Art, a slippery idea

[Thebes]

Both were film and copied with a DSLR in RAW that was then converted to jpeg. But that does not make them art, they are crap, just like alot of art these days . I agree, that I do like to know the medium when I see junk that is hung on walls.

Whether art is crap or not is irrelevant to whether it is art. A lot of art is horrible junk. The manner of their creation doesn't make them art, what would make them art is if they were referenced in a way that implied you were concerned with the image itself that you intended to be art and if a viewer perceived them that way.

I once saw a large fiberglass hotdog in a museum. It was intended to be discussed as an object in and of itself. It was presented as art, and viewed as art. If it hanged outside of a hotdog shack no one would have thought it art and it wouldn't have been- and that was the point of it.

 

[charjohncarter]

The score or script might well be intended as a work of art. That is how we discuss, for example, Shakespeare- obviously we have no thing to discuss with respect to his productions. I would say that the performances are artistic performances within the performing arts... these are performances and to discuss them we must witness them happen which is not analogous to a work of art, which exists as a fixed object.

So right, listen the 'Tutti Fruiti' sung by Little Richard and then by Pat Boone (if you can finish Pat's version). Too, bad we missed all those great artists, but I think some of them were 'art.'

 

[Sparrow]

Interesting idea. So a music score or a script of a play is art, but the various performances are not?

Maybe the same attachment I have with negatives, something about having the artefact, the bit of film the light had actually hit that day in that place after it bounced off the real-world.

... I know it’s irrational but that’s how I feel, probably my biggest reason not to go digi.

 

[Sparrow]

"I had the poor experiences of camera clubs too, a few loudmouths with expensive gear, intent on imposing their imperfect understanding of art and aesthetics on the rest of the membership, I attended twice, and haven't bothered since."

Maybe it's time to re-apply for membership!

I’m sure you make a valuable contribution to this place Dave .. next time I have some time on my hands I’ll see if I can find it

 

[Sparrow]

In the 17th century there would be no doubt what art was, it was that which an artisan made, a learned and practised skill. The medical art, baker’s art, brick-maker’s art and the rest, had photography been invented 200 years earlier there would have been no question, something that could be studied and practised would definitely be an art.

I think the problem we have today in finding a definition is because one group adopted Art as a title, an honorific, for their movement and by implication denigrated the system that preceded it.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Well...should be soon then! - you seem to be around 24/7....yes - me too, but due to ill-health, and for amusement - not for the 'education' of the membership!. My post was prompted by your recent offerings - and the words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'calling' coming to mind!

 

[JPSuisse]

My favorite definition of art was the one proposed in the foreward (ca. 3 paragraphs) of "A Portrait of the Artist as a Youngman." Fabulous read.

What concerns me more than the snootiness of elitists is the appropriation of art by the capitalist system. "Fine art" compared to "Art with commercial intent."

Whatever the case, or call it whatever you want, I believe that we need to discuss creative / artistic work as a way to find meaning in life. The appropriation of this by the capitalist system is detrimental to human expression and sense of value.

Just my view.

JP

 

[Jamie123]

In the 17th century there would be no doubt what art was, it was that which an artisan made, a learned and practised skill. The medical art, baker’s art, brick-maker’s art and the rest, had photography been invented 200 years earlier there would have been no question, something that could be studied and practised would definitely be an art.

I think the problem we have today in finding a definition is because one group adopted Art as a title, an honorific, for their movement and by implication denigrated the system that preceded it.

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. The use of the 'art' as in baker's art, brick-maker's art etc. is that of 'art' as opposed to 'nature'. It simply means something else than what 'art' means today. The difference between a brickmaker's 'art' and a painter's art is that the former clearly serves a practical purpose other than aesthetics.

What's next? Do you want to discuss how the 'elite' of homosexuals decided to claim the word 'gay' for themselves?

 

[Sparrow]

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. The use of the 'art' as in baker's art, brick-maker's art etc. is that of 'art' as opposed to 'nature'. It simply means something else than what 'art' means today. The difference between a brickmaker's 'art' and a painter's art is that the former clearly serves a practical purpose other than aesthetics.

What's next? Do you want to discuss how the 'elite' of homosexuals decided to claim the word 'gay' for themselves?

so how does it work? painting is certainly art, pottery is still art if we call it ceramics, but basket making just misses out and brick making is a real no-no? we just judge it on a lack of utility?

 

[Jamie123]

so how does it work? painting is certainly art, pottery is still art if we call it ceramics, but basket making just misses out and brick making is a real no-no? we just judge it on a lack of utility?

You're completely missing the point. It's not about what we should or shouldn't call art today, it's about why the concept of 'fine arts' was introduced in the first place. And it's about aesthetics, not just the lack of utility.

But to be honest, I have no interest in wasting my time discussing this ad nauseum. I have to go read 600 pages of 'Tristan' in Middle High German. What an exciting thing to do on a friday afternoon

 

[Sparrow]

You're completely missing the point. It's not about what we should or shouldn't call art today, it's about why the concept of 'fine arts' was introduced in the first place. And it's about aesthetics, not just the lack of utility.

But to be honest, I have no interest in wasting my time discussing this ad nauseum. I have to go read 600 pages of 'Tristan' in Middle High German. What an exciting thing to do on a friday afternoon

yes I’ve got lots of colouring-in I should be doing

 

[Sparrow]

My favorite definition of art was the one proposed in the foreward (ca. 3 paragraphs) of "A Portrait of the Artist as a Youngman." Fabulous read.

What concerns me more than the snootiness of elitists is the appropriation of art by the capitalist system. "Fine art" compared to "Art with commercial intent."

Whatever the case, or call it whatever you want, I believe that we need to discuss creative / artistic work as a way to find meaning in life. The appropriation of this by the capitalist system is detrimental to human expression and sense of value.

Just my view.

JP

yes that’s partly what I’m on about, it seems that over the last 200 years western art has become the property of the market, perhaps it was always that way and I just can't see it clearly farther back

I too would like it to be more egalitarian, more artisan than artist … more accessible, more appreciation than explanation.

 

[Sparrow]

Stewart it [art] is probably the most accessible and egalitarian it has ever been. Art once reserved for the eyes of the very rich, has found its way into the public museums. Literally millions paint, take photos, and exhibit them every weekend.

Well yes and no, great patrons have generally spent more on public works than private, just look at the cathedrals and churches scattered around Europe, the Medicis spent lavishly in there private palaces, but just look what they did to Florence for the public's appreciation, I don't see that today

As for the concept of more "appreciation than explanation" just look at it [art], very little of what is shown needs a manual. If you want an explanation, there are always those willing to give it to you, from my mom to the critics in the Times, but I never paid any attention to either.

I got some of them thur letter things and I find a lot of this stuff baffling, my daughter Alice is going up to her foundation year this summer ... she is young and cannot see the Emperor's new clothes, and she challenges even my view ... she would challenge you too

Those [art dealers] selling [social] snake oil [art], always have to promise something... so they will continue to make their claims.

Fill in those coloring books and worry not this weekend.

I dont have a problem with the dealesr or the critics or the galleries, it is the people who believe it i worry about.

I only do the colouring in to earn a crust, so not at weekends

 

[Richard G]

I think this thread got off to a slow start and Stewart has been very gracious in receiving the various stern correctives, which he probably deserves. I like his pictures and his posts. Now that I see the core of his message, I am not surprised to find that I agree. I'm off to see an exhibition tomorrow of an artist who, like so many, I don't think actually produces art. In a different time such people would not have bothered us.

 

[Ade-oh]

I think we all know what 'fine art' really is: monochrome photographs of pretty girls with no clothes on.

 

[Sparrow]

I think we all know what 'fine art' really is: monochrome photographs of pretty girls with no clothes on.

or in a nice t-shirt ...

 

[Sparrow]

I think this thread got off to a slow start and Stewart has been very gracious in receiving the various stern correctives, which he probably deserves. I like his pictures and his posts. Now that I see the core of his message, I am not surprised to find that I agree. I'm off to see an exhibition tomorrow of an artist who, like so many, I don't think actually produces art. In a different time such people would not have bothered us.

This last year I've been taking my 17 year old daughter around various collections, hearing her thoughts has prompted me to reassess my views and understanding of it all.

We did the reprise of 20th century art at the Tate and she had some difficult questions and observations

 

[Jamie123]

This last year I've been taking my 17 year old daughter around various collections, hearing her thoughts has prompted me to reassess my views and understanding of it all.

We did the reprise of 20th century art at the Tate and she had some difficult questions and observations

Why this attitude that art should require no prior knowledge? A lot of 20th century and contemporary art requires a more or less extensive knowledge of art history. What is wrong with that? Or is it 'elitist' because it requires reading a book or two?

 

[Ade-oh]

Why this attitude that art should require no prior knowledge? A lot of 20th century and contemporary art requires a more or less extensive knowledge of art history. What is wrong with that? Or is it 'elitist' because it requires reading a book or two?

That's a fair question. I don't know where you are but in Europe and the UK a lot of art is publicly funded (or at least subsidised) and there is a legitimate controversy over whether the ordinary taxpayer should be expected to fund art that is inaccessible or incomprehensible to him or her. Which - of course - doesn't make 'difficult' art less worthy but does explain why it is sometimes controversial.

 

[antiquark]

Why this attitude that art should require no prior knowledge? A lot of 20th century and contemporary art requires a more or less extensive knowledge of art history. What is wrong with that? Or is it 'elitist' because it requires reading a book or two?

A great work of art is accessible and meaningful to everyone, regardless of knowledge!