View Full Version : Is art totally subjective, and thus ultimately meaningless?
dookie1481
07-01-10, 23:55
Kind of an odd topic for a gun board, but there are smart people here so I'll do it.
Reading the Wikipedia entry for James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake got me to thinking. There is a section about the difficulty of writing a plot summary of the book which states
This "new way" of telling a story in Finnegans Wake takes the form of a discontinuous dream-narrative, with abrupt changes to characters, character names, locations and plot details resulting in the absence of a discernible linear narrative, causing Herring to argue that the plot of Finnegans Wake "is unstable in that there is no one plot from beginning to end, but rather many recognizable stories and plot types with familiar and unfamiliar twists, told from varying perspectives."
which to me sounds strikingly like an ex post facto justification for the art establishment embracing something that no one else can understand.
I had a discussion one time about art, and how seemingly randomly some works are anointed while others are cast away, and how the ultimate arbiters "select" which works become popular and influential and which do not, and we came to the conclusion that there are certainly many Joyces, and Doestoevskys and McCarthys whose works will never be accepted by the art establishment.
Of course I had an ex tell me once that I could never truly enjoy literature or movies because I took everything too literally, so I may be full of shit.
What makes some works "better" than others?
Is there any intrinsic value to art that is independent of the observer?
What do you think?
Jay
Depends on the medium, some art will always be art, others are subjective. A bowl of crap is art to a few, a van gogh is art to all, love it or not you recognize it as artistic talent.
dookie1481
07-02-10, 00:05
a van gogh is art to all, love it or not you recognize it as artistic talent.
But how many Van Gogh's have we never heard of? Why not?
Jay
I really did not just log on to a gun board and have this pop up as the primary topic??? Am I dreaming? I come here to get away from my job!
Is emotion meaningless? What about dialogue? Expression? Speech? Dissent? Rebellion? History? Documentation?
If your answer is no, then the answer to your original question is no as well.
In regards to Artist being told that they and their art need to pander to the lowest common denominator in order to somehow be deemed legitimate, my answer to anyone suggesting this is that they are insane. Here is a similar argument using the exact same framework: Language shouldn't be transfered into a form of written symbols that are transfered to a page or screen because there are people in this world that can't read. Therefore since these people exist people that are literate are really just elitists and snubbing their intellectual noses at those people that aren't. How dare the elitist literate try to blind the illiterate with their fancy schmancy alphabet!
Human emotion itself is subjective. That is the genesis and the answer to your question.
What I define as my feelings of love may not be the same as someone else. However, society and human understanding have evolved to accept the theory of "love" as a real thing, based on certain similarities between individuals reporting to be "in love", therefore a word has been created in order to apply a term to a completely subjective emotion. This codification doesn't automatically result in every act of "love" being felt in the exact same way throughout the entire human race.
Therefore the only way that art is subjective is that it evokes emotions, and in various humans those emotions may be completely different, and thus invoke different understandings of the artwork itself.
For example, I just had an exhibition here in NY where one of the primary pieces in the show was a life size photograph of my M4. Taken at a level of quality and detail that is equal to if not better then Stickmans photos (no offense buddy, I love your photography, that's not a slight against you, just a statement in regards to the printed size of the photo). The piece was framed, and the muzzle was pointed towards the door. The lighting was done in such a way as to make it look literally 3D under gallery lights, and it was framed in a shadow box style frame, thus giving the illusion that it was actually real. It was hung in a liberal community, in an installation that also had a portrait of my friend who served in Iraq, and over 400 pounds of spent shell casings encased in a plexiglass box. The purpose of the exhibition was very clear, and I would argue non subjective. In fact it was in-your-face literal. The only thing that was subject about the entire experience were the human emotions resulted once the viewer entered the space.
In regards to the gun photo itself. It was a literal document of a gun. Nothing more, nothing less. An assault rifle at that. And an M4 at that. But nothing more. It is only once you introduce the human history, memory, emotion, and relationship that each individual viewer has with this simple photo of an inanimate object, that you can begin to bring up questions of subjectivity. I bet there are people on this board that would love to have this photo over their couch. There are other people that will literally be sick simply seeing the image. Others angry, some happy, others indifferent.
I hope this helps clarify a little bit about the the relationship of art to the human psyche. I'm a trained, practicing, and professional artist. Not someone that doodles at a coffee shop, someone that is in museums. That said I am not an art theorist, nor am I philosopher. Honestly the concept of subjectivity drives me nuts in contexts like your stating because it is largely irrelevant in that the subjectivity relates more to the concepts of individuals, then it does to art itself. It assumes that subjectivity somehow merits that something is incapable of being judged, and therefore has no value. That multiple meanings make something worthless. I would argue however the complete opposite. That sometimes when something can carry multiple meanings, and evoke multiple emotions it has immense value as it creates dialogue, communication, and encourages critical thought.
I could go on for hours about this very subject. I've written several papers on the relationship of art to the viewer. But, this is a gun forum, and I want to go learn about how to better use my M4 for this coming weekend of fun and guns with my good buddies...
Sometimes a photo of a gun is just a photo of a gun. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes a paint splatter is just a paint splatter. Sometimes it's not.
;)
But how many Van Gogh's have we never heard of? Why not?
Jay
A ton, simply because they don't have a following doesn't discredit their ability.
If you saw a fantastic painting, with out knowing the artist you would still consider it talented, even if the subject wasn't to you liking.
Totally subjective.
But I wouldn't say meaningless. I would say potentially without any real value.
variablebinary
07-02-10, 02:43
Modern art, I dont really care about. You look at Warhol or Basquiat, and both are lost on me. I do like Dali however
I do however like pre-industrial revolution art, because there are strong historical evemts tied to great art.
Mac5.56
If the painting was a Noveske then its art:p
Well, since "meaning" and "value" are totally subjective, the question itself is illogical.
My love for my wife, my daughters and my best friend is totally subjective, but I would kill for them without too much cognition involved. They are, after all, crucial to my own subjective reality.
Interesting topic.
John_Wayne777
07-02-10, 07:43
There is such a thing as actual art...works that take real talent to produce.
Much of what passes for "art", however, is nonsense. A scam that continues because there is a certain segment of the population that, in a vain effort to be seen as intellectuals, over-analyze nonsense to the point where they proclaim it significant.
Some artists have even gone to great lengths to expose the scam:
http://becksearlescott.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/piero_manzoni_artists_shit_19612.jpg
Gotta love em though. I am not much of an elbow rubber but When the topic turns to artsie-fartsie talk & they turn to me, i tell them..."I'm more of a Dogs playing Poker kinda guy."
It really seems to irk them.
Nathan_Bell
07-02-10, 08:19
If you have to explain why it is art to someone, it isn't art. It is someone expressing themselves through a non-verbal medium, but it isn't art.
just my $0.02
Art is totally subjective, but as long as someone finds something artistic, it has value in that instance.
For example, during school I had to go to the MoMA sit and stare at a Jackson Pollock and wite a paper on how I feel about it. I honestly felt nothing. To me it was just paint on a canvas, so that's what I wrote. I got a D for the assignment. How the **** can I get a D for my opinion of how a painting made me feel? I guess the professor was a huge Pollock fan.
Therefore, when I saw no value in what he found to be priceless, I got shafted lol.
Gutshot John
07-02-10, 08:56
The thing about Warhol is you have to appreciate the ironic intent of his art. He wasn't trying to create great art, he was having fun. What really amused him were the numbers of wealthy and socialites who fawned over his art which even he didn't view as high art any more than a kid with fingerpaints.
He was kind of like the "South Park" of the art world. Always seeing what he could get away with and still be a credible force in the art community. That his "admirers" never caught on probably amazed him.
Art is subjective but is ultimately a product of the culture inside which it exists.
RancidSumo
07-02-10, 11:10
I think Rand's view is interesting on this one. She says, "Art is the indispensable medium for the communication of a moral ideal". Going on to add,
Art (including literature) is the barometer of a culture. It reflects the sum of a society’s deepest philosophical values: not its professed notions and slogans, but its actual view of man and of existence.
What does that say about our culture when that "modern" crap is considered to be art? Nothing good in my opinion.
More here if you're interested,
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html
There is such a thing as actual art...works that take real talent to produce.
Much of what passes for "art", however, is nonsense. A scam that continues because there is a certain segment of the population that, in a vain effort to be seen as intellectuals, over-analyze nonsense to the point where they proclaim it significant.
Some artists have even gone to great lengths to expose the scam:
http://becksearlescott.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/piero_manzoni_artists_shit_19612.jpg
Here is my quote from earlier, I think it applies to your thoughts:
Here is a similar argument using the exact same framework: Language shouldn't be transfered into a form of written symbols that are transfered to a page or screen because there are people in this world that can't read. Therefore since these people exist people that are literate are really just elitists and snubbing their intellectual noses at those people that aren't. How dare the elitist literate try to blind the illiterate with their fancy schmancy alphabet!
Is there a discussion about art being insular? Yea there is, and anyone that actually follows the contemporary art world of today (rather then using the 1940's - 1970's as a hollow attempt to make your argument) will see that the majority of the "Art" of the 21st century, while still insular, is also more approachable.
Only a few people can understand the realities of molecular biology? Does this mean it's a scam since you don't?
Honestly opinions like your own are just as elitist as the people your railing against. They suggest that if you don't understand something, it should essentially not be allowed to exist unless it fits into your framework of understanding.
By the way someone opened that can, and it's full of beans. Further adding to the artists joke.
If you have to explain why it is art to someone, it isn't art. It is someone expressing themselves through a non-verbal medium, but it isn't art.
just my $0.02
Total bullshit, and a completely subjective opinion that has no grounding in reality.
Only .45 caliber guns are guns because the only gun a real man uses is a .45!
John_Wayne777
07-02-10, 12:44
Honestly opinions like your own are just as elitist as the people your railing against. They suggest that if you don't understand something, it should essentially not be allowed to exist unless it fits into your framework of understanding.
No, opinions like mine suggest that the "art" world is sufficiently dysfunctional that an artist shat in a can and priced it at the weight of gold to make a point and actually managed to sell a bunch of people shit in a can.
I suppose next you'll decide to lecture me on why "Poker Face" by Lady Gaga is actually a musical masterpiece that is beyond my reactionary, pedestrian powers of comprehension as opposed to being to music what the big mac is to nutrition.
RancidSumo
07-02-10, 12:46
That last line is a complete non-sequitur.
As far as modern "art" goes I'd say that much of its acceptance with people stems from an argument from intimidation. Because someone can't paint for shit and they throw some blobs on a piece of paper they have to find some way to sell it rather than dying of starvation like a decent human being. They find a bunch of rich/famous idiots and tell them, "This is brilliant art with a deeper meaning than the stuff you are used to and thats why you don't get it. Only people who are capable of thinking on this higher level can understand." Because these people don't want to be thought of as dumb by some scam artist they suddenly "get it" and the cycle continues broken only by people like John_Wayne777 who stop, think, and say, "No, you just suck at painting."
Nathan_Bell
07-02-10, 13:01
Total bullshit, and a completely subjective opinion that has no grounding in reality.
Only .45 caliber guns are guns because the only gun a real man uses is a .45!
Bullshit? I stated it was my $0.02, which is another way of stating it is my opinion, artist boy. It is my opinion, which you seem to have a problem with because it does not agree with yours, and you can of course be rude and assbaggish to me because I am obviously one of the great unwashed who do not appreciate what you and other artists do. Simply because I have a difference of opinion.
It is not a completely subjective opinion either nor is it not grounded in reality, people can grasp what is art and what isn't.
Go to a museum when an art appreciation class from a college is there. The lion's share will see and grasp that a Monet is a great work of art with only the prodding of "Just look at it for a few minutes". Now, put them in-front of almost anything created since WWI and perhaps 1 in 10 students at 1 in 10 works will not have to get a mini-lecture on why it is art worthy to be displayed in the same building as some of the great works. Even after that you will hear, "It just looks like a blob/splash/mess, to me." I have seen that more than once, as have you if you will be honest with yourself.
I find it interesting that everybody in this thread seems to agree that the answer to the OP's original question:
Is there any intrinsic value to art that is independent of the observer?
is yes. All seem to think that there is an objective definition of "art" while disagreeing on what that definition is.
CarlosDJackal
07-02-10, 14:55
...What makes some works "better" than others?...
Depends on what you mean by "better". Remember one of the early scenes in the "Dead Poet's Society" where Robbin Williams' character had one of his students read the introduction to their poetry textbook that was about how good a piece of poetry is can be measured by a graph that measured rhythm in relation to some other element?
The proof that art is very subjective and personal can easily be seen by comparing what is considered appealing in the different cultures and generations. I have a co-worker who thinks Michael Jackson's music is the best ever but thinks the Beatles stink (I know, I almost slapped her for that :D).
I have always thought that Abstract Art, whether in paintings or music was a bunch of crap. And yet, I have met people who thought that nobody could ever improve on it. I freaking hate Rap, and yet a lot of people will listen to it all day long.
There is a reason why cars, guns and women come on all shapes, colors and sizes. While this subjectivity may be frustrating at times, it is what makes life a bit more interesting.
If you were to ask me why I find a particular painting or piece of music appealing, I couldn't tell you. If you ever come across anyone who starts to, run away because you're about to get buried in excrement!! JM2CW.
militarymoron
07-02-10, 16:23
i think that different aspects of 'art' fall under both the objective and subjective categories. whether something is 'art' can be open to more argument (subjective). whether something takes 'artistic skill' (vs. creativity) is a bit more objective.
there are a lot of art pieces that can be readily emulated by 'non' artists, but those non-artists may not have had the creativity to come up with the concept in the first place.
as for the topic question, i disagree that 'totally subjective' = 'ultimately meaningless'. something that's meaningless to one person might mean the world to another. objectivity removes the variability in emotion and interpretation of beauty and appreciation that is different for everyone, and IMHO, can make it less 'meaningful', rather than more (when applied to art/writing/music etc).
ultimately, as far as 'meaning' goes, to each his own.
Gutshot John
07-02-10, 16:38
i think that different aspects of 'art' fall under both the objective and subjective categories. whether something is 'art' can be open to more argument (subjective). whether something takes 'artistic skill' (vs. creativity) is a bit more objective.
there are a lot of art pieces that can be readily emulated by 'non' artists, but those non-artists may not have had the creativity to come up with the concept in the first place.
as for the topic question, i disagree that 'totally subjective' = 'ultimately meaningless'. something that's meaningless to one person might mean the world to another. objectivity removes the variability in emotion and interpretation of beauty and appreciation that is different for everyone, and IMHO, can make it less 'meaningful', rather than more (when applied to art/writing/music etc).
ultimately, as far as 'meaning' goes, to each his own.
Wish I had said that half as well.
That last line is a complete non-sequitur.
As far as modern "art" goes I'd say that much of its acceptance with people stems from an argument from intimidation. Because someone can't paint for shit and they throw some blobs on a piece of paper they have to find some way to sell it rather than dying of starvation like a decent human being. They find a bunch of rich/famous idiots and tell them, "This is brilliant art with a deeper meaning than the stuff you are used to and thats why you don't get it. Only people who are capable of thinking on this higher level can understand." Because these people don't want to be thought of as dumb by some scam artist they suddenly "get it" and the cycle continues broken only by people like John_Wayne777 who stop, think, and say, "No, you just suck at painting."
First, right on that your living in GR Wyoming. I grew up just down the road.
Second, no you guys are taking your assumptions about what art is, and attempting to apply it to a set of false standards. Standards that NO ONE has ever codified, and therefore don't exist. The entire topic of this thread is about art being subjective, is it not? Therefore your opinions are nothing more then the subjective angst ridden opinions of two people that claim that since they "don't get it" it isn't art.
Third, and by far the most interesting part of this conversation is that you are all making your arguments based off of art that is well over 30 years old, and in most cases well over half a century old. You are right in that you are talking about "modern" art, but you have completely failed to acknowledge the realities of the last 30 years of artistic practice known as "post modern", and the return to figurative art. IE art that YOU would "get". Imagine if someone came on here arguing about how the original M16 design without a bolt assist is justification that ALL stoner platforms aren't actually guns, but rather pieces of crap, and nothing more then a club? Would you not shake your head at their ignorance to the last 50 years of development regarding the rifle? It is honestly really hard to argue this with people that are using a fifty year old argument for the basis of their subjective opinion.
Fourth you are also failing to acknowledge the simple realities of the development of "art history" combined with social exposure, and acceptance. 70 years ago people like yourself were making the exact same argument against the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists. Arguing that the simplicity of the brush strokes, the painting style, and the loose approach to the classical foundations of art making justified that they were un-talented hacks. That they weren't making art? That it was simple a child could do it, ext. For those that don't know Van Gogh and Monet (both artists appreciated in this thread) were in these two movements of painting. It was only in the last two decades that the general public began to appreciate and accept Van Gogh, and this was a result of several cameo appearances in various pop culture movies/tv slots, and well Starbucks putting his work on the side of their coffee cups. Before that they were only appreciated by "intellectual elitist rich people that can't tell their asshole from their elbow".
RancidSumo you summed it up nicely with your original quote. Art is a reflection of the society it is made in, and this is part of its intrinsic value, and in particular the value it has historically.
Don't think that I make these arguments with a blanket acceptance of all things that are deemed art. I enjoy some art, and some I don't. Thus my own subjective opinion. But I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I have a right to state that something painted 60 years ago isn't art. I wasn't there, and while I completely understand why the art was made in the context of history, that doesn't mean I have to "like" it.
For NathanBell:
I have no need to verify the value of my "importance" or the fruits of my labor by making an argument online. The fact that I'm published in five nations, and in countless museum collections, private collections, and galleries is all I need for that. If this was an art forum I would have "industry professional" under my name... :)
Wish I had said that half as well.
yea me too, he wins the prize for this thread!
I find it interesting that everybody in this thread seems to agree that the answer to the OP's original question:
is yes. All seem to think that there is an objective definition of "art" while disagreeing on what that definition is.
Well, considering that language is ALSO completely subjective, the closest "objective" definition of "art", is "something made by human hands."
The separation of "art" from "technology" is based on a traditional warping of the original intent of the word. Art is not as subjective, and technology is not as objective as most people think.
Of course, language is just as, if not more subjective than "art".
QuickStrike
07-04-10, 01:52
Sometimes it seems like some artists are doing weirder and weirder things to stay relevant/notable. Lots of people are amazing artists, but how can one stand out and earn a living in such a (mostly) non-profitable profession?
I've given up trying to define or categorize art. I just draw/paint stuff as I like.
I would love to see people's reactions to the M4 photo installation! :D
Well, considering that language is ALSO completely subjective, the closest "objective" definition of "art", is "something made by human hands."
Setting aside the, "How do I know that when you see a cat you're seeing the same thing I think is a cat" kind of question, language is not completely subjective. It's very nuanced, constantly evolving and open to interpretation up, down and sideways, but words do have meanings.
Most of the posters in this thread seem to be in agreement that you can look at something and say it is or isn't art. That agreement assumes a baseline, objective, definition of what art is, which was the point I was making. The fact that nobody can agree on how to define art might suggest that there is no definition. I think the fact that, in my experience, there is a nearly universal tendency to react to pieces that are held out as art by saying they are or aren't (art), suggests that there is a definition. Can I tell you what it is? No. Personally, I think the defined term art incorporates some element of intentionality. That is, the artist had to intend the work to be a piece of art of some kind. (So "made by human hands" is a necessary but not sufficient condition.) That element of intentionality, together with individual perceivers' varied tastes, backgrounds and experiences, makes the determination as to whether or not something is art an incredibly subjective one. Hence the difficulty.
art is another manifestation of quality.
check out "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" i think it can help a more classically logical person appreciate art.
RancidSumo
07-05-10, 23:37
Mac5.56,
I didn't mean to imply that all recent art movements are not art. As you say, recently there has been a return to, in my opinion, real art. I used an over simplified term to address what I do not believe is art and I maintain that those particular things are not. I apologize if my language caused any confusion but you know what style of "art" I was speaking of when I said it.
Here's my take on it...
Art should be something two separate individuals can look at and, whether they may or may not have a preference for it, they can at least agree that it holds and portrays some sort of educated beauty and meaning.
Art should NOT be something that society (whoever or whatever that might be) tells US is art. That's the problem I see with modern art and the people that flock to student art shows and exhibitions. Society is trying to create more feel-good emotions by handling every individual they can a paintbrush or welding tool, calling it art (regardless of what it actually is), and then looking for meaning and beauty after the fact.
If you have to tell someone your work is art, then it isn't.
i think that different aspects of 'art' fall under both the objective and subjective categories. whether something is 'art' can be open to more argument (subjective). whether something takes 'artistic skill' (vs. creativity) is a bit more objective.
there are a lot of art pieces that can be readily emulated by 'non' artists, but those non-artists may not have had the creativity to come up with the concept in the first place.
as for the topic question, i disagree that 'totally subjective' = 'ultimately meaningless'. something that's meaningless to one person might mean the world to another. objectivity removes the variability in emotion and interpretation of beauty and appreciation that is different for everyone, and IMHO, can make it less 'meaningful', rather than more (when applied to art/writing/music etc).
ultimately, as far as 'meaning' goes, to each his own.
There is also a distinction that needs to be made not only between ability required to produce something but the ability to come up with the idea for that something as well. There are thousands of art school graduates that lack the originality to produce stimulating works but have the technical ability to make pretty pictures. They work at "art houses" producing the "hand painted" pictures that you buy at Target and Walmart.
I find the basic skill needed to re-create something handed to a person to be way less interesting than the ability to come up with an original idea.
A 23 hour orgy of Top Gear might be affecting my judgment, however:
Look at a truly beautiful car - it is artistic, yet utterly functional, or at least can be functional; in cases of great cars the form and function collaborate to become an engineering marvel.
Art for the sake of art will only ever have whatever value the market imbues it, much as some things I consider to be extremely interesting and beautiful art can be had at low prices because other people don't consider them artistic (cheap blown glass, die cast models, other stuff), so I can fill my place with stuff I think looks amazing without having to be a toolbag who spends money buying art other people tell me is artistic.
QuickStrike
07-07-10, 18:38
There is also a distinction that needs to be made not only between ability required to produce something but the ability to come up with the idea for that something as well. There are thousands of art school graduates that lack the originality to produce stimulating works but have the technical ability to make pretty pictures. They work at "art houses" producing the "hand painted" pictures that you buy at Target and Walmart.
I find the basic skill needed to re-create something handed to a person to be way less interesting than the ability to come up with an original idea.
You do know that some get into abstact designs because their ability to draw the figure (mind's eye development) just plain sucks?
Skill and creativity. A good artist needs both. Picasso had them.
You want art? Start here...
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=642
Also, if you think art is useless and pointless, delete your iTunes library!
You do know that some get into abstact designs because their ability to draw the figure (mind's eye development) just plain sucks?
the same could be said about photography. ;)
Skill and creativity. A good artist needs both. Picasso had them.
IMHO a monkey can "draw the figure". Granted, not every monkey, but some monkeys. I don't agree that "a good artist needs both". A great artist, maybe, but not a good artist. I've seen some art that I really liked that was made by people that couldn't sit and sketch an orange.
Simply being able to "draw the figure" is at best a physical skill that requires absolutely no intelligence or even an attempt at original thought.
I would argue that intent has something to do with what is art and what isn't.
QuickStrike
07-08-10, 06:17
Simply being able to "draw the figure" is at best a physical skill that requires absolutely no intelligence or even an attempt at original thought.
Without applied creativity, it's just practice or decor IMO. But drawing shit helps me pull ideas out of my head and on to paper/canvas. It makes you see forms differently.
Hard to explain, but it helps me bring out ideas more accurately because the eye/brain/hands thing, becomes brain/eye/hands.
Then again, I'm not into glueing a bunch of shoes together and wearing them as a hat.. I'm into visual narratives and doodling random monsters and crap. But mostly crap. :D
One of my degrees is art related. I've had to put up with this for years.
I'll be the first to tell you that while modernism (think generally 1880-1945) was a bunch of people not taking themselves too seriously and having fun, that post-modernism and its associated political and philosophical claptrap is a giant crock of shit.
The really self-involved art-tards these days seem to think they hold some special place in history, where from here on out all art consists solely of their own special brand of post-modern circle jerk. They think it is no longer possible for anything to be original, yet that they themselves are original for coming up with the "wisdom" that there is no truth, reality, or pretty much anything. Well, except for their poop sculptures, which they expect you to buy for $5,000 a pop.
You're all getting hung up on semantics and personal preferences - the "thats not art because I don't like it" and "that wasn't at least X difficult" trap. Look instead at the broadest things art and artists have had in common.
Historically speaking, art has consisted of
(1) making shit that at least someone thought looked cool
(2) having fun at someone else's expense
(3) or both
Post-modernists are trying to add,
(4) be a shallow, crass socialist bullshitter
to the list. The next generation of artists are already calling nonsense on it, which is a good sign for the future.
Trying to sit around and strictly define what is and is not art simply doesn't work. It never has and it never will; people have different visual tastes and other people simply don't get the joke. (see #1-3 above) Art doesn't possess a specific checklist of qualities, it's an idea, not a thing. Ability, originality, physical skill, all of these can contribute to "is it art", at least give it a "B" for effort, if you will, but you can skimp on any of them if it passes the most basic test - someone looks at it and says, hey, that's ****ing cool.
But singling out artists who are full of crap is so much easier to do than defining art.
People like to accuse various modernists (again, think 1880-1945) of creating, well, "not art", but honestly, Picasso (for example) could draw the figure at age 10 better than anybody in this entire damn forum ever will. The guy was a ****ing artistic prodigy. If he wants to go experiment with crazy shit after that, he earned it. You don't have to like it, there will always be some other idiot who does. Personally, I can't stand his work.
Similarly, people still get all butt-hurt about Duchamp doing stuff like turning a urinal on it's side, titling it "fountain", and entering it into an art show. Or buying a rake down the street in a hardware store, hanging it up, and calling it art. People (generally post-modernists) try to argue various reasons why it's "art", while others flip out and start blathering about skill, aesthetics, or semantics. Neither party seems to understand that meanwhile, Duchamp is laughing his ass off at both the people with no sense of humor, and the people who feel compelled to make up bullshit art theory. I laugh with him, therefore I can appreciate the rake; I get the joke.
But that's all history, before most of us were born. Some of you nailed it with the post-modernists - we have an entire generation of artists now who looked at the experimental stuff being tossed around by the modernists in the first half of the 20th century, and thought, "hey, I can throw paint at a canvas/paint squares/scribble in technicolor, too!", and proclaimed themselves artists. They like the idea of being an artist, to which their generation attached all sorts of political, "ooh look at me I'm different" crap. They have neither the ability to render with realism, nor the craftsman's ability to construct something of high (objective) quality. They do ... something, anything, and make up some arty sounding bullshit after the fact, because that's all they can do. Unlike Picasso, they did not perfect the ability to do precisely anything they wanted, then choose to do something crazy - poop sculptures are the only game in town for them.
Another decade or two and we'll be spared their BS. Don't sweat it.
QuickStrike
07-08-10, 18:03
Damn man, pick a side! :p
Picasso (for example) could draw the figure at age 10 better than anybody in this entire damn forum ever will.
HA! Examples?
the same could be said about photography. ;)
IMHO a monkey can "draw the figure". Granted, not every monkey, but some monkeys. I don't agree that "a good artist needs both". A great artist, maybe, but not a good artist. I've seen some art that I really liked that was made by people that couldn't sit and sketch an orange.
Simply being able to "draw the figure" is at best a physical skill that requires absolutely no intelligence or even an attempt at original thought.
Rob, you rock!!!
At first this conversation seemed to be going down hill, but I have to say I am really digging reading through this, and I am really happy to see so many people that realize the complexities of the creative process. Appreciation for art is slowly returning to this culture, and I'm glad to see that there are some fellow fans out there on M4carbine.
As for drawing. Rob's right, anyone can do it. Just like anyone can drill a sub MOA grouping with practice. The real challenge of art is coming up with a well thought out, and original concept that is executed in a professional and aesthetic way.
I can totally draw the figure as good as Picasso could at 10... And just like Picasso I have chosen not to have that be my primary focus.
Boltcatch, I here what your saying especially about the attempts to define art. And your pretty historically spot on to, but your still about 20 years out of date. The return to craftsmanship is something that is VERY VERY big right now in the international art community, the insular NYC art world, and some of the largest international exhibitions around the globe. The Venice Biennial, for example. The only real exhibition that seems to still be holding onto the post modern work you talk about is the Whitney BIennial in NY, and it is getting more and more flack every two years for not getting with the picture.
I would actually go so far as to say that the best artists today have embraced the average viewer, and contemporary culture as the primary drive for their work. Some have gone so far as to revile in the excesses of culture to the point of making work that is so approachable that they're getting all the old hat art critics panties in a not for literally NOT being insular and elitist.
It's been a handful of years since I've been to NYC, etc., so perhaps it's a more matter of me being a half dozen years behind, not 20. In other words, the non-douchebag revolution proceeds apace. I think some of the more mainstream "craftmanship" stuff is a side effect of all the Brancusi groupies... you never heard the end of that in some of the sculpture studios.
Quickstrike,
I don't have any references for Picasso's early drawings and exercises handy, given that the subject has been so unpopular in art schools for so long. The hardcopy tends to be very expensive and its rarely displayed online.
This is partly because, depending on where you go, the entire art of drawing representationally, let alone drawing the figure, is very much frowned upon. A century ago, you'd have rows of young children - art students - spending day after day painstakingly drawing plaster casts of classic sculpture, or at least lithographs of them, with a focus on accuracy and then speed. This is still done in a few places, but it isn't common in the U.S. and is virtually unheard of in state schools or mainstream private universities. It takes years. Today it's all about how that red splotch represents The Man oppressing you with his paternalistic white male power structures or some such bullshit, and faculty hates anything that detracts from the narrative or demonstrates their lack of skill.
While probably frowned upon in New York City, southwestern paintings and sculptures, and some military artists are the closest thing we have left to traditional art. Some of it even looks cool. Collecting "fine art" used to be like car collecting... before there were cars to collect. So in other words people bought it simply because that's what you were supposed to do when you had too much money and needed to look like you had some class.
Why does some art look better to most people than other art? For the same reasons the beautiful women tend to look better than ugly ones. We're just hard wired that way. Hip to bust ratio, etc. Humans prefer certain spacial and color arrangements.
You still find fresh art in motion pictures, photography and speech. The unions have a deathgrip on the motion picture industry here in a manner similar to our old car industry, but that's going to change as technology circumvents them. The technology is moving so fast that individuals will only be limited by their raw talent and not necessarily entrenched distribution networks or expensive equipment.
This is still done in a few places, but it isn't common in the U.S. and is virtually unheard of in state schools or mainstream private universities.
I spent seven and a half years drawing figures at three different state schools, and two years working with another state school educated artist who ran the model program post graduate school to find models, and send my students to his drawing sessions.
Did you fail out of art school?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.