Is Art only for the Elite?

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

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...

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

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?

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mallorie

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mallorie

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 (a dystopian horror short story about the future of the visual arts that is very apropos to this discussion, I think).

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Royal Canadian

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Royal Canadian

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcamillo

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.

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. :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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.