Is Art only for the Elite?

[Seasider]

What happened to this thread? I was enjoying the arguments for the superiority or lack of it of Wagner to Pink Floyd.
For many centuries in Europe Art was neither for the Elite or for the Masses, but Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam. Thus The Giotto frescoes in Assissi, the Annunciation of Fra Angelico and the Cantatas and Masses of Bach.

[PeterL]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

definition of ART
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter


Origin of ART
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
First Known Use: 13th century

Synonyms: craft, handcraft, handicraft, trade

[Kyriakos]

My view is that high art is only for a few people, for a number of reasons:

-Only a few care about it.
-Only a few can form some (individual and objective) appreciation of it.
-Only few can note the difference between high and low art.

That said, the second point has a crucial meaning: what I see in a work of high art is different than what another person sees in it. But it appears that there is some quality in the work itself that makes it a work of high art, regardless of the numerous reflections on it, which perhaps differ in important ways.

[JCamilo]

I do not think the thread was ever art is for elite only...

It was more, art forms an elite of those who study and are more dedicated than others because, even if a good number of famous art are produced for the economical/political elite, nobody denies the existense of popular art around...

[Seasider]

As far as Literature is concerned many people in other threads have made the connection between Literature and Literacy. In the one of the recent Shakespeare threads it was widely expressed that you cannot appreciate Shakespeare unless you can read it and study it. And yet the earliest forms of the Art which now goes under the general term of Literature, in the Western World, which is the only culture I am versed in, were Poetry and Plays. Neither of which you needed to read to enjoy. Homer, for example, could neither read or write and not just because he was blind either.

I see what some choose to call High Art as arising from the system of Patronage of artists by the rich and powerful. They wished to be celebrated eternally by their association with the greatest artists of their day.So the art that was commissioned reflected their tastes. In cases where the rich and powerful were also Princes of The Church, like Michaelangelo's patron Pope Sixtus IV, the art was likely to appeal to the Christian masses also.
But when secular patrons commissioned works they began to depart from religious subjects and these works are still identified as "high art" as distinct from "folk art".

[PeterL]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

definition of ART
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter


Origin of ART
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
First Known Use: 13th century

Synonyms: craft, handcraft, handicraft, trade

[Seasider]

I think that you meant to restrict the meaning of "art", but you didn't. In the broad sense everything that is made or done by humans is art.

Are you talking to me?

[PeterL]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

definition of ART
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter


Origin of ART
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
First Known Use: 13th century

Synonyms: craft, handcraft, handicraft, trade

[stlukesguild]

In the broad sense everything that is made or done by humans is art.

So my uncle Chuck sitting on the couch wearing nothing but his Speedos, watching The Family Guy and eating Cheetos is Art? Or perhaps in a far less comic vein... the Holocaust was art and the experimentations conducted by Dr. Mengele were artistic endeavors? If everything were art there would be no need for the word "art" to differentiate certain things from everything else.

All art is "elite" in the sense that it involves competition... and comparison. Some art is better than other art, and some art continues to resonate with an audience long after it was created. All art involves competing for the limited attention and time of the audience.

All art is also "elite" in the sense that no art is created for everyone. The artist may intend to make his or her accessible in order to reach the largest possible audience... but in the process it is likely that he or she will lose other audience members who find the work too obvious... cliche... and lacking in any challenge.

As Kyriakos suggested, art is "elite" because few care about it and few can form some appreciation of it... because few are willing to invest the time of effort needed to fully understand a work of art and the genre or tradition in which it exists. This is as true of "high" or "fine art" as it is of popular art. The audience willing to put forth the effort into exploring the history and development of comic books, blues music, or horror films is no less limited than the audience willing to put forth the effort into the exploration of literature, painting, opera, classical music, or film.

While all opinions in art may be subjective, some opinions are better than others... worth more than others. Of the greatest worth, logically, are the opinions of those who have put forth the time and effort needed to gain an understanding and appreciation of whatever art form or genre at question.

[BienvenuJDC]

Well, depends what kind of art, and who you are calling the "elite"?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:LNNCIixNtt71YM:http://th04.deviantart.net/fs19/PRE/f/2007/236/f/c/Mickey_Mouse__Sketch_by_PadawanLinea.jpg&t=1

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:J_jKGO4R2LfaRM:http://www.martinries.com/images/AG_CompSketch1937.jpg&t=1

[JCamilo]

Art is a process.

Art production, consuption, analyse, they all are part of the process. Some belong to an elite, take Mickey

Walt Disney is an elite or do you think the averege american build Disneyland? His employed artists are near the best on their area. Both are different kind of elits. Mickey was consumed by many... such is life..

[Kyriakos]

This is another parameter, that some kinds of art can only be produced by elites (such as heads of massive animation studios). But this does not have to mean that the artists working there are elite artists, nor that the people interested in the work are advanced in their appreciation of art.
And in my view the Disney products are very far away from being anything akeen to a high art. They do not seem to have been designed to be one either.

[Alexander III]

Actually many Of the Disney Cartoons like The Lion King or works of beautiful art, high art even

[Kyriakos]

Views on what is high art can differ, evidently :)
Personally i do not consider them as such.

[Seasider]

Art is created to appeal to the heart and also to the mind. The artist seeks a transformative role. After I read Crime and Punishment and To the Lighthouse, I knew I was not the same as before.
Disney is a special case...much of his work is for children and very successful it is. I remember my tears for Bambi's mother from more than fifty years ago.It is important that children are exposed to art from their early years. Disney and Hans Andersen and The Brothers Grimm and Roald Dahl and others all seek to develop children's emotional range.

[PeterL]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

definition of ART
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter


Origin of ART
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
First Known Use: 13th century

Synonyms: craft, handcraft, handicraft, trade

[Patrick_Bateman]

I have a print of Kandinsky's 'Blue Circle' on my bedroom wall, and I can't help looking at it every night before I go to sleep and when I wake up and whenever I'm in my room. There's just so many possibilities with that work (like most Expressionist pieces) I find when it's dark a multitude of other possibilities come out over the painting. That's something I love about that particular movement (as well as Surrealism)
I see the beauty in art during the Renaissance and up until Impressionism but
I'm not one of those pretentious dandies who walks around art galleries talking about tremendous use of light, contours, the texture or of brushstrokes.(although i did study some Paul Cezanne and Impressionism during my degree course) And I admit I know very little about them.

[Scheherazade]

Well, I enjoy some art too so it cannot be all for "the Elite"!

[OrphanPip]

Views on what is high art can differ, evidently :)
Personally i do not consider them as such.

While I disagree with Alex's high assessment of The Lion King (Which I think was only a so-so example of animation, some of its best scenes borrow heavily from other movies), Disney's early output stands at the top of early 20th century animation. Disney cared too, he cared about pushing the boundaries of his medium to the limits, I would personally consider Fantasia his best work though, and better than everything the studio has produced since his death, even if it has less stellar moments. Current Disney Studios are much less impressive.

There are better animators though, certainly those with much less popular appeal. Disney was a trailblazer, and most of all the studio has produced some of the most technically brilliant animation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmcp4XNCWRY

[Alexander III]

While I disagree with Alex's high assessment of The Lion King (Which I think was only a so-so example of animation, some of its best scenes borrow heavily from other movies), Disney's early output stands at the top of early 20th century animation. Disney cared too, he cared about pushing the boundaries of his medium to the limits, I would personally consider Fantasia his best work though, and better than everything the studio has produced since his death, even if it has less stellar moments. Current Disney Studios are much less impressive.

There are better animators though, certainly those with much less popular appeal. Disney was a trailblazer, and most of all the studio has produced some of the most technically brilliant animation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmcp4XNCWRY



I do agree Fantasia would have to be Disney's greatest

[JCamilo]

Well, I enjoy some art too so it cannot be all for "the Elite"!

Scheharazade is the daughter of the vizir, a princess. This is elite :D


While I disagree with Alex's high assessment of The Lion King (Which I think was only a so-so example of animation, some of its best scenes borrow heavily from other movies), Disney's early output stands at the top of early 20th century animation. Disney cared too, he cared about pushing the boundaries of his medium to the limits, I would personally consider Fantasia his best work though, and better than everything the studio has produced since his death, even if it has less stellar moments. Current Disney Studios are much less impressive.

There are better animators though, certainly those with much less popular appeal. Disney was a trailblazer, and most of all the studio has produced some of the most technically brilliant animation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmcp4XNCWRY

Borrowing from other is far from a problem to define a good movie, a medium born inside industry and repetition. I would say Beauty and the Beast is superior to Lion King and Sleeping Beauty is remarkable. Of course, Disney is an inovator of animation, but we are talking about Movies, Hollywood, hardly a High Art, but something popular (Lets not be tricked by MTV, Pop art is not Michael Jackson and he is hardly the popular mass industry art inventor, it was nothing that likes of Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens did with the novel). But it is highly stilized form of narrative, high quality there.

Fantasy is not the only example of Disney using classical music to help his animation - which is the elite trying to popularize their "taste".

[OrphanPip]

Fantasy is not the only example of Disney using classical music to help his animation - which is the elite trying to popularize their "taste".

It's actually where Disney started, with the Silly Symphonies series being his bulwark of Disney while they worked on the longer and much more expensive features. Fantasia stands out as one of the rare occasions in mainstream animation where there was an attempt to break away form the "Naturalist" vein of animation, which still dominates contemporary Japanese and American animation. There was actually some attempt at the abstract. It also features one of the most brilliant innovations in animation, it's the first appearance of the current model of Mickey mouse without the black circle eyes and instead has the much more expressive large white eyes with pupils, now a staple in cartoon character design. The fact that each section was directed by a different director also gives us a showcase of the individual work of some of finest animation directors of the period. I don't know what Disney using classical music has to do with the elite trying to popularize their taste. Disney was enamored of European 19th century culture, borrowing from fairy tales and the like, and personally liked music. Music set to animation was popular at the time as well, and had been a success for Disney financially prior to Fantasia, that's the reason for undertaking the film, which itself was a huge financial flop at theaters and nearly ruined the studio.

No, borrowing itself is not going to make Lion King a bad movie, which it isn't, but it does lower the impact if you see something like the fight between Scar and Simba, which is practically animated identical to the silhouette fight from Bambi, or the mere fact that certain settings, like pride rock, were lifted from Kimba the White Lion without any alteration. That's just plagiarism.

The Lion King did nothing innovative, better, or more interesting than past Disney films. It was a competent and entertaining movie, just nothing extraordinary. Beauty and The Beast is OK as well, but mostly a throwback to older Disney princess movies. Disney, I feel, after Bambi loses much of the spark of innovation, they turned to recycling old tropes from their earlier movies with "new" plots.

I also don't think you can really say Disney isn't comparable to other innovators, at least when it comes to the medium of animation he is the figure that most animators set themselves up in opposition to, or drawing from, his legacy. He isn't the originator of the form, with many earlier interesting work being done in France and Germany, or in the US by Winsor McKay, but he is the first animator to make it a mainstream form, to bring it to the attention of the movie going public at large. He's pretty important for contemporary American culture too, how many children are raised in the USA without being exposed to any Disney film? How many people's impression of animation is based entirely on Disneyesque Naturalism in animation? Most people will never bother to expose themselves to avant-garde animation, just like most people won't watch experimental or avant-garde regular films. Hell, Japanese popular animation, which is often held up as being in opposition to Disney, draws heavily on them for inspiration. Osamu Tezuka, the most important figure in the development of Japanese animation, was heavily influenced by Disney. If you had to identify any animation director as the most important maker of animation in the world, it is Disney.

[Petrarch's Love]

What happened to this thread?

Don't worry. This thread never actually dies. It merely gets reincarnated every few weeks. :D

As someone who has now been through multiple reincarnations, I have become very interested in the the source of the undying nature of these threads. I wonder if it would be helpful for us to ask ourselves why we are fascinated by the topic of art and elitism and the reasons we get so enthusiastic and heated up about the topic. The question, "Is art for the elite?" is a rather complicated one to answer, and it's important to sort out what is meant by the question--what motivated the asker to ask it and what the respondent perceives that motivation to be.

What, for example, is meant by the word "for" in this question? Do we mean "for" in reference to the audience whom a work was originally created for? What does that mean? Does it mean the person or persons whom the artist had in mind? The person(s) who commissioned the work? The original reading or viewing audience for a work? Or, does "for" refer to who the work is for today? Is it asking whether this is something available for only a certain group as opposed to the general population? Or does "for" connote a matter of taste or interest, in the way we sometimes say something is "not for me" when we just don't like it. The answer to this question will very much depend upon whether the person asking it and the person answering it think they are discussing whether art is, historically speaking, often created for an elite group, or whether it is more generally liked and appreciated by an elite group, or whether it is closed off to any but those who belong to an elite group.

Of course, the big term is the term "elite," which could refer to social, elite, economic elite, intellectual elite or, as St. Luke's often defines it, an elected elite, meaning those who have decided to put forth a certain amount of effort in order to gain the knowledge and awareness to appreciate and enjoy certain complex works of art.

The thing is that these different kinds of elite are often tangled up in some pretty complicated ways because a single work of art has been received and used and enjoyed and condemned as being elite or not. Edmund Spenser, for example, certainly wrote works that were explicitly "for" the very top of the social elite, aimed at patrons and royalty, but was not one of the elite himself. Even if looked at historically, then, should we view his poetic work as something associated more with the elite he wrote for or associated with the young man who rose up from modest means via a scholarship and a humanist education? Should Shakespeare's work be considered "for" the elite because of the image cultivated across the 19th and 20th centuries that the well off people with the expensive education are the ones who read Shakespeare, or should he be viewed as the glover's son who wrote for the public theatre and whose work is widely read and performed by people of all classes today? Does the fact that writers of the past wrote for patrons of an elite socio-economic class because the wanted money mean that their work can only then be appreciated by someone of a similar class today? Or does the fact that someone like Shakespeare or Dickens wrote for a broad general audience in their own time because they wanted money mean that they are exactly the same as anything written for a general audience, such as the latest best selling novel or TV sitcom?

Similarly, trying to define who enjoys art according to a certain "elite" group is difficult. There very clearly can be a socio-economic factor. Well off people with lots of money have the leisure time to cultivate a love of art and the funds to finance the kind of education for themselves and their children that will give them the opportunity to enjoy art They can also afford to be patrons of the arts, and all of these factors lead to an association of the arts with the economic and social elite. However, there are certainly plenty of rich people who have no appreciation whatsoever for the arts, and there are also plenty of people who come from very economically poor backgrounds who have a deep love for art. Sometimes intellectual and artistic interests and talents can elevate a person socially and economically speaking. In other cases--says a graduate student--pursuing artistic and intellectual interests can mean making economic sacrifices in either the long or short term.

Or, leaving the economic elite aside for a moment, what of the "intellectual elite." This category is just as complex. As an academic at an institution filled with people who could easily lay claim to being members of the intellectual elite, I've encountered a large range of people on that front. Some also belong to the economic elite and embrace their intellectual pursuits as a part of that status. Others come from impoverished economic and social backgrounds and embrace their status as intellectual elites because it puts them on a par with those in the socio-economic elite or can help launch them into that group. Some aren't paying any attention to the economic aspect at all but enjoy feeling smarter and superior to others. Others actively avoid the term "intellectual elite" because they feel it has become conflated in a negative way with some of the categories just mentioned and connotes a sense of exclusivity that just gets in the way of communicating about art with their students and community. Still, others embrace the term in the way St. Luke's does, to mean that they are a group who are elite in that they have worked hard to acquire a specialized knowledge about certain things that most other people do not possess. I would add to this, though, that for very few professional intellectuals is the idea of belonging to an elite their primary motivation for being interested in art.

This brings us back, then, to the question of why we are so interested in whether art is for the elite or not. Partly it may have to do with assumptions or anxieties about exclusivity of some kind. Some people here may be worried that saying art is for the elite means that art is something that is exclusive to that elite group, whatever that elite group might be, and so excludes them. Others may be worried that saying art is not for some sort of elite group means reducing the appreciation and production of art to only things that are completely and easily understandable to absolutely everyone without the need for any additional knowledge or effort of any kind and that this excludes the kind of artistic expression that provides such complexity and challenge. What really seems to be at the heart of all this debate, is not so much the question of whether art is for the elite or not, but at least three other very big questions:

What is art? What different kinds of art are there? What is the value of art in general or of different sorts of art? How does art relate to me?

Rather than framing another discussion in terms of whether art belongs to various types of elite groups, perhaps these are some of the questions we should be addressing more directly.

I am out of break time now. I'll leave off by posting some lyrics from the song "Make 'em Laugh":



Now you could study Shakespeare and be quite elite
And you can charm the critics and have nothin' to eat
Just slip on a banana peel
The world's at your feet
Make 'em laugh
Make 'em laugh
Make 'em laugh

For those who haven't watched Singing in the Rain recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW02c5UNGl0

Well, I enjoy some art too so it cannot be all for "the Elite"!

[Seasider]

Thank God for a rational and relevant contribution to this thread. I had almost decided to leave the forum after Peter L's ravings about the Holocaust being Art going unchallenged by moderators and other posters.

A couple of points from the previous contribution:-
The system of Patronage was an important one because it was the main, if not the only route for an artist to recognition and remuneration. Spenser is a very good example of what a gifted poet could become in association with a rich and powerful patron who had himself an interest in the arts. Samuel Johnson showed the limitations of Patronage, but that was much later and he eventually achieved the fame and fortune he deserved without it.

Well off people with lots of money have the leisure time to cultivate a love of art and the funds to finance the kind of education for themselves and their children that will give them the opportunity to enjoy art They can also afford to be patrons of the arts,

I cant help thinking about our (British) Royal Family who, with the exception of the dilettante Prince of Wales, have shown no interest whatever in The Arts and if the performers that they request for the charitable Concerts and Shows that are arranged for them are anything to go by, deserve the description of Philistines rather than Patrons of the Arts.

In a forum such as this the questions that Petrarch's Love raises will always be the foundation of debates and discussions. And I'm happy to be in such a forum.

[Mudkip]

Art that appeals ONLY to an elite is shoddy art. It should be layered, with at least one layer that is accessible (whether aesthetically or emotionally) even to people with no artistic background. For instance, Dickinson's poetry often has strong symbolism... but even people who are crap at analyzing poetry can appreciate the meter and rhymes she employs.

I do not have the art history background to understand the full depth of Titian's work... but I can appreciate its beauty.

I don't know enough about atonal chord progressions to understand Stravinsky, but his music still elicits an emotional response from me.

[Kyriakos]

I would tend to agree that high art should have the effect to make even people who are not familiar with it, realise they are next to something important.
But in reality this is not the case. People have used high art as doors (paintings) for their chicken farms. Notable books recieve a myriad different interpetations, something which would have been revealing of the book's high quality, if only it was not the case that of these the vast majority is trivial in comparisson to the few that differ.
And such notes go on and on.

Sometimes high art indeed does become popular, but probably for all the wrong (and largely, if not entirely unconscious) reasons. Take Kafka for example. I have seen in bookstores examinations of his work that present it as near-communist propaganda. This means that the person writing this appreciation of Kafka believed in what he was writing, and one should expect that his ideas of him, and his joy of reading him was coloured by this rather base understanding, which says nothing of symbolism, allegory, esoterism etc.

Edit: And nowdays i tend to think that, although different views on a work of high art can reveal different high and real aspects of it, we should perhaps remember Nietzsche, who, when discussing the analogous polyphony on any given subject in philosophy, noted that "these people all want to say something different, and be all correct: they do not want philosophy, they want religion!" :)

[Mallorie]

Natural functions, urination, etc., are not art; they are nature.


Might I point out that human sex (love making) is a natural function however certainly ought not be divorced from the concept or title of "art".

[JCamilo]

Sometimes high art indeed does become popular, but probably for all the wrong (and largely, if not entirely unconscious) reasons. Take Kafka for example. I have seen in bookstores examinations of his work that present it as near-communist propaganda. This means that the person writing this appreciation of Kafka believed in what he was writing, and one should expect that his ideas of him, and his joy of reading him was coloured by this rather base understanding, which says nothing of symbolism, allegory, esoterism etc.



Kafka interpretation as communist propaganda is not a problem of popularization, his vision as "prophet of upcoming Nazism" was made by academic elite and most likely, as wrong as thinking Kafka as something beyond as a man who liked parables.

[PeterL]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

definition of ART
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter


Origin of ART
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
First Known Use: 13th century

Synonyms: craft, handcraft, handicraft, trade

[Mallorie]

There are arguments on both sides of that. I think that it might be best to consider a portion of that activity as a natural function, while it can become an art.

As long as you concede its potential for art, because your previous statement sounded like an absolute.

[JCamilo]

Potential for art is not art. A Rose is not art. Poems about Rose are. Sex is not art. (At least under the same context that we want use for literature, films, etc). What is created from the sexual experience may be art.

[Mallorie]

Had that been the original statement I wouldn't have opened my mouth, but to state that the Holocaust was art, but natural functions can not be made art seemed absurd to me.

Not to play in to something like the Anthropic Principal but if we are going to get in to semantics isn't everything man does man's nature, and by the standards of the original statement: not art?

I just found it a poorly construed point, perhaps I am being a bit aggressive for a brand new poster.

[PeterL]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

definition of ART
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter


Origin of ART
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
First Known Use: 13th century

Synonyms: craft, handcraft, handicraft, trade

[OrphanPip]

Had that been the original statement I wouldn't have opened my mouth, but to state that the Holocaust was art, but natural functions can not be made art seemed absurd to me.

Not to play in to something like the Anthropic Principal but if we are going to get in to semantics isn't everything man does man's nature, and by the standards of the original statement: not art?

I just found it a poorly construed point, perhaps I am being a bit aggressive for a brand new poster.

You're not being too aggressive, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I would think a much better general definition of art would be, something which is created with the intention of having an aesthetic appeal. Without getting into how we decide what art is good or bad.

To call anything which is a human endeavor art, which it may be in the archaic meaning of the word as denoting technique or artifice, would simply be to ignore the contemporary usage of the word. Moreover, I think you are right about the anthropic principle, the distinction between the actions of humans with technology as not being natural is a silly archaic notion in its own right, which has sadly persisted in popular thought. Early cave paintings from Southern France, made from naturally found clays, are not less art than something that requires more advanced technology to make paints and dyes. Where are we drawing the line between natural acts and unnatural?

[JCamilo]

I just think PeterL was aiming to the absurd to build an argument...

[OrphanPip]

I just think PeterL was aiming to the absurd to build an argument...

And so we should let the deliberately absurd stand unchallenged? Are we to allow someone to make light of experiments on human beings and not challenge the proposition at all?

I'm pretty sure you mean to say that Peter is being deliberately inflammatory (to build an argument would imply that he was attempting serious discussion), and I agree he is, but that doesn't mean we should just let the ridiculous statement sit there without rebuke.

[JCamilo]

No, I think he is building an argument and we should not be so upset because of Holocaust, even because he was not the one who proposed the question, but Stlukes. He should be challenged, but not under political-moral ground.

[OrphanPip]

No, I think he is building an argument and we should not be so upset because of Holocaust, even because he was not the one who proposed the question, but Stlukes. He should be challenged, but not because under political-moral ground.

I don't think it has been challenged under political-moral grounds, it has been challenged as a poor definition of art for many reasons, particularly because there is a poor distinction between the natural and the unnatural and it is entirely divorced from any contemporary understanding of art. Although, the general reprehensible nature of defining a systematic attempt at wiping out large groups of people as art is likely to motivate people to refute something which is otherwise an absurd and entirely weak argument, which would otherwise likely be ignored. Nor do I think he is actually attempting to build a serious argument, his initial definition of art was challenged because it would classify things which no normal person would define as art as art. When faced with the initial challenge, rather than amend anything he stuck to his guns and rather further committed himself to a silly definition.

[JCamilo]

Nobody complained about he saying this is also art:

"So my uncle Chuck sitting on the couch wearing nothing but his Speedos, watching The Family Guy and eating Cheetos is Art?"

Poor definition as well, but why moderators should challenge it? Why they would challenge the mention of Holocaust taboo? That was under political moral ground, nobody went far to explain why the holocaust maybe not art... Would be fine if he said Kinbaku is art?

[Mallorie]

I don't think it has been challenged under political-moral grounds, it has been challenged as a poor definition of art for many reasons, particularly because there is a poor distinction between the natural and the unnatural and it is entirely divorced from any contemporary understanding of art. Although, the general reprehensible nature of defining a systematic attempt at wiping out large groups of people as art is likely to motivate people to refute something which is otherwise an absurd and entirely weak argument, which would otherwise likely be ignored. Nor do I think he is actually attempting to build a serious argument, his initial definition of art was challenged because it would classify things which no normal person would define as art as art.

Oh now its my turn: Quite right Pip.

I was not at all offended by his assertion that the Holocaust was art, I just simply found it to be a poor definition and in conflict with his statements about natural functions.
While I think there is a lot of junk art out there I also think the attempt to define art as any random thing that man has endeavored in (with our without aesthetic intent from the creator) is a slight on the title.

I believe I understand in principle the point he was making, and correct me if I am wrong:
that without deliberate thought or intent (such as biological functions or natural processes) it can not be art, art is defined by deliberate thought and intent.
But I believe his examples were poor, because neither having a piss or genocide is often done with aesthetic intent. Rather the later is as natural a function of man as the former, and both can be made to be aesthetic after a fashion.

[JCamilo]

As I pointed, nobody complained about any other definition that he gave (he really did not gave any, Stlukes made questions to him and he answered with obvious sarcasm, but then, he can defend himself if he want)...

If manifestations of our body is not art, Dance will start to have a problem, as they are basically a show off of what our body can do. I do not think you can define art by intent, by the object, neither by something simple that can be translated in two lines.

[OrphanPip]

Nobody complained about he saying this is also art:

"So my uncle Chuck sitting on the couch wearing nothing but his Speedos, watching The Family Guy and eating Cheetos is Art?"

No, that's equally a bad definition of art, but the holocaust example and that one draw on the same bad definition, so it's not necessary to address all of his bad points.



Poor definition as well, but why moderators should challenge it? Why they would challenge the mention of Holocaust taboo? That was under political moral ground, nobody went far to explain why the holocaust maybe not art... Would be fine if he said Kinbaku is art?

I haven't seen any edits, so I haven't noticed the moderators do anything about anything. Maybe I missed them.

It is a poor definition of art because it encompasses everything and excluded practically nothing, a definition which defines everything defines nothing.



If manifestations of our body is not art, Dance will start to have a problem, as they are basically a show off of what our body can do. I do not think you can define art by intent, by the object, neither by something simple that can be translated in two lines.

I think this is fairly sound, but in general a good starting place is something which is created, with technique, whether it be performance or an object, that is created with a specific aesthetic intent in mind. Certainly, our understanding of art is more nuanced than that, but it's a good starting place to move from their. It excludes most things we do not recognize as art, and includes most things we in general do. Nor are definitions static, our use of language, and our understanding of what art is, is cultural and will change between time and places.

[Mallorie]

I actually said nothing about the holocaust until later, my initial gripe was with the notion that anything natural to man is not art. After all thought its natural to man, it is a natural function of being fully human.

I said nothing about Mr. Cheetos because it was clearly said lightly, and also because the image I was struck with while reading the depiction was, at least in my mind, quite humorous and artistic. I will blame this on my career and my appreciation of visual commentary and humor.

[Seasider]

I think St Luke'sGuild used his Uncle Chuck and The Holocaust as a reductio ad absurdum to Peter L's statement "Everything that is made or done by humans is art." PeterL defended his opinion and claimed that The Holocaust was definitely art and of a higher kind because brains were involved. This is not merely a poor argument, though it is. It is an insult to the memory of millions and I object to it on moral grounds. If that puts me at odds with other members of the forum, then so be it. I am old enough to remember the newsreels of the camps as they were liberated and art is the the last word I would have used to describe them.

[PeterL]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

definition of ART
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter


Origin of ART
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
First Known Use: 13th century

Synonyms: craft, handcraft, handicraft, trade

[JCamilo]

Obviously isnt, one comparassion is humorous, but the holocaust is disgusting (And there is no editors, but call for moderators are obviously based on illegal use not mistakes of defitions). It is disgusting because has a moral ground. We still get closer image of that and still seems taboo. And I must add, it can only be a bad definition, since it was no defition at all. (Saying a Shark is a fish is not a definition of fish).

Ok, if we play with what is natural, all that man do is natural to him. So broad that does not work (As Orphan pointed, a broad definitin is often not conclusive) Art is however artificial, the very "art" part is not coincidence. Must point that art demands a context that is used by some human (artist, viewer, owner, etc) with will bring significance. You can not have communication, language without it. And art certainly communicates something (communication is not just using words). I think the presence of a context is more important and less chalengable than intent. And context can be without the intervention of dinivity but a historical process.


I think this is fairly sound, but in general a good starting place is something which is created, with technique, whether it be performance or an object, that is created with a specific aesthetic intent in mind. Certainly, our understanding of art is more nuanced than that, but it's a good starting place to move from their. It excludes most things we do not recognize as art, and includes most things we in general do. Nor are definitions static, our use of language, and our understanding of what art is, is cultural and will change between time and places.

A good starting point is where we want to start. I could start by perspective. It is as good as anything.

Anyways, I must add something: most things we do not reckonize as art is not good. It is very easy to see Michealgelo, Beethoveen and Shakespeare and point "Everyone see it as art". Then it is very hard if we pick Andy Wharhol and Duchamps. Here enters the elite of Stlukes, not everyone can reckonize art and what most people know must be take with a pinch of salt.

But lets go on with your starting point: something created with techinique, either a perfomance or object is include the alphabet, a medicine, a car and surprise... Holocaust. Aesthetic intent? How would you say that Mengele did not saw it as beautfull? How a plastic surgery would not work? Car designers? Food? Fashion? I however do not know if the first oral storyteller in the world had any intent...


Oh, no, I was not aiming at the absurd. I was simply pointing out that there is a very wide range to art. Id one is talking about only a small slice of that range, then that slice needs to be defined. The Practical Arts and the Mechanical Arts are arts.


yes, that is our argument, and yes, Stlukes was the one aiming to the absurd, albeit the "More brains" is also an exageration, so you two are just playing tennis...

[PeterL]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

definition of ART
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter


Origin of ART
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
First Known Use: 13th century

Synonyms: craft, handcraft, handicraft, trade

[Mallorie]

Peter, your above dictionary reference and the list you provided as noteworthy makes me think we might all be engaged in a bit of Use–mention error.

perhaps?

[PeterL]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

definition of ART
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter


Origin of ART
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
First Known Use: 13th century

Synonyms: craft, handcraft, handicraft, trade

[stlukesguild]

As I pointed, nobody complained about any other definition that he gave (he really did not gave any, Stlukes made questions to him and he answered with obvious sarcasm, but then, he can defend himself if he want)...

If manifestations of our body is not art, Dance will start to have a problem, as they are basically a show off of what our body can do. I do not think you can define art by intent, by the object, neither by something simple that can be translated in two lines.

The whole notion that everything is art... or even everything can be art strikes me as an indefensible and idealistic (if not rather ignorant) notion. The idea... rooted in Duchamp and Dada theory... which was anti-art in intent... is sophomoric at best, worthy of debate among art students over beer and pizza... but not worthy of serious consideration. Unfortunately, there are those for whom ideals and absolutes are everything. Obviously I raised the question of whether the Holocaust was art simply as a sarcastic retort intended to point out just what exactly it means when someone says "everything is art". Everything is not art. I agree that the intent is not what makes something art. I may intend that my latest efforts at painting be considered art, but if no audience recognizes my efforts as such, then I am simply kidding myself. By the same token, the medieval sculptors never thought of themselves as "artists" or their efforts as "art"... but we clearly recognize their creations as being art. Ultimately it is the audience that decides what is or is not art.

Right now Duchamp's urinal and Manzoni's can of poop are recognized as art... but one suspects this will not remain forever true. Artistic efforts such as Duchamp's and Manzoni's which attempted to close the divide between art and life are ironically most dependent upon the artistic context. Without the context... taken out of the gallery or museum and removed from the knowledge of the history of Duchamp's intentions, his "Fountain" becomes nothing more than a urinal... whereas Michelangelo's Pieta... moved to the parking lot or an open field... still remains clearly and emphatically a work of art.

[Mallorie]

Right now Duchamp's urinal and Manzoni's can of poop are recognized as art... but one suspects this will not remain forever true. Artistic efforts such as Duchamp's and Manzoni's which attempted to close the divide between art and life are ironically most dependent upon the artistic context. Without the context... taken out of the gallery or museum and removed from the knowledge of the history of Duchamp's intentions, his "Fountain" becomes nothing more than a urinal... whereas Michelangelo's Pieta... moved to the parking lot or an open field... still remains clearly and emphatically a work of art.

Brilliant.

[JCamilo]

Yes, Duchamps ultimate goal - lets say the beauty of his gesture - is exactly pressuring the limits of the context. Art as anything is a motto, not exactly his own idea. Duchamps immitadors fail to see that much of his power is due to impact and originality. Once he broke the limits and we already started to think what is the deal, all else became just insignicant.

Now, it does not matter if Duchamps get lost, much of his art is beyond the object. (Obviously, except the comedy of the name, all his art is beyond the object), just like we do not need the arms of the Venus to see she have tender hands. Like you said - and lets propose I fully agree - if the audience is what decides what is art, then it is only the remembrance of the artistic effects that matters, not the object itself. Thus, does not matter, the Fountain will remain just like one of the greatest poems of Coleridge is a poem that he did not wrote.

Now, I must point, if the audience is what define what is art (not a definition by itself of course), your example of Holocaust can cease to be an absurd. The audience can say "all is art". So, I disagree, Art manifests itself on the audience, it where we can reckonize what is art, but someone under the effect of art, can only say "It is this", and not really define it. The intent really does not matter, which is a "author is dead" line, removing the defition as something simple as "art is what the artist do", but the other tip of the iceberg seems to me to be equally not complete. Like that story of the seven blind devishes or monks and the elephant.

As the holocaust, that is why South Park should get some extra credit. The episode where they end "Now it is finally safe to make jokes about the holocaust" certainlly is applied here. Your sarcasm an PeterL counter-sarcams is totally misunderstood...

[Drkshadow03]

As long as you concede its potential for art, because your previous statement sounded like an absolute.

Are you arguing actual sex is art? Or that paintings, sculptures, fictional written stories, and movies (even of the pure pornographic kind) about sex is art?



I was not at all offended by his assertion that the Holocaust was art, I just simply found it to be a poor definition and in conflict with his statements about natural functions.
While I think there is a lot of junk art out there I also think the attempt to define art as any random thing that man has endeavored in (with our without aesthetic intent from the creator) is a slight on the title.


I definitely did a double-take when he wrote that. But, you know, I'm an overly sensitive Jew who has the audacity to think referring to any genocide as art (you know, where actual human lives were lost) is automatically in poor taste. The death of six million people is art? So every serial killer is not actually a social deviant, but a misunderstood artist?

The whole point is sick. You end up with a sick artistic world like this one (http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/armoryshow.htm) (a dystopian horror short story about the future of the visual arts that is very apropos to this discussion, I think).

[Royal Canadian]

Sorry to just jump into this discussion but I thought that this quote from A Picture of Dorian Gray seemed appropriate. It seems Oscar Wilde, a far better man than I, believed that art was only for the elite.

"Crime belongs exclusively to the lower orders... I should fancy that crime was to them what art is to us, simply a method of procuring extraordinary sensations."

Silly quotes aside, I think the perception that art is only for the elite stems from the fact that often only those with hereditary wealth are the ones who are at sufficient leisure to pursue art. Joe Six-pack who works ten hour days to buy diapers is most likely not going to have the time to read Chaucer or visit the Sistine Chapel.

Also, I wonder how much region would have to do with a question such as this. Though this is quite anecdotal, during my travels in Greece I found myself speaking daily with Greeks about art and architecture. Theirs was a culture which even the most homeless gypsy was exposed to and appreciated art to some degree. However back home in Vancouver it seems that interest in art is limited to the bourgeois locals or European tourists.



P.S. Hello all this is my first post. I am currently doing my undergrad so excuse my poor and feeble intellect :arf:

[Drkshadow03]

Silly quotes aside, I think the perception that art is only for the elite stems from the fact that often only those with hereditary wealth are the ones who are at sufficient leisure to pursue art. Joe Six-pack who works ten hour days to buy diapers is most likely not going to have the time to read Chaucer or visit the Sistine Chapel.

Also, I wonder how much region would have to do with a question such as this. Though this is quite anecdotal, during my travels in Greece I found myself speaking daily with Greeks about art and architecture. Theirs was a culture which even the most homeless gypsy was exposed to and appreciated art to some degree. However back home in Vancouver it seems that interest in art is limited to the bourgeois locals or European tourists.



I don't know. I think one should be careful in misconstruing the term "elite" as necessarily aligning with class. I didn't get the impression that St. Luke was using the term in his first post as a class-oriented one.

If Joe Six-Pack is spending ten hours a day working just to buy diapers, it seems likely he isn't wasting any of that money on a novel--even of the James Patterson type. So who exactly is propelling all these crappy thriller books into bestsellers? Probably mostly people from the middle-class. I know a lot of lower to upper middle-class people who only read John Grisham, James Patterson, and Dan Brown best seller thriller type of novels.

[JCamilo]

Hello, but...

Oscar Wilde = Irony. You do not take what is said literally. Oscar liked popular irish oral stories. Things he learnt from the "lower orders". He knew that art was not for british economical/social elite. And the quote is not even saying it, it is just mocking the same elite by "consuming" art with such careless fashion that it would be like crime is too lower orders, a simple quest to release the boredom of their life. It does not said art is too others something different. I wonder when people will stop to use Wilde quotatios out of the context and to think that all characters of Dorian are himself. Wanna see what he did really thougth, get his critical reviews, many, the man knew something or another, still a funny witty writer, but remember, he is always smiling with only the corner of his lips...


I don't know. I think one should be careful in misconstruing the term "elite" as necessarily aligning with class. I didn't get the impression that St. Luke was using the term in his first post as a class-oriented one.

.

I think you nailed it, Stlukes is a rich dude. :D
You know what is funny, it seems like people think rich (or high middle class) do not work a lot too...

[Petrarch's Love]

Also, I wonder how much region would have to do with a question such as this. Though this is quite anecdotal, during my travels in Greece I found myself speaking daily with Greeks about art and architecture. Theirs was a culture which even the most homeless gypsy was exposed to and appreciated art to some degree. However back home in Vancouver it seems that interest in art is limited to the bourgeois locals or European tourists.



P.S. Hello all this is my first post. I am currently doing my undergrad so excuse my poor and feeble intellect :arf:

Hi Royal Canadian--Welcome to the discussion and to the forum. I think you bring up an excellent point about the difference in cultural perceptions about art. It is very clear to me that generally speaking Europeans value art considerably more than North Americans do as a group. People from Asian cultures seem to value education more. I consistently get distinctly different reactions from all these groups when I tell them I'm going into being a literature professor. From my fellow Americans I often get some sort of puzzlement. Why are you doing that? What's the point? Sometimes I get dismissive remarks about how what I'm doing isn't going to bring in much money or about how literature is worthless and has nothing to do with "real life." Or, I frequently get defensive reactions: people who make nervous jokes about how I'm going to correct their grammar or apologetic things about how I'll probably think the person I'm talking with is stupid. I very often find myself having to either patiently justify and explain why I want to study literature or having to patiently explain to people that I don't think I'm above them just because I'm a lit. professor; that on the contrary, the point of my profession is not to judge and correct a person's grammar but to bring them my knowledge and to help them develop their own thoughts about life and literature.

I might not have ever linked these reactions with my own culture if it weren't that I've had the chance to interact a fair amount with people from Europe, both in my travels there and in this country. What I've noticed is that consistently when I'm talking to people in or from Europe of all sorts of backgrounds, I have almost never (possibly never at all) gotten the "why" question. They don't seem to wonder why someone would go into literary study or why literature is something of interest, and they also don't seem to have either the dismissiveness or the inferiority complex that people in the states do about encountering someone who knows a lot about books. Instead, from Europeans I most often get questions about what I study or a account of what literature or art they like best. I know that the likelihood that I will get both an enthusiastic response to what I do and a person who feels comfortable and competent engaging in a conversation about what I do goes way up when I talk with Europeans. Even when the person isn't necessarily into the arts personally speaking, they seem to accept my profession as a perfectly normal and understandable profession.

I also get a similarly more enthusiastic response about the study of poetry from people who are from the Middle East or from India. When talking to people from East Asian cultures, such as China or Japan, I often get a response that is distinctly linked to praise for pursuing higher education of any kind. There's a sense that education and knowledge are valuable pursuits in these cultures that deserve, at the very least, some sort of respect.

This is not to say at all that the people in the US or Canada are any less intelligent or interesting than those elsewhere. Certainly I have plenty of good conversations about literature with people in the US too. My sense is simply that, as a culture, we do not value art and learning in the same way that people do elsewhere and that this is partly because we don't feel as comfortable with talking about art or identifying ourselves as people who appreciate art. When I do meet with either the derisive or the defensive reactions I allude to above, I've found that it really doesn't take very long to diffuse these reactions and to let people know that art is something that is open to that person and something they might get something out of. What needs to be broken down first is the perception that art is only for a certain group, possibly some sort of an "elite."

Speaking of which...undergraduates are most certainly welcome here and indeed widely populate these forums (though usually not with such humility). No restrictions to the postgraduate elite around these parts. :D


I don't know. I think one should be careful in misconstruing the term "elite" as necessarily aligning with class. I didn't get the impression that St. Luke was using the term in his first post as a class-oriented one.

St. Luke's is definitely not using it in a class or economic oriented sense. However, this is what the term elite usually conveys to most people, which is a reason I personally steer clear of using it myself. I agree with St. Luke's point about art requiring a certain kind of dedication and effort, about there being a small group who take the time to give an in depth dedication to art, and about there being a need in our culture for some sort of respect for the wisdom and insights that such a group are able to attain through that dedication. I also see that by taking up the term elite he is making a point about our cultural attitudes toward this group of art appreciators. However, it is a term that I myself avoid simply because, outside of a discussion like this where someone like St. Luke's has provided this carefully thought out definition, most people do automatically take the word to mean something associated with class. I've found that terms and phrases like "the best and the brightest" or "dedicated thinkers" or (a few times to surprisingly great effect in a more political context despite the fact that I thought I was being a bit over the top rhetorically) "guardians of wisdom" tend to be more productive when discussing this issue than trying to combat the enormous negativity and confusion that has amassed around the term "elite."


I think you nailed it, Stlukes is a rich dude.

That's a point. As one of our most prominent bibliophiles, he clearly must be posting from a golden yacht while sipping a glass of $50,000 a bottle champagne. The jig is up, mister. Enough of this humble teacher/artist pose. We're on to you and the big money that you elitist types are raking in. Meanwhile, I'm raising my glass of 1907 Heidsieck (http://www.luxist.com/2008/09/08/worlds-most-expensive-champagne-at-275-000-a-bottle/) while lounging in one of my smaller palazzos (most PhD candidates in the humanities have at least 3 or 4). Ah, the joys of being one of the elite.

Last note: JCamillo--Since he or she referred to it as a "silly" quote, I think that Royal Canadian was intentionally quoting Oscar Wilde ironically. :)

[OrphanPip]

I actually feel that scholars in the humanities are much less elitist, by which I mean the negative connotations associated with the term, than in many other fields. I'm often guilty of waving off the questions of scientific layman as being too complicated for them to understand, or requiring too much effort to explain. Although, I also have a chip on my shoulder from the constant look of bafflement I get when I tell people I studied immunology and microbiology. Their first question is usually along the lines of, "what's immunology?" I quickly learned to just call myself a microbiologist, the general public seem to have a decent idea of what that is.

Also, high school level science education is obscenely bad.

[JCamilo]

That's a point. As one of our most prominent bibliophiles, he clearly must be posting from a golden yacht while sipping a glass of $50,000 a bottle champagne. The jig is up, mister. Enough of this humble teacher/artist pose. We're on to you and the big money that you elitist types are raking in. Meanwhile, I'm raising my glass of 1907 Heidsieck (http://www.luxist.com/2008/09/08/worlds-most-expensive-champagne-at-275-000-a-bottle/) while lounging in one of my smaller palazzos (most PhD candidates in the humanities have at least 3 or 4). Ah, the joys of being one of the elite.

Last note: JCamillo--Since he or she referred to it as a "silly" quote, I think that Royal Canadian was intentionally quoting Oscar Wilde ironically. :)

That is it, Stlukes and JBI fights are the fights of two rich americans and canadians... and we silly, thinking it was a serious discussion.

Yeah, I probally went past Royal Canadian irony...

[Mallorie]

Are you arguing actual sex is art? Or that paintings, sculptures, fictional written stories, and movies (even of the pure pornographic kind) about sex is art?


I was saying the actual act can be made art, much like dance or silent acting.

though of course the latter is valid too, I am an erotic photographer and I have never had anyone consider my work anything but art...even the most prudish of people concede that point.

[stlukesguild]

It is very clear to me that generally speaking Europeans value art considerably more than North Americans do as a group. People from Asian cultures seem to value education more. I consistently get distinctly different reactions from all these groups when I tell them I'm going into being a literature professor. From my fellow Americans I often get some sort of puzzlement. Why are you doing that? What's the point? Sometimes I get dismissive remarks about how what I'm doing isn't going to bring in much money or about how literature is worthless and has nothing to do with "real life."

Ah! The pragmatic Americans. If it has no practical purpose then what's the point? I was close with an artist/photographer from Puerto Rico when I lived in New York. He would often point out the differences between the Anglo-American culture and what he called the people of Mediterranean extraction. He noted that when the Anglo-Americans meet over business, they arrive early... and immediately get down to the business at hand. This was opposed to the culture he had grown up in in which he noted that even if the business at hand was something as serious as bumping off the other person for having cheated you, the meeting still began with the greatest of pleasantries... offers of home-made hot chocolate or coffee, talk about the wife and kids, etc... Repeatedly, he expressed an absolute dismay at the American tradition of eating a big lunch which usually included a good portion of meat (a double cheeseburger or a quarter pounder) and then heading back to work without a siesta. He would exclaim again and again that he hated the American ways but recognized that they were slowly taking over the world because "those da** Americans are just so fu**ing practical!"

Nothing practical about studying art... or making art. And this is a reality that confronts us daily within the the system of education. The arts are considered "extras"... at best "enrichment activities"... nice to have... but not necessary... and the first thing to go when the budgets get tight. The arts are continually put in a position of needing to justify their purpose within education. Thus we have the arguments about the correlation between music and math scores, and the value of visual art in aiding with a retention of historical persons and events. In other words... even the leaders within arts education have fallen for the notion that art needs to prove it is somehow practical.

I might not have ever linked these reactions with my own culture if it weren't that I've had the chance to interact a fair amount with people from Europe, both in my travels there and in this country. What I've noticed is that consistently when I'm talking to people in or from Europe of all sorts of backgrounds, I have almost never (possibly never at all) gotten the "why" question. They don't seem to wonder why someone would go into literary study or why literature is something of interest, and they also don't seem to have either the dismissiveness or the inferiority complex that people in the states do about encountering someone who knows a lot about books.

One suspects that the lack of support for public arts education is partially to blame. I would also surmise that the lack of a truly visible government support for the arts (and the attack of what small support there is by neanderthals in State and Federal government) has resulted in a greater need for artistic institutions to pander to the wealthy patrons... leading to the mistaken notion that the arts... the "fine arts"... are reserved for the rich.

From the Europeans I have met I agree that there is a far greater respect for the arts in Europe than in the US. I often remark to my studio mates how I am awed at such building as these:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/4996905997_1d33e634eb_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4086/4996906135_741391cc3b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4086/4997513074_f3c5c1ef0b_b.jpg

I am awed for the simply reason that such buildings survived hundreds of years without falling prey to vandalism or the efforts of city politicians and developers to create new parking garages or a Starbucks Coffee on the spot.

I also get a similarly more enthusiastic response about the study of poetry from people who are from the Middle East or from India. When talking to people from East Asian cultures, such as China or Japan, I often get a response that is distinctly linked to praise for pursuing higher education of any kind. There's a sense that education and knowledge are valuable pursuits in these cultures that deserve, at the very least, some sort of respect.

I often laugh at the comments of my best friend who is Korean with regard to my own career in education. He declares that my career is one of the most respected and that I should feel honored to be a teacher. Of course it may be hard to share his enthusiasm or recognize the honor when one considers that the guy who drives the garbage truck gets paid more, while hundreds of thousands of teachers are facing lay-offs and salary cuts and being portrayed as overpaid and lazy in the press.

This is not to say at all that the people in the US or Canada are any less intelligent or interesting than those elsewhere. Certainly I have plenty of good conversations about literature with people in the US too. My sense is simply that, as a culture, we do not value art and learning in the same way that people do elsewhere and that this is partly because we don't feel as comfortable with talking about art or identifying ourselves as people who appreciate art.

St. Luke's is definitely not using it in a class or economic oriented sense. However, this is what the term elite usually conveys to most people, which is a reason I personally steer clear of using it myself. I agree with St. Luke's point about art requiring a certain kind of dedication and effort, about there being a small group who take the time to give an in depth dedication to art, and about there being a need in our culture for some sort of respect for the wisdom and insights that such a group are able to attain through that dedication. I also see that by taking up the term elite he is making a point about our cultural attitudes toward this group of art appreciators. However, it is a term that I myself avoid simply because, outside of a discussion like this where someone like St. Luke's has provided this carefully thought out definition, most people do automatically take the word to mean something associated with class. I've found that terms and phrases like "the best and the brightest" or "dedicated thinkers" or (a few times to surprisingly great effect in a more political context despite the fact that I thought I was being a bit over the top rhetorically) "guardians of wisdom" tend to be more productive when discussing this issue than trying to combat the enormous negativity and confusion that has amassed around the term "elite."

No matter the terminology... it is still difficult to convey the idea that there may be some persons whose opinions hold more sway than others when it comes to the arts. Perhaps this is due to the very "elitist" nature of art itself which contrast with the notions of democracy and egalitarianism. Of course our democratic culture has no difficulty with the notion that some opinions are better than others in questions of economics or business... that some athletes or sports teams are better than others. To suggest, however, that perhaps someone who has invested years of study of poetry or painting might be a better judge of the merits of a poet or painter than the average high-school student is seen by a good many as almost akin to blaspheme. As you have noted before... its not an issue of wealth (although certainly wealth affords the leisure time to spend in the exploration of art) nor an issue of intelligence. Many brilliant individuals with careers in science, math, medicine, the law, business, etc... have simply chosen that art is not worth the effort... or is not a central issue in their life.

I think you nailed it, Stlukes is a rich dude.
That's a point. As one of our most prominent bibliophiles, he clearly must be posting from a golden yacht while sipping a glass of $50,000 a bottle champagne. The jig is up, mister. Enough of this humble teacher/artist pose. We're on to you and the big money that you elitist types are raking in. Meanwhile, I'm raising my glass of 1907 Heidsieck (http://www.luxist.com/2008/09/08/wor...-000-a-bottle/) while lounging in one of my smaller palazzos (most PhD candidates in the humanities have at least 3 or 4). Ah, the joys of being one of the elite.

Ack!!! I've been caught with my pants down!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4125/4997579014_529f387ccb.jpg

So to speak...:blush:

[JCamilo]

Yes, humiliate us posting images of your european spring cabin...

(A side note, a good reason why those buildings have survive in Europe: no other european has destroyed it...)

[Seasider]

Nothing to do with the main subject but this month is the 70th Anniversary of The Battle of Britain. I just wanted to point out that our Royal Airforce and the German Luftwaffe between them did a lot to destroy some of the greatest buildings in Europe in WW2. Italy was lucky as far as its historical treasures go, but Berlin was flattened, London had a dozen or more Wren churches destroyed as well as the mediaeval Cathedral of Coventry.
I went to the Flemish city of Ypres a few years ago and I saw the wonderful Cloth Hall which was finished in 1304 and utterly destroyed by the artillery barrages of the combatants in WW1. It was rebuilt stone by stone and is, so they say indistinguishable from the original mediaeval masterpiece. If I knew how to post a picture I would.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/ieper/images/ypres-5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/ieper/grote-markt.html&usg=__xRcNOvnQQPFxF_PAlP6Pq-tRcLk=&h=696&w=500&sz=107&hl=en&start=6&sig2=LWUhrukyBLOVI-TZX5iGLA&zoom=1&tbnid=Dx_LhC1RDdPlGM:&tbnh=156&tbnw=91&ei=NkWTTK_VG93NjAez1dySBQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCloth%2BHall%2BYpres%26hl%3Den%26sa%3 DG%26biw%3D770%26bih%3D466%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch: 1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=409&vpy=103&dur=611&hovh=187&hovw=135&tx=77&ty=189&oei=iESTTPDdJY3EswbQxfGFCQ&esq=13&page=2&ndsp=7&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:6 This is 1918

And Now
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.felixstowephotographic.org.uk/Cloth_Hall,_Ypres.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.felixstowephotographic.org.uk/&usg=__utdclWr2gn5lFp6py5qoLuA56qE=&h=375&w=500&sz=25&hl=en&start=20&sig2=CP558YrrwGK2n2bK3fbMNw&zoom=1&tbnid=yw4Gr6SN2UOxbM:&tbnh=146&tbnw=187&ei=JEaTTMbIDNOQjAeh3L23BQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCloth%2BHall%2BYpres%26hl%3Den%26sa%3 DG%26biw%3D770%26bih%3D466%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch: 1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=133&vpy=88&dur=4084&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=147&ty=157&oei=iESTTPDdJY3EswbQxfGFCQ&esq=28&page=4&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:20

Hope this works.

[Propter W.]

From the Europeans I have met I agree that there is a far greater respect for the arts in Europe than in the US. I often remark to my studio mates how I am awed at such building as these:

I've lived in Prague, Bruges and Ghent and I can tell you that, in general, the locals walk past those beautiful buildings like these buildings were starbucks!

[stlukesguild]

Nothing to do with the main subject but this month is the 70th Anniversary of The Battle of Britain. I just wanted to point out that our Royal Airforce and the German Luftwaffe between them did a lot to destroy some of the greatest buildings in Europe in WW2. Italy was lucky as far as its historical treasures go, but Berlin was flattened, London had a dozen or more Wren churches destroyed as well as the mediaeval Cathedral of Coventry.
I went to the Flemish city of Ypres a few years ago and I saw the wonderful Cloth Hall which was finished in 1304 and utterly destroyed by the artillery barrages of the combatants in WW1. It was rebuilt stone by stone and is, so they say indistinguishable from the original mediaeval masterpiece. If I knew how to post a picture I would.

One of British military's more questionable calls was ordering the bombing of Berlin (as opposed to specific military targets) which led Hitler to retaliate in kind. Militarily, the strategy worked... drawing German bombing away from strategic targets such as air bases, factories, etc... but at what cost. When the US entered the war the American lack of concern for culture and history (combined to the American military strategy of "total war" dating back to the Civil War and general Sherman in which the civilian population was intentionally targeted in an effort to demoralize the enemy) led to the leveling of much of Germany... as well as occupied regions in France, Holland, Poland, etc... through carpet bombing. The most egregious example of this was the targeting of Dresden with incendiary bombs.

In spite of the destruction of centuries of warfare, the European landmarks seem to have fared better than American counterparts have at the hands of vandals, developers, politicians, etc... The abandonment of the inner cities as most people with any financial means move to the surrounding suburbs have perhaps been the greatest cause of decline.

[Petrarch's Love]

Meanwhile, the Dutch of this forum have a thread dedicated to debating whether the winner of the best sentence competition in their language is worthy or not. Come on, Americans. Where's our best sentence competition? Let's join in with those Dutch elitists! :D

[JCamilo]

Americans compete for the Great American Novel, something whcih was won by a french probally...

[stlukesguild]

The French wrote the "Great American Novel?"

[JCamilo]

Ah, most likely. Or a Canadian. But in french.

[arrytus]

whereas Michelangelo's Pieta...

to me this is the most amazing work ever created. ineffably so for in no way can I justify this claim. I love the story about how Michelangelo hit his work with a hammer and screamed at it, "SPEAK, DAMN YOU!"

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nothing practical about studying art... or making art. And this is a reality that confronts us daily within the the system of education. The arts are considered "extras"... at best "enrichment activities"... nice to have... but not necessary... and the first thing to go when the budgets get tight. The arts are continually put in a position of needing to justify their purpose within education. Thus we have the arguments about the correlation between music and math scores, and the value of visual art in aiding with a retention of historical persons and events. In other words... even the leaders within arts education have fallen for the notion that art needs to prove it is somehow practical.



You hit it on the head, StLukes. The school I just student taught at had around 500-600 students. How many art teachers? One. ONE! One to cover all art classes at all levels. Plus, this was the only teacher not to have a planning period. What a disgrace. Of course, they have no shortage of coaches for the wonderful and all-important sports programs. The girls volleyball team made it to state! Wow, how wonderful! Meanwhile, the pesky and troublesome art students can barely fit into the small class allotted to them, much less create art in a productive manner.

I really feel sorry for art teachers. They get a **** deal. I feel even more sorry for the art students. The get a ****tier deal. Because, while art teachers have to deal with budget restrictions and not pissing off parents and administration, it is ultimately students who suffer (not to mention the almost-always overlooked bullying they get from the meat-head jocks).

And, I know we're not supposed to talk politics on this board, but screw it. I'd say about 90% of the problem stems from close-minded, book-banning conservatives. The good ol' boys don't see a need for that elitist, liberal crap. It just poisons the minds of our youth, and eventually lead to Marxism.

[Hyacinthine]

I've lived in Prague, Bruges and Ghent and I can tell you that, in general, the locals walk past those beautiful buildings like these buildings were starbucks!

I don't think this is a function of inherent lack of appreciation, but rather the fact that one stops being affected by that which they become used to. If you're rich, vacations and massages don't make you happier because they have become typical parts of your life (though they/things like them provide an initial boost in happiness when one first becomes rich, but that eventually levels out). Same for stunning architecture in one's home city.

[Emil Miller]

I don't think this is a function of inherent lack of appreciation, but rather the fact that one stops being affected by that which they become used to. If you're rich, vacations and massages don't make you happier because they have become typical parts of your life (though they/things like them provide an initial boost in happiness when one first becomes rich, but that eventually levels out). Same for stunning architecture in one's home city.

I think this is true to some extent. It is said that most Parisians have never been atop the Eiffel Tower, and although I have visited cathedrals in various other countries, I have never visited Saint Paul's in London. I think that whereas familiarity might breed contempt, proximity tends to breed a certain indifference.
On the larger question, I would say that art is for everyone who is interested but there will always be varying levels of appreciation which inevitably leads to an elite of those who are able to appreciate it best.

[weltanschauung]

answer: yes.
http://www.101bananas.com/art/innocent3.jpg
ask tansey.

[AlfredtheGreat]

That cow's like, "What have you done!"

[weltanschauung]

nah, the cow´s like "oh, i see. cows"
and the guys are like "so, you seee, cows"