What Is Art?
spidermonkey
@ Join Date: 2003-09-13 Member: 20810Members
@ Join Date: 2003-09-13 Member: 20810Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">The turner prize</div> Ive recently read in the papers, an article about 'shock' art and the <a href='http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-10-2003_pg9_3' target='_blank'>turner prize</a>. That clicky will have to do as im not going to scan it <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->, but it should give you a basic idea.
Anyway, i would like to hear what people think actually makes something art, and if something like 'shock' art would constitute as real art, or just something rediculous or sick.
Personally, im losing faith, as everything is art now (just check out oragamiboulder.com), its beginning to come to the point where people dont know what art is, and are constantly testing the limits to the definition. I think art really has to say something about humanity, or the current state of society. I see this turner prize nomination as just being shocking for the sake of it, and art just for the hell of it.
Comments?
Anyway, i would like to hear what people think actually makes something art, and if something like 'shock' art would constitute as real art, or just something rediculous or sick.
Personally, im losing faith, as everything is art now (just check out oragamiboulder.com), its beginning to come to the point where people dont know what art is, and are constantly testing the limits to the definition. I think art really has to say something about humanity, or the current state of society. I see this turner prize nomination as just being shocking for the sake of it, and art just for the hell of it.
Comments?
Comments
Art is subjective.
That said, I do think some people are taking the mickey. Tracy Emin's bed for example.
It really doesn't matter wether you can define something as art or not, all that matters is how much you enjoy the piece. Turner prize art can be interesting and entertaining, it can also be really freaking stupid. Since you can't really judge modern art on technical merit, the only thing left to assess it by is your own subjective opinion. Do you enjoy it or not.
Although the question that may leave you with is, since modern art can only be marked by subjective opinion, is there much point having a competition and prize for the 'winner'? I'd guess the Turner prize is more about generating interest and headlines than actually praising the artist. You might argue that, the reason a sculpture of maggot-ridden flesh takes the prize and makes the headlines is because its the only type of modern art that generates a response anymore. There's no such thing as bad publicity.
Tate Modern is in what used to be a power station. There's always one big (and I mean big) exhibit in this "room" that must have housed some monstrous machinery in days past: it starts at ground level and goes up to the top. Bearing in mind that there are several floors, that's quite a height. Inside is currently housed a huge frickin' orange sun, and the room is filled with a sugar-water mist. It's really impressive. Good art.
There was an exhibit that looked like pieces of metal poop scattered around on the floor, as well as a girder propped up in the corner. Response? I don't like looking at crap, metallic or otherwise. Bad art.
Another was an assortment of stuff that was dredged up out of the Thames. I liked this, personally: the stuff people throw away! Not to mention the assortment of bones. Good art.
Video of asian lady clothed in silver admiring a bauble accomponied by "oriental" music: I found this embarrassing to watch. Bad art.
Perhaps the difference is that there must be <i>passion</i> in art. Without passion, painting is still just a piece of paper with colourings on it =\
Turn about is fair play.
It's not modern art that I mind so much as modern artists. Damien Hirst doesn't even make his own "art"; he just tells people what to do. I wish people would pay <i>me </i>vast sums of money in exchange for me telling them to go pickle a cow or what have you. But they don't seem willing, even if I say "please".
a) Something that stands the test of time (means it will mean something to people no matter what time period its examined in)
b) Something that provokes an emotional response and thought (could be positive or negative)
c) Something that is not <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Cliche' target='_blank'>Cliche</a> or a <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Fad' target='_blank'>Fad</a>
This is the definition most commonly taught at Universities, however there are a whole bunch of other ones.
It's a theatre play, entitled "Four weeks in Dachau" (Dachau being the name of a former KZ) by a Russian author whoms name I quickly forgot. It goes like this:
You're led into a black room in which benches are placed for the audience. These benches are cenetered around the stage, which is actually a very shallow pool with about five centimeters-high water in it. Small lit candles are swimming on the water, in the middle of the pool stands a chair. A big ventilator hangs in the background.
As you sit down, you notice the headphones behind you - every place has a set, but no explanation is given as to what part they'll play in the following play.
Some time later, the doors are being closed, then opened again to let a nurse that could be straight out of a C-grade porn movie in. Blonde, curvy, shirt skirt, all the stupid clichés. She walks towards the pool, takes her shoes off, steps into the pool and walks up to the chair.
The ventilator starts working and blows all candles out.
The nurse leaves the room.
The doors open again. A man in his late fifties, bald, fat, and completely naked save for his feet, which are wrapped in plastic bags from a local supermarket, enters. He approaches the chair, sits down. He won't move a muscle for the next two hours.
You put your headphones on, and hear a dark, old voice, presumably that of the actor in front of you, which starts to tell you a story. I won't bother you with details, sufficient to say that it features crippling injuries, cannibalism, necrophilia and a son defacing on his dead mothers face in its first quarter and doesn't slow down there. The story has no connection whatsoever to WW2 or the Shoah.
Two hours later, the voice stops, the nurse appears again to help the man out of the water and the door, and the audience is supposed to clap.
What am I trying to tell you by this, apart from the fact that Germanys theatres recieve too much funding?
Well, two things.
First, this play lacking any kind of player does fit GreyPaws definition: I can guarantee you that it would leave an impression on people twohundred years from now, as it does now, and it's definetely not a cliché, nor a fad.
One could also state that it, while definetely 'unconventional' has a clearly defined purpose - one could for example argue that the disgust people feel at the story gets them closer to the appropriate reaction to the Shoah than our psyche, which is used to filtering anything connected to it, would allow with a 'normal' attempt. One could state that the play shows us our expectations towards a Shoah-related play by grossly breaking with them.
Can those explanations make this play valid as a piece of art? Maybe, but there's one big thing they're missing: As nice as those reasons sound, people won't bother searching for them, because they feel like having been dealt mental blows for two hours straight. If it's a piece of art, it's forgetting about those that one would expect should appreciate it. It neglects its audience.
<i>This</i> is what makes me itchy about many modern forms of art, also shockart: The artists seem to forget that, all said and done, they can make perfect, intelligent statements about the world they live in; if nobody can understand them, they still mean nothing. I don't mean to carter to a mainstream-definition of art that neglects anything that's not considered art by popular consensus, but if a work isn't accessible to anyone but a select few, what purpose does it fulfill? The enjoyment of the artist?
This brings me to my second point. Our current high culture is slowly drifting into manierism. Symbols and meanings are getting more and more elaborate and specific, but also less and less understandeable. The German literature scene recently raved about a novel deciping the 28 last seconds of a murderer on 280 pages - and not one contains a grammatically complete phrase. The book is good in so far that it conveys an interesting message, but it's a torture to read.
Similiar with the visual arts - hell, even our mainstream movies start feeling the trend: Noticed how a lot of action scenes in Matrix: Reloaded were in fact nothing but longer, more exactly drawn-out showings of moves that had already happened in Matrix 1? How suspension of disbelief is drawn out further and further in modern martial arts movies (think of the 'flying' scenes in Hero)?
This isn't the first time something like this happens. It happened in the Renaissance, in the Baroque, it happened to the Realists and to the Romantics: Their artistical movements had gained more and more momentum, built themselves up higher and higher, built cultural castles out of thin air - and subsequently collapsed.
I assume the same thing will happen soon with our 'fine art' and 'high literature'. It'll be interesting to see what comes next.
I'm assuming the book you mentioned was written in german, is there an english translation?
Also, I dont claim to understand art, I simply asked my Fiance what the definition of art was, she recently took a required art class + creative writing in her pre doc studies program, and that definition came from her professors. I am more or elss confused by modern and post modern art, I cant imagine what message someone is trying to get across to the viewer if they paint a picture of a cow using 2 colors and 4 blocks.
I think I agree with Nem on the point that things are getting overly complicated, but my art teacher ripped me a new arse when I told him "Whats the point of painting or writing something if no one can understand it?" I always felt like a simpelton because I couldnt stare at a bunch of dots on canvas for half and hour and walk away teary eyed. (cept of course when my eyes got all dry <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Visual art has been crapping out lately too. It all started with Post Modern art, which is just over rated. I think it's just a way to be lazy in your creative process. My art teacher was saying that she thought that artists got lazy and found new ways to be "creative" because of technology like cameras. And with computer art and stuff out, they get even lazier. I have to agree with her. For example, theres this one artist who put a dead sheep in an aquarium, and got praised for it(probably because of the shock value). It just seems like the artist pretended it was creative.
I guess with all this shock value messing up the art community, it messes up art. It's like theyre trying to hard to please the public. And art shouldnt be about pleasing people, it should be about making things from your brain.
Personally, i have a great distaste for modern art, i don't see how a light going on and off (Turner Prize winner two years ago) or an unmade bed (Some woman, can't remember her name, lol) is considered art, then i realise it's made me think about it, i've even discussed it with people. No matter which was i look at it, it is art.
Music, on the other hand, is in my opinion split in two. There's music which is an art (A performing art, no?) and then there's music which is an entertainment. The MTV example given above is a poor one at best, that's entertainment frankly, and if you don't like it, don't watch it. Very little music these days, especially in the mainstream, has any artistic quality at best, but believe me, if you dig around hard enough, it's there.
Personally, i have a great distaste for modern art, i don't see how a light going on and off (Turner Prize winner two years ago) or an unmade bed (Some woman, can't remember her name, lol) is considered art, then i realise it's made me think about it, i've even discussed it with people. No matter which was i look at it, it is art.
Music, on the other hand, is in my opinion split in two. There's music which is an art (A performing art, no?) and then there's music which is an entertainment. The MTV example given above is a poor one at best, that's entertainment frankly, and if you don't like it, don't watch it. Very little music these days, especially in the mainstream, has any artistic quality at best, but believe me, if you dig around hard enough, it's there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Art should be something of beauty and passion, it has to perhaps evoke a new way of thinking. It should capture the human spirit in a nutshell. How can a light going on and off the considered art? Anyone could think of it, a child could, it doesnt say anything, unless someone is <i>looking</i> for meaning (and yes, to anyone looking for meaning will find it, one way or another). There is a fine line between abstract and absurd, and i think modern art has stepped too far over the boundry.
As for music, i cant believe mainstream singers are still called 'artists', half of them dont even sing their own songs, let alone write them. My favourite bands are those that dare to be a bit different (radiohead for example).
New art direction has almost always seem to have risen out of being put in a box. For example, ancient egyptians made the artists represent themselves ( at least, the powerful egyptians) the best they could, changing features and such.
In more recent times, "modern" art and impressionism has also been frowned upon. Now, however, it seems like really great art to everyone.
Art has changed, and it has evolved. A painting of a street 400 years ago wouldn't have the same effect as a painting of a street with cars zooming by.
Many people who did "modern" art also were very good at normal art, more common and conventional. But since there was nowhere farther to go ( you can only draw a normal person with normal proportions in a normal place so many times), they chose to expand their art, bend proportions and shapes.
Would a commercial be considered art? How about a chair?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
1art: Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
a) The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of
b) beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
c) The study of these activities.
d) The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It certainly supports that art is generally a work of beauty, yet, imitating nature, like this shock art featuring death and maggots, certainly fits within the definition. Yes, i am confused. It seems like everything is art, but then again, similar things are not. eg, vandalism. It must come down to the intention of creating art?
Not always in an interesting way.
Anyone remember that famous square drawing?
*deep breath*
I need to calm down before I start swearing and whatnot.
How the... bah!
How can that be art! A SQUARE!
How can people find meaning in that?
Why would it sell?
If I had a chance to buy that painting... heck I'd pay to have it <b>removed</b> from my house!
Yeah, I heared about that theatre play... I once knew a girl who wanted to drag me into theatre to see it.
I refused and never heared something from her again *shrugs*
... ah well, back on topic ...
Agreed on the Matrix example... I really found those actions scenes quite annoying (as the whole movie).
However I think those flying scenes in Hero were wonderful.
But where is the difference?
I think while Hero had quite a lot of fighting action, it was driven by the story... Matrix was pure special effects overkill.
The fighting and flying in Hero was so obviously "irreal", but it still fit the whole appearance of the movie.
The fighting in Matrix was "very good computer effects", to say it in a positive way.
The fighting in Hero was "quite an Art" to me... because of the whole way it was presented.
You see, Art alyways is something personal.
Both from the view of the artist and the viewers.
But I agree, some pieces of "modern art" are really annoying and have nothing to do with "the fine arts" in my oppinion.
Bath tub with butter for example... this is not Art, this is sick... the real art is making money with these things imho.
But there seem to be a lot of people that think these things are art so they become art... and the artist gets his money.
So I guess as long as there are persons that think something is art, this thing IS art.... at least to them.
About the square... can a square be art?
Maybe.
But it can be inspiration.
I thought about this thing for only a few moments and came up with things like
"Maybe this square is a symbol for the way our society is. Strict, linear, faceless... all within the norms and rules of pure maths and numbers."
Well, I do not belive this, but maybe some weird artist belives this.. or some of the viewers?
So this square can be an inspiration to people... now maybe the ability to inspire is an art in itself?
But an apple can inspire me, too.
A pretty girl's face can inspire me, too.
Is an apple art? Is a girl's pretty face art?
The moment I look at it, it is...
You see, one can think and discuss about what is art and what is not and most likely will run in circles... comming to a simple conclusion:
Everything is art.
Or nothing is art.
And something is art for only someone at some time.
And the same something is art for someone else at some other time.
Art is what a person thinks is Art.
God: You think that's art? it's a plastic bag in the wind! You want art, look at your cardiovascular system.
Art is subjective, but not all things that people think are art should be considered art.