Why are we so illiterate about Art?

[FS*]

An individual feels the creative impulse and is moved to create, inspired to make something out of nothing.

If he/she is part of some commercial venture, their work is marketed, in whatever media, given wide exposure, and as far as the ordinary person is concerned, this is art. Little or no consideration is given to it's originality or merit. It works, and the commercial artist knows why it works.

Another individual does the same thing, but is not part of a commercial venture, uses limited means to bring his/her work to into the public eye, where it may or may not be recieved, based on the fact that it may not be 'mainstream' or marketable.

And the third individual (such as Mapplethorpe, insert name) gets enough financial backing to market his/her work as "art", where it is sold to the elite no matter how subjective or inaccessible it may be. Which often results in the dismissal of 'art' by the average person as pretentious and irrrelevant.

So, in the long run, is it not money and popular opinion that determine what 'art' is?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by loinburger
I'm not going to torture myself with viewing (or "experiencing" or whatever) art that I don't like just so that I can pretend that I'm "refined" or some **** like that, any more than I'm going to torture myself with crap food just because it's trendy or gourmet or whatever.

Oh yeah, and roquefort tastes like ass, "refined" or otherwise.

[Fake Boris]

Only to those who are illiterate?

EDIT: it was meant to answer FS, but it could very well apply to Sprayber.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why are the masses using the word in the false sense while the intellectuals use it in the real sense? Who decides what is the real and false sense?

Because art exists within a social context and aesthetic legacy. It is constantly redefining itself: it is proactively intellectual, and it requires constant reflexion. If you passively take X film and claim it is art- because it is, then you are using it in the false sense.

Can not a chair be a work of art?

Maybe. You have to ask: which are, and which aren't.

[monolith94]

" Can not a chair be a work of art?"

Of course it can. Here's a good example, by Alvar Aalto. Godfather of Finnish industrial design.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is constantly redefining itself: it is proactively intellectual, and it requires constant reflexion.

Let's double back. Aren't many intellectuals an elite of their own? Therefore are you not saying that art is for the elite no matter what, even though you talked about avant gardism earlier?

Maybe. You have to ask: which are, and which aren't.

So then the 'why' it was made is not important. You agree with me here?

[FS*]

Originally posted by monolith94


Of course it can. Here's a good example, by Alvar Aalto. Godfather of Finnish industrial design.

But is it art, or just an example of excellent design to fulfill a function?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And once again we come back to the question: "What is art?"

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Let's double back. Aren't many intellectuals an elite of their own? Therefore are you not saying that art is for the elite no matter what, even though you talked about avant gardism earlier?

Because of new communication means, the 19th century has created a clear distinction between the liberal-intellectual elite and the ruling elite. The liberal elite makes the avant-garde, and ceases to be when it joins the ruling one. OK, that's a gross simplification, but the basis of the answer is here.

So then the 'why' it was made is not important. You agree with me here?

The 'why' is likely to be part of the answer, but it can't be everything neither. So I don't agree.

[FS*]

I think that the 'literate' individual- without meaning to sound pretentious- can find something of artistic value in many things that may not immediately lend themselves to the term.

It's the pursuit of elitism that feeds the excessive and overt attempts by a minority to pass themselves off as having an artistic gift of creativity.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And once again we come back to the question: "What is art?"

And by coming back to this question, we start to find an answer. Art is ever moving and self-defining.

This is why the conventional cathartic structure, which manipulates emotion to end with a reassuring balance, can hardly be called art.

[Imran Siddiqui]

19th century has created a clear distinction between the liberal-intellectual elite and the ruling elite. The liberal elite makes the avant-garde, and ceases to be when it joins the ruling one.

But isn't it still serving an 'elite'? What does it matter if it is the ruling class or the 'liberal-intellectual elite'?

The 'why' is likely to be part of the answer

Why is it any part of the answer? Who cares why you made something?

[Asher]

Art is subjective, you are all wrong.

[FS*]

It's entirely subjective. And yet, you just paid money to see/hear/taste it.

So it's objective to someone.

[monolith94]

Good products fullfill both a utilitarian function and an aesthetic function. We often call the aesthetic function "art".

It is an excellent design because it works, and because it looks frïcken cool.

My favorite artists:
Dali
Lichtenstein
Dürer
Bosch
Michelangelo
Winslow Homer
Norman Rockwell
Basically all the major impressionists (Gaugin, Monet, Renoir, Van Gogh...)
They're all so damn good.

And many, many more. I just love art in general. I consider myself lucky to have visited the sistine chapel, and to have seen many of Dali's works in person. I've been to the MFA at least seven or so times.