The Art World - I pit thee

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I had pretty much the same thought in school when countless English literature professors found six layers of meaning in the pocketa-pocketa noises from The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.

[florez]

@LeeshaJoy

By that standard, this is “elite art,” conveying the elite’s purpose of “get people to buy more Coca-Cola.”

Not all elite art becomes classic or part of artistic tradition. No matter how much it is funded or promoted there is no guarantee that it will rival the work of Michelangelo.

An elite can declare this work to be art, with the purpose to make the glory of coca cola live on into the ages. It can be placed into the most prestigious gallery in America, but then it would still go through a test of time.

For example the early Impressionists suffered from a denial of value in their technique and artistic judgement at the start of their test of time, but in the long run value becomes more clear.

[florez]

@monstro

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.

Aggressive art promotion is difficult for many artists, IMO it is a skill all it’s own, but for the sake of survival and/or prosperity sometimes it is a good thing for an artist to learn.

[Jackmannii]

@YoudNeverGuess

I agree that Art should be beautiful or striking or moving in some way.

I wouldn’t have called Art* beautiful or striking, but some of the episodes were moving in their way.

*Fleming, former Jeopardy host.

[Miller]

@CandidGamera

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.

So, not relevant at all, then? My only point was that an attribute can be universal, and still meaningful. The fact that mass is objective, and art is not, is immaterial to the comparison.

[CandidGamera]

@Miller

So, not relevant at all, then? My only point was that an attribute can be universal, and still meaningful. The fact that mass is objective, and art is not, is immaterial to the comparison.

Only if you purposefully read his original complaint as narrowly as possible so as to create the strawman you’re trying to refute. He did not say universal attributes were meaningless. You may infer it from his statement, but only if it’s what you’re already looking for. It was clear to me that he said “if everything is ART, then ‘ART’ is meaningless”.

In other words, he specifically objects to “Art” as a universal attribute, not universal attributes in general. He says it has no meaning unless it serves to distinguish one group of objects from another.

Going “What about mass, then? Neener, neener.” is purposefully missing the point.

[Miller]

@CandidGamera

Only if you purposefully read his original complaint as narrowly as possible so as to create the strawman you’re trying to refute. He did not say universal attributes were meaningless. You may infer it from his statement, but only if it’s what you’re already looking for. It was clear to me that he said “if everything is ART, then ‘ART’ is meaningless”.

In other words, he specifically objects to “Art” as a universal attribute, not universal attributes in general. He says it has no meaning unless it serves to distinguish one group of objects from another.

Going “What about mass, then? Neener, neener.” is purposefully missing the point.

Well, suffice to say I disagree with your interpretation of Budge Cadet Player’s original post - the things you say he “clearly” meant are not at all evident in his post.

But what I’m more interested in at this point is, what does your earlier objection over mass being an objective quality have to do with what you just posted?

[CandidGamera]

@Miller

Well, suffice to say I disagree with your interpretation of Budge Cadet Player’s original post - the things you say he “clearly” meant are not at all evident in his post.

But what I’m more interested in at this point is, what does your earlier objection over mass being an objective quality have to do with what you just posted?

Little. My first post was an attempt to address the symptom - now that I’ve diagnosed the underlying malformed assumption, I can tackle it directly. Until you elaborated, it never occurred to me that one would read such a ludicrous construction into what he’d posted.

[Cheesesteak]

@Miller

My only point was that an attribute can be universal, and still meaningful. The fact that mass is objective, and art is not, is immaterial to the comparison.

I am describing an object:

It has mass

What do you now know about this object? It can be a single helium atom, it could be a brick, or a Buick, or Uluru, or the Supermassive Black Hole at the Center of the Galaxy. The fact that mass is a universal attribute of objects makes “it has mass” a meaningless descriptor.

It’s mass is 1kg

Now, you have something, I’ve defined it’s mass so we can rule out tons of stuff, I’ve differentiated the object from other objects.

This can’t be done with “art”, I can’t define a certain amount of artiness that will help one distinguish the Mona Lisa from my kid’s Crayon on Wall #57.