Where's the "Art"?

[john]

The motorcycle imo is not an art object. Art is not a value judgement but a category reserved for objects that have no utility or purpose other than to be considered for their aesthetic qualities. If any-and-every thing of utility that also has aesthetic worth is said to be art, then the word becomes so ubiquitous as to have little to no meaning.

"Art" is not a measure of quality, but a definition of category. So Thomas Kinkade's paintings are art, and the motorcycle is not. The paintings of Bob Ross are art and the buildings of Lloyd Wright are not. We should be debating what is good art and what is bad art, not what IS art.

Now, no doubt this definition will be froth with exceptions, qualifiers, fuzzy lines, some "what abouts" and "what ifs" but it does go a great way imo to clearing fog over "what is art".

Sa in public, that something made with great skill and beauty is not art is considered heathenness. But let us speak clarity to ambiguity.

Well said. I agree with this also and was thinking the same thing. It does however leave many utilitarian works of art like those above in limbo.

Perhaps we can call the motorcycle et al , "artful craft" and everyone will be satisfied.

 

[JohnEmmett]

I say… Art is a term of respect for beauty.

 

[E.J.H.]

Art is what anyone for whatever reason regards as art.
Doesn't mean one has to like all 'art' though....

 

[JohnEmmett]

Art is what anyone for whatever reason regards as art.

Aesthetics…

 

[JohnEmmett]

Highline Cottonwoods by Anne Appleby

 

[stlukesguild]

Art is not a value judgement but a category reserved for objects that have no utility or purpose other than to be considered for their aesthetic qualities.

That definition fails to deal with the fact that a vast majority of art had and continues to have a purpose beyond the aesthetic whether it is architecture, narrative, propaganda, religious promotion, etc... The tapestry I posted above had a utilitarian purpose of helping to stop the drafts in the old homes. The Aztec sunstone served as a form of calendar employed in religious services. The works by the Egyptians, Etruscans, Romans, and that of Bernini all served the purpose of a sarcophagus. The work by Pisano... one of the sculptural masterpieces of the early Renaissance... served the purpose of a pulpit. Portraits have the utility of recording the appearance of people. A good deal of today's art has a propagandistic purpose. The notion that only certain forms of visual creations are Art while others are merely craft is most certainly a value judgment. When John dismisses paintings that appear photorealistic as not being Art... only Craft... he most certainly is making a value judgment. The difference in the monetary value of work deemed "fine art" vs those termed Craft also suggests a value judgment.

 

[stlukesguild]

"Art" is not a measure of quality, but a definition of category. So Thomas Kinkade's paintings are art, and the motorcycle is not. The paintings of Bob Ross are art and the buildings of Lloyd Wright are not. We should be debating what is good art and what is bad art, not what IS art.

Hmmm... and yet almost every book and study of Art History includes architecture, Greek vases, Roman and Egyptian sarcophagi, Persian Carpets, Islamic calligraphy, Japanese screens, etc... The Metropolitan Museum of Art houses suits of armor, fashion, furniture, books, baptismal fonts, posters, jewelry, ceramics, theatrical stage sets & costumes, etc... The question of what is good or bad or mediocre art is another question altogether. The vast majority of photography (an art form) is cliche, mediocre, or even bad. The same is true of the majority of paintings. The same is true of the majority of all art.

 

[john]

art......

Primarily for beauty, emotional power......and intellectual stimulation? Concept art is not about beauty or emotions, unless one considers intellectual intrigue to be an emotional response.

I find this whole thing to be frustrating, especially since by now I would think I know what art is, but, from wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

Though there is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art,[5][6][7] and ideas have changed over time, general descriptions typically include an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency[8] and creation.[9]

 

[Artyczar]

I am coming late to the conversation, but I can not agree that a custom motorcycle is art. It can be "artful." It has a functional use besides art. Art, at least visual fine art, has no other use than an emotional type impact as an object or a conceptual piece. I guess this is my opinion, but something like a really nicely carved bench or a customized bike is pretty much an artisan type craft. That doesn't mean it doesn't take an immense amount to artful skill and imagination. One isn't "better" than the other. They just have different functions/purposes and meanings.

A realistic painting is not "craft." I believe it is still art. It might not be everyone's cup of tea because of the idea "why not take a photo?" might be in play, but that's opinion. It still functions as art under the definition of art. If it's a "lovely" painting for someone, it's art. An ugly, disturbing painting is the same. A mundane, boring painting is the same. Abstract is the same. A terrible abstract painting is the same. If the artist who made a work intends it to be art, it's art. That's my opinion. If it also has another function, it's still "art," but it is more a craft--a beautifully woven rug, or fiber art is "art," but also craft. That stuff has been shown in museums as fine art, so the lines can blur, but to me, that's basically it.

 

[john]

Some bits from wiki relevant to the discussion.

the older system of the arts before our modern system (fine art) held art to be any skilled human activity; for example, Ancient Greek society did not possess the term art, but techne. Techne can be understood neither as art or craft, the reason being that the distinctions of art and craft are historical products that came later on in human history. Techne included painting, sculpting and music, but also cooking, medicine, horsemanship, geometry, carpentry, prophecy, and farming, etc.[125]

and

In 1998, Arthur Danto, suggested a thought experiment showing that "the status of an artifact as work of art results from the ideas a culture applies to it, rather than its inherent physical or perceptible qualities. Cultural interpretation (an art theory of some kind) is therefore constitutive of an object's arthood."[142][143]

 

[stlukesguild]

art......

Primarily for beauty, emotional power......and intellectual stimulation? Concept art is not about beauty or emotions, unless one considers intellectual intrigue to be an emotional response.

The definition I quoted:

Art is a diverse range of human activities involving the creation of visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), which express the creator's imagination, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

"Expressing the creator's... conceptual ideas" would seem inclusive of an art that is more about ideas than the expression of emotions or beauty.

 

[stlukesguild]

In 1998, Arthur Danto, suggested a thought experiment showing that "the status of an artifact as work of art results from the ideas a culture applies to it, rather than its inherent physical or perceptible qualities. Cultural interpretation (an art theory of some kind) is therefore constitutive of an object's arthood."

Thus something is not Art because the creator says it is but rather because the larger audience... especially the cultural audience (artists, art historians, art collectors, etc...) deem it to be Art. And so we have works that may never have been intended to be seen as Art in the modern sense (cave paintings, Persian rugs, suits of armor, etc...) are now deemed as Art. By the same token, Duchamp's urinal is Art according to the contemporary art market/historians/dealers... but may not be deemed Art by future generations.

 

[Bongo]

Thus something is not Art because the creator says it is but rather because the larger audience... especially the cultural audience (artists, art historians, art collectors, etc...) deem it to be Art. And so we have works that may never have been intended to be seen as Art in the modern sense (cave paintings, Persian rugs, suits of armor, etc...) are now deemed as Art. By the same token, Duchamp's urinal is Art according to the contemporary art market/historians/dealers... but may not be deemed Art by future generations.

 

[john]

In 1998, Arthur Danto, suggested a thought experiment showing that "the status of an artifact as work of art results from the ideas a culture applies to it, rather than its inherent physical or perceptible qualities. Cultural interpretation (an art theory of some kind) is therefore constitutive of an object's arthood."

Thus something is not Art because the creator says it is but rather because the larger audience... especially the cultural audience (artists, art historians, art collectors, etc...) deem it to be Art. And so we have works that may never have been intended to be seen as Art in the modern sense (cave paintings, Persian rugs, suits of armor, etc...) are now deemed as Art. By the same token, Duchamp's urinal is Art according to the contemporary art market/historians/dealers... but may not be deemed Art by future generations.

yes, but also, regardless of what the art culture thinks, if the creator says it is art, it is art. Correct?

*********************


"...express the creator's imagination, conceptual ideas, or technical skill...."

but technical skill is craft, or techne. The essence of my argument is that creativity involving imagination and conceptual ideas are higher levels of human ability than manual skills. The mind should be celebrated more than the hand, the intellect over the animal. Thus art created with these intellectual skills of imagination and ideas is more artful, higher art, than merely skillful copying. The greatness of humanity is in our minds more so than in manual dexterity. Mental trumps manual. I would eliminate technical skill from the above definition.

So I am back to my original argument/question, which I somewhat retracted but now reinstate after further consideration.

 

[Bongo]

Antiquities- suits of armor, etc. no longer have utility. If a soldier puts on the armor and goes off to war - then it would cease to be an art object. Duchamp's urinal is art until people start pissing in it.

If the artist who made a work intends it to be art, it's art.

An object can become art despite an artist's intention - i.e. suit of armor. Just as an object can cease to be art despite an artist's intention -i.e. If an artisan- baker declares his cake a work of art then it is -- until someone takes a bite out of it.

That art means beauty or preciousness, or something to behold is ingrained in our thinking - but one trip to a museum will prove that this cannot be the case i.e. Willem de Kooning It is true that much of what we call Art is beautiful, precious, etc. but that is not necessary nor sufficient in itself for something to be art.

And that socially - is the rub - to tell a six-foot- two two-hundred-fifty pound ex cage fighter that his beautiful motorcycle is not art. Or to tell an 80 year old house-bound grandmother that her couch doily is not art. So I advise against it. But on an art forum we should not shy from clarity on matters on art.

 

[Bongo]

If a word is to have meaning it should make a distinction. For "art" to have meaning you should be able to point at an object and say with a measure of certainty - this is art, or this is not art.

Relying on scholars, curators, historians to say what is art is insufficient. For one thing they have not seen or considered 99.9% of the art -candidates. To say that anything is art as long as the artist says it is - is conditional on the object not having utility or no longer having utility. If everything can be art, or no one can say what is art, then the word should be stricken from our vocabulary. If it cannot make distinctions, then it has no meaning and is just taking up space on paper.

Art is not a value judgement but a category reserved for objects that have no utility or purpose other than to be considered for their aesthetic qualities.

That definition fails to deal with the fact that a vast majority of art had and continues to have a purpose beyond the aesthetic whether it is architecture, narrative, propaganda, religious promotion, etc...

Those things are include by some because the have great aesthetic worth and are "artlike" in that respect. But imo that is misguided.

Somehow in our society you can heap all the praise, every superlative in the dictionary on something like a Frank Lloyd Wright building but its not enough unless you say it is art. It is insisted that "Falling Water" be categorized along with crayon scribble from a precocious six year old. Why can we not just recognize "Falling Water" as a sensational stupendous piece of architecture with great aesthetic value and be done with it? By insisting that all beautiful, worthy objects be considered as art you are implying that art requires beauty and that has been demonstrably proven to not be true.

I know it can be painful or seem unfair not to include a decorated cake or a motorcycle as a piece of art but imo a line must be drawn if the word is to have meaning, and it should be delineated with a bit of concreteness and not left totally to the subjective.

 

[E.J.H.]

I think we are starting to confuse things here with that other (?) meaning of the word art; "doing something well", like in the art of war, martial arts, in general saying there is an art to something. This is not a coincidental thing in the english language, it exists in others too.
In that context the motorbike, the architexture etc can most certainly be art.
Maybe the meaning of the word art has always been that broad, and not the exclusive term for non-utalitarian objects, and that without rendering the term meaningless.
And why not end that confusion, by specifying it, call it "visual arts"?

 

[Bongo]

I think we are starting to confuse things here with that other (?) meaning of the word art; "doing something well", like in the art of war, martial arts, in general saying there is an art to something.

You're right. The word art does have multiple meanings - perhaps "art" in the sense of the definition should always be spelled "Art" with a capital "A".

I would also like to amend or clarify something deemed "Art Historical" - those artworks that have stood the test of time, that have been so recognized by scholars, historians, curators, etc. - that they have been awarded a Life Time Achievement Award in Aesthetics so to speak -- despite any utility they once had or have. And that would include most/all of the items Stlukesguild listed.

I should also say that the given definition of Art is "inside baseball" not something that should be of concern to the casuals.

 

[E.J.H.]

Ehm, who are the "casuals"?

 

[Bongo]

By casuals I mean folks that aren't into the arts. So like I said there is no upside to telling your 80 year old housebound grandmother that her couch doily is not art because it serves the utility of keeping pomade off the cushion.