what passes as art

I prefer art that does not require paragraphs of explanation, in sentences that don't make sense to me. Most if not all of those art critics' analyses of an artist's intent or concept sound like completely made up fabrications, and I simply do not believe that the artist had those thoughts in mind as he/she was executing the work.
 
Last edited:
Although not a gallery experience, my whole outlook on photography/art changed after visiting the Canadian Museum of contemporary photography in Ottawa. It really expanded my view on art photography.
 
sitemistic said:
I don't think so thor, unless I'm just misunderstanding you. There is "the art community," who often share similar educations (MFA's) and backgrounds and common exposure to art. And there is everybody else who doesn't.

I believe art that isn't easily accessible to most of the target audience is simply navel gazing. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying it is bad art (I enjoy classical music, most people don't), I'm just saying that art that doesn't communicate with those who will ultimately view it fails within that context.
Click to expand...



classical music and classical music can be two very different things. one can be quite easy on the ear, and the other very demanding to its listeners..
 
I know Frank has already responded to some of this, but I wanted to throw in my two cents...

NB23 said:
Me thinks you are bitter at someone that didn't see your work as being art?
Click to expand...
Ah, I think that's very presumptive and unfair on your part. I know Frank personally. An internet forum is not an easy place to make assumptions about other people, no matter how close the community seems to be. You might want to lighten up a bit.

thorirv said:
did i misread the original post, or did it sound slightly of an irritation (over perhaps that contemporary art is a specialized field, and not accessible to those who step in from the street) ??
Click to expand...

I didn't read any irritation, just musing/wondering.
 
Trius said:
I didn't read any irritation, just musing/wondering.
Click to expand...

that's good to hear.

and now i'm going to agree with myself that art is trying to copy the work of a dead guy or two, and go out with a camera.
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
Art appreciation is subjective, right? So who can say what is good and what is not on a level beyond personal opinion? I'll give you that in hindsight, art academics are in a position to judge what was historically significant. I have the feeling that galleries promote new art solely on the basis of profit potential and what can be sold to collectors who are also largely motivated by investment opportunities. The art gallery community is just a money grubbing business as opposed to something more pure which I attribute to art. What think you?
Click to expand...

This is painting with a rather broad brush. It think any large scale human endeavor is complex and flawed.

There tends to be a few greats, many who try to be great, and many many more who don't even try. Just because the fellow selling his painted saw blades at the flea market also produces the same thing which is called "art" which hangs at the national gallery, does not mean that either kind of art invalidates the other.

Business puts food in people and roof over head. Business even creates surplus cash so that some lucky people can make a living producing art. I'm glad that the Sebastiao Salgados of the world can live off their work and still produce such fine work.

If you look at an ancient society like greece, what is left? It was the business that allowed the people to flourish and the population to survive. It was the the cultural efforts that defined the culture and people to future generations, much more than the crumbled buildings.

It's really not fair to negate entire art movements. Again there are people who did it brilliantly and many who were mediocre. It's like saying people who speak French have nothing important to say because I don't speak French!

All that said, good topic Frank. Thanks for starting it.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Fred, you misunderstood me. I did not call all artists stupid, I was jsut countering your claim that some folks including me distrust artists because they are too smart. That is equally ludicrous.

As for bullying, like I said, I can only speak to my experience about respecting differences in students nowadays.

I consistently and adamantly disagree with Rush L.
 
Last edited:
I thought in general, contemporary artists tried to be creative and original. Of course with the ever-increasing pile of artistic history, that becomes harder, so they have to do things that are less accessible to the public.

Isn't art that's intended to be pleasing and familiar, commonly referred to as "decoration?"
 
antiquark said:
I thought in general, contemporary artists tried to be creative and original. Of course with the ever-increasing pile of artistic history, that becomes harder, so they have to do things that are less accessible to the public.

Isn't art that's intended to be pleasing and familiar, commonly referred to as "decoration?"
Click to expand...


Good point.
 
My first wife had a collection of books where all you needed to read was the title.

The vast majority of conceptual art strikes me as the same thing. If I've 'got' the idea, I don't even need to see the work, much of the time.

Incredibly, there's a very fine museum of modern art just a few miles from where I live, deep in rural France, in the Chateau d'Oiron. Some of it, I enjoy very much. Other stuff, I think, "All right, I see what you're saying, what else can you do?"

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think if a guy throws paint at a canvas from across a room, he is an artist -- in the same way that a pigeon taking a dump on a sidewalk is an artist.
 
Two comments

Two comments

1. Some of you may have seem my essay on Conceptual Photography before, but I'll offer it again, for those who missed it...

2. Rather than discussing "what is art", I'll ask, instead what do you have hanging on your own walls? How about those of your friends and relatives? What does this tell you about the concept of "art" and the average person?

I was at a concert yesterday where they played some Beethoven and I was reminded again of what a genius he was. The world of western classical music can be divided into the pre- and post-Beethoven periods. Before Beethoven composers (and visual artists) were treated not much better than servants and their art was mostly commissioned by wealthy patrons either in the Church or the aristocracy.

Beethoven changed all that, he defined himself as an "artist" and as one who was superior to those who inherited their social status. He produced some work in response to commissions, but generated much of it as an entrepreneur. He was the one who defined art for art's sake and the idea of the starving artist in the garret. His ideas in music quickly spread to literature and the visual arts and led to the Romantic Age.

We are still living in the post-Beethoven period. Those who create works just to make money are looked down on as not true "artists".
 
As far as "what passes as art?" and "who can say what is good and what is not?," anyone can pass anything for art, and anyone can say what is good and what is not. The real question is, "how much weight will their opinion hold?" The role of the artist has shifted dramatically in the last century, and I suspect will continue to do so. Part of the reason is because the general public are not as educated about art as they used to be. It used to be that everyone would study art history just as they would study literature. Having an understanding of art was considered essential to being a well-rounded member of society. Today, not so much. The only people who study art are "creative types." *cringes* The other reason is that the financial support infrastructure on which artists used to rely is no longer in place. It used to be that artists would be sponsored by patrons (investors, if you will) who would provide financial support so the artist would be free to work without worrying about money. So nowadays, it's not unusual to see gallery owners who aren't necessarily interested (or even trained) in promoting work for cultural value. And it's not unusual to see artists work from a more commercial angle, either. That isn't to say there aren't exceptions, though. My accountant has been and avid art collector for years, and finally opened his own (photography-centric) art gallery. He's both educated in art history AND has a talented eye for what is "good" (from both a cultural AND a commercial perspective) AND is a shrewd businessperson. Just MHO, but declaring "what's good" in the art world is a matter of educating the public by bridging the language of cultural value with the language of commercial value (the one they already understand). I'm not suggesting that a work of art has to have a high price tag in order to have cultural value. But I am saying that there are two types of art buyers: the uneducated ones (the norm. . . selling to them just takes a good saleperson), and educated ones (rare. . . selling to them takes someone with credibility, which is only obtained by having a thorough understanding of an artwork's relevance in the context of art history). [/rant]

rjporter said:
Did anyone see the movie Art School Confidential?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was awesome. Another great film that raises some of the same issues is John Waters' Pecker (featuring a Canonet 28!).

cover.w200.jpg
 
FrankS said:
Art appreciation is subjective, right? So who can say what is good and what is not on a level beyond personal opinion? I'll give you that in hindsight, art academics are in a position to judge what was historically significant. I have the feeling that galleries promote new art solely on the basis of profit potential and what can be sold to collectors who are also largely motivated by investment opportunities. The art gallery community is just a money grubbing business as opposed to something more pure which I attribute to art. What think you?
Click to expand...


'Art..... money grubbing business' : like everyone, gallery owners have to eat Frank. A lot try hard to represent good artists. So you can go to Mira Godard Gallery and get original work from Alex Colville or Cutts Gallery and get original work from Michael Snow.. then there are galleries that offer art for people who don't want to spend their money on reproductions of Renoir or Degas. These galleries offer work ranging from $200 -$ 1,000. They are providing a service to the consumer. If that's money grubbing then aren't we are all money grubbers?

Thought du jour... Vincent Van Gough.. sold almost all of his art to one person. There was no appreciation for his work during his lifetime and even subsequent to his passing there was little interest. The main buyer for his work... his brother. During his brief career he had sold one painting.
 
Hi Jan. Yes we are all money grubbers, as we sell our time and talents for a salary to feed our families. Most of us however provide a valuable service in return. I guess I'm critical of SOME modern art galleries because of their lofty rhetoric, purposefully talking over the heads of all but MFA holders, with an arrogant, superior attitude, while selling work of questionable merit.

(I don't totally feel this way, yes I do a bit, but I"m extrapolating somewhat, playing devil's advocate, to stimulate the conversation.)
 
sirius said:
It's like saying people who speak French have nothing important to say because I don't speak French!
Click to expand...

This is an excellent analogy.

I'm conflicted at times about "art", for exactly the sorts of reasons mentioned above. I feel (at times) like the art world is populated by a bunch of self-important people who think they have deep things to say, but are really just enjoying the echo chamber. I get similarly conflicted about my own work as a mathematician, which is essentially the same thing (only I see it from the other side). But research mathematics, just like contemporary (i.e., research) art, does trickle down in unexpected ways.

It's easy to criticise things like these. I get annoyed whenever I see politician or pundit X decrying the use of public funds to sponsor experiments into gorilla mating patterns, or whatever (or the purchase of a particular piece of conceptual art for a national gallery). It's easy to make these works of science/art sound stupid, but for these individuals to claim that these works have no merit is extreme hubris. There are some cases in which non-experts (in fact, even the experts) are just not going to have any idea of the impact that certain explorations will have. Non-experts often don't realise the impact of something, even if the impact is felt every day of their lives. My own area of research in mathematics could have been convincingly criticized as completely useless sixty or seventy years ago. Today, it is the keystone that makes secure communication possible. Without it, there would be no ebay, no paypal, no credit cards, no atm machines. The world of finance would operate as it did in the 19th century (hmm... that's starting to sound good...).

I don't have similar examples of "out-there" contemporary art trickling down into the "know-your-audience" world of art, but I'm going to assume that this is due to my ignorance (the only reasonable response).

As for the art world being dominated by people who are just interested in making money... My Philosophy of Art prof, back in undergrad, used to remind us that 95% or everything is crap. If you're going to criticise something, criticise the top 5% (otherwise you're just going at a straw man). Maybe the art world is partially driven by the need to make money, but that can't be the main motivation for many people. I think there are easier ways to make way more money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom