NationStates Jolt Archive

One thing that causes me concern is the seemingly insular, academic nature of the contemporary art world. It looks like the only people who are interested in it are artists, rich collectors and art students. In my experience most people who don't fit into the above categories don't care about it, or quite often think it is all a load of rubbish (which is bullshit like most generalisations).

The reason this concerns me is that it causes artists in general to be increasingly reliant on government and corporate funding. I don't really want that considering that it's my chosen career.

I often hear arguments like "that's not art". Why is it not art? Furthermore, why can't you just call it bad art? Why does the term 'art' usually carry the connotation of being good?

I'll make more points as the discussion develops rather than say everything here.

I think the question should really be "What is art?"

i think most people want something that would look good in their homes. they want good technique and a compelling picture. if it tells a story thats a plus

most people arent interested in the ugly crap that passes as contemporary art. they, unlike art "experts", can call bullshit on "cow parts in formaldehyde" being passed off as art.

most people arent interested in the ugly crap that passes as contemporary art. they, unlike art "experts", can call bullshit on "cow parts in formaldehyde" being passed off as art.

Yeah, really. I'm all for experimentation, but in some cases, I think it's used as an excuse to make some really silly things.

(which is bullshit like most generalisations)

Irony.

"Art" originates from the same root as "arm", being a skill of hand. If it doesn't require skill (or skill of hand), it can't be art.

This Piss-Christ, for example. Take a crucifix and put it in urine. You do shock people, but no one cares about the message.

Hmm...
In general, I personally don't care for the artwork that doesn't make pictures. It's not that I don't think they're valid forms of art, I just like pictures better. Maybe I'm just behind the times.

One thing that causes me concern is the seemingly insular, academic nature of the contemporary art world. It looks like the only people who are interested in it are artists, rich collectors and art students. In my experience most people who don't fit into the above categories don't care about it, or quite often think it is all a load of rubbish (which is bullshit like most generalisations).

The reason this concerns me is that it causes artists in general to be increasingly reliant on government and corporate funding. I don't really want that considering that it's my chosen career.

I often hear arguments like "that's not art". Why is it not art? Furthermore, why can't you just call it bad art? Why does the term 'art' usually carry the connotation of being good?

I'll make more points as the discussion develops rather than say everything here.


It's part of the growing cuts in education. Art and music, appreciation and practice, are important parts of participating in human society. They're not luxuries any more than protien and vitamins are luxuries in the human diet. They're just the thing you can go the longest without before you cease to function at all.

I only took one art appreciation class in college, and my wife left the decorating of the house to me, except for the nursery. A little exposure to culture does change the way you see the world, as long as you've actually been given the tools with which to do it. Problem is, the politicians who control the funding don't want to produce voters with complex understandings of the world. It's hard to manipulate their votes.

I think the question should really be "What is art?"

What a silly question. Art is what artists make (http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/maincan.htm). :D

I'd like something that tastes as good as it looks.

i think most people want something that would look good in their homes. they want good technique and a compelling picture. if it tells a story thats a plus
I expected this. What this comes down to is that people want artists to repeat what other artists did long ago.

most people arent interested in the ugly crap that passes as contemporary art. they, unlike art "experts", can call bullshit on "cow parts in formaldehyde" being passed off as art.
Why isn't that piece (the one by Damien Hirst, I assume you mean) art? See my original post. Does it have to be good to be called art? I don't like it, I might consider it bad art, but I don't see why it's not art. Does it have to be created with traditional media to be art? Does it have to be beautiful to you to be art?

Hmm...
In general, I personally don't care for the artwork that doesn't make pictures. It's not that I don't think they're valid forms of art, I just like pictures better. Maybe I'm just behind the times.
So you prefer the two-dimensional art forms rather than sculpture? Nothing wrong with that, I suppose!

This Piss-Christ, for example. Take a crucifix and put it in urine. You do shock people, but no one cares about the message.
It's not Serrano's fault that no-one cared about his message, if any.

Problem is, the politicians who control the funding don't want to produce voters with complex understandings of the world. It's hard to manipulate their votes.
I don't want this thread to get political. If you want to discuss the poor funding of education, set up another thread.

I'd like something that tastes as good as it looks.
Lol, that reminds me of a sculpture I recently saw in the Modern art gallery in Barcelona. I forget the name of the artist, but the thing was made of chocolate! Unfortunately, he made it in 1970, so it was really crumbly and stale.

What do I want? Only the ability to form my own opinion without people trying to convince me that there is an absolute right and wrong in art.

What a silly question. Art is what artists make (http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/maincan.htm). :D
"Unfortunately, the can decided to selfdestruct right there!"

Amazing.

What do I want? Only the ability to form my own opinion without people trying to convince me that there is an absolute right and wrong in art.
That is granted by the freedom of expression guaranteed to you if you live in a western country.

That is granted by the freedom of expression guaranteed to you if you live in a western country.

Read! Sorry, I'd like to be polite, but I can't. Read the actual words I write!

Form an opinion - not express it. And do so without having to listen to people acting like art isn't subjective. And no, that isn't an advocation of having the government shut them up, before you try to turn it political!

i think most people want something that would look good in their homes. they want good technique and a compelling picture. if it tells a story thats a plus

most people arent interested in the ugly crap that passes as contemporary art. they, unlike art "experts", can call bullshit on "cow parts in formaldehyde" being passed off as art.


No to acquit most contemporary "art," but I've seen that particular piece, and its really something.

It isnt art in the sense of good paintings or sculpture, but it was certainly creative and very interesting.

The same gallery had a head made out of frozen blood that was pretty stupid, along with some other things.

I'm interested in further pursuing the reason why people say "that's not art" when confronted by something that is art, just is bad art. Why can't they say "that's bad art".

I rarely hear people say "that's not music" (I've only ever heard it in response to especially atrocious gangsta rap) when they hear some music they don't like; they usually say "that's bad music". Why the double standard?

Form an opinion - not express it. And do so without having to listen to people acting like art isn't subjective. And no, that isn't an advocation of having the government shut them up, before you try to turn it political!
This shouldn't be a problem. In my experience, art critics nowadays are more relativist than they ever have been before.

This shouldn't be a problem. In my experience, art critics nowadays are more relativist than they ever have been before.

Ok. I don't really look at visual art much, so I just transferred how I felt about music.

Ok. I don't really look at visual art much, so I just transferred how I felt about music.
That's another thing. I want to find out why hardly anyone cares about contemporary visual art, besides films. (that's right, when you go to the movies you are seeing a piece of visual art)

I really want to believe it's something more redeemable than "it's not similar enough to art made in the past".

Because if some of the contemporary "art" works were converted to music, alot more people would be going "What the fuck? This isn't music."

I want it to go a way. And maybe it could take lit class with it.

Because if some of the contemporary "art" works were converted to music, alot more people would be going "What the fuck? This isn't music."
Good point. Actually, from what little exposure I have to contemporary art music I think many people would react the same way that!

So from my perspective it appears that what is popular in terms of art or music is that which is basically a rehashed version of things that have come before it.

One thing that causes me concern is the seemingly insular, academic nature of the contemporary art world. It looks like the only people who are interested in it are artists, rich collectors and art students. In my experience most people who don't fit into the above categories don't care about it, or quite often think it is all a load of rubbish (which is bullshit like most generalisations).I'm sort of a halfway art student - I like it and am taking Drawing II right now (taken Art App too). The problem you're talking about is because people really don't care for things that just don't seem like art. Hell, I don't care about them. I wouldn't draw something just to raise controversy like Piss Christ. I like beauty more than ugliness, and I think the vast majority of normal people feel the same. Calling something just ugly and offensive art makes people ignore you (and some 'good art', incidentally).

Also, there's NO definition of what classifies as art. It just has to be something made/observed. That definitely confuses people.

The reason this concerns me is that it causes artists in general to be increasingly reliant on government and corporate funding. I don't really want that considering that it's my chosen career.Corporations buy a lot of factory art because they have huge buildings to decorate. Is it so suprising then that they buy a lot of it?

I often hear arguments like "that's not art". Why is it not art? Furthermore, why can't you just call it bad art? Why does the term 'art' usually carry the connotation of being good?Problem is, I can call practically anything art. When a term applies to everything, it is meaningless.

I only took one art appreciation class in college, and my wife left the decorating of the house to me, except for the nursery. A little exposure to culture does change the way you see the world, as long as you've actually been given the tools with which to do it. Problem is, the politicians who control the funding don't want to produce voters with complex understandings of the world. It's hard to manipulate their votes.I really liked my Art App class; it's helped me with my drawing as well as making just looking at, well, anything more fun. I think everyone should take Art App...

I love museums and i love art in general, but i have never been a big fan of modern art, or modern architecture or design. There are exceptions though, Andy Warhol, Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dali are three of my favorite artists. I just don't usually get modern art, i'll see some and have no idea what it's trying to represent, and i have no problem admitting that. I would never though say that it's not art, it is, it's just art i don't really like. I could never actually criticize something that i know has meaning to its creator. I may not like it, but it's an extension of them.

I'm sort of a halfway art student - I like it and am taking Drawing II right now (taken Art App too). The problem you're talking about is because people really don't care for things that just don't seem like art.
This basically means that people don't care for things that are not like other things they have seen before.

Problem is, I can call practically anything art. When a term applies to everything, it is meaningless.
I don't agree with people who say that everything can be art. That said, I couldn't define art for you.

I just don't usually get modern art, i'll see some and have no idea what it's trying to represent, and i have no problem admitting that.
I don't understand why people think that good art should be 'serious', 'meaningful' and 'representing something'.

Yeah, really. I'm all for experimentation, but in some cases, I think it's used as an excuse to make some really silly things.
Why can't art ever be silly? The art of caricature, for example, is often silly.

It is art if it takes real skill to make it. Only a handful of people can paint or sculpt at the level to become famous. Any idiot can take a soup can and call it art though.

I think the question should really be "What is art?"
Well dictionary.com gives us this definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art)...

But philosophically, everything and nothing is art.

It is art if it takes real skill to make it. Only a handful of people can paint or sculpt at the level to become famous. Any idiot can take a soup can and call it art though.
Why should art be reduced to a technical skill contest? What about intellectual skills? Isn't a unique and powerful imagination just as important?

I think that there's more to art than just dazzling people with your technical skills.

Imagine if people judged music by how many notes per second the musician could play; it would be ridiculous.

Which leads to my final question: why do you assume that contemporary artists lack skills?

Good point. Actually, from what little exposure I have to contemporary art music I think many people would react the same way that!

So from my perspective it appears that what is popular in terms of art or music is that which is basically a rehashed version of things that have come before it.
As someone who listens to free jazz and contemporary compositions (I'd say '20th Century' or 'Contemporary Classical' but then someone would come along and nitpick even though they knew full well what was meant...people into this stuff are so proud of themselves for being into it that they're almost too much of a pain in the ass to talk to about it...I'm probably not an exception) I can verify that the reaction is the same. Play Ornette Coleman's Free Jazz or especially John Cage's 4'20" and you'll find people saying "That's not music." But both those pieces are meant to challenge the notion of music, of what we consider music, each from different perspectives.

But other pieces that don't have that specific bent have that problem. It's not music, etc.

There are a couple poor yardsticks people use.

Replicatability-for some reason of it is harder to replicate the more 'art' it is. This implies intricacy is a key to art.

Related to that is the notion of 'skill,' because often when people say 'skill' they are refering to how difficult it would be to replicate someone's work.
But a ton of artists can repaint the Mona Lisa, are they on par? Is the value in the excution or the the idea? I would say it's in the idea, the thought and intent of the art and not in the construction. The first question anyone asks about the art is never "How long did this take" or it never should be.

Lineage is another, that it somehow connects to the art that was in their classrooms in school. This is actually a failure of education, not connecting the Mona Lisa to modern art giving the impression that everything was fine then one day someone started pissing in a jar with a crucifix in it.

I think that there is a timidity to appreciating the abstract, we make fun of it so often. I do it. Often when I drop something I'll play it off, "You dropped that." "No, that's my masterpiece, Nude, Ascending." To look at something that isn't direct, a portrait, a port, and find something in it makes us feel a little pretentious-like Nelson is going to pop out and say "Ha ha."

But why is it 'not art' or 'not music.' It might be if they admit it's art or music then they have to admit it's a music or piece of art that they don't understand, and rather than feel inferior (which they shouldn't) they reject it as art or music.

This basically means that people don't care for things that are not like other things they have seen before.They've seen a paint splatter before, and wonder why that on a canvas qualifies as art when there's no apparent skill or thought involved. That doesn't mean there wasn't any skill or thought that went into it, it just isn't apparent, and therefore it's not art to them.

I don't agree with people who say that everything can be art. That said, I couldn't define art for you.That's the problem. You say not everything is art, but you can't tell me what is and what isn't. Eventually you'll say something is art and I won't agree with you, and since art is subjective I'm under no inclination to take your word for it. Since you'll be 'wrong' under my definition of art, I'll tend to treat your recommendations with skepticism after that. See what I mean?

I don't understand why people think that good art should be 'serious', 'meaningful' and 'representing something'.It should mean something to the people looking at it. If it doesn't mean anything, what is it then? Simply the materials with which it is made? You can hardly call that art and expect people to agree with you.


Why can't art ever be silly? The art of caricature, for example, is often silly.Art can be quite as silly as people, I agree with you. :)

It is art if it takes real skill to make it. Only a handful of people can paint or sculpt at the level to become famous. Any idiot can take a soup can and call it art though.

Hence the distinction between fine art and modern art.

Personally, I adore both, the former for its tradition, class and sheer, intransigent beauty, and the latter for the intellectual debate and elitism it affords my scene and I.

It is art if it takes real skill to make it. Only a handful of people can paint or sculpt at the level to become famous.
Does this mean that a bad/non-skillful painting is not art?

I expected this. What this comes down to is that people want artists to repeat what other artists did long ago.

yes, since we are talking about "people", what people want is something within their comfort zone. most people would be quite content with buying thomas kincaid bucolia. they arent looking to be challenged, but to have a pretty picture that puts them in a mood or tells a story.

its not like you can PUT "cow parts in formaldehyde" in your own living room


Why isn't that piece (the one by Damien Hirst, I assume you mean) art? See my original post. Does it have to be good to be called art? I don't like it, I might consider it bad art, but I don't see why it's not art. Does it have to be created with traditional media to be art? Does it have to be beautiful to you to be art?

i didnt say it wasnt art i said it was bullshit. the need for every western artist to be unique drives the art world into glorifying crap just because no one has done it before.

art is communication between the artist and the viewer. it doesnt have to be pretty, it has to speak to people. when you walk around a museum of modern art there are things that just blow you away. you can hardly take your eyes off them. then there is the stuff that is so idea driven that you "get it" in one second and move on to the next piece having gotten only the message that the artist is clever.

They've seen a paint splatter before, and wonder why that on a canvas qualifies as art when there's no apparent skill or thought involved. That doesn't mean there wasn't any skill or thought that went into it, it just isn't apparent, and therefore it's not art to them.
Which comes back to CTOAN's point:
But why is it 'not art' or 'not music.' It might be if they admit it's art or music then they have to admit it's a music or piece of art that they don't understand, and rather than feel inferior (which they shouldn't) they reject it as art or music.

That's the problem. You say not everything is art, but you can't tell me what is and what isn't. Eventually you'll say something is art and I won't agree with you, and since art is subjective I'm under no inclination to take your word for it. Since you'll be 'wrong' under my definition of art, I'll tend to treat your recommendations with skepticism after that. See what I mean?
Yeah. Relativism vs Absolutism and all that.

It should mean something to the people looking at it. If it doesn't mean anything, what is it then? Simply the materials with which it is made? You can hardly call that art and expect people to agree with you.
Maybe this is not what you mean, but I don't see why a piece of art can't be about the materials it is made from.

yes, since we are talking about "people", what people want is something within their comfort zone. most people would be quite content with buying thomas kincaid bucolia. they arent looking to be challenged, but to have a pretty picture that puts them in a mood or tells a story.

its not like you can PUT "cow parts in formaldehyde" in your own living room
You can't put Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling in your living room.

i didnt say it wasnt art i said it was bullshit. the need for every western artist to be unique drives the art world into glorifying crap just because no one has done it before.
That's our culture, I suppose.

art is communication between the artist and the viewer. it doesnt have to be pretty, it has to speak to people. when you walk around a museum of modern art there are things that just blow you away. you can hardly take your eyes off them. then there is the stuff that is so idea driven that you "get it" in one second and move on to the next piece having gotten only the message that the artist is clever.
Well said.

What a silly question. Art is what artists make (http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/maincan.htm). :D
1961, I'd hardly call that contemporary!

Still, I can see what this guy Piero Manzoni is about. He's just pointing out and talking about what we tend to think of as art or what an artist is, in very funny ways.

Does this mean that a bad/non-skillful painting is not art?

Its art, but its not worthy of the same name as something like the sistine chapel. Skill and originality both are important, but all the most talented artist needs is just a basic principle and he can come up with his own version of it. Tell a master artist to paint a portrait and you will get something that not many can match, even though many people can do a semblance of it. Art is not limited to paintings or scuplture though. A master baker whos wedding cake is unlike any other is as much of an artist as many others.