Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
How can people say 'that isn't art' unless there's some agreed definition of what art actually is?
i'm not trying to be deep. I'd just like to know if anyone knows what it is.
Anything an artist says is art, is art.
You cannot from that point on deny it is art.
You can argue that it is bad art, or that it is inferior to other types of art, if you wish.
But you cannot deny that it is art.
Primitive definitions of art rely too much on notions of skill and craft.
When people say "that isn't art", they mean "that isn't my concept of art".
so it doesn't really matter in the context of this argument.
but since you ask, i agree with John up there^^
He has ART in his name.
implies no use, only aesthetic appeal.
was if it was useful?
A implies B does that mean that not A implies not B
useful implies not art
I have an understanding of logic.
but what you said earlier is not - you have just demonstrated an abject lack of understanding of logic, and, remember, logic is not taught - it is intrinsic to humans.
you joker you!
Really, please do. On your terms, music has no 'use' either.
Your statements are really quite laughable.
if you believe that's true.
What about architecture then, is that not art?
but it also has 'chiecture' in.
Buildings have use
why aren't you
what is architecture if not buildings?
is the art and science of designing buildings and structures. Note, art and science.
i don't agree
as applicant to Director of Art as the Tate Modern, I'm most qualified to answer this question.
My CV will support this:
there is no ART without GARFUNKEL.
down the right hand side
i just did a massive turd, and it felt like a piece of art. does that mean it is in fact art?
for the most part, i agree with what you're saying. however, i think that art cannot totally be defined by the person doing it. some things are not bad art, but are not even art at all.. i think some sort of independent analyser is necessary..
he has the necessary CV^
And his shit making machine?
is that your minds eye has realised hitherto undiscovered beauty in something that is not normally associated with it.....unless you were referring instead to the 'performance art' aspect of it.
Many people crtiticise Pollock for this....that he probably developed his 'style' through accidental discovery of effect by observation of something already existing yet unintentional art, and that he merely copied this.
Others might claim that he did this conceptually and intentionally.
will pay money to see or buy.
Or just aprreciated by the poverty stricken (grafitti).
'that which is useful' and 'art'
I think that this is just a definition, which has been used and is used by many.
I believe that it was arts and crafts guru
William Morris who said
'you should not suffer to have anything in your home, that you do not know to be either useful or beautiful'
I do not think that these two are exclusive of each other, but together they do cover adequetly that which we need
John Brainlove earlier said art is whatever the artist calls art
that is one aspect
but does the art occur
at its creation or concept?
Or when it provokes a response in a beholder?
Or just by existing?
Surely if an artist is not sincere then works such as Damien Hursts subsequent repititions on a theme of showing dead animals is not art when he creates it (maybe the first one) surely the process has become mechanistic with the later ones?
Although despite this a child looking at one of the later pieces still might be filled with a wonder for the first time so these pieces still have the potential to inspire 'discovered art appreciation'
But then again so can a cloud or a flower.....or smezzers turd ^
Interestingly some types of shamens or wtich doctors in the past, might use the intestines of animals as a method of divination.....(despite the health of the animal) yet really this could not be called scientific, surely it is an art form, yet it is primarily intended to be useful.....hmm art and use combined? (not saying that doesnt happen nowadays, just had to regress, to prove that they can co-exist....or at least they can if you have a different cultural outlook)
It's intention and definition that creates art.
Natural / accidental occurrences don't count, unless someone decides to call them art afterwards.
And of course repetition is art: Hirst, Warhol, whoever: you can say their art is repetitive, but you can't say it's not art for that reason.
is the fact that it is repetitious.
idea that is the art and the repetition just a demonstration of the art?
What about the idea of Pollock, discovering, and then refining the idea of his discovery?
What if Hirsts animals was originally a discovery of how surprisingly inspiring dead animals can be and then again he developed this idea....would this then be art?
would the art be in the original realisation/discovery?
or in his ideas for refinement/developement?
or in the actual creation?
I know im being specific, but I think everyone uses the word art differently
By showing the same thing again and again he is making a comment on mass media/consumer culture/the all prevading nature of pop culture/mass production etc etc. You are supposed to see several of the same thing by him, rather than just one in isolation, four Marilyns on the canvas or whatever.
As for Hirst I'd say the art is probably in the actual creation(s) which are representative of the thought processes behind them.
even if the process is the same.
(*i am not a hirst fan)
"And yes Art should be beautiful or interesting."
No! Art can be ugly or boring. And maybe even still be good!
Art can be anything and should be whatever it wants!
that art should be beautiful or interesting. Immediately by saying that you're creatin barriers for yourself, and art just now is basically about a lack of barriers.
As john's already said, art is whatever you say it it. As soon as i call something art, there is an intention there which makes that object art. I must have called it art for a reason, why did i call it art? And then you suddenly have an art object rather than an everyday object, it becomes something else other than an ordinary object.
It really wouldn't matter if an artist created the same piece over and over again, indeed that would be another aspect of his/her work. Just because an artists repeats thing certainly doens't mean it ceases to be art. More often it's the artist exploring one particular area of interest in full.
end of discussion.
something which visually excites or intrigues.
art can be boring and unexciting. in fact most art is.
As an individual (not a philosopher)
I used to think an art piece was true art when I thought that I could not have painted/sculpted it (cos it was so beautiful) or that I had not thought of it and it made me think of something differently......otherwise Id think something was just copied.
However when I went to an exhibition and was regarding a bowl of rotting fruit with contempt (who hasnt reflected on the curious beauty of rotting/disintigration (of organic stuff or landscapes/buildings at some point...it seems more meaningful, deeper when its discovered)
Then I was struck with two ideas,
the first was how, if your first experiance of looking at rotting was in a gallery, then any subsequent natural occurance of this would be different, it would not be as significant/poignant....or would it?
Could this art piece have the potential to alter(lesson) someones real life experiance in this respect? (OK I know that a bit up the arse, but a lot of conceptual stuff has to reach there....and remember I was puzzled as to why someone would be awarded good mnoney for this piece.....it was award winning)
The other though was that the artist in this case was a 'con artist'......it doesnt matter what the piece was at all, the 'art' was in whatever spiel the artist supplied to the judges/art critics.....even if they werent sincere.......basically like some sort of intellectual competition......on the one hand you have a panel of experianced art 'experts' who have to be impressed enough by patter from the artist that seems original enough to convince them they are the winner (It all becomes a bit detestable to the ordinary operson when it becomes this obscure though) .
by participating in it at that level? There can be a sincerity in producing art that takes the piss out of the art establishment (see Light Turning On And Off).
Alternatively, does the artists sincerity even matter if something is called art and somebody responds to it?
of art being 'discovered' by the observer......surely it is not always the intention of the artist.....some things can be ambiguous and allow many different interpretations.....my argument is that sometimes the observer can have a more sophisticated artistic appreciation than the artist might have originally intended.......sometimes the artist might be skilled in presenting a piece that is very undefined and be caperble of being interpreted in many different ways without the artist actually having to realise or imagine those ways.........What im trying to say is that I dont believe that art exists at the point of the creation, sometimes it exists in discovery.
I think the argument about art is often just about trying to define the meaning of the word 'art'
The artist's intention is definitely not the sole point of art. Anything can be interpreted in a million ways and art can be received on whatever level the viewer finds useful / interesting / relevant or whatever. You don't have to indulge the artists conceptual / theoretical game playing. But then the resonances and impact of their work becomes almost accidental as it's unintended, which does lead me to question whether or not this undermines the value of what they are doing.
out of the gallery context and gain from doing so.
you didn't like the rotting fruit art, that doesn't makee it not art! that makes it bad art by your criteria for what you look for in art.
was it ceal floyer? I seem to remember her doing rotting fruit art, although I may be wrong... if so, her work is partly about slight intention, gestural object 'making' or recontextualising, mystery and minimalism... yes, lots of contemporary art is a conceptual game and so the more personal resonances of the fruit may have seemed trite...
from my original contempt It did actually make me think two different things as I said.....although one of those lines of thought was a bit convoluted.
I have always believed though that I could also present pieces like this, the problem being that I would never get it displayed in the right conditions because I would not present it in a po faced manner and am not an 'artist'
defining yourself as an artist is step one in making art, no?
two words: "outsider art"
making can be a compulsion as much as a decision
in the sense that it has no use
than us going up our own arses? Cos I would estimate that at least 50% of people would say that.
Does it matter?
If you can appreciate something as you would "conventional" art, then surely it is art?
Art relies on being defined as such. Non art things can be artistic, but if they haven't been defined as art by someone who calls themselves as artist then...
And yes this means anyone can call themselves an artist, and decide that the entire western hemisphere or whatever is their piece. It then becomes about how convincing they can be!
it doesent have to be created with the intention of being "art" to be "art". Art is art to anyone who interprets it as such.
to be defined as art.....(Mrs Knees has been relaying the details of an R4 discussion).....
so basically some art can be something 'not beautiful, not interesting, not inspiring, not original'
yet something that is not art can be 'beautiful, original, interesting and inspiring'
I can go along with that....I just have to readjust my definition of the word....I think all along I was using the wrong definition of the word. (actually I think a lot of people also have a different interpretation too....which is why they get so angry about things like the turner prize competition)
not a descriptive adjective.
when a lot of people say "art" they actually mean "craft".
Is a novellist or poet an artist?
anything which is created is art.
No, they are a novelist or poet.
I reeeeeeally don't like the wider term "the arts".
Of course there is an artistic element to writing, of course, of course, but it's an entirely different thing.
Im just trying to establish the definition, it has been something that has confused me before, as I approached it with the 'laymans definition' rather than the 'artists drfinition' the difference between these interpretations causes a bit of friction and accusations of pomposity, when in fact if the lay people knew it is just a difference of definition then they would be a lot less upset by the turner prize and such like
as the layman might regard their interpretation/expectation of art as slightly more noble
achievement, a success, a triumph
I find the hostility to conceptual art parallels with the criticism of avant garde music on DiS actually. In that creativity, which is a brave and true and amazing thing, is heinously dismissed as novelty, while sticking to a tried and tested template (see: conformity) is endlessly celebrated.
maybe i am wrong in my assumptions to lay people......true brave creative...those are noble things, I thought the point you were making about art was that as long as an artist intended something to be art then it was, even if it wasnt 'true, brave or (in a qualitative meanin) creative'
This is an aside.
(because you have no true inspiration) and being brave and original.
I think that extreme Jazz can test your limits on this quiet well.
I used to enjoy an older esoteric, brave jazz ensemble at my local muso pub, but when the old boy on the bass went off on a solo, it really went to places that were so strange you were totally unsure if he was a stratospheric genius that you couldnt appreciate, or if hed just lost the plot completely, then another instrument would come back in and ground us all (Im not sure if the rest of the band could appreciate whayt he was doing either........maybe it was a case of the emporors new jazz riff
but it was not always clear if he was being brave and risky in his own mind, maybe he was just off his rocker.....dont get me wrong, I did find it very entertaining and interesting, i used to try to concentrate harder and harder, listened more intently, so that when the far less challenging (yet still experimental) rest of the band returned, they seemed like familiar solid ground
were 'out there' they still had some structure and discipline (although that might not have been fully appreciated without his bits)
go read The Wire or sumfink you jazz-loving FREAK!
art's a load of bollocks anyway.
you big unsophisticated oaf!!!!!
but really, shitting in a can? An unmade bed? Sticking a urinal in a gallery? What a load of tossmonkeys. i've just pissed into my own mouth, can i call that art? Give me a nice painting or something pleeease.
shit in a can on an unmade bed in a gallery next to a urinal?
i mean like a nice countryside landscape or some pretty flowers or sumfink.
THEY ARE NOT ART
oops caps lock.
and thousands of other people...
i LOVE the unmade bed and think Emin is one of the best of her generation.
I'LL DO YOU A PAINTING OF HOW TO AIM STRAIGHT AND HIT THE TOILET?
oops caps lock
I didn't mean to shout
although perhaps I should have
TODAY I AM GOING TO MAKE SOME ART.
saves making any tea.
thommo you have to admit....you must have smiled when the two tourists bounced on the unmade bed....I often feel that the audiance reaction makes something far more of an event...............Also the bloke that lopped of the head of margaret thatchers statue.........surely, if I were a gallery, I would not repair it I would place the head alongside....or if it was repaired, not hide what had happened to it.....then everyone could look at the marks on the neck and remember
well what a fantastic opportunity for someone to be an art terrorist and use it (infront of people natch)...think of the kudos
it's not art is it? They've not sculpted it or painted a picture of a nice green forest or nuffink.
And as for those Japanese tourists, they deserve a medal or summfinnk! Down with non-art!
Thank crikey a painter won the Turner this year!!!!!
they seemed to fail on every level.
she was the only, like, actual artist there wasn't she?
everyone stood and clapped
the ambulance men came, their costumes were so realistic
they even had a real stretcher an exact replica of an ambulance!
we applauded for hours after they had gone
i love performance art
Today i'm perfoming as a bloated, lazy student layabout, i think it's going well so far.
It's so audacious how far he'll go!
I think his medium is "human life".
every week we seem to have this conversation about how 9/11 was the most effective art act of the twenty-first century thus far. Everyone seems to agree, i don't know why we have to keep going on about it.
but that's being dealt with in a small way... social art and the gradual erosion of the idea that the white cube environment is the ideal construct / environment in which to show is interesting with regards to this...
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
but there wasn't much point when the answer is that anything the artists wants to be art, IS art, and cannot be disputed. If one believes something is art, it is art to them.
I don't think the teacher appreciated me saying that as it sort of ended the debate...
when the viewer decides it is art.
But yes. i agree that this is an argument that can be stopped quickly and swiftly and i'd rather people were out making art than sat round discussing whether it actually is 'art' or not.
that's how i felt during the discussion. Why sit around discussing whether this item infront of us is art, when no one will ever agree, and if someone feels it is art, then so be it.
It's plain daft.
which makes it art, though. That's one school of thought on the matter.
Once the institutions that are the art world and the critical world proclaims it as art, it is art. Yet these institutions are themselves founded upon art, so in effect art is self creating.
art (ärt) pronunciation
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
2. Artful contrivance; cunning.
9. Printing. Illustrative material.
too much talk of beauty
cannot capture art, just describe it.