What is Art?

Off Topic
1

Ok, so i was skimming through the vampire art thread and I got to thinking. What the hell makes art…art? I know a lot of you guys are artists so maybe you can pull some socrates type stuff and we can figure it out.

The reason why i have this question is because one of the posters said something about how he was highly visual and how he sees art everywhere.

It made me think of that Warholl clown who stacked up tomato soup cans and called it art. He even put a toilet in the middle of a showroom and claimed that to be art.

And then there is Lady Gaga, whom claims that everything she says or does is art. She put a birds nest on her fast and went to some awards show and figured she was very progressive.

To me, everything is not art. Art is something that highly visual and creative people can make that not everyone can. It is something very high caliper that is not easily replicatable by the average human. It is something pleasing to the eye. Thats about as far as i can explain it.

What do you all think?

2

Your confusing art with ‘good art’. Down by the water front in my city there is a bunch of i-beams painted blue and strewn haphazardly into a pile. The arts council claims it to be art. Maybe it can be anything that intrigues your mind. Though whetehr or not its worth owning or showing of or looking at again is a different matter.

The toilet art sounds retarded though :wink:

3

What all 1st year students of art history at uni HAVE to say to pass the year;

“Art is different things, to different people, at different times.”

So what art “establishment” types -you know, critics, accademics, pretentious tits who’s badly justified jobs depend on finding new “art” so they can crap out a badly written article- want to say is everything is art if you can argue it well.

BALLS!

Ever since Picasso did “Les Demoiselles D’Avignon” in 1907 and had a clever art dealer sell it to a gulible schmuck, people have stopped thing of art as something “beautiful” and instead thought if something ia shocking it is therefore art.

If you look at everything from Cubism, to Jackson Pollock, to Lady Gaga, they are only noteworthy because they have a herd of lazy critics saying how “special” they are.

Abbot Suger, who inspired the begining of Gothic architecture in French church building, said that architecture should “lift the heart and mind to God.”

Whether you belive in God or not, I think that’s a pretty good guide to the difference between something interesting to look at and Art.

I think that the more you really look at in the world, the more you can find as Art.

4

I will say that in my opinion, a lot of the ‘art is subjective’ attitude is what has enabled people with absolutely no technical skill whatsoever to make a living as artists. I remember going to the Guggenheim in Manhattan years ago with a few other animators/illustrators I knew. We were all ‘living the life’ of a NYC artist, scraping by, working from contract to contract, and when not working, sketching away at life drawing sessions or zoos to sharpen our skills. We paid our admission and were treated to view… entire canvases painted red… Seriously?!

That’s not to dismiss everything, but I obviously have a little bias. I’m sure Iron Dwarf will have some interesting thoughts on the matter.

S

5

“I may not know art, but I know what I hate.”

  • Anonymous
6

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
We paid our admission and were treated to view… entire canvases painted red… Seriously?!
[/quote]

It’s that kinda BS that makes me wanna puke. The closest thing to “art” I do is trying to build an ideal physique, but even I can tell when someone’s full o’ shit.

Way I look at it, to be proper “art”, the item must not be easily replicated, because it is something technically difficult to reproduce. The more difficult it is to reproduce, the more talent required to make it, the more valuable it is to me.

By that standard, a red canvas is worthless, because any homeless man with terrets could reproduce that with paint and a brush.

7

Art can be anything that someone creates that they, or other people find attractive. I can shit on the sidewalk, and some dude with a scat fetish might think it’s the most beautiful thing in the world. Other creepers with no mind of their own will follow what this scat man say. Thus art is born. Shitty way to put it.

See art is a lot like porn. You can make anything, the craziest thing in the world, and I guarantee that someone out there will have a thing for it.

8

[quote]Chickenmcnug wrote:
Ok, so i was skimming through the vampire art thread and I got to thinking. What the hell makes art…art? I know a lot of you guys are artists so maybe you can pull some socrates type stuff and we can figure it out.

The reason why i have this question is because one of the posters said something about how he was highly visual and how he sees art everywhere.

It made me think of that Warholl clown who stacked up tomato soup cans and called it art. He even put a toilet in the middle of a showroom and claimed that to be art.

And then there is Lady Gaga, whom claims that everything she says or does is art. She put a birds nest on her fast and went to some awards show and figured she was very progressive.

To me, everything is not art. Art is something that highly visual and creative people can make that not everyone can. It is something very high caliper that is not easily replicatable by the average human. It is something pleasing to the eye. Thats about as far as i can explain it.

What do you all think?[/quote]

the real question is what do YOU think is art?

because in the end, that’s all that matters.

now if you’ll excuse me i have to go defend my ghey hat.

9

Some interesting thing that is worth reading about Art (about music in particuliar)
From ‘‘the real Frank Zappa book’’

The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively –
because, without this humble appliance, you can’t know where The Art stops and The Real World begins.
You have to put a ‘box’ around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?

If John Cage, for instance, says, “I’m putting a contact microphone on my throat, and I’m going to drink
carrot juice, and that’s my composition,” then his gurgling qualifies as his composition because he put a
frame around it and said so. “Take it or leave it, I now will this to be music.” After that it’s a matter of
taste. Without the frame-as-announced, it’s a guy swallowing carrot juice.

Anything can be music, but it doesn’t become music until someone wills it to be music, and the audience listening to it decides to perceive it as music.Most people can’t deal with that abstraction – or don’t want to. They say: “Gimme the tune. Do I like this tune? Does it sound like another tune that I like? The more familiar it is, the better I like it. Hear those three notes there? Those are the three notes I can sing along with. I like those notes very, very much. Give me a beat. Not a fancy one. Give me a GOOD BEAT – something I can dance to. It has to go boom-bap, boom-boom-BAP. If it doesn’t, I will hate it very, very much. Also, I want it right away – and then, write me some more songs like that – over and over and over again, because I’m really into music.”

sorry if there is some weird letters as it is copy-pasted

10

[quote]latspread wrote:
What all 1st year students of art history at uni HAVE to say to pass the year;

“Art is different things, to different people, at different times.”

So what art “establishment” types -you know, critics, accademics, pretentious tits who’s badly justified jobs depend on finding new “art” so they can crap out a badly written article- want to say is everything is art if you can argue it well.

BALLS!
[/quote]

LOL!

[quote]
Abbot Suger, who inspired the begining of Gothic architecture in French church building, said that architecture should “lift the heart and mind to God.”

Whether you belive in God or not, I think that’s a pretty good guide to the difference between something interesting to look at and Art.

I think that the more you really look at in the world, the more you can find as Art. [/quote]

I agree with this entirely. It should be not just provocative, but uplifting to some degree.

11

the problem i have with relativism of any sort is that if everything is art, then nothing is art. It makes the term lose all meaning. There should be a majority somewhere that defines something as art, because i am sure 1 person shitting on the ground is not going to cause some sort of new scene.

12

Frames, huh? How about for glass? Hehe.

Me and a guy I work with have this discussion as it pertains to our work. Our shop makes aluminum windows. Blah, huh?

Some of the stuff we do is pretty mundane. Rectangles of some sort, a couple of T bar for different cells of glass and some hardware for function.

On the other hand there are the gothics- ten feet tall, three feet wide, with just the right raduis to as Abbot Suger put it “lift your heart and mind to God”, and seven point arches that are nine feet wide and twenty seven feet tall, built in sections for ease of transport and installation. Best of all, the oculi. Most of the oculi are from 12-15 feet in diameter, rose frames, wagon wheels and roses/medallions. My personal favorites are done in a champagne bronze that glow like gold when the sun hits them.

There is a commercial element to it in that it is work, and does have to meet a deadline, quality standards, and be economically feasible, but I contend that it is in fact art in a classical sense.

The glass work that goes into those frames isn’t anything to sneeze at either.

Some of the stuff that passes for art these days though, I could do without. A lot of the “performance art” or interactive art or what ever it is, is just crap. Literally.

Some artists should suffer for their work. If we have to, so should they.

13

1426×1153 906 KB

I can tell you that, as an artist, I really don’t care if anyone stands in front of my work and scoffs. I make what I make for me. Past that, I can take or leave the opinions of others. I don’t feel insulted if anyone doesn’t like my work, neither do I prance like a peacock if they love it. You either dig it or you don’t, take it or leave it.

There are those among us who are in it strictly for the attention they can get from shock value, and their “work” is largely supported by grant dollars (your taxes). Those clowns are largely disregarded by most working artists. However, once upon a time some truly brilliant artists (Duchamps, for example) who felt art was bigger than the visual, would put all kinds of weird stuff in art galleries to make the point that a thing (such as a toilet) became art simply because of the environment in which it was being seen. It was a fun idea… in the early 1900s. Doing such a thing now is neither new nor brilliant and, in my opinion, shows a lack of talent and insight. They’re just re-hashing a once original concept. Kind of like modern painters painting impressionism, a once bold against-the-grain method of painting that stirred up HOT debate when it was first unveiled but which is now regarded as the soft and pretty style. Not at all the emotion its originators were attempting to provoke!

Most of my favorite art is abstract or non-representational (something close to a red square, like just about anything Rothko did) appeals to me a lot. Susan Rothenberg’s work, though it is somewhat representational is just wonderful stuff. All my favs were either untrained painters or paint like untrained painters. You know, Picasso was so technically proficient that he painted like Rembrandt at the ripe old age of 12. He CHOSE to go against that, break out of the box and, for the rest of his life, be the forefront of virtually every movement that existed in modern art during his lifetime, God bless him.

Most of you would hate what I do. This one’s called “Risk”:

14

1824×1387 1.02 MB

This one is “Bigfoot.”

15

Edited for clarification.

Andy Warhol- Andy Warhol - Wikipedia

Soup Cans- Campbell's Soup Cans - Wikipedia

Personally, I think the guy was a genius.

16

[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:
It was a fun idea… in the early 1900s. Doing such a thing now is neither new nor brilliant and, in my opinion, shows a lack of talent and insight. They’re just re-hashing a once original concept. Kind of like modern painters painting impressionism, a once bold against-the-grain method of painting that stirred up HOT debate when it was first unveiled but which is now regarded as the soft and pretty style. Not at all the emotion its originators were attempting to provoke!

[/quote]
In college, I accidentally discovered photocopier art while copying from a textbook. I was amazed by the detailed fabric weave pattern my sleeve made in one corner. I began experimenting with placing a variety of 3-dimensional objects on the glass and playing with the machine’s exposure setting. But it came to a crashing halt when one of my roommates said his little sister was doing just that back when she was 7 or 8.

The point is that true originality is rare. Almost everything has been done before by someone.

BTW, I really like the two paintings you’ve shared here.

17

I think we need to do away with the term “art” when it is indeed a subjective thing. It depends on your take on art’s purpose, and whether a specific piece reflects the artist’s true intentions, as well as many other variables. Some art is the reflection of its era, and some is timeless. And it’s been argued on behalf of either as true art.

The advent of photography eliminated (and freed the artist from) the confines of realism in painting.

The Classicists derided the Romanticists, and vice-versa. And it’s hard to believe that at one time Impressionism was considered crap. Now, it’s most likely the most popular style among the general public, and most imitated in the studios around the world.

Some criticized Picasso for his bold innovations, but when you consider the HUGE debt that graphic art today owes him, you can see why some “art” is for the greater good. Consider that Picasso painted in the realistic style of the Old Masters when he was a child! Where do you go from there?

When Elsworth Kelly painted his monochrome canvases (and altered their shapes), he intentionally set out to confront the public’s notion of art. He wasn’t interested in the marks on the canvas, but the canvas itself. He, like Picasso, and like the Impressionists before him opened the door for exciting innovation in the visual arts.

Jackson Pollock is often the poster boy for his “my 8-year old could do that” drip technique. First of all, your 8 -year old could not do that. Second, he tried to convey visually what music does aurally. Nature moves in dynamic and rhythmic ways, and Pollock expressed that without representation. We don’t question why a particular Mozart passage moves us, or why the roses are red, so why can’t the same be applied to visual art?

Besides, a well executed Pollock is better than a sloppy and muddy Renoir.

Modern realist Thomas Kinkade is a master at conveying light. His technique is nearly unchallenged. But no way do I want one of his syrupy sweet, sentimental and kitschy paintings on my wall!

To me, an artist should create his own visual language. Next, he needs to find a way to express the ideas. Then he needs to master its execution.

When people stop asking questions in the face of convention and dogma, then we cease to grow in many respects. These artists forced us to not only see art in new ways, but the world around us.

So really it comes down to taste. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.

Hey SirenSong, I like your “Risk” painting.

18

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I think we need to do away with the term “art” when it is indeed a subjective thing. It depends on your take on art’s purpose, and whether a specific piece reflects the artist’s true intentions, as well as many other variables. Some art is the reflection of its era, and some is timeless. And it’s been argued on behalf of either as true art.

The advent of photography eliminated (and freed the artist from) the confines of realism in painting.

The Classicists derided the Romanticists, and vice-versa. And it’s hard to believe that at one time Impressionism was considered crap. Now, it’s most likely the most popular style among the general public, and most imitated in the studios around the world.

Some criticized Picasso for his bold innovations, but when you consider the HUGE debt that graphic art today owes him, you can see why some “art” is for the greater good. Consider that Picasso painted in the realistic style of the Old Masters when he was a child! Where do you go from there?

When Elsworth Kelly painted his monochrome canvases (and altered their shapes), he intentionally set out to confront the public’s notion of art. He wasn’t interested in the marks on the canvas, but the canvas itself. He, like Picasso, and like the Impressionists before him opened the door for exciting innovation in the visual arts.

Jackson Pollock is often the poster boy for his “my 8-year old could do that” drip technique. First of all, your 8 -year old could not do that. Second, he tried to convey visually what music does aurally. Nature moves in dynamic and rhythmic ways, and Pollock expressed that without representation. We don’t question why a particular Mozart passage moves us, or why the roses are red, so why can’t the same be applied to visual art?

Besides, a well executed Pollock is better than a sloppy and muddy Renoir.

Modern realist Thomas Kinkade is a master at conveying light. His technique is nearly unchallenged. But no way do I want one of his syrupy sweet, sentimental and kitschy paintings on my wall!

To me, an artist should create his own visual language. Next, he needs to find a way to express the ideas. Then he needs to master its execution.

When people stop asking questions in the face of convention and dogma, then we cease to grow in many respects. These artists forced us to not only see art in new ways, but the world around us.

So really it comes down to taste. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.

Hey SirenSong, I like your “Risk” painting.
[/quote]

It’s like a visiting artist at my school once said “You can say ‘I can do THAT!’ but the simple fact is you DIDN’T.”

Here’s what’s funny. When I was in my first two years of art school we would often get a jock or two in our classes, guys who were looking for easy credits, only to find out immediately that they were in the wrong place. I can’t, however, recall any of those guys dropping out of a class and all of them actually got pretty serious once they understood what was expected. None of those guys had grown up making art but a few wound up surprised at the way everyone loved what they were producing. Several of those guys had no clue how good they were. They thought realism was the only yardstick and they weren’t doing that because they lacked the technical proficiency. None of those guys went on to make more art, though, and that’s a shame.

Then we would get TONS of young kids who’d been told their whole lives they were geniuses because their stuff looked realistic. They’d arrive at school, thinking everyone would treat them like demi-Gods only to find nobody impressed. Then they’d whine about how jealous everyone was, especially the instructors (!)… and man, were they ever pissed about all the fuss over what Those Jocks were doing…!

Talk about a reversal of fortune

19

I define Art as being any activity that applies technical skill in a manner that involves making decisions between incomparable variables. Basically, if you are making decisions that are not based in any easily quantifiable, logical, or rational metric, and you are doing so through the application of a technical skill(be it painting, singing, making pizza, dancing…etc.) you are doing art. It’s a way of looking at the world with less emphasis on direct comparison, less emphasis on rankings and ‘better than’ mentality. It’s an emphasis on the raw and unfiltered decision making process.

Corollaries to this definition include the ability to ignore outside influence and focus solely on your own ‘vision’ as well as the ability to face the world through a more subjective lens, which, when you really get to it, is fucking hard to do.

I also don’t think that “art” and “science”(or craft) are at odds, the human brain is pretty deft at being creative as well as being procedural and logical. They compliment one another, in the long run, and within society. (though I think society forgets this sometimes)

As for Lady Gaga, like her or not, you cannot deny that she is a lifelong student of music(piano and voice since an early age) she writes her own material and she is completely having a go at pop culture in a way that would make Andy Warhol proud. For all intents and purposes she is an artist. But so are a lot of people. Ultimately, with art, you’re going to like what you like, and not like what you don’t like, that’s fine… and kind of the point.

20

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
I define Art as being any activity that applies technical skill in a manner that involves making decisions between incomparable variables. Basically, if you are making decisions that are not based in any easily quantifiable, logical, or rational metric, and you are doing so through the application of a technical skill(be it painting, singing, making pizza, dancing…etc.) you are doing art. It’s a way of looking at the world with less emphasis on direct comparison, less emphasis on rankings and ‘better than’ mentality. It’s an emphasis on the raw and unfiltered decision making process.

Corollaries to this definition include the ability to ignore outside influence and focus solely on your own ‘vision’ as well as the ability to face the world through a more subjective lens, which, when you really get to it, is fucking hard to do.

I also don’t think that “art” and “science”(or craft) are at odds, the human brain is pretty deft at being creative as well as being procedural and logical. They compliment one another, in the long run, and within society. (though I think society forgets this sometimes)

As for Lady Gaga, like her or not, you cannot deny that she is a lifelong student of music(piano and voice since an early age) she writes her own material and she is completely having a go at pop culture in a way that would make Andy Warhol proud. For all intents and purposes she is an artist. But so are a lot of people. Ultimately, with art, you’re going to like what you like, and not like what you don’t like, that’s fine… and kind of the point.

[/quote]

Thank God I can paint whatever I want, whenever I want. And while I’m pleased there are many who understand, thank God I don’t have to have anyone’s approval to do as I please whenever I pick up a brush. If painting were all about showing my technical “skill” I’d be so bored I’d explode.

What you’re talking about is illustration, not art. Artist’s make art. Illustrators illustrate. There’s nothing wrong with either, but they’re by no means the same thing.