What is art? I mean, really?

Great Debates
1

You’ve heard the old saying, “I don’t know art, but I know what I like.”?

There’s the well known works: Mona Lisa, Statue of David, that weird-ass Dali painting with the drippy clocks.

Then there’s the controversial stuff: the picture of a crucifix in a jar of urine, a guy who photographed himself cutting out his testicles (:eek: ).

It seems that ANYTHING can considered art, depending upon who you ask. One could say that this is true to the “untrained” eye. Well, what if the person who “trains” you really, really likes those creepy big-eyed children & kitties paintings?

Why do people go to art schools? I can understand going to learn about different techniques, but wouldn’t this bias you toward one style or another? Do we really need another cubist painter?

I could also see going to college to learn about different types of materials and media one could use, but, again, wouldn’t this also bias one for or against one media over another?

I saw a picture in the paper recently about a photographer whose works were going to be displayed. One of the featured pictures was of a giant roll of “admit one” tickets sitting on a block of wood (IIRC). The picture didn’t seem to be unique or unusual in any way my “untrained” eye could see. No odd lighting or camera angle. Yet this is considered “art.”

Hell, if I nail a plaster banana to a 2x4 and embed it in a vat of shellacked chili and says that it represents my feelings toward tax-supported mass transit systems, who’s to say it’s not?

While it’s unlikely to end up in a prestigious New York art gallery, is it any less “arty” than the above-mentioned pieces?

One could look at the Mona Lisa and say, “Well, that’s an interesting use of brush strokes,” or some such “arty” thing. Or one could say that it’s the greatest portrait ever painted. Or even, “What an ugly woman. What’s with the goofy smile?”

I guess it depends on why one creates “art.” If one does it to express oneself, that’s one thing, but if one does to make a buck, that’s another thing entirely. And if one does it for the money, is it any less “arty”?

Opinions? Comments?

2

One of the most useful thing I learned in art history was not to take for granted what is ‘great art.’ They had us look at famous ‘great’ pieces and criticise the heck out of them.

‘Winged Voctory’ ‘Venus De Milo’ and others got totally worked over.

It’s gotta be in the eye of the beholder.

3

If you could define it, it would no longer be art.

Oh, and there’s a reason art is outside of the realm of things that can be specifically denoted in words: the act of utilizing language to confer and describe meaning is itself an art. Art is the larger context.

cf: Robert Pirsig

4

In my favorite philosophy of art class we read a number of views on the utility of art; as a political tool, as personal expression, as an exploration of art issues, as tribute to God, as a way of making a living. At the end of that class it seemed the only reasonable response to the question “what is art?” is, “it can be anything”, which goes back to the point about the eye of the beholder.

Howsomever…

I am an artist, I’ve studied art formally, and I’ve taught art. The truth is that a really good piece of art is like a really good movie - it contains everything that is essential to its purpose and nothing that isn’t. The skill with which it has been executed is adequate to its goals. The value experienced by a viewer appreciates over time, rather than being diminished. It has integrity and the wholeness of the piece expresses more than the individual elements alone.

And I find that a really good work of art seems to be alive, seems to breathe with its own presence; that’s where the fun mystical stuff comes in. I think it’s also why good art often has an immediate appeal that doesn’t require extensive explaining.

Re: what art students are taught, it varies wildly according to the instructors and institution. I wish that all high school art courses included the basics of analysis, because there is visual “grammar” and there are ways of understanding artwork. It’s not all just subjective, and it can be taught. That’s where art school begins, first class, freshman year.

Re: why people go to art school, it’s essential to learn about the history and traditions of a profession. I wouldn’t presume to call myself a poet if I wasn’t familiar with the field. One effective way of teaching painting, for example, is to have the class work in the style of various artists through the semester. By learning to solve visual problems in a variety of manners, one develops the skills necessary to solve them independently. It’s like doing a lot of reading in order to learn to write well. And there’s also this thing called “critiques”…

Re: trendy art, sometimes there’s a story behind the piece that gives it additional meaning. Sometimes a piece requires that the viewer have a significant amount of knowledge about art in order to appreciate it. Sometimes what looks easy actually wasn’t. Sometimes the idea being explored is so novel that it made people pause, even if the results weren’t that spectacular. Other times, I think it’s just a lot of hype & a load of crap.

I’ll also acknowledge that art museums hang a lot of lousy artwork, pieces that I’m sure the artist meant to throw away. Once they’re dead and famous everything they’ve ever done takes on a value that’s sometimes way in excess of artistic content.

5

There was a recent story in which an art gallery had to refund about $5,000 ( or some such figure) for a “piece of art” it had just sold. Turns out the custodian had created a color-coded map of the galleries restrooms to help him and his workers know when to clean which restroom. Another employee took the map and framed it. Someone liked it enough to purchase for said amount of money.

So if I were to create the aforementioned “work of art” AND someone wanted to pay me $5,000 for it, would that prove anything?

6

Art is what someone likes.

It doesn’t have to be universally liked, or even majority liked, just one person liking it is enough to make it art.

The key to art is how much money you can get for it. That’s how people judge its worth, or its merit, or if it is ‘true’ art or just nonsense, etc. How much some idiot with more dollars than sense (hoping to make a profit from it in the future) will pay for it.

I don’t mind art as art. I really hate the idea of art as investment. But that seems to be the only kind of art that matters to the so-called people who count, i.e. pretentious arty wankers.

7

Picasso said:

So obviously he thought there was a learning curve involved.

[ul][sup]Follow the link. It may be a surprise to some.[/sup][/ul]

8

Art’s virtue is at once its downfall.

Anything imaginable can be art. Once framed, a used condom becomes art.

Now, what sort of art and of what quality are other matters entirely.

9

“Start with the awareness that art is just good. People doing bad
shows is better than people doing good murders and rapes. Art means
people are celebrating being alive, even if they do it with Hippity
Hop Rabbits.” —Teller

10

Totally agree that art is what YOU like.

The problem is with snotty art critics and artists who seem to think if you don’t like something it is because you aren’t intelligent enough to understand it.

It seems that modern art is not great on its own, it needs the artist to explain what it really means and the best artist is the one who can come up with the best bullsh*t story to explain waht they have done.

I honestly believe that much of the contemporary art is a case of “the emperors new clothes”

11

I disagree with the art being something you or anyone likes.

I think a more suitable definition, if one is required, would be something which can move a person in some emotionally-charged way . This can be by love, enjoyment and pleasure, but equally could be revulsion, disgust or pain. It could be through confusion, hatred, sadness, or memory of some distant experience.

Art can thus be anything which can invoke a reaction, or any sort, in the viewer. The type of reaction is then dependant on the interest, analysis and past history of the individual viewer, in that moment.

12

I hope that Gaudere pops in here. She has what I believe are some rather remarkable insights into the nature of art. Meanwhile, a question for you, Aro: how well do you believe your take on art fits with an expression such as, “Programming computers is as much an art as a science.”?

13

Lib,
Being considered ’an art’ or ‘an art form does not mean actually being “Art” to me. One is merely a descriptive tool. Many skills can be called an art (dance, lock-picking, rally driving, topiary etc…) but it is not the having of a particular skill but instead the use of that skill that produces actual art.

English and History are both art subjects at University, but that essay you wrote on the Civil War does not necessarily constitute a Work of Art.

But I’ll agree my initial point was geared mainly towards the type of Art you see displayed in galleries throughout the land, rather than the broader usage of the word.

14

To me, for anything physical (i.e., static media art, like paintings or sculpture) to be art, there must be a clear demonstration of technical expertise and skill. Otherwise, whether one may have “something” to say, but you are representing it like crap.

15

The definition of art that I am most comfortable with (and it is a rather cynical one, I must admit) is that art would be distinguished from trash if you abandoned it in an alleyway.

If (nobody had ever seen it before and) you left John Martin’s Sadak in Search of the Waters of Oblivion leaning against a wall in a sidestreet, there’s a pretty good chance that someone finding it would move it to a place where it would not be damaged.

If (nobody had ever seen it before and) you left Tracy Ermin’s My Bed in a sidestreet, there’s a pretty good chance someone finding it would simply get the local authorities take it to the landfill.

Furthermore, if I need to be told what to feel when viewing a work of (so called) art, then it has failed - if I need to read a wall plaque or brochure stating “IKB 79 by Yves Klein (a plain, uniform blue canvas square) encapsulates a synthesis of our material reality with the”, I am inclined to run from the building, crying “the Emperor is naked!”.

Maybe that’s just me though.

16

Yes, technique and skill matter. Art school provides an understanding of composition, of colour theory, and light and sound and all the other things artists have learned by trial and error over the centuries about how materials and media complement each other.

Art school gives artists insight into the mistakes and triumphs of others so they are free to make their own.

Art school gives the “rules”; it’s up to the artists to figure out how to best bend those rules into frames and contexts of their own work.

For the viewer, listener, or reader, art drives a spike through your skull and hangs you on the wall, steps back and examines you.

Art pries you open and peers inside, pokes at your workings, as my brother used to do, as a young’un, with everything – only when art puts you back together, you work better.

You don’t learn about art; art learns about you.

But you gotta let it touch you, you gotta be willing to be broken.

Art is risk on all sides.

17

I can agree with this in the light of some ‘pretentious’ types work, like in certain abstract installations in the Tate, where artists expect you to read more into works, or analyse further than they have perhaps been willing or able to do themselves.

But I also think a certain level of learning or background reading is necessary to appreciate the value of particular works of art, specifically religious or historical subject matters.

You linked to a John Martin painted before: now try this painting.
If you did not have any prior knowledge of the basis for the story depicted or the ideas behind its conception, could you fully appreciate it as a work of Art? Would it still carry the same meaning, or would it merely be just another picture that was nicely painted? Sometimes, the beauty and appreciation gained is from understanding the depth of the vision of the artist, and how he arrived this specific composition of this subject matter.

(it is called “The Great Day of His Wrath”, in case you didn’t know)

18

Jumping in without reading the entire thread. (Still on my first cuppa joe.)

How’s this? “Art is anything created with the intent of using it as a means of expressing one’s self.”

I don’t think it matters if it is good art or bad art, as long as the artist is sincerely trying to express himself. Is Piss Christ “art”? Many people think it is, and many think it is not. How does it fit within my definition? If Piss Christ has meaning to the artist, then I’d say it’s “art”. If the artist just did it as a joke to make people angry (notice how I didn’t say “piss off” :wink: ), then it becomes more difficult. Maybe making people angry, or otherwise provoking a reaction, is “art”.

Let’s say I get a canvas and some paint. I paint a stick figure on the canvas and frame it. Is it “art”? Maybe I’m totally incapable of painting anything but a stick figure and that’s the best I can do. I’d call it “art”. Really poor art, but the intention of self-expression would be there.

But then we must ask, “What is “good” art, and what is “poor” art?” Maybe a stick figure on a canvas will be considered a “masterpiece” someday. Is ability the thing that makes good art? Or is it sincerity? Or is it perserverance? Or is it something else?

19

I think the problem is people’s standards are way too low. That’s one thing I dislike on Trading Spaces; I’ve heard them say, “all you have to do is put a frame on it & it’s art”. And I believe for a lot of people that’s true. But if they’d been exposed to a lot of good art it wouldn’t be that way.

Sort of like settling for TV dinners & thinking they’re great because a person hasn’t ever eaten a really good meal.

One of the problems with contemporary art is there’s so much pressure on artists to write the next page of art history. It’s not enough to be really competent, to create beauty - one must also be novel. Which leads to novelties.

20

I think the issue is “intent”. If you intend to use a found object to express yourself artistically, then it’s “art”. If you want to put a bunch of leaves in a frame just so you can do a magic tric and say, “Voilá! Art!” then that might not count. Is it self expression? Or is it just that you’re throwing something together to cover a blank space on the wall? Does the desire to cover a blank space on the wall count as count as “intent”? If the room itself is your canvas, and it needs something over the blank space, then the “art” might not be the are per se, but an integral part of the “art piece” as a whole.

I understand where you are coming from. But even bad, trendy art is still “art” inasmuch as it was created to be art. I’m reminded of a line from Amadeus: “Too many notes.” Wolfie replies that his composition has just as many notes as it needs and no more. When rock’n’roll appeared, the older generation cried, “That’s not music!” When punk made the scene, rock’n’rollers whose parents told them that rock’n’roll wasn’t “music”, they said the same thing about punk.

Certainly, fessie, much of the “art” today is “bad” or “incompetent”; and I know it rankles with people who appreciate classical art. We think of Picasso as a great painter, but is his “art” actually “good” compaired to the Old Masters? By my interpretation of what “art” is, then it is. By the yardstick of others he was an amateur.