|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2005 : 23:07:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
You and me looking at the same painting. To you it's art and it's okay if you say so. To me it's not art. Is it alright if I say so?
Well, you can hold the opinion that it's bad art or art not to your taste, but I don't think you could hold the opinion that it isn't art.
Maybe, but if it lacks all the qualities of art, then in what sense is it art? |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 01:22:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Maybe, but if it lacks all the qualities of art, then in what sense is it art?
Well, frankly, I think art is whatever someone intends to be art. Art is just creative expression. The artist can choose to express him/herself whatever way they choose.
You're defining art by the reaction it causes to the viewer (aesthetic and emotional appeal), meaning what is art to one person wouldn't be art to another. A very post-modern idea, that. 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/05/2005 01:27:40 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 09:08:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Well, frankly, I think art is whatever someone intends to be art. Art is just creative expression. The artist can choose to express him/herself whatever way they choose.
Good point, but to take it to an irrational extreme, there is a stain on my sock that I consider to be art. I intend to present it as such. Does that mean that my stained sock is actually art? Even bad art?quote:
You're defining art by the reaction it causes to the viewer (aesthetic and emotional appeal), meaning what is art to one person wouldn't be art to another.
Yeah, I've always thought that art, like beauty, was in the eye of the beholder.quote:
A very post-modern idea, that.
Ha! Yeah, I see what you mean. But I don't think it is a postmodern idea when it is applied to something that is totally subjective, like art. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 10:57:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Good point, but to take it to an irrational extreme, there is a stain on my sock that I consider to be art. I intend to present it as such. Does that mean that my stained sock is actually art? Even bad art?
Did you stain the sock with the intention of it being art or did you just notice the stain and then decided it looked cool? Art is a creative process, like I said. There has to be intention. If I crap in a jar and place it on a pedestal and light it properly--that's art. The effort I put into presenting it means that I want people to consider it as art.
Now, what about a very detailed and beautiful illustration of a butterfly in a biology textbook with all the parts labeled? Not art, since it was never intended to be art, it was intended to be a diagram that instructs. You may find one more appealing than the other, but that doesn't change what they are, which to my mind is solely determined by the intention of the creator.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/05/2005 10:58:54 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 11:27:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Did you stain the sock with the intention of it being art or did you just notice the stain and then decided it looked cool? Art is a creative process, like I said. There has to be intention. If I crap in a jar and place it on a pedestal and light it properly--that's art. The effort I put into presenting it means that I want people to consider it as art.
Now, what about a very detailed and beautiful illustration of a butterfly in a biology textbook with all the parts labeled? Not art, since it was never intended to be art, it was intended to be a diagram that instructs. You may find one more appealing than the other, but that doesn't change what they are, which to my mind is solely determined by the intention of the creator.
We obviously have fundamentally different conceptions of what art is. That's fine, I do respect your opinion, but we are clearly going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 12:56:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
We obviously have fundamentally different conceptions of what art is. That's fine, I do respect your opinion, but we are clearly going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.
Well, fair enough, but I would urge you to consider art as a process rather than a product.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 13:28:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
dv82matt:
…there is a stain on my sock that I consider to be art. I intend to present it as such. Does that mean that my stained sock is actually art? Even bad art?
If you take that sock off and frame it and call it “Stained Sock” and it is presented in a context that has some meaning or elicits an emotional response of any kind, I would say it is art. I have been to many art exhibits where the artist used everyday objects, some very mundane to great affect. Sheesh, one guy faithfully recreated a cluttered garage right down to the cobwebs and smells. It was a walkthrough. Very cool.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 15:37:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Well, fair enough, but I would urge you to consider art as a process rather than a product.
I do consider art as a process. It's just that the process is not complete and the work cannot be called art until it evokes something other than indifference from the viewer.quote:
Originally posted by Kil
If you take that sock off and frame it and call it ?Stained Sock? and it is presented in a context that has some meaning or elicits an emotional response of any kind, I would say it is art.
I agree, but what if it fails have meaning or to elicit an emotional response of any kind?quote:
I have been to many art exhibits where the artist used everyday objects, some very mundane to great affect. Sheesh, one guy faithfully recreated a cluttered garage right down to the cobwebs and smells. It was a walkthrough. Very cool.
I certainly don't mean to give the impression that I'm against mundane objects being used creatively to produce art. What I am against is works that are not creative and do not evoke an emotional, aesthetic or intellectual response being called art.
 This is an example of something that fails to be art IMHO. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 15:45:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
What I am against is works that are not creative and do not evoke an emotional, aesthetic or intellectual response being called art.
Is there some sort of critical mass of people that much be reached before you can label something art? If critics respond to a piece but the general population doesn't find it appealing, is it still art? What about if most people love it but it leaves the critics unimpressed? What if everyone in the entire world connected to a work of art that failed to evoke any emotional, aethetic, or intellectual response in you, would you still consider that work to be art? What about a painting or poem that no one ever sees except the person who created them, are those private expressions of creativity art?
I think perhaps you believe the word "art" conveys a level of respectability to certain pieces which you feel are undeserving of it, but that would really just be you engaging in art criticism. 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/05/2005 15:54:26 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 16:53:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Is there some sort of critical mass of people that much be reached before you can label something art?
First of all it must be understood that art being in the eye of the beholder implies that art is relative to the viewer. The same work may be art to one person but not art to another. But to answer your question...
Yes. If we wish to rise above the individual level to the level of the group, then the work in question must evoke something other than indifference from a 'critical mass' of the individuals within the group before you could accurately say that the group as a whole considers it to be art.quote:
If critics respond to a piece but the general population doesn't find it appealing, is it still art?
This is where the relative nature of art comes into play. It is art to the critics, but it is not art to the general population. The general population might label it, "ivory tower art".quote:
What about if most people love it but it leaves the critics unimpressed?
Same as above but the critics would probably label it "low art".quote:
What if everyone in the entire world connected to a work of art that failed to evoke any emotional, aethetic, or intellectual response in you, would you still consider that work to be art?
Chances are that that would mean I was mistaken. If I was not mistaken then it would be art to everyone in the world except me.quote:
What about a painting or poem that no one ever sees except the person who created them, are those private expressions of creativity art?
Only to the person who sees it. If the artist is the only one to ever see it then it can't really be considered art by anyone else.quote:
I think perhaps you believe the word "art" conveys a level of respectability to certain pieces which you feel are undeserving of it, but that would really just be you engaging in art criticism.
It's possible, but I am attempting to avoid that mistake. As far as I can tell Warhol's soup can really does fail to evoke an emotional, aesthetic or intellectual response in me. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 17:32:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I certainly don't mean to give the impression that I'm against mundane objects being used creatively to produce art. What I am against is works that are not creative and do not evoke an emotional, aesthetic or intellectual response being called art.
This is an example of something that fails to be art IMHO.
The soup can painting's was an amplification of the culture of mass production. It's a fine example of pop art and the fact that you have singled it out as your example of something that fails to be art is, paradoxically, one of its greatest successes as a work of art.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 18:01:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
The soup can painting?s was an amplification of the culture of mass production. It?s a fine example of pop art and the fact that you have singled it out as your example of something that fails to be art is, paradoxically, one of its greatest successes as a work of art.
How does the very fact that I don't consider it to be art make it a great success as a work of art? I don't mean to be dense, but I don't follow the logic.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 20:27:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
dv82matt:
How does the very fact that I don't consider it to be art make it a great success as a work of art? I don't mean to be dense, but I don't follow the logic.
One of the purposes that art serves is to raise questions. That you took the time to consider the soup cans and came to a conclusion about them is one of the things Warhol was going for. One of the things Warhol did was to create art outside of the envelope. It was a departure from the agreement that we had with artists about what art is. In that way he held up a mirror to our culture and caused a redefinition or an addition to our notion of what constitutes art. You may not like what he did, but it did make you think.
Also, the image of that can causes an emotional response. To some it represents comfort food. Others are uncomfortable with the pop-out nature of anything mass-produced. Warhol was fascinated with our mass production culture and that fascination can be seen in much of his art.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 21:59:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
dv82matt:
How does the very fact that I don't consider it to be art make it a great success as a work of art? I don't mean to be dense, but I don't follow the logic.
One of the purposes that art serves is to raise questions. That you took the time to consider the soup cans and came to a conclusion about them is one of the things Warhol was going for.
Okay, but I take the time to consider a great many things. I took the time to consider your post which I am now replying to. That was probably something you were going for when you wrote your post. Perhaps then, in a sense, your post is a work of art.quote:
One of the things Warhol did was to create art outside of the envelope. It was a departure from the agreement that we had with artists about what art is. In that way he held up a mirror to our culture and caused a redefinition or an addition to our notion of what constitutes art.
***
Would it be fair to say he took a risk? In redefining art he would nessessarily leave those who were unwilling to alter their notion of what "art" is, behind. If the majority of the art community had refused to follow his lead, then very few people today would consider his soup can painting to be art.
***quote:
You may not like what he did, but it did make you think.
I would say that it is actually marfknox, H. Humbert and you, or rather your posts, which are the main impetous making me think. The soup can seems largely incidental to me.
As I think about Warhol's soup can in light of the new information you have provided (ie. that the soup can painting was an amplification of the culture of mass production), it occurs to me that that information alters, to a degree, the way in which the painting is perceived. What I am getting at is that, although I am still of the opinion that it is not art, I can see how someone with a background in art and art history, and an understanding of what Warhol was going for, could see it as art.quote:
Also, the image of that can causes an emotional response. To some it represents comfort food. Others are uncomfortable with the pop-out nature of anything mass-produced. Warhol was fascinated with our mass production culture and that fascination can be seen in much of his art.
I suppose that it could cause an emotional response. It just seems unlikely to me that it would cause an emotional response in most people (like me) who are ignorant of its background and what Warhol was going for, and the rest.
*** Edited to add the material between the asterixes. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 08/05/2005 23:41:18 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 10:07:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
dv82matt:
What I am getting at is that, although I am still of the opinion that it is not art, I can see how someone with a background in art and art history, and an understanding of what Warhol was going for, could see it as art.
Lots of people see it as art. And not just those with backgrounds in art. That you don't is ok. But lets not make this an elitist thing. Warhol exhibits always sell out. And there are not enough students of art to make that happen. You also insult the intelligence of the people who are not students of art who go to the exhibits. People who just happen to like Warhol.
quote:
dv82matt:
Would it be fair to say he took a risk? In redefining art he would nessessarily leave those who were unwilling to alter their notion of what "art" is, behind. If the majority of the art community had refused to follow his lead, then very few people today would consider his soup can painting to be art.
I think it would be fair to say that most artists worth their salt take risks. Some risk more than others. The fact remains that Andy Warhol is widely considered to be one of the greatest artists of the 20th century. Some feel that he was the greatest. His influences can be seen everywhere. And again you are suggesting that an elite was responsible for his success. Do you have any idea of how many Warhol prints are hanging on people's walls? Do you actually believe that the only reason people buy art is because some critic told them it was good art? I am sure that is the case sometimes. But really, you can hardly go through a day without seeing something that was inspired by Warhol. Many of his works are icons. Shoot, we have on our site a graphic that @tomic, our webmaster made up that is directly inspired by Warhol, here. I can't get you to like the soup cans. I can't even get you to think of them as art. But I would suggest that if you use something as controversial as the soup cans were as an example of what is not art, you consider the possibility that the controversy itself suggests that it is art, like it or not…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
