Poll: Art: You're doing it wrong.

[distortedreality]

but Is my opinion on what I consider music invalid because I haven't read the right books or took the right classes?

I think it makes your opinion more valid tbh.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Since other people have put out their qualifications, I might as well put up mine so you can anticipate my biases. I'm applying to Grad school next fall to study philosophy, particularly philosophy of art, and my major adviser is a student of Danto. Yes, I'm practically oozing with pretentiousness.

But if you give me a moment, I'd like to speak on behalf of this pretentiousness. Often in this thread, people have questioned why we should turn to the dusty tombs of dead white men for answers to the question of art. It may very well be that none of them truly understood art better than any of us do. The reason they are worth reading is because their works, taken together, are a conversation about art which has continued for over 2000 years. In this thread, all manner of positions have been defended about art. But I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that every one of those positions has been defended by other people before, and given how long people have been talking about art, chances are that at least one person has defended each of those position better than any of us could hope to.

When we post in a thread, we first read through the other posts, because in order to contribute meaningfully to any discussion, you need to know what's been said. We read and quote Hume, Kant, Danto, and all the other pretentious people for the same reason. Of course, the fact that they're famous doesn't mean that any of them are right. But you have to know what they say in order to prove them wrong. If you just jump in with an opinion (such as, "all art is completely subjective"), you're going to find that someone came up with a weighty counterargument centuries ago ("Then why do we argue about whether a given work is good or bad, and refer to specific objective features of the work, as though we can change each other's minds?") Even if you think you have a counter counter argument, that should be included in your first post. We shouldn't have to remind you to respond to an argument which was made before light bulbs were invented. If nothing else, reading the pretentious people keeps us from stalling the argument on points that were old when our grandfathers thought of them.

Ok, you do realize that your argument is pretty flawed, right? By studying the works of others, you are studying subjective viewpoints, hence whatever "research" you are doing only serves to make you an expert on whose books you read. You cannot have a true scholarly argument over what art is, because there is no systematic methodology for its assessment, one that ostensibly excludes personal bias. This is the difference between science and philosophy. We know what we know based on repeatable observation. You lovers of knowledge "know" what you "know," because somebody had an opinion once. Show me that you can a) devise an experiment in which you study the effects of A on B (or possibly how A evolved over time given circumstances C1-Cn), b) exclude other variables, c) make observations, d) make a model that explains your observations and most importantly has predictive capability. If you cannot do this with art, you cannot research it. If you still believe that you're making a point regarding the research-of-art bollocks, I suggest you reassess your decision to continue on such a futile "academic" path.

 

[spartan231490]

I've learned a little bit about it, but not a great deal of research. I had a class or two. I'm pretty heavily in the "Art is subjective" side of the argument. I think it's 80% down to opinion.

 

[Shock and Awe]

So what your saying is, unless I study something my opinion isn't worth the screen space? How pretentious. We I guess only those who've read the Art of War and studied modern strategy can comment on Iraq and Afghanistan, and no one who has read the political theories of Marx and Lenin can say anything about Soviet Communism. I am sorry but you sound pretty pretentious basically saying anyone who hasn't read on artistic theory can have a valid opinion on what art is, even when art is one of the most subjective things we have in society.

 

[gazumped]

Well, I'm halfway through an art and design bachelors degree so I'm fairly well read on this kind of thing and I reckon art is summed up by...

"Well, it's just, like, your opinion, man." >_>

My favorite definition of art:

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

Meaning anything can be art.

Pretty much this, but I also reckon it can be defined by the viewer as art. Things are art in the same way that things are beautiful; some people may think it is and some people may think it isn't, it doesn't make those people's ideas about it any less valid if someone else has a different view of it.
Art is too wide and varied and it's totally subjective. Why do you need to have knowledge to have an opinion?

 

[Outright Villainy]

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.

O rly? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_rock]

Anyway, and this is much more relevant to what you're trying to say: Would not having an extensive knowledge of music exclude someone from having an opinion on music, and what kind of music they like or don't? And if you answer "yes" I will smack you.

 

[Wisteso]

...

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?

...

Your original post reeks of ego. Going to presume you're in college, but I really hope that's not the case. Your condescending behavior would definitely fit the mold of the pompous college student/graduate.

We all understand your frustration, but your handling of it is piss poor. Have you ever seen someone rant about wanting "servers for XYZ game with minimum IQ"? Someone usually comes along and asks "What happens when they decide to set the bar 10 points above your (original poster's) IQ?". Maybe someone has already done that in this thread, but if not then I pose that question to you. You're complaining about uneducated people talking about art with too much authority, yet you're doing the same after only taking a few survey classes in the subject. What makes *you* an authority? You might answer your own question.

I've been an artist since about the same time I could speak. If you need me to back that up, then I can do that but it's the internet and I could just lie anyway. My point is that I've taken maybe one art "theory" course, a long time ago, and I didn't pay any attention to it. For someone to tell me that I'm not qualified to speak about art with my life time of experience creating it... well, I think that's pretty hilarious.

Curious though... would you think a sports commentator is more qualified to talk about football than someone that's been playing it for several decades without ever taking a course in it?