There have been numerous threads in this forum discussing the topic of what can be considered art. The last one being about some of the surreal stuff the makes it in the Hot20. You know what I'm talking about, the standard Bryce preset sky with floating chrome balls over a water plain and a couple of naked vickies thrown in for good measure. Well, here are some pics from my recent visit to MMFA (Montreal Museum of Fine Arts). The Museum paid some serious bucks for this stuff.

You've obviously not been to the Tate Gallery in London....I remember one year a brick wall made it into the main gallery ....

I think the best one, probably again at the Tate, was a pile of black rubbish sacks (that's trash to those over the pond). They had a problem because the bin men removed the exhibit, and yes they binned it. So the artist was called in to do it all again. Great art.

I once saw a pile of twigs. I've seen the string of lights on the floor that I thought someone had left there. I've seen the walkway of candy (very tempted to pinch one). I've seen countless pieces of Pollock's and Hirst's art. I saw a special exhibition of just different sized white canvases. I've seen a completely black room. But it's all art. I just don't like all of it (or don't get it, which is more to the point).

don't forget the 400-lb piece of chocolate, the elephant droppings, bloody sheets..and then there's that guy who keeps gift-wrapping buildings..;) to some, I think they feel they've failed as artists if the common folk 'get' their artworks..;)
btw..that first piece..are the other dimensions 4'x '1?..;)

Message edited on: 01/05/2005 11:33

in my opion: 1st one: Not art, not even minamilsm or dadaism or such.. I find the combination of the little rack around the canvas to be more appealing then the canvas on it's own. I think that says enough about how much of an artistic message it gives me? lol 2nd one: Can I see one of your daughters paintings? 3rd one: Interesting... don't know if it's art to me, I would need to be able to have a better look, but it's interesting :) 4th one: Maybe the artists wants to say something about how the space program is, besides it's practical uses also a bit of a show item. It's being made to look impressive, to be stored in history, the images forever reminding us of the impression that the usa wanted to make. I think it's a bit of a sadistic understatement of how the US space program has been used for claiming technical superiority and showing it off to the world. 5th one: nice, but to me it conveys more historic nostalgia then artistic value. I doubt if I could be convinced to call it art Chohole, I remember that story!! I thought it was rather funny :P lol I remember the artist was quite upset about having to rebuild the whole composition right? Drawbridgep, sometimes the point is to create something that is so strange that you cannot think of anything you could 'get' about it :) Personally I doubt if I would call it an artform, but some people do :)

I agree, but I also think some artists create something that you can't get(and neither do they), just so they (and "experts") can be pretentious stuck up fuddy duddies.

Attached Link: http://cgee.hamline.edu/see/goldsworthy/see_an_andy.html

Keep in mind that the MMFA is a museum, NOT an art gallery. Webster's dictionary defines museum as: an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value. A canvas painted entirely of black acryllic is not of lasting interest or value. IMHO based on my studies of aesthetics (I know I'm going to get in trouble here, feel free to rip it to shreds). The following criteria are necessary to be deemed art. Art must include at least three of the following. 1) It must be difficult to reproduce exactly (alot of labour or contemplation) 2) It must evoke thought or emotion (be it good or bad) 3) It must represent something (an object, a place, an idea or ideology) 4) It must encourage the viewer to see with more than just their eyes 5) It must in some way broaden a viewer's aesthetic envelope. 6) It must exhibit a singular and/or unique vision or style. To be fit for a museum it must also have the following: 1) It must be old 2) It must have lasting interest or value 3) It must be unique. Before you kill me for the above and start calling me names "Aesthetics is for art what ornithology is for the birds" Barnett Newman. And I have read John Passmore's "The dreariness of aesthetics", about an hour ago online. OK, I skimmed through it, but it didn't change my mind about what I wrote above.

My favourites are the sliced up corpses and a guy taking a dump. Not! But the sad part is that its actually beeing called art. Personally, i think its a scorn towards any descent AND normal person.

I agree pretty much about your defenition of art :) except that I think "difficult to reproduce" applies only to the intellectual side of making art, the thought process behind it, or as you nicely call it, contemplation upon the idea of the artwork must contain some depth or, a certain degree of uniqueness (mentioned as point 6, indeed) even if the artist might have only needed one second to think up the idea, it must have sufficient "uniqueness" to realistically assume that not very many people would easily get the very same/a very similar idea :) Technical skills with the tools used to create the work can also make something difficult to reproduce, but, to me, this does not define the work as "art". As for the question of what is fit for a museum, I'll have to think about that.. I'm not quite sure if I'm going to agree on your point you made on that one.

Hey, pog, that icicle star is cool. :-)

Anyway, I guess you can say for art the same thing Damon Knight said for science fiction: "SF is anything I point my finger to and say it's SF."

Bandolin, what would you say about Kazimir Malevich (or Malevitch, depending on transliteration)? Like this one. Or his Red Cavalry.

Or Klee and his Tunisian Gardens...

OTOH, I guess the first pic from the museum was an attempt to pull a Malevich. :-) So some of your points still stand. For instance, the problem is that quite a lot of "revolutionary" stuff, like Malevich's black square or black circle were really revolutionary at the time, regardless of the fact that that they were not 1 nor 3. (I would be very cautious with representing ideology, unless you want to get something like the Soviet Social Realism. It had basically no value except its ideological content. And every ideology goes to the Hell of Ideas, sooner or later.)

But immitators were quite detrimental to their perceived value. Just like they were detrimental to the value of Hemingway's style, which is now perceived as base and uninteresting. Or Pollock, when now you have zillions of people splattering paint on paper and calling themselves artists. Not a single one of them has the vision, freshness and innovativeness of Malevich, Hemingway, Pollock.

BTW, the second pic looks like a good attempt at new primitivism, and might be even worth something in artistical regard.

Hm. When I read what I wrote, doesn't exactly seem we disagree. :-) But I will still leave it.

Incidentally, forget the dreariness of theoretical texts. Read Robertson Davies's novel What's Bred in the Bone, which I have already mentioned here. He does a great explanation of why modern art looks like it does.

art (t) NOUN: 1.Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. 2. 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. The study of these activities. 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. 6. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer. 7. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice" (Joyce Carol Oates). 8. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks. Artful contrivance; cunning. 9. Printing Illustrative material.

Yay! A completely-pointless-except-for-fun "what is art" thread. My view is: If an individual considers an item to have artistic merit, it does - to her or him. If an individual considers an item bereft of artistic merit, it has none - to her or him. It's down to the individual, not the item. That applies whether the item is a dead sheep in a tank of chemicals, or the Mona Lisa. That's why I have such a strong belief that 'art' should be entirely in the domain of the private sector with no tax payers' money spent on it at all.

Ah, Erlik, you've touched my heart by mentioning one of Canada's literary giants. I read "A voice from the Attic" years ago for a class, and now wish I had paid attention. But you do realize that Davies is, much like Stephen Leacock before him, a social satirist. But you've definitely sparked my interest in the Depthford trilogy. As for Malevich yeah, its art. Bad art, but art nonetheless. I wouldn't consider it art just because its revolutionary, though. Pollock, like Warhol were lucky, and spawned a generation of imitators. No wonder, it was so easy to imitate. I do not agree with Damon Knight. But you Erlik are a learned one. I would be honoured to raise a pint to you in your presence. @PJF If an individual considers an item to have artistic merit, it does - to her or him. I disagree with that statement completely. I'm not one for censorship, but there are limits to what art is, and it doesn't include EVERYTHING. I do however, agree with your first and last statement.

What is art?

Well, they say beauty is in the eye of the "beholder", and I for one, agree with this.

So then, art should be something that's visually pleasing to the beholder. We're all unique,
and what may be really pleasing to one, could be equally revolting to another.

Art has become more than just a picture, and rightly so.

When I look at my Petrof (grand piano), it pleases me as much as when I play it,
because to my mind, it's a "work of art".

When I see a naked woman (a chance would be a fine thing), it pleases me because I see her,
as a "work of art".

That said...

Someone once called my Petrof a "big ugly black thing with brass bits on it", and someone might say "your ideal woman could pass for an entry to Crufts".

Now ask yourself, would such comments be justified?

The answer is yes and no, there is no "true" definition of art, because remember...

...beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is always unique!

Len (being all philosophical and stuff).

So then, art should be something that's visually pleasing to the beholder. We're all unique, and what may be really pleasing to one, could be equally revolting to another. I would say, "emotionally pleasing" :) for instance, music is not something you can see, but it still can be art, and writing is so much more then the visible typography. When I see a naked woman (a chance would be a fine thing), it pleases me because I see her, as a "work of art". lol, they all say that :P I think that has very much to do with the situation and the mood it happens in though... ;)

@Rayraz

I agree about the "emotionally pleasing" comment, because I have to say I was only thinking in terms of "visual" art when I made that post, and you're making a good point.

On the other hand, I don't agree about that "naked woman" comment. In effect, what you're saying is this...

(A Situation)
She's a work of art when she's a mere photograph...

(Another Situation)
...but if she's standing in front of you, gagging for it, with her panties 'round her ankles, she's nothing more than a sex machine.

In reality, that's not the case.

That situation wouldn't make her any less "visually pleasing" or change who she is, therefore it wouldn't make her any less, a "work of art" ;-)

EDIT:

@PJF

Great to see you back in the Bryce forum, you had me worried after your last PM ;-)

Message edited on: 01/05/2005 16:28

Oh, there's definitely a satiristic bit to Bone, but the part about the meaning of art sounded quite serious to me. Not that the two are mutually incompatible. :-) (Funny thing, Lyre of Orpheus didn't do much for me, and I don't even remember what was the third one.) With an idea it's not whether it's easy to repeat ... it's who comes first with it and gives it an embodiment. Practically anything is easy for those who come afterwards. There's one of funny footnotes somewhere in Pratchett, where he says, first climb on a high mountain is terribly difficult. But let 10-15 years pass and old ladies will go there to take their tea, and will return muttering because they forgot their glasses. :-) Of course, he exaggerates greatly, but the principle is true. And if you come to Glasgow this summer, for Worldcon, I'll be happy to share a drink. Only, I'd rather have a dram instead of a pint. Never been much for beer. :-)

Chohole, I think it stands to reason;

One person's art is another person's garbage.
David Cazares, Sun-Sentinel, September 29, 1995

as quoted in Christopher J. Robinson, "The 'Recognized Stature' Standard in the Visual Artists Rights Act," Fordham Law Review, vol. 68, n. 5 (April 2000),

:)

Message edited on: 01/05/2005 17:27

pumeco, I thought you'd say that, but I meant it differently :) I'll give a rather extreme example (extremes make things clear more easily I think lol); What if you have been going out with your friends, you had a few drinks and you're walking home and you walk through a dark ally and this hooker comes up to you, she's clearly addicted, not too young anymore, just generally actually rather ugly looking and you're so not in the mood for her. would you still see her as a "work of art"?

As for the sex machine thing. That is so not me. I don't need or even want a soulless sex machine like that. I think to me, during such intimite situations a woman would be even more amazing, even more beautiful, and more so a piece of art then in any other situation. (call me a hopeless romantic, but I believe in this)

@Rayraz

I think maybe you've got the wrong end of the stick :-)

It's got nothing to do with seeing women as a "work of art" in general, it was just an example.

While there's women I'd call a "work of art", there ARE limits - and my god, that insanely addicted hooker of yours is definately NOT one of 'em lol

Still, get xenic101 to do a render of your virtual hooker and I'll give her marks out of ten!

ooooh okay :) then we are on one line again :) yea I do agree a woman (but also a man) can be considered a work of art when looking at it from the right perspective (meant in the bigger sense or the word, not purely optical)

@bandolin I don't see what there is about my statement to disagree with; it's just basic logic. A violent, predatory rapist might consider his photos of his crime to be works of art, whereas I'd regard them as scenes-of-crime pictures useful only as evidence for bringing him to justice (preference - bullet to back of head). The artistic merit of something is in the 'eye' of the beholder. Just because a particular beholder appreciates something as 'art' doesn't mean anyone else should be required to give it special consideration. I'd risk entering a burning building to save the last existing set of Beethoven scores for posterity; someone profoundly deaf from birth might wonder what had possessed me.

If a Canadian beaver trapper put his graffitti-covered canoe up for display, it's just a graffitti-covered canoe.

If an artist in Montreal, or NYC puts up a graffitti-covered canoe up in a gallery, it's called art. If a fancy pants art critic agrees, it is then called brilliant art and it is then worth thousands.

A large part of being a "real" artist (more than the talent and craft) is public relations and good timing.

Message edited on: 01/05/2005 21:36

I for one think it's stupid and ridiculous to treat the word, "art" as a separate kind of word. It's entirely unromantic to consider artwork to be anything other than "artwork". If you didn't work at it, it's not artwork. If it doesn't meet the definition of the word, "art", as posted above, then it's not art. Cut and dry. Why the hell should ONE word get special, pseudo-romantic treatment, and not every other word? We'd have a breakdown of language if every word meant something different to every person. Beauty in the eye of the beholder? Yes, of course. But that's a function of BEAUTY, not of artwork. Pumeco, you are interchanging the definitions, as though beauty IS art. Not so. Art being art in the eye of the beholder? Nope. That's just stupid. Either it's artwork or it's not. People who try to redefine words just need to stop typing in English and go write their own languages, like Tolkien's "Quenya" Elvish language. You can't just redefine words whenever it suits you. Words, ALSO by definition, have meaning. If they mean different things to different people, they aren't words, but just sonic vibrations representable by physical characters. Such as the word, "woohoo". Not a word at all. ART is a word. 'Kay, that's dumb, and I'm done typing it!

It's not whether it's art or not. The trick is to find someone with too much money. Convince them something is art. And then to get them to buy it from you. (If only I could pull that off somehow.) ;)

frogdot, actually I think it's hard to decide if that canoe is art or not, for one thing it's a 3D object and we can't see half of it at the moment :) I think it might also matter what it is exactly that is painted on it :)

I think you're mixing up "real artists" with "popular artists" :) many real artists can have a hard time selling their work for acceptable money, let alone expensively, but that doesn't make them less of an artist :) Marketability is not an influence on the artistic value of an artwork, it is only of influence on the ammount and type of audience the supposed 'artwork' will receive.

lordstormdragon, Art is indeed a word, but what matters is the connection between the "work" and the "viewer" that the word implies, and/or how it creates emotion and/or makes the viewer contemplate upon the artwork.

Maybe that canoe is art because it makes us wonder; just what is art? if this isn't art why is this canoe in an artgallery? you would think that, because it is in an artgallery some people think it is really art, but then what do they see what we don't? maybe it is the very suggestion of these questions that makes it art, even if only so for the artist who made it.

Message edited on: 01/06/2005 05:11

This is one of those topics that probably lead nowhere. Who the hell is to say what art is? Is there a governing body? Is there a rulebook for it? Does the rulebook say that art has to be pleasing? repulsive? emotional? money making? approved by all? blah, blah, blah... If there isn't, then were all just guessing and making assumptions(and that's just fine by me as long as nobody tries to shove their own descriptioin of art down my throat). And if there is such a governinbg body or rulebook, it still wouldn't change my idea (or anyone else's idea) of what art is. I've been taking all sorts of art/art histor classes now and I still don't have a definition for it. I'm inclined towards what PJF said on post #19. One thing that can be changed though, is how we respond to art, especially the ones we don't like (but other people like).

My point, Alvin, was that there are governing bodies, and rulebooks for words, of which "art" is a subset. They call them, "Dicitonaries".

In that case, can we blame Robert Cawdrey?

I read this somewhere I thought that it applied here. Visual art is communication - a visual language. There is a sender and a receiver. The artist is the originator of a concept or message. The viewer is the receiver of that message. They must both understand the same language for a dialog to take place. Intent is not enough. The artist can have all the intent in the world that what she/he presents is art but if that message (intent) isn't understood by the viewer than that piece isn't art to that viewer. To someone else who understands the artist's language the communication can take place. An understanding of the intent through the visual language is the key to the communication. The viewer must take responsibility to learn the language of artists and not just blame the artist if they don't "get it". I think it was Duchamp's intent with "The Fountain" to pose this very question. "Is this urinal art if I say it is?" Obviously it is because we (some not all) understand his message and are still discussing it now. Welcome to art 101.

lordstormdragon: I get what you mean bro. Sorry I think I drank too much of that herb tea yesterday. LOL. drawbridge: LOL

@lordstormdragon

(Quote)
"If it doesn't meet the definition of the word, "art", as posted above, then it's not art.
Cut and dry."

(Answer)
Bullshit...for a start, WHO or WHAT on earth has the right to define "art".

There is NO person, NO entity, NO nothing that has, or ever will have, the right to define "art".

Art isn't "art" just because some dictionary, list of rules, or self-infactuated philosopher says it is!

But if you live your life around the opinions of others, that's your call. Personally, I have a mind and opinion of my own, and I'll trust it to tell me what "art" is when I see it ;-)

This thread is - as was quoted "A completely-pointless-except-for-fun "what is art" thread.", because the fact of the matter is, there will NEVER be a "true" definition of "art"...

...and the very fact that we're all here debating this, only goes to prove my point - you're trying to define something that hasn't, and NEVER will be defined.

WTF...a list of rules!

Give me a break.

Len (Awaits a flaming from lordstormdragon).

my whole life is one big art piece and so should be yours amen. :P

(grins at Len!) I'm a STORM dragon, not a fire dragon, my friend... I guess that to me, artwork is a big thing because it takes "work". When dealing with digital art, people often ccuse us of not doing any "work", and having the CPU do all the work. My deal would be that if I'm up for ten hours modeling fake water in Rhino, then test-rendering over and over and over, then to me that is considered "work"; it's tedious, obnoxious, and very reminiscent of some of my hand-drawn images which have taken me 50 to 100 hours to draw. And therefore, artWORK. Paint-rolling a canvas with black paint is not "work", and therefore, not artwork. Artistic? Maybe... Can any single one of us reproduce that? Yep. Piece of cake. And in regard to Bryce itself, when I look at galleries and see something that I could match almost exactly, in mere minutes if not seconds, receiving massive praise for being wonderful and imaginitive (shiny spheres, "surreal" images, etc.), I tend to become angry. Any one of us could reproduce some of those images. Then, you'll see stuff by Englewolf and Ornlu which is similar in nature, but loaded with technical beauty and obvious energy spent... I see images from people, where it's obvious to me, being familiar with the medium (Bryce), that the person slaved over the image in some way... And regardless of how smooth or beautiful or nice the image is, I know that it meant a lot ot that person and helped them grow. Look at Hobbit's pictures, and you'll see what I mean. There are plenty of others, and I mean PLENTY! You'll see stuff by Englewolf and Ornlu which is simple in nature, but loaded with technical beauty and obvious energy spent... countless test-renderings and refinations. So in regards to digital "art", if the CPU is doing all the work, or Bryce itself godforbid, then how is it artwork? (not trying to sound elitist, although it's difficult when using a ridiculous screen name...!)

Art is where the heart is,.........no,......wait,.......that's Home is where the heart is,..........nevermind. Black painting ? It's not by a guy named Ad Reinhart is it ? What is art is a very personal thing,........you know the old saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure". Personally I loathe Ad Reinhart's work,......but that's just me. But then again I never saw the value of Chagall or Mattisse(spelling)or Jasper Johns either. My tastes run more towards works by artists like Richard Estes or Dieter Schwertberger(Spelling) (Veinna Scool of Fantasic Realism)(Modern), I always loved Frans Hals and Rembrandt, also some of the stuff by Jackob Hobemma(spelling). I like some of the Metaphysical painters like DiChirico(spelling) and some surrealists like Dali and Magritte. Then again there's works by Henri' Rousseau(spelling) that I love.

I remember when I was is college(Maryland College of Art and Design, 1972), we were exposed to all kinds of different works of "Art", alot of it was what I considered crapola, a real waste of paint and canvas. Stuff by people like Jackson Pollack, Robert Rauschenberg, Ad Reinhart, Bridget Riley, Joseph Albers. But I had to open my mind just a crack and try to see where these folks were coming from. I remeber the first time I saw some sculpture by Henry Moore and Alexander Calder I thought it was terrible but I came to love works by the both of them,........not everything mind you. That'll never be the case with Reinhart though. OK,........discourse on Modern art over,..........sorry about that.

@lordstormdragon

(Quote)
"I'm a STORM dragon, not a fire dragon, my friend..."

(Answer)
Well yes I know, but you see I couldn't really say...

Len (Awaiting a BLOWING from lordstormdragon), now could I?

My god, this thread's gone downhill hasn't it ;-) Personally, I blame Rayraz and his "hooker" analogy :-))

But anyway, yes I agree what you're getting at regards people who dis' others when they claim that something else did all the work. That really get's to me as well.

Take Rochr for example (hope you don't mind). Some idiot might look at his work and say, hey that's cool! But the renderer produced the picture - not you, so no you're not an artist.

On the other hand, when "I" look at his work I kinda split it up and think...

The "art" of lighting
The "art" of modeling
The "art" of postwork
The "art" of composition

...all rolled into one! Now THAT'S "art" to me!

Which brings us back to the other point. It's just the beholders opinion - and it matters only to the beholder.

Personally, I blame Rayraz and his "hooker" analogy LOL well, I am also the only one trying to interpret the artworks originally presented in this thread. We've seen people dissing them all over the thread, but no-one seems to have taken the time to look into these artworks presented here to think why someone could call it art, they just say "I see a canoe, you can see canoes elsewhere too, it's not art" but how long did they think about it to come to that conclusion? did they try to find out what the artist or the people who DO think it's art might think about it? I think not.. which is sad, because I think that is one of the most interesting things about this collection of photo's bandolin put up. They're all very different works which all would need to have their own unique set of properties that could make someone call it art.

Well, that Egyptian piece is most probably propaganda. That's what they usually were. "Pharaoh Ptahmunset came and smote his enemies hip and thigh." Even if he liked cooking and staying in bed late, surrounded by beautiful slaves cooling him with ostrich-feather fans. :-)

Just as normal human behaviour can be defined as behaviour displayed by the majority of society so can a working definition of art be defined for the majority of society. Set rules for "what is art" will not work for everyone, but it can work for most people. And there will always be artist who will challenge those rules, successfully and unsuccessfully. I don't care it a homocidal pedophiliac considers pictures of tortured children to be art. This type of creature is marginalized in society and therefore those pictures are NOT art. To be considered art, it must be considered so by a good many people and not small sectors of society, namely art critics and the so-called intelligentsia. Thank you all for your thoughts and opinions. Unfortunately, those of you who have disagreed with me have not alterted my opinions on the matter. That being said however, only a society of leisure would apply such weight to the subject of aesthetics.