What is art? (27)

In my not so humble opinion, art and artists are either self-defined or whatever many people agree to call art...

The old "Art should have no function" has been turned on its head since a long long time ago - Art for political/propaganda/religious purposes is very old indeed...

And when furniture is designed, it is nowadays called art... while still being functional... And it's not exactly recent either - Art Deco sarted (or peaked) in the 1920s, iirc...

The main difference between an artist and an amateur is that the artist is trying to make a living out of it...

There is no right and wrong when it comes to sex ; only informed consent...

Nowadays if you point to something and say "this is Art" everyone will believe you and admire the blank square of pavement at the other end of your finger, but to me, Art is something that takes some skill to produce and is either visually/verbally appealling and/or mentally stimulating.

Check out @The_Art_Forum

A XVIII commode is definitely something someone put a lot of effort into. You/I might enjoy the feel and look of it, we might even have associated ideas about the evanescence of life, the sturdiness of old fashioned things, feel a tug at the historical aspect of it all...

Is it Art?

Well, let's put it this way, it wasn't meant to be...

There is no right and wrong when it comes to sex ; only informed consent...

Check out @The_Art_Forum

I mean, these days, you got guys packaging their shit (literally!) and selling it as "art"... and people are indeed willing to buy shit... literally...

Now, you can appreciate the subtle second or third degree reading into that bizarre transaction (and, actually, as far as modern art goes, it is rather on the subtler end of things, imho) but, personally, there is no ways in hell I would consider shit in a can, even MichelAngelo's shit, "art"... And I would certainly not buy it...

But that's not the position adopted by the "artistic community"...

There is no right and wrong when it comes to sex ; only informed consent...

I once heard something to effect that “art is a work that changes the emotion of the viewer”. I have always agreed with that. Who is to say that a piece of loathsome propaganda is not also a work of art? Performance art is not often to my taste but... it works under the above definition. Likewise some advertising can be art.

The only distinctions left are to discern the complexity and intention of the creator of the work – for art must be an act of creation. Even Duchamp's urinal took something already made and put it in a place where it became something else. A psychological creation using context.

I try to use the contrast between the Basic Emotions (Joy, Distress, Anger, Fear, Surprise and Disgust) that are universal, crossing all cultures, and the Higher Cognitive Emotions (Love, Guilt, Shame, Embarrassment, Pride, Envy and Jealousy), which may vary according to culture and context. If an artist can summon the latter, then you are in the presence of something worth spending more time on. Not that talented artists may not utilise the Basic to great effect, of course. The intensity delivered, as a conductor controls a musical phrase, is the clue.

A photo of a dead child may deliver a great emotional shock, but it is not great art. A selection of ceramics with designs portraying, say, the abuse of a child may well be – the contrast of a beautiful object and designs with the empathetic treatment of the horrific subject confusingly tears at both heart and mind.

"He took a single sip of her pain and found it exquisite"

Edited 6 Aug 09, 9:21 AM by Mad_Monk

Of the work I've made over the past 5 years, say, very little of it still exists in a physical form. I have photographic evidence of some and I also occasionally make books.

Art that elicits an emotional reaction from the viewer is one branch of thought, and it is one often adopted by the lay person. I do believe it is a powerful tool that can be utilized by the artist, but I do not believe it is a defining factor.

Essentially, art is what you name it. In the arts education system, the question is often: is an autodidact an artist? I think any object, gesture or situation has the potential to be proclaimed art-- in essence, the title is in the intent.

I'm not sure if all of this makes sense. And in the end, it's just an opinion.

I would suggest checking out Tino Sehgal's work. It's a good example of one extreme of the spectrum.

Edited 9 Aug 09, 6:57 PM by pepperpants

In the same vein, I consider art to be (slightly) easier defined, through describing its purpose and how it has been used. For instance, I think Damien Hirst's human skull studded with real diamonds, For the Love of God, is a great piece of work. At first glance, it is tacky as hell, sensationalised, useless object. But the fact that it has been sold for millions straight after it went on the market and then changed hands for some more millions of pounds illustrates exactly the irony of the art market nowadays. In this way, For the Love of God can be seen as a fantastic satire of our monied world; much like Warhol's screenprints of celebs, car crash scenes and soup cans. Of course, one can also contemplate over the diamond skull with a metaphysical argument over glory, death, infinity, etc. which seems to me is the central question to much of Hirst's work.

Why?

Because I have a fantastic jumpsuit

That has to be the best argument for being an artist that I have *ever* heard. I may actually have to start using it just as a general phrase. "Why should you go first? Because I have a fantastic jumpsuit." "Why do I win? Fantastic jumpsuit!"

Anyway, back to the OP. I have had this discussion endless times; my photography class in particular was fascinated by the theory that art should be original and unique... because what does that say for disciplines like photography where, in the digital age especially, everything has infinite copies, is mass produced, mass marketed? Does this cause it to gain or lose value? If you have a beautiful photograph and never print it (the dictionary definition of art requires it to be a *physical* work, generally; ie on film, video or something) can it be art? Or is it ok to call it art if it is simply intangible data?

On a personal level, I utterly disagree with the two quotes in the OP. I would argue the opposite, that all art has a purpose, even if it is a purpose specific to maybe just one individual. The artistic arena is utterly functional (sometimes in a very indulgent way, but functional nonetheless). Fashion, architecture, dance, sculpture etc all fall under the banner of generic art and without those things whole economies would collapse.

There will obviously never be any proper, finite definition; to presume that there could be is foolish. Art is a constantly morphing, evolving form and the theories surrounding it are as fluid as it is, if not more so. But it does give us something fun to debate, doesn't it?

@MissFelicity If you haven't already, I suggest you read Susan Sontag's "On Photography"... I think you might like it

Exx

"What you blush to tell", says Venus, "is the most important part of the whole matter"
www.clubcrimson.co.uk