I fail to see how that invalidates his point, however.
I agree that Art should be beautiful or striking or moving in some way. The artist’s intention can be interesting and can provide interesting further insight into the work but sometimes it can be unclear, or even irrelevant ultimately to the response it provokes in its audience.
Art is also created. It doesn’t occur naturally. You could say ‘what about the elephant painting’ but who put the paintbrush in the elephant’s trunk and taught it to paint? Why does the elephant do it? My guess is because it’s being controlled/ encouraged to do this by humans so the idea was a human idea.
Let’s get a couple of things straight here.
First, the producers of stuff they present as “art” have always been irritated with the commercial end of the racket and have always grumbled in their beer that a handful of wealthy Philistines (who don’t favor their stuff) are running the market.
Second, the art business is a rich man’s business. The acquisition, display and safekeeping of original paintings, sculptures, photographs and what-have-you is expensive.
Third, most Philistines and many wealthy people have devoted the greater part of their lives to something other than cultivating an appreciation of the artist’s struggle and product.
Fourth, at the bottom art is decoration. Art may accomplish other things, as when the medieval church chose to use architecture and painting to enhance its importance and carry its message to the illiterate, or government choses to use art to solidify its hold on power, but it is still fundamental decoration.
Lastly, it is the rare, fortunate and market sensitive artist who can make a living producing the art he wants to, as opposed to the art the Philistine controlled market will buy.
Why do you think that distinction is relevant to the comparison I was making?
Maybe I was not being clear enough, but I did not mean to imply that the old man journalist was waving his dick, only that the relativist approach to art is not 100% opposite of dick waving.
There exists an elite art, which is of the highest quality, and people go to school just to learn how to appreciate it, etc. Consumer and popular art to my way of thinking are democratized art.
IMO dick wavers are not in all cases elites, and not in all cases outside of the democratization of art, which is why I do not see opposites there and what I was disagreeing with.
None of this may be what the OP was driving at, and I wish he would come back to clarify, and I also agree that his does not seem to be the best example for the point he was trying to make.
Art is a window washer.
[Extremely esoteric reference that very few will get.]
Can you give an example of this “elite” art? Who are the artists you would consider exemplars of “elite” art? What differentiates an “elite” artist from a commercial or popular artist?
What does “dick waving” have to do with any of this?
I would like to know this as well. As someone with a BFA in Studio Art, I am not convinced that “elite” art exists except in the minds of pretentious academics.
A term of art, as it were.
I guess I need an example of what you’re talking about because I’m still not following what you’re communicating.
But I can take a WAG. Are you saying you think arrogance (I prefer to use a word that has a more consistent definition) is necessary for success in the art world, and thus not something that should be vilified wholesale? I agree, if only because I see its importance in other fields–such as science. You have to convince people your voice is worth being heard…that what you are saying is new and earth-shattering. That calls for a little bit of arrogance, extroversion, and persistence.
But just a little bit.
Why do you want to distinguish the two, though? Do you think there’s a risk that someone will confuse them? OK, let’s say this happens. What harm does this do to either grocery lists or artwork?
It’s like saying we need to distinguish cars from beds, as if the words “car” and “bed” aren’t enough. You know what art looks like and you know what a grocery list looks like. You know your mother’s snapshots at the county fair are different from Annie Leibovitz’s work. Why do you need the difference concretized in language?
I LOVE this. I’m an art teacher, and I think I’ll ask tomorrow’s class ***“Do you want to argue about Art? Or shut up and make some?”
Or maybe “You can try to figure out what’s Art, or you can spend that time making it. Which do you think will be more fun, more lucrative, and bring joy to more people?”
IMO elite art is generally funded by elites, and the artist is the conveyor of the elite’s purpose. A simple example would be Michelangelo’s work for the Catholic church. Not all elites have the same purpose, and they might even share a purpose with the artist, but the elite are in the drivers seat, they choose the artist with the most talent and skill, they can afford to provide the artist with the highest quality materials,etc.
For example, the purpose of art in many ancient cultures was for specific elite families to be venerated or eternalized, and that same living on through art is still available to elites. Contemporary art, modern and trendy today, can still be classical art in the future, because it is chronological in art history and in perpetual evolution.
So if you are an elite, your purpose or what you might want to live on respectfully into the future can be provided for you, if you can find and fund the work of an especially gifted and talented artist, and you may find him/her out there waving his/her dick somewhere. But the highest product of this union will generally be elite art.
Popular or consumer art may be more along the lines of the current fad or style, and it is geared to the masses primarily for interest and entertainment value. It is light duty work for an artist who does not necessarily have to grasp specialized knowledge, but can continue learning and can become very good, precise and prolific with his/her own work. IMO the best of popular art can become classic in it’s own right.
And dick waving may just be a term for self promotion, as artists are often seeking someone to fund their efforts, and sometimes even the artist who has bushels of skill and talent will notice that it is just dumb luck to find a great sponsor.
If there is no distinction between art and not-art, then the word art is rendered meaningless. Describing something as art doesn’t convey any information to the audience because everything is art already.
The two of us don’t seem to be confused about what art is.
No one else in this thread does either.
If I tell you I’m going to the art museum, I don’t think you’re going to picture me shopping at the grocery store, my chicken-scratch in tow.
If I tell you that I just sold a piece of artwork, I don’t think you’re going to need to say, “Let’s define our terms here. You aren’t confusing your grocery list for art, right?”
If I tell you that I’m artistic, I don’t think you’re going to need me to describe exactly what I make for you to decide if I’m being accurate or not. I can just show you a picture of what I make, and you can decide for yourself.
Again, I am not seeing why we need to distinguish art from non-art. 99.999% of art is obviously art, by anyone’s definition. Why get hung up on that tiny percentage that’s hard to define…especially since it’s almost certainly going to fade into obscurity?
(Art is a right-brain endeavor. Linguistics is a left-brain endeavor. There is a reason for this!)
Because an objective quality has meaning that can be evaluated in an objective manner. A subjective quality like ‘artiness’, that no one can even seem to agree on a definition for, may be meaningful to some, and not to others. With mass - you may not **care **that an object has mass or what that mass is, but it affects you just the same.
I disagree about the percentage. You have some folks (not in this thread) who would say that Pollock #8 is not art. You have some folks (like Bartman in this thread) saying that my mom’s patented “cut off the tops of everyone’s head” pictures taken with one of these badboys is art.
There is a whole lot of stuff in between, a lot more stuff than you’ll find in a gallery or a museum.
I was also going to add “what is art” is ultimately a pretty unimportant debate in the grand scheme. Even if you don’t think Pollack is art, or you think horrible pictures are art, nothing really changes.
Every act of consumption is an act of production… By stimulating one industry, one neglects another. Finite, zero sum system, with limited resources.
I read that post-modernism was actually a response to technology. Art could no longer compete with photography (well, other than the fact that pontillism and other forms of art not attempting to accurately represent reality predate colour photography at least) so it just branched in other ways to express emotions.
It’s funny actually, Mill made an argument against art criticism for Utilitarian reasons, which Marx criticises him for.
By that standard, this is “elite art,” conveying the elite’s purpose of “get people to buy more Coca-Cola.”
