art definition

[Pompey Bum]

Then an eccentric looking man said,
Speak to us of Art.
And he said:
It might as easily be said that man could live without Art as that man could live without water.
Look upon the innocent scribblings of little children.
Doubt not that each of us emerged from the womb an artist.
Art is freedom.
That which is called Art, yet is made subservient to commerce is not Art.
That which is called Art, yet is made subservient to a Nation or State is not Art.
That which is called Art, yet is hanging in the Museum of Modern Art is not Art. That crap my six year old son could do, the Master explained.

--- from The Profit by Kehlog Albran

[stlukesguild]

Typical, very snobbish and narrow definition of "modern art", and those artists who don't paint pretty pictures.

I agree that Robert Florczak's concept of Art is rather narrow. Even the works of the "Old Masters" employed elements beyond the traditional concepts of "beauty":









When you go to an art gallery or stuffy museum are you really moved by portraits of the noble class, wealthy merchants, pastoral landscapes, plump white women with one breast showing... cavorting with a satyr in a forest clearing, etc? On a technical level they are indeed masterpieces, on an emotional level it's like being forced to watch an episode of Downtown Abbey.

Obviously, one can me just as close-minded and ignorant with regard to the art of the distant past as to the art of here and now. Art is more about the "How" than the "What". There are masterpieces that I most certainly am moved by among paintings of wealthy aristocrats or merchants, pastoral landscapes, nudes and near nudes, etc... Of course one might point out that the notion that all Art must speak to us an an "emotional" level is a rather sophomoric approach to Art Appreciation. Not all Art aims for an emotional impact... and ultimately, the interpretation of Art... emotional or otherwise... owes much to the viewer and his or her prior knowledge and/or experience... in Art and elsewhere.

Yes/No- Although I liked the video, the demand for "objective standards" in art may not be aiming high enough. Art standards cannot be "objectified".

The problem with art "standards" is that there is often an assumption that a given body of art from a given period of art history represents the "standard"... the "ideal" toward which all art strives... or SHOULD strive... and the further a work of art falls from this standard the less merit it has as art. The reality is that different artists and different eras/cultures often have very different goals and standards. We can take two very different artists such as Rembrandt and Matisse:





If we assume that Rembrandt, in this instance, represents THE standard, then Matisse will seem a failure. His painting lacks the traditional drawing skill of Rembrandt, the illusion of form and space suggested through modeling with light and atmospheric effects, to say nothing of the success is suggesting a unique individual and conveying emotion. On the other hand, one might just as well argue that Matisse represented THE standard. Then we might argue that Rembrandt fails to achieve Matisse' mastery of color and his ability to capture or suggest a scene or an individual with the most reductive, simplified means.

I think what's at the heart of Mr. Florczak's disdain for modern art, is that fine art has been removed from the realm of those with extraordinary talent, and can now be produced and appreciated by everyday people.

Actually, the opposite is far closer to the truth. Many Modern/Post-Modern/Contemporary works of art lack the extraordinary technical elements of the art of many of the "old masters"... but it often depends upon a greater degree of prior knowledge of the artist's intentions and the developments of recent art. As a result, the "everyday" viewer lacking this prior knowledge often finds Modern/Contemporary art to be a fraud... something akin to the "Emperor's New Clothes"... while they have little problem appreciating a lot of the art of the older masters.

I just think the standards put forth in that video are way too rigid. Not just with the visual arts, but even if you apply such criticism to modern literature... no matter the artistic discipline, it needs to be dynamic and respond to the world as it is. The world changes, art changes with it.

Certainly.

I get the feeling that contemporary art is a bit lost.

The period we define as "Modernism"... dating roughly from Manet... if not Courbet (1850s/60s) through the end of WWII saw the greatest paradigm shift in the history of Western Art since the Renaissance, and IMO (and in the opinions of many others) produced the greatest innovations and the greatest body of artistic achievements also since the Renaissance. The Renaissance was immediately followed by a period of some 100 years known as Mannerism. The Mannerists struggled to come to terms with the achievements and the innovations of the Renaissance. While they rarely rose to the highest level of Renaissance art, there were more than a few Mannerist artists of real merit (Bronzino, Pontormo, Rosso Fiorentino, Cellini, Giambologna, Cranach, etc...) I have long felt that artists of this "Post-Modern" period are confronted with a similar situation. Confronted with the grandiose smorgasbord of artistic possibilities, it is quite easy to feel "lost"... especially when confronted with the gross nature of the contemporary art market and the commodification of art.

[Clopin]

A tin was sold for €124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23, 2007; in October 2008, tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of £50-70,000. It sold for £97,250.

Wow!

Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition, which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects without controlling content.

Good thing the arts are funded by the government! Otherwise we'd be a society of drones with no appreciation for beauty! It's good that the government steals money from people who have jobs, takes a cut, and then redistributes some of it to important artistic movements like this!

It consisted of her bed with bedroom objects in an abject state, and gained much media attention, particularly over the fact that the bedsheets were stained with bodily secretions and the floor had items from the artist's room (such as condoms, a pair of knickers with menstrual period stains, and functional, everyday objects, including a pair of slippers).

Wow! What a strong, powerful woman this is! Used condoms and menstrual blood? Wow I'm speechless... so brave... I'm stunned.



This **** is just a convoluted money laundering scam.

[YesNo]

Yes/No- Although I liked the video, the demand for "objective standards" in art may not be aiming high enough. Art standards cannot be "objectified".

The problem with art "standards" is that there is often an assumption that a given body of art from a given period of art history represents the "standard"... the "ideal" toward which all art strives... or SHOULD strive... and the further a work of art falls from this standard the less merit it has as art. The reality is that different artists and different eras/cultures often have very different goals and standards. We can take two very different artists such as Rembrandt and Matisse:

If we assume that Rembrandt, in this instance, represents THE standard, then Matisse will seem a failure. His painting lacks the traditional drawing skill of Rembrandt, the illusion of form and space suggested through modeling with light and atmospheric effects, to say nothing of the success is suggesting a unique individual and conveying emotion. On the other hand, one might just as well argue that Matisse represented THE standard. Then we might argue that Rembrandt fails to achieve Matisse' mastery of color and his ability to capture or suggest a scene or an individual with the most reductive, simplified means.

I think we agree more than disagree. I am not in favor of objective standards, let alone "THE standard". I don't think such standards can exist. What that means is that art is a subjective experience. People will differ as to what they like and want to create. Contrast this with a computer which has no subjectivity. Computers do not experience or appreciate art. They don't "like" anything because they have no subjectivity. However, computers are objects that can manipulate standards. Having "THE standard" means we have a complete and consistent axiomatic system for art. Such systems don't even exist for mathematics.

That doesn't mean everything is relative, but it does mean that we can't stand on more than our subjectivity and our ability to convince each other of our perspectives.

What I don't like about the white canvas or the rock in the video is that I perceive these to be assaults on subjectivity. They are saying that subjectivity doesn't matter. Any object placed in front of us should be given equal weight by us regardless of our subjective liking or disliking of it. That is how a computer would approach the white canvas or the rock. That is not how human beings approach those objects.

[Iain Sparrow]

Good thing the arts are funded by the government! Otherwise we'd be a society of drones with no appreciation for beauty! It's good that the government steals money from people who have jobs, takes a cut, and then redistributes some of it to important artistic movements like this!

The $146 million budget of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) represents just 0.012% (about one one-hundredth of one percent) of federal discretionary spending. One Navy F-35C Fighter Jet costs a mind-boggling $337 million.

You god damn Conservatives have such a disturbing, and distorted view of things.

[Clopin]

One red cent is far too much to spend on that slop. And don't blame me for your military industrial complex either. As if I support runaway military spending and perpetual warfare. I believe I outlined how much I hate the U.S foreign policy - and all the marionette, neocon, ****s who pretend to run your government - in the France thread which you also posted in.

[stlukesguild]

Clopin- A tin was sold for €124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23, 2007; in October 2008, tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of £50-70,000. It sold for £97,250.
Wow!

As the horrors of the First World War became obvious a group of artists known as Dada positioned themselves as anti-War, anti-Art, anti-Bourgeois, and anti-Capitalism. They sought to create an art that mocked the middle-class and wealthy collector class that were largely responsible for the War. Their art rejected usual notions of what Art is with the aim of making Art that could communicate... yet would not be desired by collectors, thus freeing art from any allegiance to the marketplace. Unfortunately, they underestimated the market. Dada artists such as Marcel Duchamp and Kurt Schwitters remain highly sought-after.

Following the Second World War there was a revival of Dada concepts. Jasper Johns, Robert Rauschenberg, Manzoni, etc... were frequently termed "Neo-Dada". Manzoni's Merda d'artista was a comment upon the avaricious nature of the art market. Picasso had purportedly suggested that he could wipe his rear on a piece of paper and sign it and there would be collectors willing to pay a small fortune for it. Manzoni took this idea of the "cult of personality" to a literal extreme. He supposedly had his own poop canned and labeled and then sold these at the same price as the going rate per ounce for gold.

The work is a stupid joke. Nothing that should have been taken seriously. But just like Duchamp's Fountain (the urinal) the market... the collectors fail to get the joke... and are obsessed with owning the art object.



Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition, which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects without controlling content.
Good thing the arts are funded by the government! Otherwise we'd be a society of drones with no appreciation for beauty! It's good that the government steals money from people who have jobs, takes a cut, and then redistributes some of it to important artistic movements like this!

Piss Christ is quite an attractive image... but the title makes clear an intention mocking religion... or rather mocking the commercialization of religion. Personally, I don't think much one way of the other of the work. I agree that the government should not be involved in direct funding of art/artists (and in the US they haven't been so involved since the late 80s). On the other hand, I don't think the government should be controlling or censoring any art exhibited at an arts institution that they support. Museums, theaters, ballets, the opera, symphony, etc... all receive government support. I certainly don't want some Neo-Con idiot determining what art should be hanging in the museums or what operas I may attend. Of course the argument is always made that such public support should not exist as it only benefits a wealthy or educated "elite"? But is this true? How big is the government support for the Arts as opposed to support for Sports through tax abatement, parking percentages, and stadiums built at taxpayer expenses? Ultimately, no one is going to wholly agree with how public money is spent. Personally, I would have no problem with seeing the US military budget slashed by 50% or more.



It consisted of her bed with bedroom objects in an abject state, and gained much media attention, particularly over the fact that the bedsheets were stained with bodily secretions and the floor had items from the artist's room (such as condoms, a pair of knickers with menstrual period stains, and functional, everyday objects, including a pair of slippers).
Wow! What a strong, powerful woman this is! Used condoms and menstrual blood? Wow I'm speechless... so brave... I'm stunned.

My Bed, by Tracey Emin may be a piece of crap... but it's fame and worth are solely owed to a wealthy private collector (Charles Saatchi). There's a scene in the comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes which addresses the issue of the art market and why collectors buy certain works of art that most of us find ridiculous. In the strip, Calvin explains his artistic concept:

"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world. As my artist’s statement explains, my work is utterly incomprehensible and is therefore full of deep significance."

There certainly is "good" and "bad" art. The vast majority of all art is mediocre at best... and as a result of the vast possibilities and lack of any single dominant style there are no clear standards in contemporary art. Add to this the fact that many now enjoy the luxuries of leisure time and an expendable income and we now see far more people making art... even declaring themselves to be artists. As a result we now have far more real "crap" than at any other period in history. But there is still just as great a percentage of artists of real mastery and achievement found across the broad spectrum of art from "High Art" or "Fine Art" to "Outsider Art", Folk Art, Illustration, etc...

[Clopin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIa-NtGV-ZM

Taxpayers fund 'art' education.

I want off this ****ing ride.

There's a scene in the comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes which addresses the issue of the art market and why collectors buy certain works of art that most of us find ridiculous. In the strip, Calvin explains his artistic concept:

Watterson lampooned terrible examples of modern art many times, and very accurately.

Piss Christ is quite an attractive image

No. It's no more attractive, interesting or thought provoking than anything your typical high-schooler could come up with. Everything about it makes me embarrassed for the 'artist' and for everyone who would take it seriously as a work of art. It's on about the same artistic level as the 'dark emotional poetry' written by sixteen year olds the world over.

[Ecurb]

"Piss Christ" is beautiful, at least (if, perhaps, sacreligious).

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?...&hsimp=yhs-003

Good thing the arts are funded by the government! Otherwise we'd be a society of drones with no appreciation for beauty! It's good that the government steals money from people who have jobs, takes a cut, and then redistributes some of it to important artistic movements like this!

.

"Stealing" refers to taking things illegally, which is clearly not what the government does. We would be equally correct to say that capitalists "steal" the fruits of labor from their employees. Without property laws (created and enforced by the government), "stealing" (as well as the jobs people have) would be impossible. (We've had this argument before, too, Clopin.)

Also, people pay a lot of money for (say) autographs, first editions, and lots of silly stuff. Who cares?

In any big organization there is a lot of waste -- and funding experimental arts is clearly likely to produce what many see as waste. I'll bet (though) that if we look at the art (as a whole) funded by the Government and that funded by the people (mainstream movies, for example) you would find an equal percentage of the good, the bad and the ugly. (I have no idea if this is true; I'm betting blind.) Picking out a few examples of bad, government-funded art is simply not a good argument against public funding for art, although it may appeal emotionally to those with a predisposition to see government funding as theft.

[Clopin]

We would be equally correct to say that capitalists "steal" the fruits of labor from their employees.

No. Taking a job is a voluntary exchange of labour for some compensation negotiated between employer and employee. I'm free to quit my job but I'm never free to quit paying taxes.

Also, people pay a lot of money for (say) autographs, first editions, and lots of silly stuff. Who cares?

I don't care what people do with their own money. I care what the government does with money it takes from my pay cheques.

I'll bet (though) that if we look at the art (as a whole) funded by the Government and that funded by the people (mainstream movies, for example) you would find an equal percentage of the good, the bad and the ugly.

It doesn't matter. Art that's funded by private collectors or private patrons is funded voluntarily by those individuals or organizations. It can be the worst crap in the world and it doesn't have anything to do with me. People can like what they want to like, but they shouldn't expect the public to be roped into paying for it.

Picking out a few examples of bad, government-funded art is simply not a good argument against public funding for art

I'm against it all on principle regardless of the quality.

[Ecurb]

No. Taking a job is a voluntary exchange of labour for some compensation negotiated between employer and employee. I'm free to quit my job but I'm never free to quit paying taxes. ...

I'm against it all on principle regardless of the quality.

I understand your position, Clopin, and I think it's reasonable although I personally disagree. However, you are free to quit paying taxes. Quit your job, go off the grid, and you won't have to pay taxes. The "job" (in 99.99% of the cases) is utterly dependent on the infrastructure, property laws, and legal system provided by the government (as well as those protected borders which prevent cheap competition). So although you negotiate and choose your particular employment, your employer is utterly dependent on coerced (i.e. tax-funded and legally enforced) behaviors. The worker in the shoe factory cannot legally take a pair of shoes he made and wear them home.

So although the distinction you make between "free choice" and "coercion" is somewhat reasonable, it is not so clear as many (perhaps you?) suggest.

[North Star]

No. Taking a job is a voluntary exchange of labour for some compensation negotiated between employer and employee. I'm free to quit my job but I'm never free to quit paying taxes.

You are free to move to another society, if you do not want to participate funding the one which keeps you fed, clothed, sheltered, and gives you the opportunity to work.

[Pompey Bum]

I have a funny feeling Clopin takes care of those things for himself.

[Danik 2016]

Art and politics. What about this one?
http://digitalsynopsis.com/inspirati...wel-kuczynski/

Some more:
http://twistedsifter.com/2012/05/sat...wel-kuczynski/

[YesNo]

"Piss Christ" is beautiful, at least (if, perhaps, sacreligious).

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?...&hsimp=yhs-003

It occurred to me one could replace the "Piss Christ" with a lot of other "beautiful" art. Remove the crucifix and put in the piss vat a copy of a book by Richard Dawkins.

Make it even more beautiful and get the government to pay the artist to piss in the container. To make it even more beautiful have the government display it in a public place so everyone, including those offended, get a chance to look at it. That shouldn't bother anyone. It's art.

If I were a computer or a zombie, I could look at any of those works of art and not care. As a human being, I have enough subjectivity to respond and care.