What IS art?

[zippypinhead]

People seem to have been talking a bit over the last week about what is or is not art. Unfortunately, I was mostly gone from my computer all week. Since it happened as thread derailments, and since this is actually my area of interest (BA in Studio Art, just finished my Bachelor's thesis for Art History a couple of weeks ago, and am now looking at graduate schools -- hooray for me!) I thought I'd make a thread in the proper forum, rather than continue the discussion as an off-topic tangent ranging across several threads.

To begin, yes, art has a definition. It is the study and practice of aesthetics. That is to say, art is typically defined as works of human expression that take into some account the notion of beauty and our relationship to it. That definition is pretty hard and fast, too. In the many years I've been studying and making art, that definition has never really been challenged. It's an academic baseline, a given, and the point from which the really meaty dialogues of theory, critique, and history can begin. So, generally, the debates that range around art are not centered on its definition, but rather whether specific expressions can be classified by that definition. Posing the question, "is that art?" is not the same thing as asking, "what is art?" And "is that art?" is the good stuff. It's an incredibly loaded question, which has led to a complex and often-misunderstood intellectual discipline.

 

[Ambers Troll]

Reality far outdoes art anytime... that is why science for me. Who agrees?

 

[zippypinhead]

There's room for both. It's not a competition.

 

[RainyDayGuy]

This quote from Oscar Wilde pretty much sums up my view on art.

A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist.

 

[goldenaye666]

What is art, and how art is defined, has probably been open to interpretation as long as the word has existed. Art to me is in the eye of the beholder, opinion of the definer, etc... Of the many definitions, the most vague ones seem closest to being accurate. Since opinions vary so much on the subject.

 

[LacieLaPlante]

This brings me to something we discussed in one of my art history classes. I am 2 classes away from a Bachelors in Fine Arts (Sculpture), so this is something I love too.

There was an exhibit at a gallery. This artist was very different than the other artists in the gallery - his piece was an empty bucket with hard water stains. Kind of a found object, but what made it artful was that the hard water had left dried minerals in patterns on the bucket.

Why this made news is that a janitor cleaned it up, which sparked a huge discussion of "Was that art?" Because the janitor saw a bucket, and thought it needed to be moved or cleaned. It comes down to interpretation. Some people may honestly only see "art" in a painting or sculpture, but the artist sees something deeper. Is it art if this is not easily translated? If someone looking at the piece with no context can't figure out it's art, is it art? Or can "art" come from your own interpretations of what is beautiful, and is it art if no one else sees it?

 

[Shaun__]

This brings me to something we discussed in one of my art history classes. I am 2 classes away from a Bachelors in Fine Arts (Sculpture), so this is something I love too.

There was an exhibit at a gallery. This artist was very different than the other artists in the gallery - his piece was an empty bucket with hard water stains. Kind of a found object, but what made it artful was that the hard water had left dried minerals in patterns on the bucket.

Why this made news is that a janitor cleaned it up, which sparked a huge discussion of "Was that art?" Because the janitor saw a bucket, and thought it needed to be moved or cleaned. It comes down to interpretation. Some people may honestly only see "art" in a painting or sculpture, but the artist sees something deeper. Is it art if this is not easily translated? If someone looking at the piece with no context can't figure out it's art, is it art? Or can "art" come from your own interpretations of what is beautiful, and is it art if no one else sees it?

True art is the act of getting someone to pay you to put regular garbage you found walking to the exhibit in a random pile, then collecting on the insurance when the janitor disposes of it.

 

[Red7227]

Why this made news is that a janitor cleaned it up, which sparked a huge discussion of "Was that art?" Because the janitor saw a bucket, and thought it needed to be moved or cleaned. It comes down to interpretation. Some people may honestly only see "art" in a painting or sculpture, but the artist sees something deeper. Is it art if this is not easily translated? If someone looking at the piece with no context can't figure out it's art, is it art? Or can "art" come from your own interpretations of what is beautiful, and is it art if no one else sees it?

Some art is often very hard for others to perceive, as it is often the product of a person's perceptions, and even how their brain processes information. This does not preclude the "artist" being a wanker and completely up themselves.

Monet and Van Gogh are classic examples of people who could imbue their work with something beyond the technical. Bright and boisterous, with what appears to be a shitty painting style, it lacks the intimidating technical standards of a dutch master. They are is more humane and approachable works, and the reason you see a lot of Monet in Psychiatrists waiting rooms.

Classical period artists were similar. A Fresco had to be painted into the wet plaster in minutes without a single mis-stroke. They may not have understood perspective, but that does not detract from their technical skill. The work was simple and direct, by virtue of the constraints they worked under, but still very appealing.

 

[Ambers Troll]

There's room for both. It's not a competition.

Agree, was only testing your definition a little, and it works for me. The beauty/ awesomeness of nature and our relationship to it comes as art in terms of our increasing understanding of it. Science is a procedure, but the passion a scientist gets from it, could it be termed art appreciation/ nature appreciation? The art part comes in how the facts discovered are tied together into theories/ laws and so on.

As for other works of art, I love storytelling, working with wood, and painting. To me artists are very special people, in the end it is only works of art that we truly leave behind, we also need some cultural references to truly appreciate it.

 

[Shaun__]

This just popped up on my tumblr and I had to share it in this thread. A great artist cannot just see art, they are someone that can share that vision with others.

 

[zippypinhead]

This brings me to something we discussed in one of my art history classes. I am 2 classes away from a Bachelors in Fine Arts (Sculpture), so this is something I love too.

There was an exhibit at a gallery. This artist was very different than the other artists in the gallery - his piece was an empty bucket with hard water stains. Kind of a found object, but what made it artful was that the hard water had left dried minerals in patterns on the bucket.

Why this made news is that a janitor cleaned it up, which sparked a huge discussion of "Was that art?" Because the janitor saw a bucket, and thought it needed to be moved or cleaned. It comes down to interpretation. Some people may honestly only see "art" in a painting or sculpture, but the artist sees something deeper. Is it art if this is not easily translated? If someone looking at the piece with no context can't figure out it's art, is it art? Or can "art" come from your own interpretations of what is beautiful, and is it art if no one else sees it?

One of the things that gets me about people's reactions to art is that, so often, people take it as a personal insult when they are confronted by work that is not easy to interpret. Artwork is absolutely allowed to be challenging, even oblique or inscrutable. It doesn't have to be readily accessible to all in order to be art. But people act like it's trying to trick them or make them look foolish if it's something that they can't understand the instant they come across it. The human interface with beauty is complex, and so art is allowed to explore that complexity.

However, I will say that much of what seems to fall into the realm of conceptual art, to me, is actually a lot closer to aesthetic philosophy than actual artistic expression. It makes sense, conceptually, that a person might take an object with seemingly no artistic value, and recontextualize it as an art object, like in your story about the rusty bucket. Art is the process through which we create and control the look of our world. The ideas that are explored in the fine arts are filtered through practical disciplines like design, so that there are actually very few instances where even the most utilitarian objects are really displeasing to look at. A bucket doesn't have to be pleasantly round with a taper to its profile, and a brush steel finish in order to hold water, after all. So, as a statement of our need to aesthetically order our world, putting a dirty bucket in a gallery works philosophically, but does it work as an artistic expression? I guess it depends on the bucket.

 

[zippypinhead]

Monet and Van Gogh are classic examples of people who could imbue their work with something beyond the technical. Bright and boisterous, with what appears to be a shitty painting style, it lacks the intimidating technical standards of a dutch master. They are is more humane and approachable works, and the reason you see a lot of Monet in Psychiatrists waiting rooms.

Both as an art historian and as a painter, I have a bit of a problem with the idea that the way Monet or van Gogh handled paint could ever be described as "shitty painting style." I've had opportunities to stand in front of both their works, and there's nothing shitty about what they've done. They get all the calendars and coffee table books for a reason; they were both incredible painters -- even technically. These are men who were not merely playing with paint, after all. They took their work as seriously as any artist had. It is a disservice to believe that the technical standards of their work are lacking when compared to others, like dutch masters. It's the employment of different technique that one sees when viewing these paintings -- it is not the lack of technique.

 

[Red7227]

Monet and Van Gogh are classic examples of people who could imbue their work with something beyond the technical. Bright and boisterous, with what appears to be a shitty painting style, it lacks the intimidating technical standards of a dutch master. They are is more humane and approachable works, and the reason you see a lot of Monet in Psychiatrists waiting rooms.

Both as an art historian and as a painter, I have a bit of a problem with the idea that the way Monet or van Gogh handled paint could ever be described as "shitty painting style." I've had opportunities to stand in front of both their works, and there's nothing shitty about what they've done. They get all the calendars and coffee table books for a reason; they were both incredible painters -- even technically. These are men who were not merely playing with paint, after all. They took their work as seriously as any artist had. It is a disservice to believe that the technical standards of their work are lacking when compared to others, like dutch masters. It's the employment of different technique that one sees when viewing these paintings -- it is not the lack of technique.

You clearly failed English comprehension. Which one looks easier to paint?

Paulus Potter

Monet

Monet and Van Gogh you can revel in the colours and composition, while with a Dutch master the subject is sometimes overcome by the painting style. Rembrandt is famous for combining both, which is why he is justifiably popular. His subjects show their humanity through his work, while with Potter, you can see the technical perfection while missing out on the emotive spark.

With Monet you go "awww" while with Potter, its "Jesus fucking Christ, look at the velvet on his sleeve!".

 

[zippypinhead]

You clearly failed English comprehension. Which one looks easier to paint?

There is a difference between looking easy, and being easy. There are a lot of factors at work in understanding what it is about Monet's work that gives it that "something" you're talking about, which I guess you'd rather attribute to some sort of magic or whatever, rather than actual knowledge or ability.

When I look at Monet's work, I don't think "aww." It's more along the lines of, "Jesus fucking Christ, look at those strokes!" But then, I've had the benefit of learning what led to those strokes (and the benefit of trying to reproduce them, myself.) I'd be happy to describe why something like what Monet or van Gogh were doing is just as technically significant as any 2D recreation of a jacket's texture, but I warn you, it won't be a short explanation.

I will agree with you, though, that Rembrandt was of a particular genius that combined both a virtuosity of draftsmanship with a virtuosity of painterly expressiveness, which sets him in a class by himself.

 

[Red7227]

You clearly failed English comprehension. Which one looks easier to paint?

There is a difference between looking easy, and being easy.

Which is beyond most people's interest. Art is not about being technically competent, its about virtuosity. I don't see the wonder of Monet's brushwork, I just see something very appealing. With someone like Potter though there is nothing to see but his brushwork. If I'm looking at something I am knowledgeable about my perspective changes, but in the case Monet and Van Gogh I am am happy to attribute the beauty of their work to magic rather than science.

 

[zippypinhead]

You clearly failed English comprehension. Which one looks easier to paint?

There is a difference between looking easy, and being easy.

Which is beyond most people's interest. Art is not about being technically competent, its about virtuosity. I don't see the wonder of Monet's brushwork, I just see something very appealing. With someone like Potter though there is nothing to see but his brushwork. If I'm looking at something I am knowledgeable about my perspective changes, but in the case Monet and Van Gogh I am am happy to attribute the beauty of their work to magic rather than science.

Well, if art is about virtuosity for you, and you want it to be that, then cheers. I won't make it my job to elucidate away the magic from your life.

 

[KylieJacobs]

What is art?

Art is something that can't be duplicated by someone else. For example a Craft can be duplicated with a pattern, a kit, or directions.

I'm an artist (painter for many years), and I can't even duplicate my own work.

 

[Alexandra Cole]

Art is not about being technically competent, its about virtuosity.

That seems to be the question, then: what's virtuosity to you?

I don't have anything to add to the thoughts over which of those artists is more deserving of the capital-a Art assignation because they're all good, but I do want to nudge Monet and Van Gogh apart since it isn't so much about the light and color as what the light and color do. In Monet's case, it's about seeing. He played with how landscapes (etc) could be experienced visually. In Van Gogh's case, it's about feeling. He manipulated color and perspective to express the invisible. It can be hard to think of either artist as being particularly innovative when they've both been reduced to dorm art and tend to attract little old ladies who use words like "precious." But they were certainly doing something new. Rembrandt, too.

Most artists were trained to paint like Potter. The question is why they chose not to.



Unrelated: I'm fascinated by that hand in Potter's portrait.

 

[zippypinhead]

It can be hard to think of either artist as being particularly innovative when they've both been reduced to dorm art and tend to attract little old ladies who use words like "precious." But they were certainly doing something new. Rembrandt, too.

Most artists were trained to paint like Potter. The question is why they chose not to.

This is a point that can't be overstated, I think. Maybe my mention of calendars and coffee table books was a bit too flippant. They do deserve the fame they have gained as innovators, but it's a popular sort of attention that has reduced their role in the minds of the public to that of little more than decorative art, which is a huge disservice to both artists. I choke a little any time I hear somebody describe The Starry Night as "peaceful."

Unrelated: I'm fascinated by that hand in Potter's portrait.

Ah, Baroque hands...

 

[Shaun__]

What is art?

Art is something that can't be duplicated by someone else. For example a Craft can be duplicated with a pattern, a kit, or directions.

I'm an artist (painter for many years), and I can't even duplicate my own work.

Some of the most famous painters in history have been duplicated though. Are you saying they are not artists?

It has been restored, but they believe this one was made by one of Da Vinci's students. Other paintings done in less honest circumstances are copies that are almost stroke for stroke the same.

 

[mynameisbob84]

This brings me to something we discussed in one of my art history classes. I am 2 classes away from a Bachelors in Fine Arts (Sculpture), so this is something I love too.

There was an exhibit at a gallery. This artist was very different than the other artists in the gallery - his piece was an empty bucket with hard water stains. Kind of a found object, but what made it artful was that the hard water had left dried minerals in patterns on the bucket.

Why this made news is that a janitor cleaned it up, which sparked a huge discussion of "Was that art?" Because the janitor saw a bucket, and thought it needed to be moved or cleaned. It comes down to interpretation. Some people may honestly only see "art" in a painting or sculpture, but the artist sees something deeper. Is it art if this is not easily translated? If someone looking at the piece with no context can't figure out it's art, is it art? Or can "art" come from your own interpretations of what is beautiful, and is it art if no one else sees it?

However, I will say that much of what seems to fall into the realm of conceptual art, to me, is actually a lot closer to aesthetic philosophy than actual artistic expression. It makes sense, conceptually, that a person might take an object with seemingly no artistic value, and recontextualize it as an art object, like in your story about the rusty bucket. Art is the process through which we create and control the look of our world. The ideas that are explored in the fine arts are filtered through practical disciplines like design, so that there are actually very few instances where even the most utilitarian objects are really displeasing to look at. A bucket doesn't have to be pleasantly round with a taper to its profile, and a brush steel finish in order to hold water, after all. So, as a statement of our need to aesthetically order our world, putting a dirty bucket in a gallery works philosophically, but does it work as an artistic expression? I guess it depends on the bucket.

Very well said, sir.

My biggest problem with found art/modern art/abstract expressionism (whatever category things like the bucket, or the unmade bed, or the scrunched up piece of paper fall under) is that it's all one big con. And if it's not a con, the fact that the earnest, personal, heart-felt pieces are virtually indistinguishable from the cobbled-together-in-five-minutes-for-a-quick-buck pieces, surely disqualifies it from being considered art.

Things like the bucket are literally nothing more than an example of somebody finding something and thinking to themselves "oh, that's kinda neat". To think that that can be considered "art" and that actual money can be made from and spent on something like that is (to me at least) thoroughly bizarre. And it must be so easy to exploit. Just looking around my room, I see at least two items that with just the teeniest amount of creativity and the bare minimum of effort could be turned into what passes for modern art pieces in some circles.

To my right is a guitar that I haven't played in a couple of months and owing to the condensation in this room, the strings have rusted. It's a nice guitar, rather expensive, and other than the rusted strings is in perfect condition/working order. So maybe this is a piece about neglect, about luxury going to waste, about aspirations lost to the daily grind. In actuality, it's just a back-up guitar that hasn't been played in a while because I've been playing my Jazzmaster instead...

I also see a book on my shelf with a bookmark sandwiched in it at around the halfway point. There's a fairly thick coating of dust covering the book. Clearly it's been some time since I read the book, and clearly I hadn't finished reading it when I last put it down. Maybe this piece is about the uncertainty of life, how there are never any guarantees we'll get to see the next chapter unfold, get to see the next year, or even the next day. Or maybe it's just a book I tired of reading and forgot about...

:twocents-02cents:

 

[Red7227]

What is art?

Art is something that can't be duplicated by someone else. For example a Craft can be duplicated with a pattern, a kit, or directions.

I'm an artist (painter for many years), and I can't even duplicate my own work.

Some of the most famous painters in history have been duplicated though. Are you saying they are not artists?

It has been restored, but they believe this one was made by one of Da Vinci's students. Other paintings done in less honest circumstances are copies that are almost stroke for stroke the same.

https://www.youtube.com/user/marcellobarenghi

Photorealism is having something of a phase at the moment. Technology has changed, but there are still some pretty amazing artists around. They are potters though not Rembrandts.

 

[JoleneBrody]

gluten/dairy free corndogs.

I'm pretty fucking moved on a deep emotional level.

 

[KylieJacobs]

What is art?

Art is something that can't be duplicated by someone else. For example a Craft can be duplicated with a pattern, a kit, or directions.

I'm an artist (painter for many years), and I can't even duplicate my own work.

Some of the most famous painters in history have been duplicated though. Are you saying they are not artists?

It has been restored, but they believe this one was made by one of Da Vinci's students. Other paintings done in less honest circumstances are copies that are almost stroke for stroke the same.

Okay, not EASILY duplicated. Of course Da Vinci is an artist! He was an amazing artist and inventor!

 

[hapa74]

Okay, as a professional "artist" I don't even bother getting into this discussion anymore. People will either appreciate what I do or they won't. I'm cool with it either way

"Follow your bliss" - Joseph Campbell