Poll: Art: You're doing it wrong.

[no space]

Thank you to everyone who replied, and I mean everyone. Some of you misunderstood my goal here, and some of you took some of the things I said out of context, and some of you just didn't like what I did. I don't have long, so I can't respond to everyone.

I just hope that if anyone sees this, they know I am extremely proud of those of you who are now thinking about this. That's all I wanted. I've already said, I don't know everything about this, and I don't mean to act like I do. My views are constantly changing with every new thing I read or see, and I would hardly believe they're better than someone else's, who has also taken the time to think of these things. All I want to do is improve the discussions on this subject. Let's go from "here's what I think" to "here's what I think because."

But one thing that I have never found sustainable evidence for is a purely subjective definition of art. There's compelling evidence for formalism, which I mostly disagree with, and objectivism, which I find close to the truth, and intersubjectivity, which is perhaps even closer, but never pure subjectivism.

 

[DRSH1989]

My neighbor's kitty makes lots of art in our yard. Also my lil doggie likes to make sculptures in our yard, or on the carpet, which ever comes 1st if i stop & think bout it.

 

[unoleian]

Someone (I'm looking at the OP here) is sounding an awful lot like an art student who's recently gotten his own awakening into how deep this rabbit hole goes.

I did at least go to school for it, myself.
Art history kind of became a minor obsession of mine after picking up classes initially as cores for my major, and electives after that, which ended up netting me a minor in art history in my BFA. I covered a broad survey of arts across a spectrum of cultures and time periods with a particular focus on early to late 20th century fine arts and design, so, I'd like to think I can speak at least somewhat authoritatively on the subject. Not that I will. Or should.

Aesthetic value is always subjective. Always. There's no way around this. Most people will never get beyond this point, which at its essence boils down to a choice between "liking" something, and "not liking" it. Some will crystallize this polarity into "art" and "not art" just as a consequence of our human condition.

Getting deep into it, trying to examine something critically, seeking out the symbolic, semiotic, conceptual aspects of a work or body of work requires a great deal of effort and a desire to try and crawl into an artist's mind. Not many people are going to be invested in this. You really can't expect them to. It's like expecting someone who likes a certain kind of music to utterly enthrall themselves with all aspects of music theory.

This is going nowhere fast...

What sums up how difficult a discussion it is to even discuss the very idea of art is the following anecdote--
For my first 100-level art history survey I attended, the first question we were asked is, "What is art?" and I believe I turned in a short paragraph essentially about eyes and beholders and art is everything we create etc. etc. etc. When the same question was posed at the end of my education as part of a final thesis in another class, I ended up writing a four-page paper. The deeper you dig, the harder it is to discuss. Even thinking of ways to "sum up" anything I've been thinking to say without sitting here and writing an entire fucking essay is leaving me bewildered right now.

With that, I have one more thing--
Frankly, I'm amazed the OP read these old art critics and philosophers as a hobby. Most would consider most of their articles and essays to be incredibly self-aggrandizing in the way they posit their ideas, as well as being rather dry and pretentious in their writing as a whole. So, props. I guess.

[sub][sub]Pardon me while I again bask in my dubious talent of writing so much and saying so little in the process.[/sub][/sub]

 

[weker]

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.

I think you want to change " make music." to make good music.

 

[zehydra]

I haven't researched it per se, but I've thought an awful lot about it. Truth is, the word "Art" comes from the uneducated, not from the so-called "experts".

Art is an act of some kind which expresses some connection with some kind of experience, usually an emotional experience, and is conveyed so that another person coming into contact with the art experiences either a similar, the same, or a different, but related experience.

Since experience is a purely subjective thing, the question of how well a piece of art fulfills its purpose must be entirely subjective as well. So we cannot judge Art the same way we would judge a chair, since a chair has a clearly defined objective purpose; a work of art does not.

We CAN however judge art by the level of skill required to produce the art, which is a little more objective and is most often used as the standard for various artistic competitions. But to judge art on this merit alone is to completely ignore the purpose of art

 

[Lady Nilstria]

I know art in that I know the theory, and I am a painter so I can apply it. I know what is aesthetically pleasing and can differentiate quality based on usage of color, value, light, and composition. So, I may not be the best at telling what is or isn't art, but I can certainly tell you how good or bad it is.

As to what is or isn't art, I have my opinions. Art itself is not subjective, but the interpretation of it is. It is human nature to see things different based on perception. The quality of technique and application however, can be measured. It is the quality of art that concerns me, which is why I like Gelsey Kirkland more than almost all other prima ballerinas. She has artistry. Robert Bateman has artistry. There is true artistry when something is so compellingly and convincingly portrayed that it leaves room for only one interpretation, the intended one.

So, art can be judged in two ways, technically, or emotionally. One is objective, one is not.

Wolfedge has a point. The intention of the artist makes a big difference, but only if you know it. What made M.C. Escher's staircases so compelling was that he obviously knew what he was doing. A vague intention helps nothing and only leads to those strange, verbose interpretations of fine art speculators that make the common folk wonder what the man was smoking to see it that way.

The real problem is when you take two paintings, for example, of equal technical quality. What is it that makes one better than the other, more artistic? The true artist, somehow, gets his intention and thoughts across. You can sense what he was thinking or intending when he painted it. The better the artist does this, the better an artist he is.

Art is appreciated in two major ways, and the artist usually only accomplishes one. He's really good if he does both. One, through sheer technical brilliance. Robert Bateman does this. Two, through feeling. Edvard Munch does this. God is the first one to come to mind who consistently does both.

Because art does this, and good art is compelling, it can be dangerous to society. It can also be beautiful and uplifting for society. It depends, and that is the subjectivity.

 

[weker]

if not how could someone possibly appreciate a work like this one without having some knowledge about it's history and artist's motives.

Not true, expression in art is all relative. There is no certainty that taking an art course would help you experience art, hell for someone like me it could inhibit. furthermore I appreciate this work as it shows someone freedom to artistic expression. I am not appreciating it for it purpose i appreciate it for a different reason thus making a good art for me.

 

[SuperVegas]

This is the problem i came across when i was applying for Art at Uni.
As i was making my folio, I realized that art that doesn't communicate to people, isn't for me.
I came to the conclusion that multimedia more in line with my world point of view.
Its art to be consumed (and not in a bad way) and in the long run, Superman means more to people than the Mona Lisa. If it has to be explained then its not doing its job correctly.

Would you consider a movie, where you had to read 3 books for it to make sense, good?
No, everything you need to appreciate it should be contained within the movie. Thats not to say you wont get MORE out of it if you read those books, but it shouldn't be essential

Low-art is the only real art i wan't to participate in (as a creator)


And if your comparing it to music, check out the history of the Ramones, DIY music was the beginning of most of the music we listen to today.

 

[Ham_authority95]

Wait, people care? Because I and a good 90% of humans in western civilization don't.

 

[Da Chi]

I've studied it slightly. I had a room-mate in college who had a textbook. I read it cover to cover. I've since bought three other textbooks and read them as well. I've been drawing, painting, animating, and photographing for decades and understand colour theory, design elements and all that jazz. I visit galleries and have sold a piece of art before. I've read timeless classics. I've watched wonderful movies older than I. I play and listen to countless forms of music. I love art.

But in my opinion that doesn't matter. Art has always been, and always will be simply described as something that can invoke true emotion in a human being. Understanding the Renaissance movement, having an extensive library of classical books (if you don't, don't feel proud, you are missing out) or being a regular patron at local art auctions won't make art anything less than that.

 

[Vault101]

Wait, people care? Because I and a good 90% of humans in western civilization don't.

agreed

also when it comes to what ever the hell "art" is I prefer somthing that takes skill and talent

 

[Voodoomancer]

My favorite definition of art:

Art is something defined by it's creator as art.

Meaning anything can be art.

 

[Da Chi]

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.

You don't know much about instruments do you? A guitar is probably one of the more elegant mainstream instruments. with it's wide range of octaves, accessibility of play (arguably) and multiple variations (Classical, bass, fret-less, slide etc) guitar is probably the second most used instrument for composing music today, second only to the piano.

 

[plugav]

I've studied British and American literature, literary theory, film theory and I've had classes in poetry and both reviewing and writing for the theatre. I don't know a first thing about painting or sculpture or music, and I've never cared much for philosophy. I've also never been told exactly what art is, only how to read it.

Except maybe by Wordsworth:

For all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: and though this be true, Poems to which any value can be attached were never produced on any variety of subjects but by a man who, being possessed of more than usual organic sensibility, had also thought long and deeply.

(Note, however, that this only defines good poetry, not poetry itself.)

So I've been studying art for the last seven years now, yet I'm not in the slightest qualified to join the discussion on how we should define it.

One thing I've noticed, though, is that my theoretical knowledge makes it that much harder to produce or enjoy art. The more I think about it, the less I feel it, so to say.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

Oy fucking vhey. Someone read Kant and now thinks that he's suddenly better than everyone else.

Get over yourself and learn to question the classics. As a history major, I think the most important thing I've learned is "Problematize everything." So, you say art isn't subjective?

WHY?

 

[Cliff_m85]

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 easiest way to destroy the love of a field is to analyze it enough.

 

[Stublore]

@faspxina
"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."[followed by pic of a urinal!]
And right here we have the problem with "art".
If you think that in order to say something is "art" you need an education and knowledge of it's history and "artist motives", then you can say pretty much everything is "art".
Admittedly I know nothing about "art", but a urinal is not bloody art, nor is a messy bedroom.
Not only is the problem with "art", but with those who "know art".
Let me give you an example:
There was a TV program a while ago, where an artist was asked to paint a picture of a woman sitting on a chair. When a group of "experts" came in and were asked about the painting the amount of verbal diarrhoea they spouted was hilarious.I remember one of them said something about how the way the woman's hands were folded represented the oppression of women or some such thing. So, the artist was asked why did she paint her with her hands folded. The answer, surprisingly was because that's how she chose to sit!
All the esoteric reasoning and explanations from these "experts" was exposed as so much hot air, and that seems to be the case with "art" today.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

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

I know I'm a bit late for this thread, but I just can't help myself: Relying on the opinions of others is NOT research! You learn nothing, and whatever understanding you might gain is limited by the understanding of whoever you chose to read beforehand. In my line of study, the assertion that you research something by reading the works of X is guaranteed to earn you an F, no exception.
Since there is no objective line of study, aside from perhaps the methodology of producing a piece, actual research cannot be done. I don't care what sort of counterargument you wish to present, you are wrong. Ultimately, you are only repeating what somebody else has said, repeating the same fallacies and the same truths. Besides, what can you possible hope to gain by reading Kant (just as an example)? Did he have more access to the material of his study than you do? First-hand accounts perhaps? Has he perhaps produced multiple literature reviews in addition to a mountain of new research, thus demonstrating his firm understanding of the subject of his study? If not, there's not point to bringing it up.

As for art, how would you go about defining it? Art, the "stuff" sitting in museums serves no real practical purpose, so how's this for a definition? Art: the "stuff" humans produce that serves no practical purpose. Of course, it also has to have some meaning to both the audience and the creator, so we'll have to refine it a bit for a more general definition. Art: the purposeless "stuff" humans produce that is meaningful to somebody. By that definition, even a simple photograph taken during a vacation might be art. Hmm...perhaps a further refinement is necessary? Art: the purposeless "stuff" humans make that is meaningful to the creator and to at least somebody else. But again the vacation picture example hold. So how about this? Art: the "stuff" humans make that doesn't serve any practical purpose aside from conveying meaning in excess to the superficial details of the work to somebody other than the creator as intended by the creator?

You may think you know more than I, because you read some books by philosophers. Sorry buddy, knowledge doesn't get passed on that way. All you ultimately know is what the authors of said books thought, which is of absolutely no value. Perhaps you think I'm just an asshole (true, btw), but here's how to validate your claims: use whatever "research" you have performed to create a new work of your own. Release it to the public, and let them judge it. If they universally agree that it is art, I'll retract my rant. If not, well...I'll get the satisfaction of having my science edumacation validated over some pitiful art degree.

PS: Erwin's little feline torturing device is not a joke, but a concise example of what quantum physics is all about.

 

[PlasmaFrog]

But I think you're wrong, because discussing the very subjective nature of artistic conception is what helps us to better understand and possibly define a certain standard of critique, but I'd rather discredit that since no matter how hard you possibly try to grab a logical understanding of art, the farther the very nature and reality of art begins to slip away.

Art isn't a logical thing, it's based on the very nature of subjectivity in which it was conceived from the creator's mind. As someone has already stated, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". You simply can't apply standards to something that is already controversial by nature and be correct about it, that would seem more dogmatic than fundamentally correct.

Since you've supposedly done an extensive amount of research in this category, I'm positive that you've heard of The Voice of Fire. That should be more than enough.

 

[teebeeohh]

to get this off my chest: oh my god your opening post is so pretentious that it makes the PC elitist in me look like a drunken frat boy.

i have read Kant and i enjoy visiting Galleries and visiting cities just o look at the architecture. I even read books(yes, real books) to prepare. This does not make me superior to people who don't do this, all it does is give me a better understanding of a fraction of the unlimited spectrum that is art. While it's true that people might not appreciate an impressionist painting because they know nothing of impressionism you can't they can not enjoy it just because it looks pretty. Same with music: some people know a lot about classical music and enjoy the complexity of it, other people just like the sound, BOTH enjoy it as art in their own way.

sry if this was utter bullshit or if i completely missed the point you were trying to make but it's 4:30 on a Saturday morning here and i am going to bed.