<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyway Nem0 is right (again), if you are trying to define art, you already failed at said task (defining art).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh. It's easy to call something like art "undefinable" and "without rules." It simply lowers the bar. Why even bother painting a beautiful landscape, with wondrous details, and some added artistic flair, when you can have some random splotches on a canvas and be a trendy "modern artist." Some people can pull it off because they can make obscure and strange ways of creating art into something with structure and meaning.
I see the same thing in modern music. It's the same movement with IDM (Intelligent Dance Music), a genre pioneered by Aphex Twin and some other artists (Squarepusher). A lot of that music is quite good, very sensical, and musically works. It's strange, but it's cool and makes sense. Then there's the trendy, elitist genre fiends who somehow believe that because they can beat slice a snare into random and stupid patterns they're musical geniuses. Rules produce better art, in general. That's because rules are harder to adhere to, and set a standard to be reached.
The best modern artists (visual or musical) created their own rules to abide by, which meant that the viewer or listener could understand the art. It had a point, unless the point was to describe the pointlessness of modern society, which is just lazy.
If you couldn't tell, I have some serious problems with people who are too lazy or too doe-eyed about art to consider that the best art was created inside rules.
Edit: maybe this should be moved to the Discussion area or split?
Illu, what you describe here are simply artistic posers, and believe me, <i>those</i> have been around since Ugh spilled a little gazelle blood on a wall and drew a few streaks that looked like Ogga. We just don't tend to remember the inept earlier artists, which is why the past usually looks as though it was filled with brilliant masters - we just forget the mediocre ones. And if you ask me, modern art, which refuses to be bound by any conventional shape and requires the artist to innvoate his very perception of art in every work has a number of very extant rules. It's simply that, as usual, most fail at them.
Oh, and by the way... <span style='color:white'>***Moved.***</span>
Oh but Nem, we fully agree that art is in the eye of the beholder. But egocentrical as it seems, I would argue that your claim that "you are not the sole measure of the world" conflicts with exactly this, that art is in the eye of the beholder. How can I ever judge anything through other eyes than mine? I openly recognize that my opinion is subjective, but it is also absolute. To me, no other opinion is possible. If I were to give every single opinion equal priority, I would have to recognize EVERYTHING as art, because I can surely find someone to vouch for it. That would make not only the word, but also the concept of "art" completely insignificant.
Oh, and because I couldn't resist: If I were a Beholder, I'd get quite mad if somebody stuck the word "art" in my eye.
Indeed, I do agree that modern art has some good stuff, just like Aphex Twin has had some songs that are simply fantastic. Alot of modern art still has things that people can connect with.
Art is, after all, a form of communication. If no one but you and four friends understand what you're trying to say, you aren't communicating. Good art is able to be communicated to a wide variety of people. Average Joe might not be able to dissect the individual meaning of two brush strokes (like some bulls--t art critics will) but he'll be able to grasp something of what the artist was trying to say.
So remember, art is communication. If your art isn't communicating, it's not art.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Mar 14 2005, 10:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Mar 14 2005, 10:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh but Nem, we fully agree that art is in the eye of the beholder. But egocentrical as it seems, I would argue that your claim that "you are not the sole measure of the world" conflicts with exactly this, that art is in the eye of the beholder. How can I ever judge anything through other eyes than mine? I openly recognize that my opinion is subjective, but it is also absolute. To me, no other opinion is possible. If I were to give every single opinion equal priority, I would have to recognize EVERYTHING as art, because I can surely find someone to vouch for it. That would make not only the word, but also the concept of "art" completely insignificant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why is it insignificant? Why is something that I can't understand, but that captivates four friends who are in on the meaning, not art? It obviously struck a nerve, although that nerve was apparently not mine. And for that matter, cultural studies tell us that we are all metaphorically speaking four friends privy to some, and completely clueless to other messages, depending on our individual backgrounds - just try to watch a piece of Japanese Kabuki theatre with no previous understanding of the form. Of course our own opinion is absolute to ourselves. But there's a big difference between saying that "this is not art" and noting that "this does absolutely nothing for me". It is obvious that modern, abstract art is of importance and meaning to some, that it is art to them. Why not respect that, independently from your own opinion?
I'm going to have to say this half-finished POS <a href='http://img141.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img141&image=earthdayandnight12001yb.jpg' target='_blank'><img src='http://i141.exs.cx/img141/2266/earthdayandnight12001yb.th.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' /></a> is better than seeing someone's slutty personality exposed through 'thrilling' bedframe artwork. If you want a bed showing the personality of the artist (to be your formation of art), I've got a utilitarian loft with messy sheets and pillows right next to me.
In my opinion, you shouldn't be able to become an artist until you can do 2 of the following 4 things:
1. Create a sculpture mimicing the past creations of ancient civilizations (as in: a Ming dynasty vase; Greek sculpture busts;etc.). <a href='http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=roman+sculpture' target='_blank'>like these</a>
2. Create a sculpture of intense detail or individual skill. <a href='http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca/home.html' target='_blank'>Like this (Gallery)</a>
3. Paint a canvas or sculpture with incredible realism (using the light and shapes over actual detail). <a href='http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=monet' target='_blank'>Like this.</a>
4. Paint or draw with incredible detail. <a href='http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=escher' target='_blank'>Like this.</a>
After that you can express your feelings with as many squiggles and overlapping color sqaures you want. Quick rule of thumb: If it takes less than an hour it's probably not art (while you're working quickly) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
You can't always go with the opinions of the few; just like you can't rely on the opinions of all. It's similar to how you can't base laws off of the least tolerent and the most tolerent. You need to take what's accepted by most without it being pushed onto them by upper forces (just like laws are intended to be made by electing officials to represent you [though they often don't]). Sure, 4 friends might support the art and think it's the greatest - that doesn't make it good.
4 people might think child porn is the greatest thing in the world - that doesn't make it so.
<span style='font-size:4pt;line-height:100%'>[forgive the comparison that might arise between your friends and pedophiles] </span>
I think that modern, and more specifically, abstract art allow a greater form of expression than rigid adherence to actual shape and substance. It allows plain expression of emotion and ideas.
I would say that true art requires just two things. 1. It must be visually (or aurally or something else depending on the medium) beautiful. 2. It must convey some sort of meaning.
If it fails the second requirement, then it's just populist art for the masses (e.g. Britney Spears, although you can say that she fails both requirements if you want). If it fails the first requirement, then it's just art that only the elitist critics and aficionados can appreciate.
I would say that most modern art fulfills the second one pretty well, but it often fails to live up to the first requirement.
UltimaGecko, if I were to take the same standards and apply them to another genre.. music for example then that also excludes many musicians that doesn't fit that mold.
You can't fully discredit all those musicians that don't fit some standards because a few Ashlee Simpsons' exist, and I believe the same goes for artists in any artistic medium.
I was actually going for a more visual based organization of art. Music is a vastly different form of art that would be hard to quantify with basic patterns of application. You could say "You need to be able to play Moonlight Sonata on a piano" or something, but that wouldn't really work.
Sound is one of those strange facets of interpretation. If you write a C on a board (if you have even moderately discernable handwriting) people will know what it is; but if you make the sound of a C people may confuse it with a D, B, E, etc. depending on their state of mind and attentiveness (attentiveness may be slightly applicable with visual art as well).
Anyway, my point is: I class music in more of a literary category, which depends more on how you do something than what you do. You can splatter paint on a canvas and get something coherent and inversely, if you paint incredibly slowly with deliberate strokes you could come out with a picture that looks the same. However, if you sing like crap you'll sound like crap; and if you sound good you sound good (based on your audience). I hate rap, lots of people like it (actually, my choice on liking/disliking it is more based on the messages within the music, since I often see white kids who have never seen a ghetto, let alone seen someone shot, listen to it).
Maybe it's just me but 'Art' has a distinctly visual flavor to me; and 'Music' is a distinctly auditory medium. I supposes there's 3 types of real art: visual, audio and literary.
But comparing a 'Rebecca Swainston' (see below) to a Monet, or even Warhol is like comparing "See Spot Run" to the Great Gatsby or even "Red Fish, Blue Fish; One Fish, Two Fish" or "I shot 5 **** last night" to "the Nutcracker".
If you want a better judgement of what is most likely to be art: 1. It took more than 1 hour to create. 2. It doesn't seem like it was made by a 5 year old. 3. It has some semblance of meaning for you (generally implied, or outwardly apparent) - although this may make some people consider what you think is art not to be art and the opposite.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. It took more than 1 hour to create.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This isn't necessarily a requirement to be art. I've seen beautiful POV-Ray renders that were coded in less than an hour.
That Rebecca Swainston piece you showed looks like crap. I wouldn't consider it art, but apparently some people do.
<!--QuoteBegin-UltimaGecko+Mar 14 2005, 06:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UltimaGecko @ Mar 14 2005, 06:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. It took more than 1 hour to create. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't agree.
Thought: Discussions like these are typically split up in two groups, one that wants to define what is art, one that wants to define what isn't. Evidently I belong to the latter.
My favourite piece of modern art? Multiple videos of couples being nasty to each other. Pulling out the chair from underneath the other, throwing food, and mock fighting. Great stuff. I can't remember who made it, or even if it's still there at Tate Modern.
I guess I find that art has to be either aesthetically pleasing, engaging, or both. A lot of modern art just doesn't do it for me, sadly.
I really regret starting this thread. It's been moved to discussions, which it will now be subject to painful painful painful flamewar death BOOM BANG KABOOM
Just the name "Tate Modern" causes me to shudder involuntarily. At least what you describe sounds like entertainment. A glass of water, no matter how much the artist argues that it is a tree, is not. Yes. That is/was an actual piece of *ahem* art. A glass of water. On a shelf. With a lengthy interview underneath, in which the artist keeps proclaiming that it is a tree. He doesn't bring forth any reasoning, he just postulates. I'm hope nobody saw me reading that, because I was probably slackjawed.
Well, working off the assumption that "everything is art if somebody believes it is," I am sure we can find someone who will think that this is in fact art. Believe me or not, I have often mentioned this particular piece to people, and so far nobody has thought it to be art. I now ask this: Why does this particular piece deserve public exhibition in a gallery as prestigious as Tate Modern? Clearly it only means something to a very very small minority of people. Why do they alone hold the right to be entertained, while everybody else just wastes money on the entrance fee? Do I not hold the right to be entertained, just as much as they do? Call me presumptuous, but I believe I do. The only way I can derive entertainment from this particular piece of *ahem* art is through ridicule, and so I did back then, and so I do now. If the artist can ridicule me by taking my entrance fee and shoving crap in my face in return, then I can ridicule him.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 14 2005, 08:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 14 2005, 08:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would say that true art requires just two things. 1. It must be visually (or aurally or something else depending on the medium) beautiful. 2. It must convey some sort of meaning. *snip* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would add a third requirement.
3. It becomes more popular as time passes.
However, the issue of the article revolved around taxpayer-funding of things that the average person did NOT consider art. I'm not exactly sure what criteria, if any, there are to make funding available for the creation of art.
Comments
Heh. It's easy to call something like art "undefinable" and "without rules." It simply lowers the bar. Why even bother painting a beautiful landscape, with wondrous details, and some added artistic flair, when you can have some random splotches on a canvas and be a trendy "modern artist." Some people can pull it off because they can make obscure and strange ways of creating art into something with structure and meaning.
I see the same thing in modern music. It's the same movement with IDM (Intelligent Dance Music), a genre pioneered by Aphex Twin and some other artists (Squarepusher). A lot of that music is quite good, very sensical, and musically works. It's strange, but it's cool and makes sense. Then there's the trendy, elitist genre fiends who somehow believe that because they can beat slice a snare into random and stupid patterns they're musical geniuses. Rules produce better art, in general. That's because rules are harder to adhere to, and set a standard to be reached.
The best modern artists (visual or musical) created their own rules to abide by, which meant that the viewer or listener could understand the art. It had a point, unless the point was to describe the pointlessness of modern society, which is just lazy.
If you couldn't tell, I have some serious problems with people who are too lazy or too doe-eyed about art to consider that the best art was created inside rules.
Edit: maybe this should be moved to the Discussion area or split?
And if you ask me, modern art, which refuses to be bound by any conventional shape and requires the artist to innvoate his very perception of art in every work has a number of very extant rules. It's simply that, as usual, most fail at them.
Oh, and by the way... <span style='color:white'>***Moved.***</span>
Oh, and because I couldn't resist:
If I were a Beholder, I'd get quite mad if somebody stuck the word "art" in my eye.
Art is, after all, a form of communication. If no one but you and four friends understand what you're trying to say, you aren't communicating. Good art is able to be communicated to a wide variety of people. Average Joe might not be able to dissect the individual meaning of two brush strokes (like some bulls--t art critics will) but he'll be able to grasp something of what the artist was trying to say.
So remember, art is communication. If your art isn't communicating, it's not art.
Why is it insignificant? Why is something that I can't understand, but that captivates four friends who are in on the meaning, not art? It obviously struck a nerve, although that nerve was apparently not mine. And for that matter, cultural studies tell us that we are all metaphorically speaking four friends privy to some, and completely clueless to other messages, depending on our individual backgrounds - just try to watch a piece of Japanese Kabuki theatre with no previous understanding of the form.
Of course our own opinion is absolute to ourselves. But there's a big difference between saying that "this is not art" and noting that "this does absolutely nothing for me". It is obvious that modern, abstract art is of importance and meaning to some, that it is art to them. Why not respect that, independently from your own opinion?
Cool beholder painting, BTW.
<a href='http://img141.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img141&image=earthdayandnight12001yb.jpg' target='_blank'><img src='http://i141.exs.cx/img141/2266/earthdayandnight12001yb.th.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' /></a>
is better than seeing someone's slutty personality exposed through 'thrilling' bedframe artwork. If you want a bed showing the personality of the artist (to be your formation of art), I've got a utilitarian loft with messy sheets and pillows right next to me.
In my opinion, you shouldn't be able to become an artist until you can do 2 of the following 4 things:
1. Create a sculpture mimicing the past creations of ancient civilizations (as in: a Ming dynasty vase; Greek sculpture busts;etc.).
<a href='http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=roman+sculpture' target='_blank'>like these</a>
2. Create a sculpture of intense detail or individual skill.
<a href='http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca/home.html' target='_blank'>Like this (Gallery)</a>
3. Paint a canvas or sculpture with incredible realism (using the light and shapes over actual detail).
<a href='http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=monet' target='_blank'>Like this.</a>
4. Paint or draw with incredible detail.
<a href='http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=escher' target='_blank'>Like this.</a>
After that you can express your feelings with as many squiggles and overlapping color sqaures you want. Quick rule of thumb: If it takes less than an hour it's probably not art (while you're working quickly) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
You can't always go with the opinions of the few; just like you can't rely on the opinions of all. It's similar to how you can't base laws off of the least tolerent and the most tolerent. You need to take what's accepted by most without it being pushed onto them by upper forces (just like laws are intended to be made by electing officials to represent you [though they often don't]). Sure, 4 friends might support the art and think it's the greatest - that doesn't make it good.
4 people might think child porn is the greatest thing in the world - that doesn't make it so.
<span style='font-size:4pt;line-height:100%'>[forgive the comparison that might arise between your friends and pedophiles] </span>
1. It must be visually (or aurally or something else depending on the medium) beautiful.
2. It must convey some sort of meaning.
If it fails the second requirement, then it's just populist art for the masses (e.g. Britney Spears, although you can say that she fails both requirements if you want).
If it fails the first requirement, then it's just art that only the elitist critics and aficionados can appreciate.
I would say that most modern art fulfills the second one pretty well, but it often fails to live up to the first requirement.
You can't fully discredit all those musicians that don't fit some standards because a few Ashlee Simpsons' exist, and I believe the same goes for artists in any artistic medium.
Sound is one of those strange facets of interpretation. If you write a C on a board (if you have even moderately discernable handwriting) people will know what it is; but if you make the sound of a C people may confuse it with a D, B, E, etc. depending on their state of mind and attentiveness (attentiveness may be slightly applicable with visual art as well).
Anyway, my point is: I class music in more of a literary category, which depends more on how you do something than what you do. You can splatter paint on a canvas and get something coherent and inversely, if you paint incredibly slowly with deliberate strokes you could come out with a picture that looks the same. However, if you sing like crap you'll sound like crap; and if you sound good you sound good (based on your audience). I hate rap, lots of people like it (actually, my choice on liking/disliking it is more based on the messages within the music, since I often see white kids who have never seen a ghetto, let alone seen someone shot, listen to it).
Maybe it's just me but 'Art' has a distinctly visual flavor to me; and 'Music' is a distinctly auditory medium. I supposes there's 3 types of real art: visual, audio and literary.
But comparing a 'Rebecca Swainston' (see below) to a Monet, or even Warhol is like comparing "See Spot Run" to the Great Gatsby or even "Red Fish, Blue Fish; One Fish, Two Fish" or "I shot 5 **** last night" to "the Nutcracker".
Rebecca Swainston:
<img src='http://www.modernartistsgallery.com/images_artists/340_small.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
If you want a better judgement of what is most likely to be art:
1. It took more than 1 hour to create.
2. It doesn't seem like it was made by a 5 year old.
3. It has some semblance of meaning for you (generally implied, or outwardly apparent) - although this may make some people consider what you think is art not to be art and the opposite.
This isn't necessarily a requirement to be art. I've seen beautiful POV-Ray renders that were coded in less than an hour.
That Rebecca Swainston piece you showed looks like crap. I wouldn't consider it art, but apparently some people do.
I don't agree.
<img src='http://www.lacc.cc.ca.us/~auerbala/images/picasso.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Is this something anyone can confirm?
I guess I find that art has to be either aesthetically pleasing, engaging, or both. A lot of modern art just doesn't do it for me, sadly.
you all suck the fun out of everything.
Yes. That is/was an actual piece of *ahem* art. A glass of water. On a shelf. With a lengthy interview underneath, in which the artist keeps proclaiming that it is a tree. He doesn't bring forth any reasoning, he just postulates. I'm hope nobody saw me reading that, because I was probably slackjawed.
Well, working off the assumption that "everything is art if somebody believes it is," I am sure we can find someone who will think that this is in fact art. Believe me or not, I have often mentioned this particular piece to people, and so far nobody has thought it to be art.
I now ask this: Why does this particular piece deserve public exhibition in a gallery as prestigious as Tate Modern? Clearly it only means something to a very very small minority of people. Why do they alone hold the right to be entertained, while everybody else just wastes money on the entrance fee? Do I not hold the right to be entertained, just as much as they do? Call me presumptuous, but I believe I do. The only way I can derive entertainment from this particular piece of *ahem* art is through ridicule, and so I did back then, and so I do now. If the artist can ridicule me by taking my entrance fee and shoving crap in my face in return, then I can ridicule him.
Ipse dixit.
1. It must be visually (or aurally or something else depending on the medium) beautiful.
2. It must convey some sort of meaning.
*snip* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would add a third requirement.
3. It becomes more popular as time passes.
However, the issue of the article revolved around taxpayer-funding of things that the average person did NOT consider art. I'm not exactly sure what criteria, if any, there are to make funding available for the creation of art.