Since this post I’ve been thinking about how we are to decide whether something is art or not. Aesthetics has never been an area of philosophy that holds a particular interest for me (too much navel gazing), but a comment on the last post was quite instructive with regard to the criteria by which we can demarcate art from pseudo-art. There are certainly going to be grey areas, but surely there must be a point where art ends, and pointless tripe begins?Specifically, the metaphorical use of the word artistic is quite revealing. For example, when we use the word “artist” to describe a sportsperson, such as Rodger Federer, what do we mean? Why is he artistic when he plays tennis?
I suggest that it’s because he is clever, he plays with great skill within his sport, (reaching a level that can only be reached by a select few who have trained to a similar degree and are naturally talented), he plays with great imagination and flair, and so on. Federer possesses a certain je ne sais quoi.
Surely the points listed above, if implied in the metaphorical use of art, are necessary criteria for real art? This list of qualities I suggest is specific to tennis/sport and is quite narrow. Without a doubt there would be more criteria we could add to actual art. (For example, art should generally have a recognisable point - meaning. If the meaning is only apparent to the artist, then there's not much point in exhibiting it.) I wouldn’t think that it is necessary that art fulfils all the criteria, but it should fulfil the majority to some degree.
Art doesn’t have to be beautiful and I don’t have anything against images that are shocking per se. But being shocking for the sake of it is LAME. I guess I just have a problem with self indulgent and vacuous fools who don’t recognise this quality in themselves.
Maybe I’m being too harsh, WRT demarcation? The criteria I suggest might not demarcate art from pseudo-art, but it will demarcate good art from shite. Using the sporting analogy again, we can all be artistic (to a degree) when playing sport, but the vast majority will never reach the level of a master such as Federer. Most of us are rubbish and with luck, occasionally fluke a moment of brilliance (always with no-one there to witness of course). The same can be said of most of our artistic achievements I’d bet.
The pig fetish work (see my previous post) might qualify as legitimate art, but if we accept the criteria I suggest (and I welcome other suggestions), it means it is shite at the very least. (It’s not clever, lacks imagination or flair, it has no skill and no point – unless we treat the artist’s statement with seriousness.)
This wikipedia entry is quite informative. It would suggest that much of what I’ve said is wrong, in that as long as someone believes it’s art, then it is. The unfortunate problem with this explanation for what art is, is that it necessarily rules out nothing, and therefore explains nothing. If anything is art, then everything, literally, is art. The term "art" losses utility and becomes a useless and unidentifiable concept.
Then again, if anything is art… an untalented git such as myself could be an artist - I call the artwork above - merde de vache.
We seem to be having a lot of reference to the French in our posts lately, so I have kept the trend going.
__________________
Tags:
Posts
12 comments:
1. Putting a fancy frame around a pile of rocks that is LAME because you aren't even trying to be artistic!
2. Who said demarcation even applies to art? One of the points of art is to push the boundries. & that even applies in the "Art of sports." as apposed to (your own words) real art (did you contradict yourself there?)
3.You said, art should have a recognisable point - meaning. If the meaning is only apparent to the artist, then there's not much point in exhibiting Who gets to make that judgement, you? Or some art club full of old ladies who have never had an imaginative thought in their head?
Georges Braque:
Where talent is relied on, it is because imagination is lacking.
4. Everyone knows Van Gogh hardly sold a painting in his lifetime, now his artwork is famous and he is considered a great innovative artist. What was going on there?
5. Instead of asking what is art, maybe the question should be, "What qualifies an Art critic?"
I haven't checked out the wikipedia entry for art yet. But, I bet you left something out, there.
What you describe as "rocks" are cow turds L>T. That was the point of Theo's title for the work.
Using your criteria, I am off to have my morning art now after having slept in my art and having had a shower in my artroom. Later, when I digest my morning art I will form my art into an artwork through peristalsis. This artwork will then drop from my bum into the pool of water which forms at the bottom of the S-bend in my porcelain home gallery of performance art. I will experience a kindred affection for the millions of unsung artists throughout the world who are producing similar artorks at the exact same time as I produce mine.
1. Putting a fancy frame around a pile of rocks that is LAME because you aren't even trying to be artistic!
Exactly (though you should look up the title - google search "altavista babel fish")
2. Who said demarcation even applies to art? One of the points of art is to push the boundries. & that even applies in the "Art of sports." as apposed to (your own words) real art (did you contradict yourself there?)
The “art of sports” is metaphorical – that’s theo’s point.
3.You said, art should have a recognisable point - meaning. If the meaning is only apparent to the artist, then there's not much point in exhibiting Who gets to make that judgement, you? Or some art club full of old ladies who have never had an imaginative thought in their head?
Georges Braque:
Where talent is relied on, it is because imagination is lacking.
He says that later in the post. Perhaps we can’t demarcate art but there is high quality and poor quality art. Or is everyone as good as everyone else and we are all the best at everything?
4. Everyone knows Van Gogh hardly sold a painting in his lifetime, now his artwork is famous and he is considered a great innovative artist. What was going on there?
Art evolves – fine. Judges of art can change their criteria. There should be some criteria though, not anything goes. Otherwise, as durka says, my morning excretion is art.
5. Instead of asking what is art, maybe the question should be, "What qualifies an Art critic?"
You are moving the goalposts, but i'll answer anyway. Even less talent than an artist – I would assume.
1.babel fish. I get that. I assume you threw that picture all together yourself, factitiously. Which means YOU aren't even trying to be artistic.
No one can make any kind of judgment on that.You just did it to prove a point. There is a difference between that and a genuine artistic attempt.
3. There is high quality & low quality Art. Artists all strive to produce high quality art & they should be allowed artistic freedom to do so. Because a work is bad, does that make them not an artist or the work not art?
Most of us learn to follow some accepted criteria in whatever is our medium(i happen to have some notes I keep around when painting)
Some accepted criteria of artisic quality:
1.Structural clarity of form.
2.clear distinctions of planes
3.flexibility & senitivness of touch
4.feeling for the medium
5.suggestive power
6.expressivness
7.artistic economy(efficient use)
8.Originality of concept.
These are the basics & I assume the criteria that art critics & Judges base their asumptions on.
Or is everyone as good as everyone else and we are all the best at everything?
Of course not everyone is a good as everyone else, but, it doesn't mean their attempt is not an artistic endeavor(unless they toss a fancy frame around a pile of shit to prove a point)
I can't really define what is "art" for other people. I just know what I like. I know how I approach my art work & how I look at others. I see it as very personal
Art evolves – fine. Judges of art can change their criteria. There should be some criteria though, not anything goes
So then, should the burden of proof for what is art be placed on the judges & art critcs?
Ideally, if art were only judged on accepted criteria & not also on aesthetics & personal preference.
I suppose it is fair that any art funded by the government should follow certain well defined guidelines & strict criteria (this is taxpayers money after all) & no offending anyone, either. But, what would be the point, then?
I followed the links in the post back to an original commentary on special pleading in the arts by Jef. I have to say I think it's the last word on the subject of over-claiming for the "Arts". I don't know how to link in comments so I quote:
"we mere mortals shouldn't be intimidated by arts wankers when expressing disdain for poor artwork, as the arts priesthood typically engages in extremely transparent special pleading (an informal logical fallacy) in order to protect their privileged positions."
I love it when arts wankers claim to be challenging the establishment. They ARE the establishment.
"we mere mortals shouldn't be intimidated by arts wankers when expressing disdain for poor artwork, as the arts priesthood typically engages in extremely transparent special pleading (an informal logical fallacy) in order to protect their privileged positions."
WTF is an arts 'wanker'? You people need to learn to speak english.
Some points from me wrt to all the comments so far:
Durk adurka and arthur f hit the nail on the head wrt the point of the post.
Altavista babelfish is a language translator. arthur f must be psychic, because that’s how I translated the title of the post - “cow crap artist” – to French. (Translated in reverse - “Artiste de merde de vache“ back to English - is slightly different to “cow crap artist”.)
L>T got it right in saying: I assume you threw that picture all together yourself, factitiously. Which means YOU aren't even trying to be artistic..
Exactly my point. I was being satirical. If we go by the definitions of art as proposed by philosophers of art (see the wikipedia entry I linked to in the original post) then “anything goes” as art, including my factitious cow crap “painting”. [“Factitious” – A rarely used term that’s worth espousing. I’m going to attempt to use it at least once today, thanks L>T. :-)].
I think we are getting closer to agreement, given you do accept there is a difference between art and non-art. You’ve even provided some criteria used in painting. I think that your criteria mean you are on my side!
As arthur f says in sticking up for me, I do point out that it is difficult, if not impossible, to categorically state something is not art, if someone else says it is.
But, I go on to say we should be able to judge quality, which you seem to agree with? (I’m not saying I am the best judge, or even a good judge, btw.). You say: Because a work is bad, does that make them not an artist or the work not art? No it doesn’t, but what’s it doing in a gallery trying to pass itself off as good art?
I’m not trying to be arrogant about it, but my original point, which has gotten a bit lost, is that many modern artists only get recognition because of the shock value of their “art”. They then try to justify this by talking about it in a hoity-toity, but completely meaningless, way.
This is the pig woman exactly, viz: The work left me with an undercurrent of pigginess, unexpected fantasies of mergence and interspecies metamorphoses began to flicker into my consciousness.
You also said: I suppose it is fair that any art funded by the government should follow certain well defined guidelines & strict criteria (this is taxpayers money after all) & no offending anyone, either. But, what would be the point, then?
I agree (with the “what would be the point?”) to a point. My problem is with self important wankers who take themselves seriously.
Which brings me to anonymous. “Wanker” is very much English. It’s as English ten English things, say: The Queen, the FA cup, Cricket, Polo, Big Ben (which is the bell inside the tower FYI), despising the French, loathing the Germans, complaining about the weather, Monty Python and (almost always) losing to Australia at sport.
Also, for grandma moses, here’s the link for Jef’s post Special pleading and arts wankers.
This is good clean fun :)
I think we are getting closer to agreement, given you do accept there is a difference between art and non-art. You’ve even provided some criteria used in painting. I think that your criteria mean you are on my side!
Something about that paragraph annoys the hell out of me. I'm sure there is a name for that kind of reasoning.
But, Oh well, I think we might be at least able to discuss art even if we didn't agree.
My problem is with self important wankers who take themselves seriously. I haven't met any of those yet. But, I thought they were called art critics.
Oh & I have to respond to Durka's pile of excrement:
Look, if you put that much thought into it & could somehow make it palatable, someone might buy it. By time honored standards, that's art. :)
If you were to give a monkey an acoustic guitar, and he started banging away on it, who would be the artist - the monkey, or the guy who gave it the guitar?
Philosophy as a whole has never interested me because of the navel gazing and pure speculation. I'm too much of an empiricist.
I'm with you on that one RWP, to a point. Philosophy is very diverse, so areas of applied philosophy such as ethics can be very useful. And philosophy in science has an important role to play too, when it's not navel gazing.
By philosophy, I essentially mean two questions. What are they saying? And why do they believe that?
Ie., meaning and justification. This is very important to science and the most philosophically minded scientists tend to be the big picture guys (I mean "guys" as a gender-neutral term - I'm very PC).
I quote myself from something I wrote a while back:
Philosophy ignorant of science is often vacuous – it lacks the 'knowledge' to find the wisdom it so boldly proclaims to love. And science ignorant of philosophy is often insipid and soporific – it lacks the 'wisdom' to know what knowledge is worth knowing.
And JM, I'd say me, if I gave the monkey the guitar. Otherwise it's the monkey.
rightwingprof; so be an empiricist. But, Art & philosophy can't be separated unless a person was to(for example) deliberately set out to copy anothers work of art or copy a photogragh, then it would be nothing but technical skill. That is NOT really art in all it's glory. Matisse pursued expression. He liked to use contrasting colors, composition, to give his painting a feeling of expansion.<---how do you explain that? You can't but it's there. This is one of the qualitys that gives him some of his universal appeal.
& of course innovative artists, (serious artists) are always pushing the boundries within themselves to bring out more of their creative expression. Art is about expressing yourself. That's philosophical.
jm_brazil; There is no criteria for animal artists as far as I know. If the monkey was really good & stirred my soul, then the monkey would be an artist in my opinion, but he'd still be a monkey. :)
Post a Comment