Ludicrous?

[Julie H]

In another thread, Fred Goldsmith made the statement:

 

"I think saying "art is anything you think it is" is ludicrous."

 

 

If "you" have a reasonable understanding of the meaning of the word art;

and "you" are sincere, i.e. don't have an agenda; and "you" aren't conforming

to others attitudes and are confident enough to make independent judgements,

then why can't "you" say art is "what you think it is"?

 

Somebody has to say it. Who, if not "you"?

 

(Fred, this is not meant as an attack; I'm very interested in the question.)

 

-Julie

[acbeddoe]

I also disagree with that statement. Since there is no <i>objective</i> measure or <i>agreed-upon</i> quality in 'art', then it is whatever one feels it is.<p>

This kind of statement only applies to the undefined. Saying that 'one world view is as valid as any other' <b>is</b> ludicrous. If one's belief system includes 'the world is flat', homeopathy, or alchemy, it is demonstrably false.

[don_e]

Art isn't much. I don't understand the fuss. Any common definition will do to get through the day...except apparently in the dorms of sophs.

[matt_needham]

It's pretty simple. Art is the human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. Artists argue about what art is, and/or come up with rules for art when:

 

1) They are too frustrated and uninspired to work.

 

2) They feel threatened by another artist's work.

 

3) They are trying to perk up the perceived value of their art, or art they have a financial stake in.

 

Don't worry about what art is. Leave that mumbo jumbo up to your agent. Just do it. ;)

[sattler123]

I agree with Matt - who cares what someone, other than you, views as art! It all comes down to individual taste. One person's art is another one's trash.

[felixg]

I am reminded of the answer my ex wife (a painter and sculptor) used to give, especially to critics: "An artist is someone who just f***ing gets on with it. Whatever it is."

[aginbyte]

What does art have to do with it anyway? I have watched theater arts get expanded by

and then completely diluted by performance art. I have watched cinema art expanded by

and then diluted by digital movies made by individuals. What at one moment is a

challenging and exciting varient on the artistic "norm" is soon a cliche and derided as out

of fashion. It seems to me, therefore, that real art is the intersection of innovation and

convention. It is not the innovation, and it is seldom the convention. But then someone

comes from left field and re-establishes the definition anyway, so it REALLY doesn't

matter.

 

The problem is that we are left with people claiming the prestige of art without bringing

anything to the table. I saw on PN the other day where some was commenting on grafitti

on a train and said, substantially, that although he didn't condone grafitti, it was clearly

the expression of someone's personality and therefore art. I have a dog that eats slippers

and tears them to shreds as the expression of his personality, but it ain't art. We are full

of images with dutched angles, self portraits with camera, solemn landscapes and

closeups that are clearly intended to be art. And on the other hand, we have closeups, self

portraits with camera, and landscapes that are clearly nothing more than interesting

observations of what they are. One shot of a bottlecap will be called "Detritus of

civilization", a second, "Bottlecap". Guess which one was intended to be art? I agree with

Felix' ex-wife ... "An artist is someone who just f***ing gets on with it."

 

BTW, Matt, your definition also serves to define engineering.

[Norma Desmond]

1. Julie, not taken as an attack at all.

<p><p>

2. Nobody is forcing anyone to talk about art. And nobody is forcing anyone to spend time

in an online philosophy forum on a photography web site.

<p><p>

3. Dorms of sophs have served as a breeding ground for great minds and great talent. I'd

rather see young ones gazing together at their navels and talking about it than fighting in

wars or living in a world where business school was, at the expense of the humanities, the

only worthwhile venue. Ahh, the problem of the young and discerning mind (said with

sarcasm).

<p><p>

4. We could all be out doing other things instead of talking about photography and art.

Even when we're photographing, we could all be feeding the hungry instead. But, we're

not.

<p><p>

5. "Just do it" isn't a bad code to live by and it's even a better advertising slogan. But

nobody "does" all the time. Humans sometimes step back and think about what we're

doing. That often informs what we're doing and can be what helps us develop what we're

doing. A thoughtful photographer: not a terrible thing.

<p><p>

6. Lots of great artists and lots of great minds have done a lot of thinking, talking, and

writing on the subject, even while creating great works of art as well. I haven't read them

yet, but evidently Weston's Daybooks are substantial and worth the read. Didn't prevent

him from pursuing his photography. Probably helped it develop. Breton didn't just create.

He also thought and wrote and talked his way from Surrealism to Dadism. Dorothy Parker

and George Kaufman and the Algonquin Round Table group spent time in deep discussion

and also managed to come up with great poems and plays. Sartre and De Bouvier spent an

awful lot of time in Paris cafes over cigarettes and coffee yet managed a bunch of activism

and important literary accomplishments.

<p><p>

7. I think it intellectually lazy to say about ANYTHING, "it is whatever you think it is." There

are many fluid and vague words we use all the time, words seemingly impossible to define

by tying them down to a concrete definition. Art, Love, Truth, Beauty. But in order to think

about and discuss them intelligibly, we need a descriptive understanding of them. I can't

have a meaningful discussion about something with you if I allow you to define it any way

you want. If you define a desk as a thing with arms, legs, and cushions that you sit on, we

will have trouble having a conversation about furniture. If you define art as ANYTHING you

want, for example, "the body of water that resides next to the sandy shore and extends

from the continent of North America to Europe," we will not get terribly far. Now, some

may well view the ocean as "art," but they can do that, I maintain, because they have a

notion of art that is different from the notion of the ocean and that allows them to classify

the ocean under the heading of art. Calling the ocean "art" is not defining art as the ocean,

it is classifying the ocean as something that you understand (art), even if you cannot

define it succinctly. If you agree that the ocean, in some instances, can be considered art

but that art is not defined as "the body of water . . . etc.," then you have accepted a limit to

the definition of art which means you know what you're talking about and are willing NOT

to consider ANYTHING art. Someone may display bodily organs in a museum. I've seen it

here in San Francisco. Some considered those organs in that setting to be art. Fine. (Not

my taste, by the way.) That doesn't mean that the definition of art is "the organ inside your

chest that beats and controls blood flow." That's the heart. And, in some instances, the

heart is considered "art." And you know what you mean when you say that because you

have at least a vague understanding of what "art" is and because you have an

understanding that art is not ANYTHING although, by some definitions (not necessarily

ones I adhere to), ANYTHING can be art.

<p><p>

8. There have been many definitions of art proclaimed by artists, philosophers,

intellectuals, and critics. They vary from Plato's sense of "representation," to Aristotle's

idea of "catharsis," to Dickie's "the decisions of the art world" to Hegel's "cultural"

approach. None of them seem adequate. But that doesn't mean that none of them have

merit. And it doesn't mean that reading about art, art history, thoughts on art, won't

inform us about what art is and won't allow us to build upon previous definitions in our

understanding of the matter. In order to understand, we don't have to define precisely, but

we can't simply back away from meaningful attempts and synthesizing various

alternatives.

<p><p>

9. One doesn't have to "worry" about a subject in order to want to discuss it. By discussing

things, one may clarify, stimulate, suggest, emote, and do lots of other things that go into

the mix of creating vital and expressive art.

[winn]

I can accept Matt's definition as applicable to art and engineering. I think the reason for art is to capture or express a feeling or emotion, while the purpose of engineering is to solve a problem. Engineering has a bigger influence over everday life compared to art (look around you); yet people can name very few, if any famous engineers. On the other hand, everyone can name at least several famous artists.

[saskphotog]

So art doesn't exist? Or is it everything is art? If I just get on with making my mud pies no matter what, does that make them art?

 

I think art exists, in spite of the numerous times the "art world" obviously gets too involved in navel gazing or ego tripping and starts making absurd decisions about what is and what isn't art. And, I think art does matter. It's a fundamental cultural phenomenon that must be explained in any comprehensive description of how culture works.

 

We have difficulty defining it because art functions at a level we (modern, Western/European, science worhsiping, Judeo-Christian) have lost or denied in our metaphysics.

 

Art is anything that reveals to us, at some level of conscious or subconscious awareness, some part of the true connectedness we have with each other or the world. It is not just a matter of opinion or blind f***ing persistence (although those who are trying to express that connection often find the desire to do so almost obsessive).

 

Art reveals a truth about our physical and spiritual existence that is deeply rooted in our collective unconscious (to go completely Jungian for a moment) and which is constantly looking for expression and acknowledgment to the point where every human culture has created it. Art points out to us that which we already know, but have forgotten we know it.

[Julie H]

<p>Fred,</p>

 

<p>I had a feeling you might have meant the emphasis to be on "anything" and thus your sentence was about the undefined and therefore inappropriate use of the word art -- but I wasn't sure. Thanks. (I always enjoy your posts.)</p>

 

<p>Dennis,</p>

<p>To the person making graffiti it may be ... expressive and he may even think of it as art even if a lot of people think of it as an eye-sore and a nuisance. On the other hand, when Brooks Jensen photographs <a href="http://www.brooksjensenarts.com/singleimages/abstracts.htm">the random splashed paint used to cover graffiti</a>, his pictures <i>are</i> considered art, at least by Brooks Jensen (and by me).</p>

<p>Larry,</p>

<p>I agree with most of what you've said, though the word "truth" is problematic.</p>

<p>The evolution (inclusion/exclusion) of the meaning of the word art is what I am interested in. Naturally, the meaning of the word (and of all words) changes over time but I think the referant (new/different works of art) should lead the meaning of the word, not the other way around. Which means someone/anyone can make something that is not currently within the definition and it can cause the meaning to expand to include it.</p>

 

 

<p>In case this thread is getting too serious, here is a picture by Teun Hocks of how <a href="http://www.ppowgallery.com/artists/TeunHocks/SelfPortrait02.html">large-format photographic artists take self-portraits</a>.</p>

<p>It sounds like there is a consensus to change the word art to be "it" and to do "it". Fine, so long as "it" doesn't include cleaning my house.</p>

 

<p>-Julie</p>

[yann1]

..."As long as it doesn't include cleaning my house"

Yes Julie, but for us french, cooking is an art too :)

[Norma Desmond]

". . . someone/anyone can make something that is not currently within the definition and it

can cause the meaning to expand to include it."

 

Bravo!

[kelly_flanigan1]

Art is a printers customers work; it might be sunsets, cats, soccer shots of kids; more sunsets, cats; more enviromental images, more sunsets.

[kelly_flanigan1]

When two fine art customers are at the counter; each thinks the others work stinks; and their own is a masterpiece worth thousands of dollars. Its sort of like farts; you notice the other persons air more than you own as being ill wind. Thus fine art work is often called fine fart work in the back room; it really means the customer thinks his/her own work is great and requires special care. Actally its an ART to deal with customer egos; their work is fine art; and hearing ill comments that other customers fine art is really manure worth lining a bird cage with.

[Julie H]

<p>Yann</p>

<p>My cooking = the microwave's Start button and the toaster's thingie for lowering the bread.</p>

<p>Kelly,</p>

<p>... yes, yes, yes, fine, okay, but <i>my</i> farts smell like roses.<p>

<p>On the other hand, Don E apparently never farts. Can such retention be healthy?</p>

<p>-Julie</p>

[Julie H]

<p>To get back on topic, here are two extracts from <a href="http://www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen5and6/threeEssays.html#kubler">an essay by George Kubler.</a> for you to think about:</p>

<p>"Everything about a work of art is contrived to force us to perceive it as a unique object occupying one place and having unusually integral properties of material, technique, form and significance. Our habit of meeting it in a museum or on a stage or in a concert hall, where it bids for our attention with the illusion that it is a single point in space, time, and feeling, further masks the historical reality of every work of art. That reality is totally different from the illusion of uniqueness.</p>

<p>Historically, every work of art is a fragment of some larger unit, and every work of art is a bundle of components of different ages, intricately related to many other works of art, both old and new, by a network of incoming and outgoing influences. These larger units, these bundles of components, and these interrelations across time and space, constitute the study of historical style which is also called stylistic analysis....</p>

 

<p>.... The causal search is one that imposes an excessively simple pattern of explanation upon events. Since every event, however minute, may be infinitely complex, the causal interpretation always betrays the haste of practical urgency. More flexible and expressive is the statement of conditions for any event. The conditional search is necessarily tentative, and it frays into many strands of doubt. Pictorially the difference between cause and condition resembles the difference between Picasso and Velazquez, between abstraction and illusion."</p>

<p>-Julie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

Julie--

 

Thanks. It's a great quote and the notion that art forms a continuum and is constantly

reinforming itself is profound. I find it much more useful to have discussions about art and

bring in quotes such as Kubler's than to try and define it (or undefine it). Things like God and

Truth and Beauty and Art seem better suited to dialogue, not monologue.

 

--Fred

[randy_santos]

"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it."

 

Frank Zappa

[mwaks]

As a kid first introduced to art class in school, art was presented as a class where skills were needed to be learned to create art. Skills that require time in practice and education.

 

If someone throws a bucket of paint at a blank white wall is it art?

I think not. Anybody can make a random mess. The same holds true for photography. .............but if someone takes a blurry shot of some neon lights, someone is bound to call it artistic. If some mess passes for art, well its all in the eye of the beholder.

[felixg]

A good thread.</p>

 

<p>For what it's worth, I would say (and believe that my ex-wife was saying, though perhaps I'm wrong) that there <i><b>IS NO</i></b> objective or universal definition of what is or is not "Art with a capital A" (or, for that matter, to quote Rossetti, with a capital F). Equally, for each person who thinks enough about it to <i>want</i> such a definition, the definition can only be built from her/his onwn perceptions. The same artefact (*) can be art to me (because I made it with artistic intent) but not art to you (because it is does not elicit artistic response from you). Conversely, an artefact can be NOT art to me (because I had no such intent) yet art to you because it speaks to those responses which in you are triggered by your concept of art. And in both cases, both perceptions can be simultaneously valid.</p>

 

<p>Which, I suppose, is just a verbose way of saying that art is what I/you/he/she/they think it is...</p>

 

<p>If I wrestle with mud pies as a serious attempt to create, then yes - I am validly practising art, though none may perceive the results as such. If I randomly and without thought or intent create a mud pie which happens to force you "to perceive it as a unique object", then yes - you validly perceive it as art, though I do not.</p>

 

<p>I agree very much with Fred's praise of the thoughtful, examining and and considering artist, and hope that I can consider myself to be one - though I do not, thereby, suggest that an unthinking artist is any less of an artist.</p>

 

<p> - - -</p>

 

<p>(* the word "artefact", of course, speaks of a completely different meaning of the word "art", related to the need for practical skill.)</p>

[iron shore gallery]

My comment in this fine discussion would be that Art and aesthetics are two different animals. I have a keen sense of aesthetics (I believe). And I try to convey this in my work. But only time will tell if what I'm producing is Art. What isn't Art gets tossed out sooner or later.

[don_e]

"On the other hand, Don E apparently never farts. Can such retention be healthy?"

 

If you mean art applied to photography. Not my metier. It is actually possible to not consider it and still take photos. Hard to believe for some, but it is true nonetheless.

[chris_waller]

If I may borrow from Alfred North Whitehead's observation on modern Western philosophy, then most debate on what consitutes art is 'merely footnotes to Marcel Duchamp', he of 'Fountain' fame (or infamy). For me, George Steiner, in his 'Lessons of the Masters', gets closest to a definition when he speaks of 'the exploration and communication of great and final things'.

[Julie H]

Recently I (mistakenly) read an art book to be saying, roughly, that there were two kinds of art: private and public*. I thought to myself, private art! how can there be such a thing? If it's not stirring and meaningful regardless of the viewer, then it's not art, it's just a snapshot.

 

But then I thought, no, two persons could make art that referenced people, things and events that only those two people had experienced. That might be art to the both of them, but not to those who "weren't there".

 

Then I realized that (obviously) all art references different memories in each viewer. Even "archetypes" are conceptualized/understood differently (to a greater or lesser degree) by each person.

 

So I thought, that means that a picture's meaning is entirely dependent on what is in each viewer's head -- and what IS inside each viewer's head is different.

 

Which leads me to the original question of this thread: can you say, in effect, that if you don't have the right things in your head, you can't decide what is art? Even if the picture fills you with joy, or moves you to tears, can someone else deny to you that that picture is art because you don't have "the right things in their head"?

 

*The art book that I was reading was "Varieties of Visual Experience". I was reading the beginning of the chapter called, "The Social Functions of Art" and it begins; "In a sense, all works of art perform a social function since they are created for an audience. Artists at times may claim that they work only for themselves, but they mean by this that they set their own standards."

 

"...art performs a social function when (1) it influences the collective behavior of people; (2) it is created to be seen or used primarily in public situations; and (3) it expresses or describes collective aspects of existence as oppposed to individual and personal kinds of experience."

 

The third one is where I got the wrong idea. If I had read on I would have gotten to "... Many works of art are deliberately designed to influence group thinking." which should have given me a clue (it's about economic, social, religious ideologies). But which brings up another interesting idea: passive versus aggressive art.

 

[Thank you to everybody who has responded. I am enjoying all of it!]

 

-Julie