The latest book I’m reading is by the New York Times‘s film critic A. O. Scott: Better Living Through Criticism: How to Think About Art, Pleasure, Beauty, and Truth. It’s a mixed bag, but, to give him credit, Scott’s taken a hard look at the value of his own profession, asking what the purpose of criticism is, whether it is itself an art form, can there be any nonsubjective standards of taste, and so on. The book does make you think, and one of its subjects is this: “does something mundane, boring, or trivial become art at the moment when it’s called art?” We all know of all-white paintings, heaps of trash mistaken for artworks, and so on.
The latest one of these, reported by The Independent (and BuzzFeed), is amusing but also disturbing. A 17-year-old boy named TJ Khayatan pulled a prank at the San Francisco Museum of Art, putting a pair of glasses on the floor and, in other places, a wastebasket and a baseball cap. While all of them elicited reactions from the viewers, who often saw them as art, none was as effective as the glasses. To wit:
Khayatan photographed the people admiring his “art” and posted them on Twi**er, where they went viral.
Question: If those glasses were put on the floor by an artist, and given a title and a fancy explanation, they would constitute an “installation” that could be worth many thousands of dollars. What, then, is the difference between this prank and the kind of “art” that doesn’t differ much from it, like all-white paintings or the work below by Christopher Wool, “Blue Fool,” that sold for over $5 million at Christie’s.
All of us could do that stencil, but none of us would earn even $50 for it. Clearly an artist with a name is more likely to produce puzzling stuff that would be regarded not just as art, but as VALUABLE art. But what about those glasses?
I am ambivalent. I can see the worth of Serrano’s “Piss Christ”, and barely see the artsiness of Warhol’s soup cans, which to me are a commentary on art rather than real art, but “Blue Fool”? It may be intended as art, but it doesn’t move me or engage my emotions. Others, no doubt, will have a fancy explanation of what it means.
I know there are many artists among the readers, so do explain to me why a pair of glasses put on a pedestal by an artist is considered “art,” but a pair of glasses on the floor is not—at least not by critics. The public, long used to puzzling artworks and unsure of their own ability to analyze things, clearly thinks that the glasses do constitute art.
h/t: Grania
I’m making my own blue fool tonight.
I’m naming my next alcoholic drink concoction after it too!
I’m acting my own blue fool tonight. I need one of your concoctions. 😉
I’m thinking of: Rum, Blue Curaçao, crème de violette, a shot of fresh lemon juice and tonic.
Design trials to be performed shortly.
The headline to your story is great. If you decide you’re fed up with evolution and related topics, you could change careers and write for The Onion.
I would say the headline is misleading. The glasses were not “misplaced” but as the story says, placed purposefully. Does the act of placing the glasses constitute art? I don’t know.
If Cage’s 4′33″ can be considered art, then so can this.
Going by the headline, I must have been guilty of creating scores of artworks over the years.
(I buy my glasses at the $2 shop – since I don’t have astigmatism – and I lose a pair every month or so. Also ballpoint pens…)
cr
Hands down one of the best Wikipedia articles I have read. It’s just so … *serious*.
I’m sure Blue Fool has “Homage to Barnum” written on the back of it.
This way to the egress.
lol !!
Even better
Reminds me of the thoroughly pranked wine ‘experts’ of a few years ago.
After 2008, amazing $8-$12 bottles could be found everywhere. I’d rather not confess the price range which I have drunk, but I can say with authority there are gems at the bottom…and they are numerous.
Back in grad school in California in the late 60s, we drank Red Mountain wine. I think it was around $1.29 a gallon and the price rose to about $1.59 or so about the time I left. Not long ago a Charles Shaw merlot (known as two buck chuck, or, now, three buck chuck) beat out a number of wines in a taste test.
(ART A Friend of mine in Tulsa, Okla., when I was about eleven years old. I’d be interested to hear from him. There are so many pseudos around taking his name in vain.
—The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan)
John Brunner, “Stand on Zanzibar”, 1969.
A great book.
It has stood the test of time. One of my re-read every few years books.
One of the very few SF novels, along with Dune, Fahrenheit 451, and the Foundation trilogy that I have read twice.
All Brunner’s books are at least good; and “Stand on Zanzibar”,”The Sheep Look Up”, and “The Shockwave Rider” are great IMO.
It is sad that fine art is mostly inaccessible to the general public and this is a symptom. In the last century it has disappeared so far up its own arse that literally no one can even identify it. Is it a hoax? Is it serious? We’ll never know!
The establishment fetishizes the new and unique. It is very difficult for new artists to do anything that might be considered familiar. They’re ignored at best, harshly criticized at worst. That’s why we’re left with awful dissonant classical music and movements like disumbrationism.
Agreed.
There certainly is merit to seeking new ways to express one’s ideas, but I think the fetishization of “new” is really an immunizing strategy: any criticism can be dismissed as the misunderstanding of a philistine. This way, it’s not really necessary to have any good ideas or talent: “This year s obviously just too unfamiliar for you to wrap your brain around”. So novelty is the excuse they use for incomprehensibility, and incomprehensibility is the cloak they use to disguise lack of talent or content. It’s a lot like Sophisticated Theology™ in that last respect.
To answer Jerry’s question “is this art”, I suppose it must be allowed that it is as long as a consensus that it is exists. There’s no objective criteria to which to appeal if you wanted to show it’s not, the way there is if you want to show that astrology isn’t science. But that’s ok, because I think the real question should be “is it any good?” Objectivity will of course still be a sticky wicket, but less so, I think, than in the endeavor of trying to define/limit the whole category “art”. I submit that good art should entail a substantial element of talent or skill. When we think of art that has survived the test of time, that is really worthy of being held up as a great human achievement, do we think of poorly annunciated, abstract concepts? Would Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier be the work of genius it is if, instead of the actual preludes and fugues, he had simply written on one page “imagine a piece of music in both the major and minor modes of each of the twelve keys”? No. The genius is in the execution. It’s a pretty recent phenomenon, this notion that concept is a sufficient condition for pronouncing something to be good art.
year s = is
Funny, I read that as “year’s” and it made perfect sense to me.
*Applause*
Sort of off topic, but you almost certainly no the answer to this question and it has been driving me crazy for a while now trying to remember this person.
There is a musician of note who has said that every morning when he gets up he plays portions of the Well-Tempered Clavier to start his day. Who the heck is that? Apparently those brain cells died.
András Schiff. A favorite performer of mine.
Ahhhh! It was András Schiff. Thank You!
I’ve wanted to find some good performances / recordings of him but, as I said, I couldn’t remember his name.
Of all the recordings of the Goldberg Variations I’ve heard, including his own, this is the best performance of the infamous variation no. 5 (at 5:25). It’s a shame it isn’t part of a proper recording. Get a load of the trills especially. What control.
Thanks, I will definitely have a listen.
Are you familiar with this recording of Schiff performing Bach’s English Suites?
No, although I’ve likely heard individual tracks on broadcasts. Schiff is usually a very safe bet for Bach on the piano.
Okay. I’m sold on this 2001 revisit by Schiff of Bach’s Goldberg Variations recorded live at Stadtcasino in Basel.
I hope it lives up to the reviews I’ve read.
Interesting. What might it mean when after I buy the above the first item in the “recommended based on your recent purchase” list is Frankie Goes To Hollywood? It must mean something profound!
Yes, it’s pretty good. This is the recording of the GV I own. The performance of no. 5 in the documentary I linked above is still superior, however.
Safe bets for Bach on piano are Schiff and Murray Perahia (Angela Hewitt a close runner-up). I would give the edge to Schiff because he is more likely to deploy judicious temporal manipulation: ritenuto, agogic, etc. it’s a misconception that authentic Baroque performance should be mechanical and devoid of things like rubato. In fact, temporal manipulation was the only way to accent or highlight important moments in the music when performing on non-touch-sensitive instruments like the harpsichord or organ.
Thank you for the feedback. I’ve learned that musical recommendations by you are well worth checking out.
D’oh. The edge also goes to Schiff because of his impossibly elegant ornaments: trills, groppi, etc.
Sorry, I do like you but I’m not going to grope you!
(Although I think Pablo Casals, who was really a cellist, said something like this also.)
I’ll bet he played his own ‘cello arrangements of them. Wonderful stuff. IIRC, he set the modern standard with his arrangements of the solo ‘cello suites.
I play a(n easy-ish) guitar arrangement of the Cmaj prelude. (Arr.: Sophocles Pappas — I just love that guy’s name!). One of my favorite all time pieces. Took a LONG TIME to learn it. Still struggle to make it sound good.
He played piano, also. Piano is sort of the “lingua franca” of music.
I did not know that. And yes, it sure is.
My son is a saxophonist. But we have a keyboard (decent Yamaha synth — which none of us is really competent at!)
He recently started messing around on the keyboard. He pulled up Youtubes on how to play some basic classical solo pieces. And he really started to learn it, all on his own. He can actually make some music with it now after a few weeks.
The interesting thing was: I asked him if he wanted to have lessons, and he said, “No! This is just for fun!” (Fair enough.)
I then asked him, do you want to know the notes that go with the keys? “You see, the scale is laid out so neatly on the piano keyboard; and it repeats up and down the keyboard. You’ll be able play the music you already know.” “No, I don’t need that.” “Well, here, let me show you anyway.” and I drew a diagram of an octave+ of a keyboard and showed him the notes and the “dog house” and “Grandma’s house” which also houses his “Auntie”. The doghouse is smaller than Grandma’s house. (Seriously, this is how I remember the note locations! As noted, not competent on the keyboard!)
He took that little diagram, it went right on the music stand on the keyboard and has been there since. 🙂
It’s so fun to watch him explore music on his own initiative.
Your son’s musical interest is great. I’d (of course) encourage it generally; encouraging a career in music…well…there are undeniable cons.
I’ve just started giving my seven-year-old piano lessons. We’ll see how it goes. I am notorious for being the “good cop” with her. 🙂
Oh, man, that just nails it. I’m writin’ this shit down …
And good architecture is art, though primarily functional. It’s a slippery term.
This too! Bam!
“The genius is in the execution. It’s a pretty recent phenomenon, this notion that concept is a sufficient condition for pronouncing something to be good art.”
Well said.
It has not disappeared, but you do have to go looking.
I’ve taken my 5-year-old to two separate galleries in the past 6 months. He liked them both, and with only a very few exceptions, the artwork was complex, skillful, and not at all the minimalist “statement” style artwork the glasses prank emulates.
I think it’s worth remembering that articles like this are highly selective – like the late night show college surveys, they take a lot of data, then show you the most ridiculous extremes of the data collected. I strongly recommend that anyone who feels disenchanted with art because of articles like this visit a gallery. It will cure your disenchantment. You may not like all or even most of the art you see, but I think you will find that the percent of art that produces your “WTF, that’s so simple I could’ve done that” response is much much smaller than mainstream media coverage typically covneys.
Oh, I take my kids to our local gallery. They’re 5 & 7, the older one is a real art enthusiast. We always check out the current exhibitions, but then find ourselves spending almost all our time browsing the permanent collection.
I’m certainly not being dismissive of the more avant garde stuff. For the most part it does take great skill and effort, but is too often completely incomprehensible.
To me, art is about communication. If the people seeing (or hearing) your art don’t get it, to me that is lacking in success.
I can appreciate art on many levels. I do not need representational art (though in visual arts I am mainly a photographer).
But most of the celebrated Modern Art does nothing for me. (E.g. Jackson Pollock — de nada, sorry. I can only see it as a historical milestone.)
We (here in Minneapolis) have a couple of world-class museums (and many galleries, etc.).
We go, regularly. At least once a year to the Minneapolis Institute of Art (must see, if you are in Mpls./St. Paul — skip the Mall of America, go to MIA). Less frequently to the Walker, which specializes in modern art (or should that be Modern Art?)
My 12-year old son has been surrounded by art his whole life and is an amazingly good artist. He often brings a unique perspective to his pictures, very surprising. (For instance having subjects that are only partially shown in the frame — what young kid thinks of that?)
I might argue the glasses are art. The artist even intended it to be perceived as art, and it’s a great commentary on the state of what is considered art.
I endorse this comment. The kid maybe didn’t think he was making art, but he put a physical object somewhere on purpose with an intention of creating a specific kind of reaction and, once his motivations had been revealed, to get his audience to think about a specific topic.
We need a title for it.
“In the eye of the beholder”?
“What do you see”?
“Mirage”?
:p
Also, whoa, Mike Paps! Atheistically Speaker Patreon Cool Kids Club!
“Eye glasses on the floor”
Picasso walks into a museum. Hands the curator a piece of driftwood. “Call it ‘Driftwood'”. The rest is (art) history.
“Eye glasses on the floor”
Yeah I like that title better than mine, it leaves the interpretation entirely up to the viewer.
Well, this Johnny-come-lately can expect a lawsuit from a friend of mine who, visiting the Walker Art Museum in Minneapolis well over a decade ago, removed her flip-flop, placed it near the wall, and proceeded to watch the other patrons wax eloquently artsy-fartsy about what the artiste any to convey.
*artist meant*
It’s almost as popular a sport as politician-taunting.
Way back in the 70s the Sydney gallery included a row of bricks on the floor as an “installation”. A friend of my late mum’s visiting the gallery said “whats this?” and shoved it out of the line with her foot (mum would never do such a thing but I’d hardly call it much in the way of art).
Years ago, in Petaluma, California some wag would send postcards to various addresses announcing that:
“Art is a Mirror Fart”.
For some art the comment seemed appropriate.
it’s not the art; it’s the venue.
by definition a gallery or museum is where one goes to see art. the assumption upon entering is that anything without a clear function, like a door or a bannister or an exit sign etc, is something meant to be contemplated for its aesthetic value.
Your King Crimson album cover gravitar is art regardless of venue!
hands down one of the finest album covers ever produced!
ok, it took me awhile to disinter the following since it goes all the way back to my own digressions from my college film courses in a galaxy far far away; my own theoretic framework on the nature of art. unfortunately i never got around to expanding on these points. nor does it consider the monetary value of art.
======
art: the contemplation of an object, real or imagined, for its aesthetic value; the act of creating an object whose primary function is to be a subject for contemplation of its aesthetic value; the act of reserving an object for contemplation of its aesthetic value.
(note that the first part of this definition implies that art may occur without the physical act of creating a real object — art is therefore principally a purely mental act. note also that the third part of this definition implies that an object not originally created as an art object may yet be subsequently treated as such.)
art object: an object created or reserved for the contemplation of its aesthetic value.
artist: any being who contemplates any object, real or imagined, for its aesthetic value, but chiefly one who, by appointment or self-designation, creates real art objects.
(note that the first part of this definition implies that any rational — in its broadest sense — creature can be considered an artist, especially if art itself is defined as a purely mental act.)
aesthetics: the study of the emotional context, subtext or impact of an object, real or imagined, on a rational creature. ultimately, aesthetics attempts to answer the question “how does this make you feel?” aesthetics may be seen as the intersection of design and psychology.
masterpiece: an art object whose aesthetic merit is derived chiefly from the effective exploitation of the unique characteristics and the methods of manipulation of the media from which it is created. a masterpiece demonstrates the understanding and control an artist has of the subject media. a masterpiece is therefore not readily transferable or translatable to other media, especially those media whose unique characteristics and/or methods of manipulation radically differ from that of the original.
(the last part of this definition says, in other words, that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for example, to take a masterpiece of oil painting, like the davinci’s mona lisa, and make a poem of it (or a sculpture or a movie), with the expectations that the poem too, by virtue of its origins, will be a masterpiece. if the poem is to be judged a masterpiece, it will one of a completely different sort, judged according to the grammar of poetry, and relying on its own poetic merits.
frame: a holder or container for an art object, whose presence signals to the observer that its contents are to be treated as an art object or objects. it too may serve as an art object, either as an integral part of its contents or within its own right.
art gallery: an extension of the frame; a physical space reserved chiefly for the collection and display of art objects. its environs signals to the visitor that its contents are to be treated as art objects. it too may serve as an art object, either as an integral part of its contents or within its own right.
beret: a headpiece for an artist, whose presence signals to the observer that its host is to be treated as an artist. it may also serve as an art object, either as an integral part of its host or within its own right.
All my life I have wondered what is Art, how it is and what it is not. So I was greatly relieved to find and read John Carey’s ‘What Good Are The Arts?’ Give it a look, it’s so refreshing.
From elsewhere I found this,’art is anything that is created by one person and gives another pleasure.’ Broad but understandable.
Are pies then considered art?
Of course. And breakfast.
Well, they do talk about the “culinary arts”.
A sufficiently broad definition to cover everything and hence covers nothing.
As Jerry pointed out.
cr
Yes.
http://cdn.bleedingcool.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CowPie_zps56500929.jpg
my goodness Aidan – that’s not Desperate Dan is it?
One of Dundee’s J’s.
Haven’t seen or thought of Dan for 60+ years when I was a kid in post-war London. The cow-pie (large size) rang an instant bell….thanks
I was a Beano Kid, not Dandy, but “cow pie” has always raised a laugh. I’ve actually got a half-eaten Fray Bentos “Snake and Kiddly” sitting on the cooker – if you want another trip back in time.
“Dennis the Menace (and Gnasher)” was my hero and role model. And I don’t mean the American watered-down version who is more like Softy Walter.
I’m glad someone mentioned Carey’s book since that was the first thing that came to my mind. It’s a very readable and enjoyable consideration of what art is or might be, and how socially useful it can be.
As I recall, Steve Bell, the Guardian cartoonist, once did a strip about a ‘challenging’ exhibition by an artist, which consisted of huge canvases covered in statements like “You’re all just a bunch of middle class tossers”, and there in the midst of them was his Monsieur l’Artiste character, stroking his chin and thinking, “Hmmm … challenging … challenging …”
Also Tom Wolfe’s “The Painted Word.”
The June 2016 issue of Smithsonian magazine has an article about Christo entitled “Art of the Impossible”. He is most famous for the structures and drapes he creates from fabric in real world spaces outside museums. The one he currently is working on is at Lake Iseo in Italy. “”Floating Piers” will be three kilometers long. And will use 220,000 polyethylene cubes. Fifty centimeters by 50 centimeters. Two hundred twenty thousand screws. Interlocking.” “Ninety thousand square meters of fabric.””Not just on the Piers, but in the streets also.”
Christo is almost 80 and is still busily “doing his thing” and it is still being called “art”.
“Christo is almost 80 and is still busily “doing his thing” and it is still being called “art”.”
And rightfully so in my opinion, I love a lot of his stuff.
Me too, I have some of the books he and his wife produce documenting the projects, they are artworks in themselves
Isn’t the correct pronoun for Christo “they”?
Is that art or a construction project?
If Art, I nominate the Forth Railway Bridge as art.
Beat that, Christo!
cr
Isn’t architecture often treated as an art itself?
I believe it is, though the Forth Bridge was pure engineering, not architecture. When it was built it was criticised as being ‘too stark’ and suggestions made that it should have some architectural touches added, though frankly to me that sounds like an exercise in futility. Like putting lace curtains on the Parthenon.
(Not that I don’t think appearance is important, there are some breathtakingly elegant bridges and also some extremely ugly ones.)
cr
In my view (with all due respects to architects) this is a mistake. Architecture seems to me to be “just” a recognition that structural and building engineering ought to have an aesthetic component, at least sometimes. (This is similar to how aesthetic values play a role in HCI – which is how I came up with the idea.)
This generalizes, I think: any macro-technology involves aesthetic values, just like any technology involves ethical values.
I think one has to say “macro-” because some technologies involve things on too small a scale to have enough “degrees of freedom” to implement any aesethetic value. (Think transistor engineering, maybe.)
(Everyone who first read that as, “how aesthetic values play a role in Hydrogen Chloride,” raise your mouse.)
Is not the Sydney Opera House considered art? Who sez engineers can’t be artists? 😀
I read it as hydrogen chloride too.
As an engineer, thanks for the implied compliment, but…
(absolutely not wishing to diss your example but…) I wouldn’t quote the Sydney Opera House, it’s just not very good, financially, structurally or acoustically.
http://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/Article/266674,sydney-opera-house-biggest-loser-in-survey.aspx
(The Perth Concert Hall, which looks like a concrete box, took a fifth the time to build and cost a twentieth as much, heads the list, SOH came last).
You can credit the architect (not engineers) with the shape, unfortunately he came up with a concept which couldn’t be built, he envisaged a light shell structure which nobody could make stable. Those light-looking ‘shells’ are actually edge-to-edge concrete box girders, as solid and heavy as a bomb shelter. As a place for performing operas it makes a great piece of statuary.
There are many elegant structures which have been built by engineers, for example the Rhine cable-stayed bridges or the high German autobahn viaducts, generally where they respected the structural principles (there are also of course some ugly ones). And I’m not dissing all architects, e.g. the Millau Viaduct is a breathtaking structure that was designed by architects and engineers in collaboration. I’d certainly call it art.
I’m sorry to contradict you Diane, I actually get a feeling of moral indignation about the public celebrity accorded a building which I regard as a structural fake.
cr
No problem. It was just the first well-known arty building that sprang to mind. I’ve never really liked it myself. 😉
@Diane
I’m a bit relieved about that. I really didn’t want to rain on your parade 😉
cr
Engineers (like anyone else) can be artists, but qua engineers, presumably they implement their employers aesthetic values (which can be “whim”) just like they implement the ethical values as well (which can also be more or less tacit).
Well, their employers’ aesthetic values can vary all the way from precisely demanding a certain ‘look’, to not really having any opinion at all. In many cases the employer just wants a functioning bridge, for example, and will leave it to the engineer or architect to propose a solution. Examples of structures which I think can be entirely ascribed to engineers are the bridges aforementioned (Forth Railway Bridge, Royal Albert Bridge, Menai Straits Bridge and many others). The few humble structures I’ve designed (sewage pumping stations, mostly) have varied from being architect-designed (and the company offered very little opinion on the architect’s design other than a few functional requirements), to just letting me get on with it and do what I thought looked appropriate. Which, since nobody wants to be seen to live next to a sewage pumping station, was generally as unobtrusive and backyard-shed-like as possible.
cr
Much of what we now regard as illustrious music was originally commissioned. Also graphic art, public sculpture, etc.
@Diane
I’m not denying that. And in many cases patrons have exerted a considerable influence on the aesthetics of the work. (Many of the problems with the Sydney Opera House were blamed, rightly or wrongly, on the ‘patron’ (in this case the state government so it was political too) interfering in the design).
I think in more cases than not, though, the patron has accepted that the engineer, architect, artist or composer was the ‘expert’ and allowed them to exercise their skill and judgement.
cr
Or the Royal Albert Bridge over the Tamar.
Or the Menai Straights Suspension Bridge.
Yeah, no kidding.
I can explain this. It is very simple. Pretentiousness plus a desire to be counted as one of the ones who gets it.
The battle between the “Concept is Everything” school of thought and, well, all other school’s of thought, is still raging strong in the art world. The result is there are myriads of artists, the large majority of which have never and will never produce anything of above average quality, who try desperately to come up with the most cleverly outrageous concepts they can imagine, though often lacking the skills to do a credible job with a color by numbers kit and of the firm belief that that doesn’t matter.
And the other half of it is that there are myriads of art fans and art collectors who very much want to be part of the cool crowd that gets the cleverly outrageous concepts. This is where the lack of specificity and grandiose fogs of prose that define most discussions of art among these art fans and art collectors comes from. They don’t want to say anything too clear or specific for fear of letting on that they don’t get it.
That sounds pretty mean. Actually I love art and have had many great times doing the art scene. And really, the very real negative issues I mentioned are a cost of doing business that is worth it. Much more people doing art means much more crappy art is produced than ever before, but also much more very good art is produced than ever before.
Same with music. Talent everywhere mixed with talentlessness everywhere.
Definitely. I’m sure it is the same in all media. Heck, this is just a particular case of the ancient observation that 90% of everything is shit.
Indeed.
Like, “Why is the emperor naked?”
Ha! Nice.
Bingo!
I don’t know what your misgivings about Scott’s arguments in his book are, but I can really recommend Noel Carroll’s “On Criticism” as a rigorous and consistent account of art and artistic criticism in the analytic tradition.
True story: the downtown Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) displayed an installation consisting of a cat litter box (unused, thankfully) and some cat toys. When I first saw this sometime in the 1990’s, I checked the title for some clarification, and it said “Untitled. Donation by the artist.” A coworker saw the same “installation” and couldn’t stop laughing. His father had donated money to that museum, and he called up dad and said “What were you thinking?” His dad admitted to doing a lot of cocaine at the time.
Google seems to identify an installation like this as one by the late Mike Kelley, but I can assure you that the installation I saw was not as attractive as the one on this link – perhaps it was a parody of this? http://www.glasstire.com/socal/2012/03/22/a-tribute-to-mike-kelley-at-moca/
This is said to all go back to Duchamp and the famous urinal (which I believe was a joke about curators)
My contribution to that theme
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bric_uk/203727367
forgot the title
‘fountain – Homage to R. Mutt’
Art historians may notice a similarity to the blue paintings of Yves Klein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Klein_Blue but my blue is completely different
Yes but everyone RAVES about Klein’s blue.
I would say it was all a bit of an art installation spectacle
A fool and his $5,000,000…
LOL!
I have a story on Andy Warhol’s soup can from my mother, now deceased. She was in school at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, one year ahead of Andy Warhol. She always told me that the painting of the soup can was a class assignment in their studies as industrial designers. They had to redesign the
Campbell’s soup label. I never asked much about it, but after she died in 2008, cleaning out the closet was her rendition of the Campbell’s soup can label. Not quite as good as his, but a redo none the less. My guess is it was done in 1944 for the assignment. I think she was born 1924 or 25-
Great story!
I never “got” Warhol. I hope historically he’s a blip.
🐾🐾
When my car keys are in my pocket they’re worth about $150. When they’re lost, they’re worth a million!
I love it! It’s a metaphor for technical advances for our civilization too. If you did not know what a transistor/medicine/vaccine/laser/app is, it’s nearly priceless to discover what one is, but once you know how to make more the price drops precipitously.
Like smartphones. Now down to under $100 and falling…
(to the point where the data charges are way more significant than the cost of the phone)
cr
Like the grammar of language I am totally lacking in capabilities to understand the art in imagery/events.
It is a boon, I am a fool seldom separated from my money.
I follow the Frank Zappa definition of art: as soon as you put some kind of a frame around something and call it art, it’s art. (Wagering on the supposed monetary value of such a thing is simply a form of betting that has nothing to do with art.)
What the kid did with the glasses is a form of art, just he put the frame in a different place to where the viewers were expecting it.
Around Canberra, there are “modern” art installations everywhere. Most are pretty hideous. Near where I work, I walked past what I thought was another one of those installations. It turned out to be the logo for a café.
The most entertaining book on the subject is Tom Wolfe’s ‘The Painted Word’.
There’s probably not a comprehensive definition of Visual Art, but its essential quality is when meaning is attached to an object. Traditionally the object would be crafted to convey the meaning, but in the last century meaning was extended to found objects that were unaltered except for place of display.
What Wolfe amusingly recounts is how modern art became a series of subtractions: doing away with narrative illustration, then illusion of depth, then brush strokes, then paint and canvas, until all that was left was a description of what the artist would have created had they actually made something. There was actually an art show of the latter, consisting only of such descriptions. Which ironically brought art back to a narrative form.
I love that book. About a certain style of abstract public sculpture Wolfe quotes James Wines, who said, “I don’t care if they want to put up these boring glass boxes, but why do they always deposit that little turd in the plaza when they leave?”
This quote is going in my file of “Interesting Quotes.”
+1
My kids and my nieces art exceeds paintings I have seen in galleries for >$10k. Of course, there is art worth a lot more that is genuinely impressive and I wish I had the disposable income for it. That being said art is part of one’s life and, like traveling, we bring to it what it brings us. The more inside us, the better (or worse) the art can be.
Perhaps this is unsatisfying, but I think the most useful definition of art comes from two philosophers, Arthur Danto and George Dickie. Art is what people who have the authority to say what art is say is art.
Who authorizes the authorizers?
Art.
http://a1.files.biography.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,h_1200,q_80,w_1200/MTE1ODA0OTcxOTI2OTgwMTA5.jpg
I can’t say why exactly, but this post made me laugh out loud.
It’s the hair.
😀
In the same way that Art suspends the tea cup in mid-air.
Wife and I once had an argument at the Tate Modern as to whether we were seeing a room being repainted or it was an installation. I went for the installation option.
I enjoyed the Tate Modern much more than most MA museums I’ve visited.
Stretching the post a bit. When it comes to value in monetary terms, art becomes status loaded and all that means, e.g:
I own a Van Gogh! nice, prestige galore and a wise investor you are too. The security is hell though.
Noticed I didn’t even ask which one.
With Blue Fool I feel pretty well….. nothing I don’t feel the need to pursue it further but as someone has payed X dollars for it, I now know it was a self forfeiting prophecy for the owner and I declare a sucker
As an investment? obviously to me, it is sucker dependant.
Again the security is hell.
So what’s my criteria for good art, if it stops me to (1)look in the first instance and then reflect (2)any of the following, it connects to hold me in a warm and colour infused suspension (flip! art speak?) is a powerful concept well constructed and technical (3) My appreciation aroused and possibly go green ‘I wish I could do that’ I think I can then say it fills my arty internal leanings.
Ancient rock drawings have this mixture of awe, simplicity and it’s link over many thousands of years I find that extraordinary and I have only seen photographs. But I don’t want to own it, the upkeep and security would be just, hell.
Anything that evokes emotion is art. A pair of glasses, alone and abandoned on the floor, can constitute art. For example, it could remind someone of a passed loved one who wore glasses like that.
As someone above said, this qualifies as art as it evokes emotions in the people who were pranked, and those who are ‘in on the joke’.
The issue I have with many examples of modern art, however, is that they take little effort. A stencil of the word “Fool” in blue paint may evoke emotions for a variety of reasons, but anyone can do it. Likewise, someone just leaving their glasses on the desk stand can evoke powerful memories of a loved one, same as those glasses left on a gallery floor.
In these cases, the art is 99% conjured in the watchers brain. If all the artist is doing is turning the key, then he doesn’t get to take credit for the whole car.
Still, art is subjective by definition. And I cannot decide what is art for anyone else. However, I do suspect a very large part of these art enthusiasts are the equivalent of theologians. Trying to use obscurantism to make themselves seem deep, when there is little to actually talk about.
I may not be able to define art for other people, but there are still people who are just plain BS-ing.
“However, I do suspect a very large part of these art enthusiasts are the equivalent of theologians. Trying to use obscurantism to make themselves seem deep, when there is little to actually talk about.”
QFT
“The issue I have with many examples of modern art, however, is that they take little effort. A stencil of the word “Fool” in blue paint may evoke emotions for a variety of reasons, but anyone can do it”.
I don’t think the ‘anyone can do it’ argument is important. Anyone of us could easily spray some blue paint over a stencil but the fact is that only Christopher Wool did so with that particular combination of letters and colour and presented it in the way that he did.
Neither, necessarily, is the effort that has gone into a piece of work important. A person can spend years producing something that turns out to be mediocre and uninteresting whilst another may produce a work of genius in a few moments. The result is what matters and whether it has something to say or elicits a significant response in the audience.
Of course, all that doesn’t necessarily mean that Blue Fool is great art…
“Anything that evokes emotion is art.”
That’s a bit broad. A gunman holding up a store is not art.
I agree. If a definition becomes too broad, the word loses meaning. I think intention is important to be considered art—there has to be intended meaning attached to the object. It has to be an intentional act of creation.
An interesting question however is whether the artist’s intention is relevant, if most people interpret the piece differently than what was intended. It is still art, but a bit by accident.
I guess I find this high in art in the stone soup mold. The artist provided a prop and then created performance art from the reactions of the crowd.
There’s something that strikes me as absurd about the prices put on art. It has almost nothing to do with the beauty of the piece and everything to do with authenticity, rarity, and reputation. For example, a previously undiscovered Vermeer would fetch at least $30,000,000. (An unremarkable Vermeer sold for that recently.) However, if it were discovered to be a forgery it would be worth almost nothing.
It’s actually a form of autograph collecting; you’re paying for the signature.
There’s something that strikes me as absurd about the prices put on autographs.
I wonder what genuine Van Meegerens are worth?
cr
Age is a significant factor by itself. Age tends to evoke mystery and awe, and therefore a sense of value, all by itself.
In the case of something like a Vermeer, I think it is worth preserving compared to a well done forgery. Vermeer was one among a small group of artists that discovered particular new things about the art of painting that are considered to be important to this day and likely forever, though Vermeer himself may eventually be forgotten. He was a discoverer, like Newton, though perhaps not quite the same magnitude. I think it is worth a good deal to save the works of such people.
Vermeer was a revolutionary painter with a scientific bent. He almost certainly used mechanical optical aids to frame his hyper-realistic scenes (see Hockney).
As the saying goes – Anything is worth whatever someone will pay for it.
The art (ott?) market is the modern iteration of the potlatch–people show how rich they are by paying exorbitant sums for crappy art, stroked by dealers who massage those big egos by telling the patrons how good their taste is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
Brilliant comparison!
And by critics who tell everyone how great and valuable it all is, thus also keeping themselves in a job.
About 20 years ago an art critic appeared on BBC radio, obviously a bit pissed, and gave an “in vino veritas” description of the modern art world that said almost exactly this.
I don’t recall him appearing again, he may now be in a shallow grave.
A piece of conceptual art is like a joke: if someone needs to explain it to you so you can appreciate it, it is a bad art/joke.
yes. Art is meant to communicate not alienate
Oh, I don’t know. Producing art intended to alienate people, at least certain groups of people, is a pretty common thing as far as I can tell.
I suppose even the alienating art has to engage people first – it has to get a hook in. My feeling is if its really obscure and needs lots of explanation or is simply very vague and could have lots of (fairly unclear meanings) – its not going to get a hook into anyone but groupies – namely the already converted who like it as a sign of belonging or being cool without being genuinely moved by it.
I’ll limit myself to the definition of art presumably referenced by the glasses – that of the forms of painting and sculpture handed down to us from a tradition beginning with the ancient Greeks. There are of course other definitions but I exclude much of what is called art which lies outside this tradition.
This grand tradition was very much concerned with something that could be called perfect form. The greatest art, the art which museums were originally designed to house, were the pieces best embodying this ideal – think the Venus de Milo, Michelangelo’s David, DaVinci’s Mona Lisa, Rembrandt, Cezanne, and even through to DeKooning’s “Painting” and such. http://goo.gl/ScDLOI It is a very rich tradition.
By the time the tradition got to DeKooning and Abstract Expressionism, it had shed all reference to recognizable objects. The painting had become the object (which it always had been for the most ambitious artists). These late paintings are every bit as good as the traditional motifs but were now largely unrecognizable as referencing any objective reality other than a very shallow pictorial space.
A first reaction to this development was conceived by Duchamp and the Dadaists when the great tradition was moving towards abstraction and becoming less relevant to the lay person. Warhol’s later complaint was that since museums (most notably MOMA) were beginning to resemble supermarkets he thought he should stock the shelves – hence the Campbell’s soup cans. Though his art had stepped out of the grand tradition much of his art is beautiful, pretty funny and since it sells in the millions – pretty ironic. Now artist’s try to be that hip because that is really all that is left to do.
Seeking innovation above all else could arguably be said to begin with the advent of photography when the economic underpinnings of painting were replaced by the more democratic photograph. There just may never be any truly new great paintings and sculpture, there aren’t any real issues to resolve anymore.
Nobody succeeded to define what art is to everyone’s satisfaction. I try to answer the question how I see it, by juxtaposition of different fragments. It’ll be eccentric. And I have a short Disney video below, too.
Fragment 01: the artist observes a part of the world and presents their findings to the audience in the form of an artwork. She had to pay attention to a moment in time in order to reproduce it and saw details that would escape the casual observer. The audience is taken by the craftsmanship – but not only that. Through the interpretation and reproduction, they see some aspect of the world they hadn’t seen before. Now that they see some scenery, say, they are able to see what the artist saw when she painted it. They see the dancing lights on the pond, the geometry cast by the rays shining through the leaves. The audience would not see this otherwise, and some may have trouble seeing it even standing before it! They say “it’s just a pond. I have seen a thousand ponds. My iphone camera can take more accurate pictures of ponds.”
Fragment 02: the crowd wonders what this is; a character with many arms that seem blurred. It’s distorted and some say ugly. But the artist interprets movement differently. Instead of seeing the arms rotating around their joints in a mechanical fashion, they see movement as fluid morphing of mass that crawl forward into the new position. Some wonder “what it means”; “what’s the point”!?
Fragment 03: Glasses are placed on the ground. To some people, they are just glasses. They’ve seen thousands of them. But by reproducing the glasses with oil paint, some people are able to see glasses differently. They see the rainbow colours breaking through the edge; the elegant curvature of the frame. They see something they hadn’t noticed before, because they don’t see the world like an artist, and do not pay attention to what is around them. They say “that’s just glasses, why is this even art? What’s the point.”
Fragment 04: A cave-woman leaves a smearing of her hand at the wall. Thousands of years later, someone stumbles through the cave and finds it. “Amazing art found from prehistoric times!” they write in the newspaper. We humans make an important distinction: our eyes wander through the landscape and we see “nothing”. Just ponds, glasses, trees, leaves, clouds. It means nothing. Unless something makes us stumble over our automatic, unconscious categorisation, a hiccup in the association-making and we see something “differently”, something that is not “natural” but “artificial”. We instantly think it has a meaning, even when it doesn’t. But someone reads the newspaper and thinks “it’s just smearing on the wall, why is this art?”
Fragment 05: Someone just places glasses on the floor. Or puts a urinal into the museum. The audiencecan study the curvature of the object, how the light breaks on its surface and for a short moment see something they would not see otherwise – because their minds would just declare it as “just glasses” and with nothing interesting in there.
Fragment 23: Think Tarot cards to make it easy. What are they? They are just cards with pictures on them. But people who “take them seriously” for a moment can unleash their mind onto these drawings, and their own deeper thoughts, fears, mood somehow reacts with the images and they find something both familiar, and yet new. It tells them something. We all have that when we view a film and are moved by something. The shaman treats the raising of the birds, or the tea leaves, or the intestines of the goats seriously. As symbols that stand for something meaningful, because he momentarily believes it. It is communication – it reacts with his psyche and he comes up with something. They are the first artists, the first philosopher, the first thinkers and first priests, when none of these specialized roles existed (how about cults and culture).
There is much more to this, but I believe art has to do with such cognitive processes, and to do with our association-engine that is constantly weaving perceptions together: One cat viewed before the blink of the eye, and the cat seen after the blink, one cat yesterday with another cat tomorrow; one “right there” situation with another “right there” situation; where one thing “stands in” for the other; reminds us of someting else; where a sign refers to referent; where a cloud means rain; smoke means fire; and where a hand smear means someone thousands of years was there. What’s the meaning of the glasses on the floor?
But you have to draw attention to this marvel, which gives access to these juxtapositions and representations. Ten thousand years ago, people needed to convince themselves that the scribble was drawn by a spirit to “take it seriously”. Then it was God. A few hundred years ago, people needed a golden frame to see the dancing lights on the pond, (or just perspective! a renaissance invention). For about a hundred years, the museum is the frame. And maybe in the future everyone is an artist who can instantly take the mundane object “seriously” right there in the living room and see the shape, the shading, the geometry, the craft, think about how all the hands that touched it, and marvel at the remote control of their TV and what it means that so many people have touched it.
In some sense, art is a “way of inquiry” and I mean this in a completely naturalist, rationalist (and definitely not postmodernist) sense. It comes from paying close attention (“taking it seriously, no matter how silly or unimportant”) and by allowing the mind to make unsual connections. This — to me — is art.
I have shared this video a few days ago with the words “What can thinkers learn from Disney artists? Watch this with an open mind. (16mins)”
Classic Disney Documentary (16mins) – 4 Artist Paint 1 Tree
In addition to the subject at hand, that vid was a real trip down memory lane. I’d forgotten the avuncular Disney voice and phrasings. I’d not noticed before how similar they were to Walter Cronkite’s, though I believe Walter and Walt were quite distant politically.
Very fascinating following the genesis of the paintings through to the end; the one I thought I’d like the best turned out to be maybe only 3rd best.
Thanks that was really interesting.
I feel there’s a difference between things or productions produced for aesthetic reasons and aesthetic enjoyment and an aesthetic enjoyment found in things existing or produced for a different reason.The former is to me art and the latter appreciation of art. Art is about the senses and their interaction with the emotions. Sometimes it involves ideas but it always includes sensory data – otherwise its just facts. I am inclined to believe that we can artistically appreciate anything with a sensory component.
I’d agree with your differentiation. I can get genuine aesthetic enjoyment out of contemplating the appearance of a well-designed car gearbox. In the way that all the beautifully-machined parts fit together (and they do look nice). And I think I can claim that intentional aesthetics as such played no part whatever in its design. So it isn’t art*, by any conceivable definition.
I would, however, claim that it gives me as much aesthetic pleasure as almost any artwork, and more than most.
cr
*Or at least, not artistic. One might say there is an ‘art’ in laying out components to fit together nicely in three dimensions, in selecting the ratios, in devising the best way to assemble it – and undoubtedly there is, in huge measure, I can point to some horrid examples where the designer has failed – but that’s really a quite different definition of ‘art’ that is nearer to ‘craft’.
Sorry for my English, but I think these are products of con-artists, not artists.
I also found an explanation of art in Stephen Law’s Phylosophy Gym. It’s quite interesting and I recommend it to Mr. PCC.
“…products of con-artists, not artists.”
I agree!
Dear Nietzsche, you poir, unwashed Philistines! A pair of glasses placed upon pedestal by a thinking artist is a multi-faceted comment on society, the role of art in society, and the role of the artist in both. The very act of placing the glasses on the pedestal is a dualism of Existential intentionality–“I see, therefore you are;” AND “you see me create you, therefore I’m an artist.” The brilliantly subtle commentary is a resounding rejection of the embarrassingly tired dichotomy of “form vs. function,” whereby the function of perfornativity is done solely through the glasses, free from any agentic bias or other problems; and yet this fact, that the glasses could have been placed by anyone, dismantles any sophomoric consideration of form because the triptych of “eyeglasses,” “elevation (pedastal),” and “vision/reflection” create the the true force of the installation: a truly Liberal Democratic invitation to everyday transformation. That is, the meta-functional triptych is actually a demonstation/invitation to the intersubjective communicative ethics of Jurgen Habermas, which de-centers agentic primacy without post-structuralist disintegration of the knowing subject.
The glasses on the ground, even as a mediocre practical joke, is uninspired and depressingly misguided. Had the “artist” dared to crack the lens or twist the frame at a sickening angle, at least some sophomoric intentionality could have been the fodder for a few minutes of minor discursive distraction before moving to a truly challenging piece like “All White, #692,” the 522nd series of such works over the years. I can’t wait to discern the shades of negative space deliberately and cleverly obscured there.
How could you “educated” people fail to see the point here? Do you scientists think you have a monopoly on human experience? Embarrassing, that is.
Do I detect echoes of the PostModernism Generator there?
(I did try, briefly, to detect some meaning in the first paragraph, but I was afraid my brain might undergo structural disintegration if I persisted)
cr
Now see, I feel exactly the opposite. The brilliance of the installation resides in its precise perpendicular positioning. These glasses were obviously “placed.” One is immediately seized with idolatry for and insatiable curiosity about the placer. One doubts that anyone else can quite grasp the profundity of this creation the way one him/her-self can. *glances surreptitiously at surrounding viewers, trying to ascertain if one is très avant garde or a total numbnuts*
Brilliant, says all there is to be said. Further comment is superfluous. I look forward to the publication of your analysis of Derrida and Foucault (and of course to your inevitable autobiography).
When the art is more about the technique and visual aspect, I consider it art, but if it’s more about a concept or a statement (and doesn’t necessarily has great craftmanship), I call it “visual speech”. So art in the broad sense may be placed in a continuum between these two denominations.
Hah! Now that’s some successful trolling right there.
Jerry writes: “Question: If those glasses were put on the floor by an artist, and given a title and a fancy explanation, they would constitute an “installation”… What, then, is the difference between this prank and the kind of “art” that doesn’t differ much from it…?”
Last year I wrote a short essay for a general audience on exactly this topic, for a small journal called Think. The short answer is that, if we accept that art involves communication, from artist to audience, then it’s the act of announcing the relevance of an object as art that makes it art. The longer answer is in the essay: https://thomscottphillips.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/scott-phillips-2015-art.pdf
I would disagree (and I did read your essay).
That sounds like a charter for art dealers. I think there is a certain minimal degree of skill, originality and competence required, even if part of the art is a concept or ‘message’.
Otherwise, I have a workshop full of highly artistically rusted nuts and bolts just waiting to be sold at inflated prices (because I have just announced that they are, in fact, artistically relevant objects).
cr
As musical accompaniment for the story, I’d suggest the song When I Go Out with Artists by the Crash Test Dummies. A sample of the lyrics:
If I were David Byrne
I’d go to galleries and not be too concerned
Well I would have a cup of coffee
And I’d find my surroundings quite amusing and
People would ask me which were my favorite paintings
Nearly everything we do in life requires some kind of thought. If it is done really well, with substantial degree of real skill, it is often understood as reflecting an “art”. Art, though is not simple contemplation of something, and I suspect such reflection especially refers to political thinking about something that a political group, left or right or whatever approve of. That’s not art. Its politics, or sociology or some such. Art is not simply something that the artist produces either (a wag once said that crap production could be art)
There are the arts understood as skills but generally what is understood as art in an aesthetic sense is a physical thing or film or written product which appeals directly to the senses and the emotions, created by someone with technical skill and emotional sensitivity and an ability to communicate this through their work. The art may or may not contain a “message”, but art is not a “message”. Art may stimulate the senses and emotions by unexpected shifts in patterns, by elaborate and or symmetrical patterns, by appealing to a sense of balance, touch, colour, sound etc in immediate or else complex ways that encourage us to investigate the work. All art may (or may not) tell a human story or reflect intense human emotions. Art helps to alter mood, usually engages the senses in a pleasurable way, and may also stimulate thought. But the emotional and sensory is always primary in art; otherwise it is a lecture or a debate.
Literature is a rather more intellectual form of art which more directly engages us with human stories, but it is also organised to create momentum and shifts, or to describe interesting scenes, and present interesting sounds in and shifts even in sentences and sentence structure. Art may or may not appeal to a sense of balance or order; equally it creates excitement by shifting expectations in sensory ways or (in the case of novels) structural and story shift ways.
Others say anything done by anyone with thought and skill is art; making a meal, drawing up a budget etc. But by that definition life is art and the term art becomes meaningless. Many also say art is a capitalist concept – in non capitalist and non technological societies such as indigenous ones the aesthetic is integrated into all aspects of life. In indigenous hunter gatherer and non specialised societies, its not necessary to make items specifically for the purpose of aesthetic enjoyment of individuals or groups – but they make some things are for socio cultural and religious reasons. Indeed much aesthetic art commissioned for a price, has historically had a religious purpose – as in Rome! Elaborate paintings sculptures buildingss etc. of ancient times were commissioned by the powerful from specialised artisans/artists but then in such “civilisations” you also find ordinary items of ordinary people that are decorated for pleasure or just attractive things (nice necklaces etc) that ordinary people had. Agreed one sense of art is doing things with skill – usually skill handed down to various people – but again that’s pretty broad. Normally there’s an element of appeal to the senses. Indigenous cultures may not have a word for Art but in producing things that appeal to the senses in an emotional way this is art. Actually what other cultures would identify as art in their culture is the part of their lives that produces things that appeal to the senses and the emotions in a creative way.
Art is about producing things in a skilful way that appeal to peoples senses and emotions for whatever reason.
I would certainly agree, and I like your definition.
I particularly note the caveat ‘skilful’. Much so-called art fails on those grounds, as does children’s ‘art’ (whether produced by children or by some adult attempting to ape the childish style). If it is not well done, then IMO it is not worth bothering to look at.
(I’m excluding from this point, parents contemplating their offspring’s efforts – they should encourage them – but that attention is for reasons other than artistic appreciation).
cr
Thanks. I suppose because the appreciation of art is so subjective its occasionally prone to stimulate BS not to mention status competitions and investment scandals!
Agreed. But I think, looking at a painting – or reading a novel or listening to music – one can at least say fairly definitely whether it is competently executed. If poorly done then, no matter how good the concept, it will fail to move the audience.
So technical competence is a necessary but not sufficient condition, IMO.
cr
Yes, childrens art is good for their development and emotional satisfaction although some young children have a crude talent for colour and shape and composition that makes their work intriguing … even if its pretty awful its usually cute and gives the parent emotional satisfaction (or am I stretching a bow here).
I agree about children’s art. But, IMO, it bears the same resemblance to ‘real’ art as children’s essays (“We went to the zoo. I saw a lion. I like lions”) does to literature. Or children’s efforts on xylophones do to music.
It should certainly be encouraged for the childrens’ sake. But there seems to be a ‘school’ of art that deliberately imitates that style, and one has to ask, fer FSM’s sake, why?
cr
Some naive style stuff has a certain charm if the adult doing it has talent and basic skill level but it is often just a tiresome affectation.
I would agree, with reservations – I think in cases where the ‘naive’ style works, it’s because the artist has brought something more subtle or sophisticated into the mix.
As an example where it didn’t, I can count an appalling ‘artwork’ in naive style, in tasteful shades of orange and red, that adorned one of our corporate offices – everyone who noticed it felt obliged to voice their disgust.
cr
PS when I say art involves producing things – the “things” don’t have to be material – but they have to be a skilful production – such as a theatre, dance or music performance. Art itself is not “capitalist” there can be complex and expensive or resource intensive art commissioned by wealthy individuals or the state, “high” art, “pop” art, art intended only for elite enjoyment, folk art, religious art, art of deep cultural significance across the society etc.
The sign of a good painting is that the eyes (or the bottoms) follow you around the room!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wejNjdPndLI
Pete and Dud – priceless!!
Its about time someone told these “art Critics” the Emperor is naked.
A nice example is this famous piece of art from Marcel Duchamp (1917) :
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573/text-summary .
Marcel Duchamp expressed it like this:
“Fountain tested beliefs about art and the role of taste in the art world. Interviewed in 1964, Duchamp said he had chosen a urinal in part because he thought it had the least chance of being liked (although many at the time did find it aesthetically pleasing). He continued: ‘I was drawing people’s attention to the fact that art is a mirage. A mirage, exactly like an oasis appears in the desert.”
All art is fiction and exists only in our imagination (in our minds). That’s why it’s possible that every thing can be seen as art.
That’s my explanation.
I might suggest that those who insist art is a mirage do so because they fear they aren’t capable of producing something undeniably worthwhile.
That may be, but I think he means art is some kind of mindgame.
Somehow I am reminded of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire and the curfuffle when the National Gallery of Canada bought the thing.
Can’t say that the Barnett Newman does anything for me. How is it any different from a flag ( except that a flag would have emotional significance for groups of people).
To my fellow free thinkers here at WEIT:
While I have taken significant pleasure in weaving intricately meaningless sentences concerning the tin foil hat wing of the pomo museum, I must communicate that I was taken aback, dare I say I felt compelled to take umbrage, which is dangerously close to an authentic feeling in this wing of the museum. And why might I have taken such a risk at sincerity? Why, a reader, identified only by “cr,” insinuated that at least some of my genuinely fake analysis was the product of a “Postmodernism generator” of phrases, similar to the Deepak Chopra woo generator. In other words, my genuinely fake reputation as a spinner of genuinely fake criticism was truly sullied by the foulest accusations that I used performativity-enhancing technologies (PETS) to generate what you all must agree was a syntactically exquisite, tour de force of meaninglessness, and claimed what would have been its utterly synthetic output as my own true fake criticism. I am consumed by a genuine inauthentic outrage, and yet equally not taken by the real prospect of further real discourse of fake analysis.
To wit: the intrepid fake aficionado will have immediately seen a classic postmodern conflict above. The genuine accusation of inauthentic fake criticism conflicts with a genuinely bogus outrage in the genuinely claim of fake authenticity in genuinely fake criticism. Can’t you all see the eternal struggle for agentic claim of the self: I spin, therefore I am; or perhaps performatively superior: I am, therefore I spin. But if I’m going to spin, I do need my glasses.
I do think you’ve won the thread!
…and tight-fitting shorts.
I do regret that you felt obliged to take umbrage (whether genuine or fake) at my comment. Please to note I only mentioned ‘echoes’ of the Postmodernism Generator. ‘Echoes’ could be taken either to indicate a suspicion that some of the text referred to was copied from the PMG; or to mean simply that the text was in a similar style to that of the PMG, in the same way as one might describe prose as ‘Chaucerian’ or ‘Churchillian’ without necessarily implying that the words had been copied verbatim. In other words ‘echoes’ was an appropriately ambiguous term to employ (given that we are discussing, with reference to ‘art’, a similarly ambiguous or ill-defined concept). I did in fact notice, in the frequent references to ‘glasses’, a specific detail that suggested that, in fact, the text had *not* been copied from the output of the PMG.
I am indeed impressed by your convoluted comments. I have myself on occasion endeavoured to produce syntactically correct sentences with no meaning whatever**, but I find it surprisingly difficult.
Oh, and by the way, my apologies for any aspersions on your literary abilities.
cr
**no prizes for guessing who I stole that from
To quote the “Master Thespian” sketch from some long ago season of “Saturday Night Live” as it applies to the aforementioned umbrage, “I was acting! Brilliant!” I do truly appreciate your tolerance and patience with my utterly useless ability to sling grad school slang that would make Alan Sokal cringe and chuckle at the same time.
That said, I’ll dare to be serious and chime in concerning real questions. I love Bach because his endless permutations of the mathematics of harmony appeal to both my analytical/intellectual interests; and I find the precision and unfolding of harmonic and melodic structures itself emotionally compelling. Granted I find Bach’s music incredibly moving for other reasons, but I suspect they are more subjective, ando I bring this up in part to address the question of “What is Art?” I think that craft becomes art when, after a sufficient level of technical skill has been demonstrated, that the craftsperson cedes the administration of technical control and allows for other elements–perhaps subconcious, often contradictory–to emerge as they emerge in theIr creation. Certainly there are plenty of techniques available to all of us to contribute to the manufacture of unexpected turns and surprising directions within a piece, and I have no problem with this. Perhaps I can state this better: art emerges when the craft that is built through conscious choices by the artist has completely fulfilled its purpose within the context of a given piece. At that point, conscious “technique” begins to suffocate, and the artist allows her/himself the breath of emergent ideas.
The best example I know of to demonstrate what I mean is jazz improvisation. With the exception of “Free Jazz” and other atonally structured compositions, most jazz music involves anot adherence to an often exceptionally rigorous set of rules, ongoing them a presentation of a more interesting form of a familiar melody or trope, followed by melodic inventions off of or variations of the theme. However, unlike the stunning inventions of J.S. Bach, the inventions of jazz musicians are done in real time. That is, say with a painting, the place where art emerges may be harder to locate or derive, but you know that the transition point from technique to art is somewhere on that canvas. With jazz music, the technique is simultaneously manifest with the emergence of melodic invention. That is, the better the improvisor, the easier it is to conclude that the technique was mastered well before the live performance began. One can then say that a truly powerful improvisation is interwoven with technique in the moment. And given that jazz improvisation requires both playing and close listening to the rest of the band at the same time, the possibilities for the unexpected, the lyrical, the contradictory, the confluent…all make improvisational–I call it “emergent” art so I don’t limit it only to jazz music–art the most exciting and satisfying for me.
I tend to agree. (I wonder if MusicalBeef has read all that, by the way?)
I did say somewhere that (IMO) art requires at least technical competence in its execution, which I think is implicit in your view above.
I’m not into jazz, but I think your point about improvisation probably applies to rock bands too. I’m just curious about long pieces like Pink Floyd’s ‘Comfortably Numb’ or ‘On the Turning Away’ or Dire Straits ‘Brothers in Arms’. There are dozens of bootleg videos of various live performances on Youtube (it must be a gift for musicologists!), and they’re all slightly different. So unless the groups were rehearsing every variation between gigs, there must have been a lot of improvisation going on. All constrained, as you say, by the need for the band to stay together on the beat and for the chords to harmonise.
cr
The question “What is art?” is inextricably tied to the question “What is kitsch?” The work of Thomas Kincade pops into my mind when I think of kitsch.
Kitsch can become “art”, though. Normal Rockwell is now (somewhat) highly regarded, and his work fetches high prices. A fine painter like Winslow Homer was primarily an illustrator, not unlike Rockwell in his profession, if not in his themes. Even the great John Singer Sargent was underestimated as merely a portrait painter of the rich. That’s how he made his living.
The finest art, in my view, comes from inspired technical craftsmanship.
I can’t imagine that Kincade will ever be considered anything but kitch, no matter what prices he can command.
I saw a special on Vermeer a few years ago, on Nova or something, and they discussed the technology involving mirrors which he most likely used. He also seems to have furnished the rooms he painted exactly as they are in the paintings. I still think it counts as good art, though possibly in between painting and photography.
Vermeer was a photorealist before the invention of photography.
+1
Should be “Norman” Rockwell, not “Normal”. Damn you, spellcheck.
When I was an art major in college, one of the things that soured me on the “art world” was reading magazines like, “Art News”- an inbred group of so-called “art critics” would pontificate endlessly on the esoteric “meanings” of art (none of them were actually artists themselves; the REAL artists were busy, making art). Their mental gyrations in order to basically get paid for saying nothing remind me of Xtian apologists. The worst part of it was that they would get PAID for writing this crap!
I would encourage the same principle for philosophy of art (and art criticism) I do for philosophy of science and technology – know the science, technology or art you are analyzing very well. Though, I’ve found that even roughly sophomore level courses have lots of philosophical “meat” if one look, at least in pure science and various fields of computing.
This does not suggest that one need formal courses to be or a critic; a well trained apprentice would work too!
(This is coming to a head as I read a copy of _Philosophy in a New Key_ I got used at a garage sale the other day. I’m no musician!)
Art is determined by the intention of the artist. If you write a scientific paper & intend it to be art, congratulations, you’re an artist. -Not a very good artist, but an artist. It’s about intention, not some contrived definition about the effect of color or design.
Then there is no art in some traditional societies, since the reason for the carving on the knife might be “magic”, not to look good.
Kindly indulge my posting of yet another brilliant Pete and Dud (and Peter)video, this one on the fine art of nomming…
https://youtu.be/bQsoCjJfPcU
This in this morning’s NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/arts/design/one-of-the-worlds-greatest-art-collections-hides-behind-this-fence.html?emc=edit_ee_20160529&nl=todaysheadlines-europe&nlid=31300551
The rich are different from you and me.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2009/2/26/1235664295676/Still-from-Battleship-Pot-001.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=1fa9038cdc6878ce67129d417433571e