Poll: Art: You're doing it wrong.

[Chiasm]

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.)

Always assumed Kant focused on the metaphysical where Nietzsche focused on the aesthetic or literal level of the object. Like with the flower, the main thought is how it came to be, with the beauty seeming to come from what it causes you to think. Where with Nietzsche the focus a person gives to the flower is based off of their interest to the flower. With no interest one would never stopped to think of the flower.

More to the point with Nietzsche we only value that which interests us, and that which interests us is the things that we create/use or employed by us; and that which we don't often will go unnoticed to we do need them. For a object to be beautiful we must have interest in it as well as care about it.

 

[nukethetuna]

If a creation invokes emotion in me, then I'll consider it art. Maybe I am selfish, but whether other people feel the same way about it matters very little to me.
I'm actually a bit impressed that you are interested in what constitutes art so deeply, but that's probably because I can't even comprehend having such an interest in that.

(Closest I've come to studying any sort of art theory was music theory, though I'm sure there's a bit of crossover between the two.)

 

[no space]

Snip

But what about the fact that art can have cross-cultural validity?

And you know what, you're right you could. But not because artists broke the rules. It's because they added new ones. New paradigms in the art world add a new set of descriptions to apply to artworks.

These new works which seem so radical merely add or lack this new factor of art.

 

[rokkolpo]

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.

I hope you'll find your answer.
And that you'll make that piece of art you've been looking for.

Because the way I see it:
Where there is passion, there can be art.

 

[GiantRaven]

Although, your instrument is probably a guitar or drums or something, not anything as elegant as a violin or flute, so maybe it doesn't really apply.

Oh, burn.

How utterly pretentious of you. =P

 

[no space]

How utterly pretentious of you. =P

I actually don't believe that in the slightest, I was just hoping to get a small rise out of you to show that you would feel upset if the world felt that way, so you'd see how I feel about my favorite topic.

 

[Heathrow]

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

That's understandable, but what I meant was, what if they truly believed that's all there was to it? You wouldn't feel just the slightest bit disappointed if they belittled your talent like that?

Although, your instrument is probably a guitar or drums or something, not anything as elegant as a violin or flute, so maybe it doesn't really apply.

Doubly arrogant. First for assuming the person you're talking too has no pride in their work and secondly for assuming he is somehow a lesser musician for using a common instrument. An added note of pompousness for assuming that some instruments are better than others.

Edit:

How utterly pretentious of you. =P

I actually don't believe that in the slightest, I was just hoping to get a small rise out of you to show that you would feel upset if the world felt that way, so you'd see how I feel about my favorite topic.

Perhaps his unflappability should inform your future behavior on topics of art.

 

[FallenTraveler]

this sounds like you are referring to high brow fine arts...

low brow art is what you do not like... you are an elitist sir!!! jk

I kid, but really, you do describe a distaste for "low brow" art. I am an art student, I have not read your books, but I have experience and teaching, and let me tell you, there is more to art than something that is well crafted and purdy... I find that an amazingly crafted painting of fruit is less art than a piece that represents your grandparents relationship with you, even if that piece is simply a stick figure drawing.

I dont mean to be hostile, but what do you actually know? Did you merely research art, or are you an artist?

 

[GiantRaven]

I actually don't believe that in the slightest, I was just hoping to get a small rise out of you to show that you would feel upset if the world felt that way, so you'd see how I feel about my favorite topic.

I know, I was joking. =)

 

[Giantpanda602]

No, YOU don't know what art is if you believe you have to go to school to study art to understand it. You don't need an education to understand art. Some of the greatest artists the world has ever seen just painted because it was their passion, not because they studied it. What I call art is art as far as I care, and you can go to hell if you want to dispute that.

 

[no space]

Always assumed Kant focused on the metaphysical where Nietzsche focused on the aesthetic or literal level of the object. Like with the flower, the main thought is how it came to be, with the beauty seeming to come from what it causes you to think. Where with Nietzsche the focus a person gives to the flower is based off of their interest to the flower. With no interest one would never stopped to think of the flower.

More to the point with Nietzsche we only value that which interests us, and that which interests us is the things that we create/use or employed by us; and that which we don't often will go unnoticed to we do need them. For a object to be beautiful we must have interest in it as well as care about it.

Can I just say, I love you, because this is exactly what I want: real discussion.

I actually haven't read much Nietzsche, as far as his views on art and aesthetics. Does he have the same view towards artworks, like, say, paintings? We only see them as beautiful if they interest us, and otherwise we could care less? For instance, if someone told him there was a beautiful new painting being exhibited, would he feel compelled to go see it just because it was beautiful? Or would the person have to somehow explain how it would interest him?

And I fear I may have to cut all further discussion short, as I must now leave. But thank you for the discourse, it was refreshing.

 

[WolfEdge]

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.

The problem with applying rules to any sort of working definition of art is kind of self-fulfilling. Rules dedicated to the pursuit of, say, laws of perspective, can be immediately subverted by an artist who decides to break those rules. Someone might then claim that the artwork being produced is not REAL art, as it doesn't follow those rules and is therefor inferior to pieces that do, while another may see the subversion as a powerful statement and attribute the break to the artist's intentions and thus, elevates that piece beyond others who simply follow the trend.

For me personally, knowing the artist's intent can make all the difference. If I know the artist knows their stuff regarding perspective, then the rule bending was intentional and thus has more significance, as the decision to produce that effect was a conscious one.

 

[no space]

Snip

Sorry, see one post up from yours. I don't actually believe that, I apologize for the confusion.

 

[no space]

Snip

I actually love art in all its forms. I can usually get some sort of appreciation from just about any attempt at it. But I feel a distinction must be made between art and a meaningful picture, story, etc. Maybe I could be proven wrong on that, but I believe there is a difference. And I'd like to think I'm an okay writer, but, who am I kidding.

Snip

Never said I don't "understand" art, though I feel that anyone who claims to fully understand it is lying. I just want to understand it more fully. I want to understand what it means, why it's hard, not just that it is.

And this is my final post. Farewell, hope I don't offend anyone by not responding.

 

[Laser Priest]

My extent of knowledge of art is that it's subjective and anyone telling anyone that they know objectively what is or is not good art is probably not at knowledgeable as they claim to be.

 

[faspxina]

If you think someone is ignorant you should try to teach them whatever you know (given you have the time or will to do so), instead of making that person feel self-conscious about their lack of knowledge on a certain subject.

No one will learn anything and people will probably think you're being pretentious.

 

[Bebus]

The wonder of art is that, given time, people like the OP disappear from what it really means. The actual art, in whatever form it may be, remains.

I read your OP as: I just finished an art module at school and want to assert my superior understanding of art over you underlings.

Your follow-up posts seem to confirm this, especially your note regarding musical instruments. I play both (electic, metal style) guitar and (classical) flute at an advanced level, and do not consider one of them somehow superior to the other. Your pretentious assumptions make everything else you claim seem childish.

Art is fortunately the ultimate expression of capitalism. What somebody creates only has value when somebody else wants to buy it. People like you only leech on this value in the interim process. Do I know what 'good art' is supposed to look like? No. But do I know what I would spend money on, and what I would personally work to preserve? Yes. And I know which of the two options the artist, publisher, and everybody else except for the 'experts' would prefer.

 

[Tupolev]

The problem with applying rules to any sort of working definition of art is kind of self-fulfilling. Rules dedicated to the pursuit of, say, laws of perspective, can be immediately subverted by an artist who decides to break those rules. Someone might then claim that the artwork being produced is not REAL art, as it doesn't follow those rules and is therefor inferior to pieces that do, while another may see the subversion as a powerful statement and attribute the break to the artist's intentions and thus, elevates that piece beyond others who simply follow the trend.

For me personally, knowing the artist's intent can make all the difference. If I know the artist knows their stuff regarding perspective, then the rule bending was intentional and thus has more significance, as the decision to produce that effect was a conscious one.

Yeah, this, and it's cousin, the issue of people simply assigning the boolean state "art" or "not art" to an object, is why I've thought about how it makes sense to treat art.

What I've noticed is that, in more civil discussions, art tends to be treated like something acting between the person receiving it and the work of art, highly complex and qualitative. How does it make you feel? What does it make you think? How does it do these things? This seems to be more intuitive than the boolean state approach to art, and is presumably more useful, since the latter often requires that confusing arbitrary lines be drawn.
Perhaps the best analogy would be that art is to the evocation of human emotion (perhaps a more generalized sort of thinking than "emotion", though?) through various media what flavour is to food. It's not "does it taste" or "does it not taste;" It's "what does it taste like" and, occasionally "why does it taste like this."
Supposing a work of art is "bad"? No, it's not "not art", it's just that the spaghetti was made with weak sauce. Obviously.

Under this approach, I believe that "art" could be reasonably well defined in a way which is overall more intuitive than the current approach in Western society, and less prone to divisive art-status-absolutist silliness.

Maybe.

 

[faspxina]

No, YOU don't know what art is if you believe you have to go to school to study art to understand it. You don't need an education to understand art. Some of the greatest artists the world has ever seen just painted because it was their passion, not because they studied it. What I call art is art as far as I care, and you can go to hell if you want to dispute that.

Well you do need an education on the subject to fully understand it, if not how could someone possibly appreciate a work like this one without having some knowledge about it's history and artist's motives.

There were art movements that proposed that art should be something recognizable and easy to understand by anyone (like Pop art), but as we know today, it's not that simple. That said I don't mean that pieces of art are only meant for people who studied it. I think it's almost always meant for everyone to see it and appreciate it on their own. But you do need to study it, if you wish understand art as a whole.

And a lot of the greatest artists of all time did studied and knew about what they were doing when they were creating their pieces.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Any motivation I might have to do arduous research on art is immediately abated by the knowledge that some pretentious ****-stick has the audacity to pile a bunch of sunflower seeds on top of each other (this actually happened) and call it art. Before you get enraged about the outsider's perspective on the medium, take a look at the pretentious, platitudinous dickweeds within your own cirle.