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

[duke o' york]

Why must art have a "meaning"?

Does "here is a painting of a woman I considered beautiful/inspiring enough to commit to canvas" constitute a meaning, whether the model is known or not, or whether the painting is an accurate physical representation of her, or an idealised version?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Thoral - that is a somewhat silly argument.

Only who knows nothing about art can think he knows what art is. The definition of art is a common topic among the first year students at Fine Art Universities.

That is in itself a silly concept.

Its as if english students would have to be explained what english is, and only they could later "understand" or define english.

Art is a common concept in humanity. Any art that needs "explaining" loses its value as art. Obviously, you need to know a context to understand art, otherwise it might loose some or all of its meaning.

But contrary to your belief, 'the masses' can, and indeed do define "Art".

Lets take a joke for instance. You can argue for hours about the exact definition of a joke, and what makes it good or bad. But if you have to "explain" a joke - then it is a bad joke.

If almost nobody laughs in a large crowd - it is probably a bad joke. Saying "no its a good joke, you need to familiarize yourself with "joke studies" to get it" would sound kind of silly.

But a joke, like art - has to have an intended meaning. Otherwise its just a "funny moment". If someone mistakes an accident for a joke - then that person has a bad understanding of what jokes are.

I suggest you read what you quoted more carefully. Saying that art can not be defined, is a far cry from claiming that an education is needed to appretiate artwork.

The only people here who have spoken about art needing to have a specific message or explanation in order to be appretiated are the nay-sayers. Why don't you post an example of a master piece and give a critique on it's meaning and artistic merits?

[civman2000]

Originally posted by duke o' york


It's the expression of relationships within a language expressed entirely in figures and symbols, each of which have their own meanings, in just the same way as words do in conventional spoken languages.

Not really. It's really just an abstract formal language; it doesn't communicate anything. When math is used communicatively, it's really just a subset of ordinary language, the same way any technical jargon is.

[duke o' york]

But A>B communicates exactly what "A is larger than B" does, just in a different language.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by duke o' york
But A>B communicates exactly what "A is larger than B" does, just in a different language.

But it's not a different language. That's like saying that if you write in code, you're writing in a different language and it's a disitinct form of communication. That's like saying "5" is fundamentally different from "five".

[duke o' york]

It is a different language. It has a certain Je ne sais quoi. Cinq is fundamentally different from five, as is cinque, and funf. The signified might be the same, but the signifier is different, as they're all from different languages.

Anyway, you wanted to know how mathematics was a form of communication, and seem to have conceded the point already.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by duke o' york
It is a different language. It has a certain Je ne sais quoi. Cinq is fundamentally different from five, as is cinque, and funf. The signified might be the same, but the signifier is different, as they're all from different languages.

Anyway, you wanted to know how mathematics was a form of communication, and seem to have conceded the point already.

I guess in a weak sense you can call math a form of communication. But it's definitely wrong to put it in the same category as art or music. KH originally said:

Words are one way that we communicate with each other. Visual art is another way. Music is another way. Mathematics is another way.

This implies two things: first, mathematics is different from words; I disagree with this; at most it's a different way of writing words. Second, even if you consider "a different way of writing" to be a different form of communication, it's still absurd to compare it to visual art or music. I don't mean to say that math can't be considered a form of communication, but it is not a medium of communication, it is merely a part of ordinary language.

[Elok]

I haven't the faintest idea why or how the visual arts alone have managed to invert the concept of quality. In every other art or craft, it's generally uneducated commoners who prefer garbage anyone could make to a masterpiece. They'll eat Big Macs rather than Veal Scallopini, they'll read The DaVinci Code and ignore Hemingway...but almost nobody who hasn't studied art history for years thinks a can of Campbell's soup is art.

A work of art doesn't have to be incredibly realistic, but the thing that makes a piece more than the sum of its parts is the amount of effort that went into it, combined with the sensibility that made it.

If it were a matter of complexity, a tree would qualify as art. If it were a matter of beauty, a sunset would qualify. But they are not art. Why? Because humans didn't make them.

Some painters and sculptors work faster than others, but the talented ones have skill, discipline, and craft regardless of their speed. I still consider my old ceramics teacher an artist, even though he could pull off a vase in twenty seconds on the wheel. And the vase might be fairly simple. What matters is the degree of skill and craftsmanship. It took a lot of training to be able to do that. Most of his lifetime, in fact. If something can be produced by any old bozo who's new to the medium, it's got very little artistic merit.

Aesthetic sensibility + discipline = art.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Elok
but almost nobody who hasn't studied art history for years thinks a can of Campbell's soup is art.

That's quite a bold statement.

Strange how you find andy warhol in virtualy every art history book, when no one who studies the field thinks that it's art.

A work of art doesn't have to be incredibly realistic, but the thing that makes a piece more than the sum of its parts is the amount of effort that went into it, combined with the sensibility that made it.

If it were a matter of complexity, a tree would qualify as art. If it were a matter of beauty, a sunset would qualify. But they are not art. Why? Because humans didn't make them.

Some painters and sculptors work faster than others, but the talented ones have skill, discipline, and craft regardless of their speed. I still consider my old ceramics teacher an artist, even though he could pull off a vase in twenty seconds on the wheel. And the vase might be fairly simple. What matters is the degree of skill and craftsmanship. It took a lot of training to be able to do that. Most of his lifetime, in fact. If something can be produced by any old bozo who's new to the medium, it's got very little artistic merit.

Aesthetic sensibility + discipline = art.

So why do you believe that this excludes modern art? There is a great deal of composition, theory, and conceptual background involved in all contemporary styles of art. You seem to of forgetten to mention the conceptual and interpretive aspects of art. Craftsmanship is important, but by itself it doesn't amount to much. Just as concept, by itself, does little without good craftsmanship.


By the way, I've only been doing it for a year and I can throw vases with ease.

[duke o' york]

Markos should invite you to his wedding then.

When/if it happens.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I can feel and understand things that I can't communicate in words. Or has language suddenly become a perfect vehicle for our thoughts and feelings?

No, and that's my point.

Language, words, is the main tool for communication in a literate culture like ours.

Given that it is an imperfect vehicle for communication of thoughts, feelings, ideas and emotions, I'm not sure how you expect to perfectly understand what someone using a medium that relies on imagery alone is getting at.

I think that when extending the definition of art beyond deliberate creative works intended to communicate with other human beings one must be extremely careful.

See it seems to me from reading your imperfect vehicle for communication that you've already decided what 'art' is about, or for.

Art is communication.

Art at its most basic level is expression; whether anything is communicated is a different matter.

If you don't know what Holbein was attempting to communicate in painting 'The Ambassadors' (that is, you're unfamiliar with the visual language, the identities of the two men, the reason for the anamorph, when and why it was painted) this doesn't render the painting meaningless.

... I don't necessarily accept the predicate assumption that Warhol's Brillo boxes were art.

Isn't is possible that Warhol was attempting to make a point about what is seen as art and what is seen as product in an industrialized society ?


Why are Warhol's Brillo boxes or Campbells' soup cans any less 'art' than Picasso's paintings of a wine bottle or Chardin's still life with porcelain in it ?

The railroad bridge to the left in Rain, Steam, Speed (or whatever) is obvious, and its existence makes the locomotive visible. I don't even know the title of the second Turner painting, but the archway and some details of the room are quite apparent.

So you'd have to know what a railway bridge was or looked like, and what a locomotive looked like. If Turner was simply trying to communicate what a representation of a railway bridge and a steam locomotive looked like, then why not paint them in close up, in crisp detail ?

As for the interior from Petworth, the archway could just as easily be an abstract shape in whitish paint. You're imposing meaning on the two paintings from your visual vocabulary.


I could just as easily say that Turner was trying to communicate the sensation of being on a steam train in a downpour, and was more interested in capturing the effects of light in the interior from Petworth.

The better it is, the more universal it will be..

Oh what rubbish. How can art from one culture or civilization attempt to be 'universal' ? You're now setting the parameters for what is supposedly good or effective art, and tough luck for any artists not approaching your ideal of universality.


If universality was the standard for success, then non-representational art stands an even better chance of 'universality' because colour transcends the restrictions of figurative art and visual vocabularies, but even then, people respond to the same colour in different ways.


Vermeer stopped being universal; Van Gogh struggled unappreciated for years, as did Cezanne. Academic painters were hugely popular in the Nineteenth Century, and yet now are seen as being inferior to the once-despised Toulouse Lautrec and Degas and Whistler. Mediaeval art lost favour in the Renaissance, and the Pre-Raphaelites fell out of favour in the 1960s.

Give us an example of what you consider to be near universally accepted or appreciated art.

Johannes Vermeer of Delft, also known as Jan Vermeer or Johannes van der Meer, is now considered to be one of the great Dutch masterpainters. However, his work was forgotten after his death in 1675. It was not rediscovered until the late 19th century.

http://www.about-vermeer-art.com/

[Elok]

Originally posted by General Ludd
That's quite a bold statement.

Strange how you find andy warhol in virtualy every art history book, when no one who studies the field thinks that it's art.

Huh? I'm aware that a lot of jagoffs with degrees think Warhol is art (plus some morons hoping to look smart by imitating the jagoffs with degrees, even though they know, deep inside, that it's just a can of soup). I'm talking about the majority here.

So why do you believe that this excludes modern art? There is a great deal of composition, theory, and conceptual background involved in all contemporary styles of art. You seem to of forgetten to mention the conceptual and interpretive aspects of art. Craftsmanship is important, but by itself it doesn't amount to much. Just as concept, by itself, does little without good craftsmanship.

I'm just saying that, if it could have been done by accident, 'taint art. I'm sure there's modern art that qualifies as art (M.C. Escher comes to mind), just not the people who put a few colored squares on a canvas and think it's marvellous. Their concept and composition creates a work of startling beauty and elegance...to other people who've spent too much time reading up on modernist theory. To people who don't have a background in the pompous-crackhead language, it's just a bunch of colored squares, meaning nothing. Whereas you can know nothing about any theory and still think "Starry Night" by Van Gogh is really cool.

By the way, I've only been doing it for a year and I can throw vases with ease.

Not like a master you can't. Unless you're an absolute prodigy. I'm talking about someone who can make three casual-looking pulls off a mound, while talking to a group of students and sometimes not even looking at it, and produce a perfect vase consistently, in under thirty seconds. He made it look comically easy, and didn't seem to be showing off. It was just old hat. Which is not to say that perfect technique alone makes an artist. Some of the pieces he made for sale (typically to benefit the college) were gorgeous.

My point is, there's skill involved in all art. Effort indicates the potency of an artist's feeling, shows s/he put heart into it, makes the message stronger. If it shows little skill, it's not going to be very impressive. Unless you've studied lots of devastatingly witty Derrida and suchlike. LHOOQ, nothing means anything, hahahaha!

[Qilue]

This discussion of art reminded me of this video.

http://www.starterupsteve.com/video/chopperbies.shtml

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Elok


Huh? I'm aware that a lot of jagoffs with degrees think Warhol is art (plus some morons hoping to look smart by imitating the jagoffs with degrees, even though they know, deep inside, that it's just a can of soup). I'm talking about the majority here.



I'm just saying that, if it could have been done by accident, 'taint art. I'm sure there's modern art that qualifies as art (M.C. Escher comes to mind), just not the people who put a few colored squares on a canvas and think it's marvellous. Their concept and composition creates a work of startling beauty and elegance...to other people who've spent too much time reading up on modernist theory. To people who don't have a background in the pompous-crackhead language, it's just a bunch of colored squares, meaning nothing. Whereas you can know nothing about any theory and still think "Starry Night" by Van Gogh is really cool.


Not like a master you can't. Unless you're an absolute prodigy. I'm talking about someone who can make three casual-looking pulls off a mound, while talking to a group of students and sometimes not even looking at it, and produce a perfect vase consistently, in under thirty seconds. He made it look comically easy, and didn't seem to be showing off. It was just old hat. Which is not to say that perfect technique alone makes an artist. Some of the pieces he made for sale (typically to benefit the college) were gorgeous.

My point is, there's skill involved in all art. Effort indicates the potency of an artist's feeling, shows s/he put heart into it, makes the message stronger. If it shows little skill, it's not going to be very impressive. Unless you've studied lots of devastatingly witty Derrida and suchlike. LHOOQ, nothing means anything, hahahaha!

You don't have to have a background in art to appretiate warhol's commentary, or to enjoy his work for it's pop-aesthetic, or whatever at all. All you have to have are eyes and a brain, and the ability to draw your own conclusion. You don't have to like it (I'm not a fan of his, personally) but that doesn't make it 'false art'.

Simply because somoene sees something in a piece that you don't doesn't mean that they are posing or trying to look smart. As I have said previously, there is no correct intepretation to art. And if there where - it wouldn't be possesed by you alone!

Skill is involved in art, yes, but there is SO MUCH more to it than pure skill. Infact, skill can sometimes risk limiting a work, turning it into a purely technical process rather than a form of expression (just as not having skill will leave you unable to create the expression you want) The most talented artists will often learn to reconize the potential in 'mistakes' and to use things that are out of their control. A master potter may tell you, for instance, that the clay has a life and characteristics of it's own, and that in order to work with it you must allow it to move and shape itself, as much as you give it direction.

[molly bloom]

The better it is, the more universal it will be..

The best universal art, clearly.....