty of artists who don’t have that level of drive and ambition, and are perfectly happy working on a lower rung of the art world.
I checked out the pics you linked to, and honestly, I don’t get the outrage. It’s a statue of a bull. It’s purely representational, and pretty well done. I’m not a fan of the material she used - bronze would have looked better, or something that could pick up a patina, but I’m not sure how it earned the title “Eyesore of the Year,” or why you thought posters in this thread would find it particularly funny, or how it connects to the whole “dick waving” thing the OP is obsessed with.
Actually, I’m not sure that we are: that’s not just overgrown with weeds, it’s been deliberately surrounded with trees and large bushes. I’m pretty sure if anyone showed up and just started chopping that shit down, they’d get arrested for vandalism.
Also, not sure who said anything about protecting it. Where’s that coming from?
Yes, almost certainly. What’s your point?
I wouldn’t want The Scream on my wall, either. Not because it’s bad - it’s a legitimate masterpiece, as far as I’m concerned - but because it’s specifically intended to invoke a negative emotional response. It succeeds, brilliantly, in that goal, and it’s a fascinating work in general, but it’s not something I need to stare at every morning over coffee.
I do not think that the old man’s relativist or democratization approach to art, that caused the OP to be offended, is the complete opposite of dick waving. The OP disagreed with him about a standard of judgement, and then had an epiphany about dick waving in the art world.
What I got from the OP’s dick waving=celebration of the ego of the artist and/or sponsor, was how the public loves a big show, and the artist can also be a popularly consumable star, and maybe OP feels left out in some way, I am not sure.
Also that dick waving can accompany art that is financially rewarded and mass circulated but is not necessarily of the highest quality, but can be hyped up with dick waving.
That the producers of this art may be able to keep their ranks exclusive, but is not to say that the best quality or the best talent is assured, and that does not speak of it as being elite, and I never got the impression that the OP was saying that the dick wavers were elitist.
Why would someone who is privileged enough to have his own gallery showing feel left out?
I agree with Miller. The old man journalist wasn’t waving his dick; the OP was. His beef is that the old man was saying Mom’s snapshots and his work can be categorized together. And we’re all supposed to see the indignity in this. I wish he’d return and defend this position.
Maybe there are a lot of dick wavers in art, but the OP didn’t pick the right example to illustrate this.
Right. But why? Why would you assume that we’d all find it “bad art”? Just because it’s been covered in vegetation? OK…but then there’s a ton of stuff–like that Israeli mosaic–that have unburied after centuries of neglect and abandonment. Maybe that mosaic was “bad art” back in its time, but no one seems to be expressing that opinion now. It’s teh coolness now.
You don’t like Picasso, and yet if I posted his work as examples of “bad art”, I don’t think I’d be met with chorus of agreement. Thomas Kinkaid, yeah, but not Picasso. I don’t even think you’d tell me it was “bad art”. You’d probably just say you didn’t like it. For the same reason I can say I don’t like Pulp Fiction, but I wouldn’t say it’s bad cinema. One is expressing an opinion, neither right or wrong. The other is more of a cerebral/intellectual stance that requires argumentation and formal knowledge about art that I don’t possess.
You have a good point here. I’m thinking of art as a creation from someone’s skill and creativity that is intended to evoke an emotional response, even one as base as “how pretty”. In that sense, the selection of a subject requires creativity, and I discounted that. My aunt Gertrude had to use her creativity to select a flower, even if she has little to no photographic skills, she has put something creative into the photo.
What I do want to separate out, what I think is necessary to distinguish “art” from “not-art” are works that are devoid of aesthetic or emotional content. A grocery list is not a work of art, unless it’s in haiku:
At the grocery
One buys chicken and waffles
For dining pleasure
Or a limerick:
There once was a man from Montclair
Who held his nose in the air
He went to Whole Foods
But was singing the blues
Since he forgot to purchase a pear
A plain grocery list is intended to communicate facts it is not intended to invoke any response other than “buy a pear”. Some photos are simply recording an event for future viewing. The photographer isn’t trying to communicate anything other than “Joe and Bob stood next to each other”.
I know you and I have gone around about similar topics to this one, and I don’t feel the need to really dive into this debate again, but this is a bad analogy, Miller. Mass is measureable.
“The dog’s mass is 20 kilograms.”
You cannot do the same thing for art.
“The painting’s art is 3.2 milliVincis.”
They may both be qualities, but one is objective and quantifiable, and the other is subjective and not.
