Poll: Art: You're doing it wrong.

[no space]

I got about three pages into writing a delineation of aesthetic and artistic theory, both historic and modern, in the hopes of maybe enlightening the discussions of art on this board, but what's the use? I can see all the tl;dr's now. I'm tired of always seeing these inane discussions on art from people who haven't taken the first second of their time to research the subject even slightly. And no, skimming the Wikipedia entry for "Art" doesn't count.

Everyone assumes that, because they like some painting or some book or they cried at the end of Bioshock, they know what art is. You might as well think you can argue quantum mechanics because you laughed at a Schrödinger's cat joke. So far all I've seen is baseless conclusions about the nature of art and beauty.

Sure, you may appreciate art. You may be able to tell the difference between what is and isn't art. But that doesn't mean you know what art is. That doesn't make you qualified to define it, unless you can provide at least some basic premises for your claims.

So, to discuss. How many people here have actually researched this? How many people here have read Hume, Kant, Danto, Beardsley, Bell, Greenberg, someone? Who here doesn't care about basic logic and wants to just throw whatever they feel like at artistic discussions?

Also note: I don't want to hear about how you think art is all subjective so there's no way or reason to define it. That is completely useless to a real discussion on the topic. Even if art is subjective, it is at least intersubjective, and there is therefore some basis for that, something we can examine.


EDIT: I don't pretend to know anything for sure. And yes, I may sound a little haughty because I've done research, but that's because I've done research. I'm sure you musicians would get upset if the majority of the world thought that all you had to do was wail away on some strings to make music. Even if people don't go out and pick up an Aesthetics journal, at least think about where you're getting your opinions from, try to approach them with some reason.

 

[no space]

And of course this went into the wrong topic. Awesome.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I'm taking a class in Art and Anthropology. We read Danto. He's boring. I prefer Alfred Gell. He cuts more to the core of art as a social construct and entirely existing as a mental category.

Also, don't berate people for expressing their opinions or think "I've researched this and know so much more, you should all learn something." Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if you think its uninformed then you should explain why to him or her so that he or she can think about it in the light of this new evidence and maybe come to see things a different way. Your post just sounds kind of condescending to me.

 

[Chiasm]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; That right there summarizes art.

I may cry at the depiction of a young poor girl begging in the streets, While some rich guy may instead laugh at the art work as it has no merit to him. As long as you empathize with something and cherish that emotion it is art.

Views above were based off of my views of readings from Nietzsche.

 

[no space]

It is condescending, because I have tried explaining it. When I get a response, it's generally "Well, that's just, like your, opinion man."

And to be honest, Danto isn't my favorite. I just added him as an example, since he's still fairly noteworthy.

Didn't you get the memo? Everything is Art. From video games to poop on a canvas.

And I hate to go against what I just said, but if Danto got one thing right, it's that "just because everything can be art, not everything is." I am paraphrasing a little.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Took a humanities class. Thats about as extensive of art learning I got, but in it I learned the only lesson I needed.

Arts not the subject or the name or the person viewing. its the emotional connection between viewer and subject. Cause alone, any picture is just that, a picture.

So really everything and nothing IS art, as long as it makes you feel. I can honestly say I've never felt anything looking at the Mona Lisa (and probably a fair amount of people havent but say they have because they have to because the name Da Vinci was attached to it.

I mean, the guy wasnt even an artist. he was a grave robber (and a scientist). yet we say the Mona Lisa is art, but things like Duchamp's The Fountain cant be.

hell, i've seen people say furniture is art (which always pissed me off because its always somehwere where you feel tired of walking and then there's a chair with a sign that says do not sit).

 

[rokkolpo]

Please explain to me what exactly art is.
In your perception or otherwise.

 

[no space]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; That right there summarizes art.

I actually covered that in the overview I mentioned.

I like Kant's claims in regard to this. While we may say that we believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the way we act is in direct contradiction with this. We tell other people what we think is beautiful, and expect them to see it that way. If they don't see it that way, we assume they must be missing something fundamental about it, and we try to explain it to them.

If someone doesn't understand an artwork, it's not necessarily because they just can't get it. It's that they don't understand something about it. Maybe they're looking at it wrong. Maybe they misinterpreted some aspect of it. Almost every philosopher in the field covers this.

 

[no space]

Please explain to me what exactly art is.
In your perception or otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure myself, and I don't pretend to know. That's why I research this, because it fascinates me. I want to understand art, but every time someone gets close, we reach a new paradigm, and more things become art, and now it's more difficult than ever.

Snip for simplicity

But why does it have to be emotional? Do you have reasons? Maybe there's an entirely formal definition of art. I don't believe that's true, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. I don't wish to sound like I'm attacking you, I'm just trying to get people to really start to think about this.

 

[Chiasm]

I like Kant's claims in regard to this. While we may say that we believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the way we act is in direct contradiction with this. We tell other people what we think is beautiful, and expect them to see it that way. If they don't see it that way, we assume they must be missing something fundamental about it, and we try to explain it to them.

Always preferred Nietzsche's views on beauty over Kant's. Because with Nietzsche the reason we consider something beauty or not is our interest in the object; and because of that interest is the reason why we care or not and why we would value it. It's like Nietzsche said, "Kant like all philosophers, instead of envisaging the aesthetic problem from the point of view of the artist (the creator,), considered art and the beautiful purely from that of the ?spectator,?

 

[rokkolpo]

Please explain to me what exactly art is.
In your perception or otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure myself, and I don't pretend to know. That's why I research this, because it fascinates me. I want to understand art, but every time someone gets close, we reach a new paradigm, and more things become art, and now it's more difficult than ever.

Then why can't it just be something that is beautiful.

I saw Black Swan two days ago.
And I can tell you that it is art.
If for the amazing music, the great acting, the costumes, the script. Maybe the combination of all of it.
But it was art, and I was sweating during the whole movie.

Have you ever considered that art is just achieved fairly fast?
It's just the commitment of the maker that can make it greater.
Make it beautiful, make it awesome.

Or simplistic if that's the kind of art you're into.

What I'm saying is:
You should hold less value to what art could mean, and focus on what it means to you.

 

[no space]

Always preferred Nietzsche's views on beauty over Kant's. Because with Nietzsche the reason we consider something beauty or not is our interest in the object; and because of the interest is the reason why we care or not and why we would value it. It's like Nietzsche said, "Kant like all philosophers, instead of envisaging the aesthetic problem from the point of view of the artist (the creator,), considered art and the beautiful purely from that of the ?spectator,?

Well, that's not entirely true. What about the natural world? That's where Kant's main ideas stem from: that you could look at a flower, say, and marvel at how it came to be, how perfectly suited it is for its purpose, so much so that it looks as if someone did design it. (The fact that Kant believed in God and therefore that there was designer is irrelevant.)

As far as art goes, Kant actually does place a large emphasis on the artist. It required a "genius" on the part of the artist to create an aesthetic work. While he may not have believed there was a real connection between creator and beholder, finality of form nonetheless rears its head here.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Well, that's a pretty tricky demand. I don't think many people care enough about it to do that kind of research into a subject.

Not to mention, knowing too much about something can sometimes cause harm. (Although, that's more relevant for those responsible in creating things than for those judging it. )

Knowing too much literary theory can cause you to abandon creativity in favour of the 'rules' of literature. Or try to create something from a framework of rules and conventions that essentially sucks all the life out of your work.

On the other hand, NOT knowing the history and theory can lead you to create contrived, stupid work. Technically flawed work... Repeat bad ideas that have been seen and rightly abandoned a long time ago...
And so on.

Similarly, look at this:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/

Now, science is considered 'objective', so demanding that 'alternative' scientists know basic scientific theory makes sense.

Yet it doesn't take much effort to note that not all mainstream scientific theory is as objective as it seems, and taking it as the one and only truth means shutting yourself off from alternatives.

As such, it is genuinely possible for someone who doesn't have a proper grounding in mainstream scientific knowledge to approach a subject from an unexpected angle, and create a novel concept that would revolutionise the field they are researching.
But, of course, not knowing foundational areas of science that mainstream researchers take for granted seriously harms their credibility.

OK, so that's all something of a tangent.


The problem with your particular assertion is that you are basically saying:

"Unless you know something substantial about the academic study of art, your opinion holds so little weight that you might as well not express it."

I think it should be obvious that that comes across as so elitist and arrogant that not many people are going to want to take you seriously even if you have a point.

This is a typical problem whenever you get into a discussion between academics and the general public.

The general public perceives the academic to be arrogant, while the academic considers the public ignorant and unqualified to have a meaningful opinion.

The end result isn't a discussion, but mutual hostility.

And, unfortunately, the more 'subjective' a subject would seem to be, the more resentment there is towards those arguing about the need for understanding it's academic theories and concepts.

Clearly there must be something that characterises what art is, otherwise it would be a meaningless word.
But, considering the nature of the art world these days, what, precisely makes one thing art, and another not art, seems increasingly less comprehensible to the understanding of all but the most dedicated of scholars.

Consider something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bed (The most well known work by Tracy Emin)

Now, with no understanding of art theory, I struggle to see why that's art, while the mess in my room is just... well, a mess.
Now, obviously, that must partially have something to do with intent, since this work was created specifically for the purposes of being 'art', while the mess around my bed isn't anything other than the random result of me being lazy and somewhat messy...

But that's a problem in and of itself. Because it means that the study of art is SO esoteric that it's almost impossible to say what's art and what isn't, and it falls to some self-appointed 'experts' to make such assertions using criteria that are clearly almost incomprehensible to a normal person.

Now, surely requiring everyone that wants to say anything at all on the subject to be some kind of expert just makes art an even more incomprehensible and impenetrable subject?

The problem with it, ultimately, is that academic works on a subject that doesn't have an entirely objective basis (which, unfortunately often also includes science) end up being appeals to status.
As in, 'read this because the person who wrote it has a very good reputation', rather than 'read this because it clearly explains something useful'.

Well, that was a rather pointless rant. But I guess I find it all a bit circular, and I'm not sure if your point is a good one or not, so I'm stuck somewhere in the middle.

 

[GiantRaven]

I'm sure you musicians would get upset if the majority of the world thought that all you had to do was wail away on some strings to make music.

As a musician, I fully encourage a person doing that if it's what they want to create.

 

[no space]

Snip

I don't disagree with you. In fact, I quite agree with a lot of what you said. For most people, contemplating what art means to them rather than what are means in itself is more than enough. Personally, though, I want to look deeper. I need to. I doubt I could ever produce anything worthy of the title of "Art," but it's still something I'm very passionate about. And a lot of people are the same, and it's them who I'm trying to appeal to with this. The ones who get into heated arguments over art without examining what they're saying. I'm just trying to open their eyes, as it were.

 

[Zakarath]

I'd say that my fairly loose definition of art is a work/portrayal of real or fantastical events intended to evoke an emotional response in its audience...
Honestly, I'm probably better equipped to discuss quantum physics than I am art, but I have taken a couple classes on it, mainly drawing and CG animation courses and some art history.

 

[Heathrow]

There is no difference between your skill at appreciating and your skill at creating art, it's simply a matter of how much effort is applied.

More to the point, why would you want to study art? Better to experiment in my opinion. Drawing all your answers from the conclusions of the great people who have come before you may be easy but it lacks significance. Like any grand gift if you didn't have to work for it you never fully appreciate it.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

I've said this in another thread and I'll say it again:

Art is 100% subjective and society based. The only reason we have some sort of "standard" for art (paintings, sculptures, books..) is because society has evolved into believing that something which requires talent but is ultimately pointless is somehow amazing.
Shit, I could vomit on my floor and call it art, some people would probably appreciate it.

Spoiler

I always lol at the people I know who study rules for writing and music only to rage at people who became incredibly famous by defying all the rules.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Snip for simplicity

But why does it have to be emotional? Do you have reasons? Maybe there's an entirely formal definition of art. I don't believe that's true, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. I don't wish to sound like I'm attacking you, I'm just trying to get people to really start to think about this.

Well SOMEONE (who rode in on their high horse appearantly) <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.282198-True-art-work-is-moving-so-can-games-truely-be-considered-art?page=3#11064372>went on a tirade about what art is and quoted wikipedia as their source which pretty much is exactly what I described my personal definition of art to be, which is an exchange/inspirations of feelings between a viewer and a piece of art (and hen decided to tell me I was wrong).

It doesnt have to be emotional though. Art is subjective. You can either "feel" what is art, or you can be told what is art (again, i'll go with the Mona Lisa, or <url=http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=27330&tabview=text&texttype=10>Artist's Shit [Its exactly what it sounds like], or Duchamp's <url=http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=26850&searchid=10311>Fountain). Art is all subjective, and I'll have to take what somoene already said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; That right there summarizes art.

Just, to me, I feel something is art if I can get a feeling from it, or appreciate it. But I think feeling started when it became appearant people wanted to express themselves, but couldnt get into the art world with the rigid rules of "if it aint like picasso it aint art" (duchamp pretty much proved and broke that). People wanted to express themselves, so the definition changed as the generation changed and became looser. Andy Warhol was an artists in the flower generation of the 60s, and his pop art became famous cause the average student who wanted to judge art at their level didnt want to have to go to some fancy art school just to have the privaledge.

You could also say it came about when people wanted to express themselves, and not have to do something like Picasso. Art used to be about those victorian paintings we see and think of when we hear the word art, but people who wanted to be surreal or be abstract wanted to express themselves in a different way, and make people feel, not just see and say "yeah, thats art. the guy said it is, and he's always right). Something of a good example of this is Graffiti (not tagging an A or an MS-13, or a crown, but an actual image that was uncomissioned but someone felt was so powerful they needed to share) vs the Mural a city will commission and hire someone to paint. is it because the artist has a name and is famous it is art, and if the person does not have a famous name, its not art?

I dont know, I'm rambling, but there's no set definition of art, just what a person sees and views as art in themself. its what opened art, gave us some of our most famous paintings and powerful paintings. All I can say is art is something that is alive. its what turns a piece of paper into something that lives long past the creator, the viewer, the viewer's children, their children, and the next seven generations Art is just a force. at least thats what it means to me personally. Others can contest my definition, and tell me I'm wrong, but I feel I'm right, and am right to think so.