Amusing incident proves that modern perception of "Art" is crap

[General Ludd]

Yeah... 'cause artists are just rolling in dough. "Subsidised by society" That's hilarious.

No one gets a fine art degree with a priority of making money. Anyone who enroles with dreams of wealth will quickly realize their mistake and drop out within the first year or two. A great number of exhibiting artists still require a 'day job' to support their art practice. Very few artists can break the poverty level, let alone get rich. And the few who do get rich (such as warhol) seem to become deeply resented by most people.

Although it seems to work the opposite way for music and acting - there, the more money you get the more respected you become.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Yeah... 'cause artists are just rolling in dough. "Subsidised by society" That's hilarious.

Farmers don't make a lot of money but are still subsidized (rather heavily) by society.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
There is no possible essentialist definition of art that would establish a list of sufficient and necessary conditions. Analytical philosophy in particular has a long tradition of doing it. And every attempt ended up failing, when someone else published an article defeating a condition with an empirical example taken from a well known work of art generally accepted as such by the competent people.

Right now, there are two popular conceptions of art subsisting alongside each other. The modernist one, which is that of the masses, sees art as a clear cut domain limited by transparent criteria. This is also how artists and critics thought in the "Age of Manifestos" (mainly the 19th century and first half of the 20th); they dismissed works that didn't follow the rules of their school as 'non-art', or, supreme insult, as being 'decorative'. By doing this, though, they were simply being ideologically stubborn and created definitions that weren't terribly succesfull at fully englobing contexts and thus had little explicative value, which ultimately is how a theory ought to be judged. This is also the reason why it is widely agreed upon nowadays that the Age of Manifestos produced a very interesting wealth of aesthetic judgments, but not categorial ones. It is also the time when people started to notice how arbitrary the premices behind certain schools of art were, and that we would eventually have to review the idea that art had an 'essence' that developed its potential through a natural, historical evolution.

When it became clear that modernist thinking was hitting a wall - roughly in the 50s - philosophers, art critics and artists started producing works that reflected this state of mind. Self and inter-reference, the death of representation, and deliberate absurdities all reflected a new, postmodernist intuition, that demasking the arbitrary of our customs and metaphysics is a worthwile enterprise. This period (roughly speaking) is also that of structuralism, the second Wittgenstein, Derrida's deconstruction, and George Dickie's institutional theory of art. All are very different in methods and ideas, but they all share, to a certain level, this common objective of 'purifying' our ideas of the useless crap and constructs. Postmodernist thinking in art has abandoned the pretension of finding a stable essence for art and has rather made of the discipline an exercise of 'applied ontology', where 'whatever' becomes a viable criteria for membership in the world of art. This also marks the shift from essentialist definitions towards institutional ones, where art is a 'world' in which the rules are internal to the practice rather than emanating from an axiomatic, truthfunctional system.

Going back to our modernist/postmodernist example, it is quite clear that the masses tend to reject most postmodernist ideas (out of ignorance IMO) for modernist ones. Modernist thinking does offer an opportunity to make the world a naturally significant place, where people can 'hook' themselves to 'essences' and thus find a cure to the intolerance to semantic uncertainty that is pathological in some (well at least according to a Stanford psychological study that I read a few years ago).

So we have an art for the elites, and another one for the masses, with a clear dichotomy between the two. Elitist art usually see mass art as inferior, but rarely denies it the status of art. OTOH popular art squarely denies elitist art any artistic status on the basis that it is 'whatever', meaningless, etc (I already addressed those issues above). Even though I can concede that true, genuine masterpieces usually find their way to the heart of the academic as much as to that of the peasant, I HIGHLY doubt that immediate comprehensibility and clarity is a requirement for something to be called a work of art. After all, a majority of people were illiterate at the time Leonardo painted his masterpieces. And incidentally, I doubt they had any idea what were the new ideas of the Renaissance, or what was the profound philosophical reflexion driving the Quattrocento.

This is where the pretentiousness comes in. It's not the art that is pretentious, it's the people spouting this that make people like me think that all art is crap.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, only more of your exclusionary art types will understand what you are saying.

The normal art layman, which I am, has no clue what you are trying to say.

The balck square thing is art? I was making the exact same art when I was 5. I wasn't influenced by the painting, I had never seen the painting.

I, as a 5 year old, created the same masterpiece that this guy did. In about 5 minutes.

I liked a lot of the Turner pieces shown here. But that's just me.

Thanks Molly.

Like someone said before, I can't tell you what is art, but I know it when I see it.

That is the only definition of art that fits.

Trying to tell someon what art is and why something is a master piece, renders said piece meaningless.

Which Molly did not do with the Turner pics.

ACK!

[Fake Boris]

A scientist or a lawyer who uses jargon is an expert. OTOH, a philosopher, an artist, or a literary critique writing in the vocabulary of his discipline is a pretentious ass.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A scientist or a lawyer who uses jargon is an expert. OTOH, a philosopher, an artist, or a literary critique writing in the vocabulary of his discipline is a pretentious ass.

I actually think artists, critics and philosophers are in the same category as lawyers. The problem for the layman is that much of the jargon is completely unnecessary, plain english being quite capable and in many instances superior in its ability to get the job done, which of course makes whatever discipline seem as though it is dominated by scumbag obscurants. One could add educratese to the mix of languages only spoken in grad schools and associated literature.

[Daz]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
awesome

but this shows the truth, art is in the minds of the beholder..

Jon Miller

...and there are some really disturbing minds walking around, I tell you....

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Sikander


I actually think artists, critics and philosophers are in the same category as lawyers. The problem for the layman is that much of the jargon is completely unnecessary, plain english being quite capable and in many instances superior in its ability to get the job done, which of course makes whatever discipline seem as though it is dominated by scumbag obscurants. One could add educratese to the mix of languages only spoken in grad schools and associated literature.

I don't agree - certain ideas are just too complex to be expressed in plain English. What I find disturbing is that some are denying that properly understanding the world around you requires an intellectual effort.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A scientist or a lawyer who uses jargon is an expert. OTOH, a philosopher, an artist, or a literary critique writing in the vocabulary of his discipline is a pretentious ass.

This is because jargon is supposed to be a specialized language used to quickly discuss complex subjects. Scientists and lawyers deal with a lot of those, and the jargon is essential for, say, specifying which part of the body they're discussing in medicine (anterior? medial? distal?). When the jargon is apparently standing in for simple subjects...no. I recently read a paper on Shakespeare that referred to "larger contemporary discursive networks." Because, of course, "what his peers were saying about the subject" sounds so PRIMITIVE...

Which is not to say that no jargon is ever needed, but the need is far, far less. Except maybe in philosophy. Just trying to read the definition of "ontology" can give you a headache.

[Fake Boris]

The point I'm trying to make is that if you're not personally interested in art, philosophy, or scholarly literary theory, it's fine with me. Some people just have practical minds and couldn't care less about theories. But instead of lecturing me - and others - about us being pretentious ****s, or meaningless ramblers, they could at least admit that the academy isn't their domain and skip the debate.
I usually try not to be condescending of other people's skills (unless I'm trolling). I wish the opposite were true.

edit: actually, not really. It makes Poly a lively place

[Elok]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Yeah... 'cause artists are just rolling in dough. "Subsidised by society" That's hilarious.

No one gets a fine art degree with a priority of making money. Anyone who enroles with dreams of wealth will quickly realize their mistake and drop out within the first year or two. A great number of exhibiting artists still require a 'day job' to support their art practice. Very few artists can break the poverty level, let alone get rich. And the few who do get rich (such as warhol) seem to become deeply resented by most people.

Although it seems to work the opposite way for music and acting - there, the more money you get the more respected you become.

That's because often in music or acting, the amount of money received has some proportion to the quality of the product (though not always--witness Britney). Whereas Andy Warhol was a big hit for some uglified pictures of Marilyn Monroe, which is bound to trigger one's WTF reflex.

I don't mean that artists are all rich. In any field, there are winners and losers. If everyone who entered it got rich, the market would quickly flood with wannabes, and then wallow in mediocrity. Which may, in fact, be what happened with art in our mass-media society. Reactionary hipsters seem to have cornered all sorts of other media, just because radical iconoclasm attracts more attention than real sensibility while requiring considerably less talent. Anyway, by 'subsidized,' I just mean that people are paying money, in some amount, for nothing.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The point I'm trying to make is that if you're not personally interested in art, philosophy, or scholarly literary theory, it's fine with me. Some people just have practical minds and couldn't care less about theories. But instead of lecturing me - and others - about us being pretentious ****s, or meaningless ramblers, they could at least admit that the academy isn't their domain and skip the debate.
I usually try not to be condescending of other people's skills (unless I'm trolling). I wish the opposite were true.

edit: actually, not really. It makes Poly a lively place

As a person who has proven outstanding reading and listening comprehension skills I find a lot of what is obscured by jargon unnecessary. Honestly some of these people just seem to be proud that they can make a sentence that most others cannot understand. While it's fine for a couple of sholars to practice their jargon even to the extent of unnecessarily complicating their speech, it can be a tough habit to break. It's a lot simpler to not be understood (while seeming perhaps to be more intelligent and knowledgable than you really are) than to have to defend your point of view in plain english where even the unwashed can pick it apart. So while I agree that technical jargon is a necessary evil, I find it too often an unnecessary one.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Elok


That's because often in music or acting, the amount of money received has some proportion to the quality of the product (though not always--witness Britney). Whereas Andy Warhol was a big hit for some uglified pictures of Marilyn Monroe, which is bound to trigger one's WTF reflex.

Money has absolutely no relation to quality in any area. It's completely superficial.

I don't mean that artists are all rich. In any field, there are winners and losers.

It's generally accepted that artists are, on the whole, losers.

If everyone who entered it got rich, the market would quickly flood with wannabes, and then wallow in mediocrity. Which may, in fact, be what happened with art in our mass-media society.

So if you accept the fact that no one goes into the arts with the intention of geting rich, why is "the market" supposedly being saturated with wannabes?

Reactionary hipsters seem to have cornered all sorts of other media, just because radical iconoclasm attracts more attention than real sensibility while requiring considerably less talent. Anyway, by 'subsidized,' I just mean that people are paying money, in some amount, for nothing.

Didn't you start this argument by saying that most people don't appretiate modern art that art isdefined by the masses? Now you're saying that the masses are buying it all up and encouraging it.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A scientist or a lawyer who uses jargon is an expert. OTOH, a philosopher, an artist, or a literary critique writing in the vocabulary of his discipline is a pretentious ass.

There is a difference.

Lawyers and Doctors actually do the work they for which their jargon applies.

Are you an artist? Speaking to other artists?

A Doctor or lawyer will explain the jargon in layman's terms.

Artist, philosophers, etc., do jusy what you basically did.

Ignored the layman.

What I find disturbing is that some are denying that properly understanding the world around you requires an intellectual effort.

I don't deny it. I do deny that it takes specialized language to understand the world.




ACK!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tuberski


There is a difference.

Lawyers and Doctors actually do the work they for which their jargon applies.

Are you an artist? Speaking to other artists?

A Doctor or lawyer will explain the jargon in layman's terms.

Artist, philosophers, etc., do jusy what you basically did.

Ignored the layman.

What I find disturbing is that some are denying that properly understanding the world around you requires an intellectual effort.

I don't deny it. I do deny that it takes specialized language to understand the world.

Patent lawyers are inventors? Real estate lawyers are builders? Law as a field of words, ABOUT things other people do. Ditto philosophy and criticism.

That said, if an actual inventor were to attack something said by a patent lawyer for misunderstanding invention, id listen. Ditto when an actual artist attacks philosophers of art (as many writers HAVE criticized Derrida based literary theory) Id listen. When folks who arent artists, and seem to be unsympathetic with what most contemporary artists are doing, attacks a philosopher, i take it no more seriously than when a technophobe attacks patent lawyers.


Elok - most Fine arts grads, IIUC, go on to work in such fields a graphic design, etc or elementary and secondary education. Interestingly when someone using the same abstractions makes a flier for a corporation, no one objects.

[Elok]

Yes and no. It's a rather complex situation, it seems. Much of this junk appears to be supported by a relatively narrow clique of people who have read Derrida too much and think deconstruction is somehow a worthwhile activity. In terms of relative numbers, they're tiny, but that tiny percentage of such a huge population is still a substantial community. Supported by an intellectual elite who babble stuff about subverting paradigms, they've managed to give a gloss of respectability to an otherwise absurd conceit.

The phenomenon is different from, say, the DaVinci Code, which appeals to ignorant armchair historians with a boner for conspiracies and cover-ups (though it borrows a lot from academic revisionist historians who will see credibility in any source that says something new and might be twisted to support their ideology). Anyway, lame art is a more hoity-toity pleasure, since it requires being able to show off a big vocabulary and engage in borderline-nihilistic philosophyspeak. It's a mass subculture, like Goths or "Emo" only appealing to a very different demographic.

WRT wannabes, I'm saying that the current state of little prospect of getting rich is due to an influx of wannabes. A really successful artist can get a lot of money, so it attracts a lot of attention. Much of this attention is not, strictly speaking, talented, so people looking for the next big thing have to wade through oceans of crap...think "American Idol." Except, since this is a more superficially intellectual field than pop music, people presumptively attract more attention not by being pleasantly bland but by being radical, totally different. Revolutionary ideas can have a powerful appeal, even if the revolution is stupid.

For example: the Shakespeare paper I mentioned earlier (the one about "contemporary discursive networks") went on to try and say that all discussion of "secrets" in the Bard's canon are really repressed vaginal imagery. It's ridiculous, and her support for the point was illogical and threadbare, but by patching up the numerous holes with big words, voila! Not only does it appear brainy, but people who decipher it and catch on to its game can write equally jargon-filled papers refuting it and saying Shakespeare is really all about hatred of homosexual tailors. Thus a whole industry of academic gibberish is born, and there's no limit on the number of remarkable startling discoveries that can be made every year. If the field of scholarship had been limited by reality, people would still be talking about points that can be inferred from the actual works, which isn't as impressive to outsiders.

The only active branch of Shakespearean criticism which still regularly produces thoughtful work is New Historicism, which can always find new things of genuine importance to say due to the ever-expanding wealth of archeological evidence. For everyone else, yes, the field is very much alive--you never would have guessed at the Marxist implications of some puns in Hamlet! Impress your friends and subscribe to our journals! Pay attention to us, so we can keep our university jobs!

I don't know enough about the modern art scene to be sure, but I can easily envision a similar process creating crap like crowds of people chortling at a urinal labeled "fountain." Massive numbers of people can be artists if anything can be art...but they can still feel like artists by hiding the stupidity of it all behind metaphysics. This is only possible in the industrialized world, which has a large number of educated people and a small number of jobs that really require education.