Where's the "Art"?
- Thread starter stlukesguild
- Start date
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,317
I still stand by my idea of what the work is intended to be. I understand that some people think that art can't really become art until audiences and scholars say it is, but I'm not really down with that because then artists that were before their time may have never been seen for who they were, like Van Gogh, or Henry Darger--who wasn't even making art for an audience other than himself.
Things like suits of armor and other such things no longer have their functionality, that is true, but I personally don't consider them works of fine art. Art, yes, but not fine art. They are visually beautiful and ornate and incredibly well-crafted, but they were not made by artists. That's my personal opinion.
Likewise with sarcophaguses. They were not made by artists. They had exact purposes and symbolism that represented important people in society. They were painted by artists of a kind, but not artists (capitalize "artists" it if you must).
The cave paintings have come to be accepted as art, but they were not made to be (as far as we know). They are probably some of the most amazing art (to me) in the world, but I just don't think they were produced with the intent of being "art" by people who thought themselves as artists like we know today, or as the definition has come to mean.
I suppose, I am seeing this as a fine art vs. craft, or fine art vs. functional art, or even fine art vs. commercial art, or etc. In that respect, perhaps Darger's art was not fine art because they were illustrations, if we want to get technical. He made them to illustrate a specific story. But bringing that up takes us back to the art vs. illustration discussion and that's a whole other bag of cats.
I'd like to say again that I think fine art, craft, illustration, commercial art...all of it IS art and NONE of it is "better" than any other. I think it's all about purpose in order to be able to define the categories. What is it's original purpose? That can only be defined by its maker. It can be accepted as something else after the fact, but I'm talking about original purpose here. That has to stand for something, and it's easier (for me) to stick with that in order to straighten out the confusion.
Things like suits of armor and other such things no longer have their functionality, that is true, but I personally don't consider them works of fine art. Art, yes, but not fine art. They are visually beautiful and ornate and incredibly well-crafted, but they were not made by artists. That's my personal opinion.
Likewise with sarcophaguses. They were not made by artists. They had exact purposes and symbolism that represented important people in society. They were painted by artists of a kind, but not artists (capitalize "artists" it if you must).
The cave paintings have come to be accepted as art, but they were not made to be (as far as we know). They are probably some of the most amazing art (to me) in the world, but I just don't think they were produced with the intent of being "art" by people who thought themselves as artists like we know today, or as the definition has come to mean.
I suppose, I am seeing this as a fine art vs. craft, or fine art vs. functional art, or even fine art vs. commercial art, or etc. In that respect, perhaps Darger's art was not fine art because they were illustrations, if we want to get technical. He made them to illustrate a specific story. But bringing that up takes us back to the art vs. illustration discussion and that's a whole other bag of cats.
I'd like to say again that I think fine art, craft, illustration, commercial art...all of it IS art and NONE of it is "better" than any other. I think it's all about purpose in order to be able to define the categories. What is it's original purpose? That can only be defined by its maker. It can be accepted as something else after the fact, but I'm talking about original purpose here. That has to stand for something, and it's easier (for me) to stick with that in order to straighten out the confusion.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
yes, but also, regardless of what the art culture thinks, if the creator says it is art, it is art. Correct?
Is this something that applies solely to Art... or can I be a neurosurgeon or nuclear physicist simply by saying that I am one?
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.
It would seem then that you don't grasp that the craft involves continual thought and decision-making... continual employment of the mind. Picasso's famous quote: "Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" comes to mind. Staring at your navel and thinking deep thoughts results in nothing. One might make a stronger argument in favor of the greater importance of the process of creation as opposed to the concept. You may have the most profound concept (in your mind) but this is meaningless without the ability to realize this... and without putting forth the effort to do so. The notion of downplaying what you term "skill" is a long-outdated idea. Studies on the human brain prove that what were long termed as skills (playing chess, playing an instrument, playing sports, creating a work of art) are just as much products of the intellect as anything else.
Is this something that applies solely to Art... or can I be a neurosurgeon or nuclear physicist simply by saying that I am one?
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.
It would seem then that you don't grasp that the craft involves continual thought and decision-making... continual employment of the mind. Picasso's famous quote: "Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" comes to mind. Staring at your navel and thinking deep thoughts results in nothing. One might make a stronger argument in favor of the greater importance of the process of creation as opposed to the concept. You may have the most profound concept (in your mind) but this is meaningless without the ability to realize this... and without putting forth the effort to do so. The notion of downplaying what you term "skill" is a long-outdated idea. Studies on the human brain prove that what were long termed as skills (playing chess, playing an instrument, playing sports, creating a work of art) are just as much products of the intellect as anything else.
E.J.H.
Well-known member
- Messages
- 821
It's all rather wordy, so I will for clarity paraphrase what I think we got so far (do correct me if I got it wrong);
Art can be any object made by humans, provided it is made with the sole intention of making art, and it is useless for anything else beside being art.
Art can be any object made by humans, provided it is made with the sole intention of making art, and it is useless for anything else beside being art.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
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.
Someone actually did that not to long ago at the Philadelphia Museum.
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
But is that true? One might argue that there is an aesthetic beauty to a painting by DeKooning. This may not be a traditional form of "beauty" akin to that we find "pretty" or attractive... but rather closer to what Edmund Burke, in his text A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful termed as Sublime. The Sublime, he argued, may inspire horror, fear, awe, or revulsion... but the ultimate result is that we find the experience pleasurable or aesthetically "beautiful"... such as the violent ending of Shakespeare's Hamlet, a horror film, or riding a roller-coaster. Notice that for every DeKooning there are thousands of bad abstract paintings. The admiration of a DeKooning painting is certainly based upon aesthetic judgments.
Someone actually did that not to long ago at the Philadelphia Museum.
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
But is that true? One might argue that there is an aesthetic beauty to a painting by DeKooning. This may not be a traditional form of "beauty" akin to that we find "pretty" or attractive... but rather closer to what Edmund Burke, in his text A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful termed as Sublime. The Sublime, he argued, may inspire horror, fear, awe, or revulsion... but the ultimate result is that we find the experience pleasurable or aesthetically "beautiful"... such as the violent ending of Shakespeare's Hamlet, a horror film, or riding a roller-coaster. Notice that for every DeKooning there are thousands of bad abstract paintings. The admiration of a DeKooning painting is certainly based upon aesthetic judgments.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
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.
I totally reject the notion that Art is a category reserved for human creations having no utility or purpose other than to be considered for their aesthetic qualities. This would eliminate the vast majority of works in the museums and art history books: architecture, tapestries, ceramics, quilts, rugs, jewelry, fashion, etc... but also a good deal of paintings, prints, drawings, and sculpture that have utilitarian purposes such as sarcophagi, propaganda, illustration, portraits, historical narratives, etc...
I totally reject the notion that Art is a category reserved for human creations having no utility or purpose other than to be considered for their aesthetic qualities. This would eliminate the vast majority of works in the museums and art history books: architecture, tapestries, ceramics, quilts, rugs, jewelry, fashion, etc... but also a good deal of paintings, prints, drawings, and sculpture that have utilitarian purposes such as sarcophagi, propaganda, illustration, portraits, historical narratives, etc...
E.J.H.
Well-known member
- Messages
- 821
It is intruiging and kind of hilarious when you think about it, that a bunch of artists can't agree on a simple one sentence definition of the term that is used to describe the essence of what they are doing, "art"....
I mean not just any bunch of people, the artist themselves. Probably pretty difficult to find an other profession so divided about what it actually is....
I mean not just any bunch of people, the artist themselves. Probably pretty difficult to find an other profession so divided about what it actually is....
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
I still stand by my idea of what the work is intended to be. I understand that some people think that art can't really become art until audiences and scholars say it is, but I'm not really down with that because then artists that were before their time may have never been seen for who they were, like Van Gogh, or Henry Darger--who wasn't even making art for an audience other than himself.
But certainly, Van Gogh was thought of as an artist in his own time... although he wasn't recognized as being as good as we now think of him. As for Henry Darger... did he think of himself as an artist?
Things like suits of armor and other such things no longer have their functionality, that is true, but I personally don't consider them works of fine art. Art, yes, but not fine art. They are visually beautiful and ornate and incredibly well-crafted, but they were not made by artists. That's my personal opinion.
What makes a geometric painting by Sean Scully or Agnes Martin Art but not this?
Likewise with sarcophaguses. They were not made by artists. They had exact purposes and symbolism that represented important people in society. They were painted by artists of a kind, but not artists (capitalize "artists" it if you must).
You don't find these to be works of Art?
The cave paintings have come to be accepted as art, but they were not made to be (as far as we know). They are probably some of the most amazing art (to me) in the world, but I just don't think they were produced with the intent of being "art" by people who thought themselves as artists like we know today, or as the definition has come to mean.
I agree that the intentions of the creators may not have been to create works of ART... at least in the modern sense. This was certainly true of the cave painters. It was also true of artists in ancient Egypt... even in the Middle Ages.
I suppose, I am seeing this as a fine art vs. craft, or fine art vs. functional art, or even fine art vs. commercial art, or etc. In that respect, perhaps Darger's art was not fine art because they were illustrations, if we want to get technical. He made them to illustrate a specific story. But bringing that up takes us back to the art vs. illustration discussion and that's a whole other bag of cats.
Exactly. Paintings such as Giotto's and Michelangelo's frescoes were illustrations intended to communicate the Biblical narratives to a largely illiterate audience. Are they not also paintings and "fine art"?
But certainly, Van Gogh was thought of as an artist in his own time... although he wasn't recognized as being as good as we now think of him. As for Henry Darger... did he think of himself as an artist?
Things like suits of armor and other such things no longer have their functionality, that is true, but I personally don't consider them works of fine art. Art, yes, but not fine art. They are visually beautiful and ornate and incredibly well-crafted, but they were not made by artists. That's my personal opinion.
What makes a geometric painting by Sean Scully or Agnes Martin Art but not this?
Likewise with sarcophaguses. They were not made by artists. They had exact purposes and symbolism that represented important people in society. They were painted by artists of a kind, but not artists (capitalize "artists" it if you must).
You don't find these to be works of Art?
The cave paintings have come to be accepted as art, but they were not made to be (as far as we know). They are probably some of the most amazing art (to me) in the world, but I just don't think they were produced with the intent of being "art" by people who thought themselves as artists like we know today, or as the definition has come to mean.
I agree that the intentions of the creators may not have been to create works of ART... at least in the modern sense. This was certainly true of the cave painters. It was also true of artists in ancient Egypt... even in the Middle Ages.
I suppose, I am seeing this as a fine art vs. craft, or fine art vs. functional art, or even fine art vs. commercial art, or etc. In that respect, perhaps Darger's art was not fine art because they were illustrations, if we want to get technical. He made them to illustrate a specific story. But bringing that up takes us back to the art vs. illustration discussion and that's a whole other bag of cats.
Exactly. Paintings such as Giotto's and Michelangelo's frescoes were illustrations intended to communicate the Biblical narratives to a largely illiterate audience. Are they not also paintings and "fine art"?
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
It is intruiging and kind of hilarious when you think about it, that a bunch of artists can't agree on a simple one sentence definition of the term that is used to describe the essence of what they are doing, "art"....
I mean not just any bunch of people, the artist themselves. Probably pretty difficult to find an other profession so divided about what it actually is....
But the term Art covers such a broad array: music, dance, theater, film, photography, literature... Even if we limit ourself to the visual arts, we have paintings, sculpture, drawing, prints, book arts, fiber arts, fashion, photography, film, conceptual art, ceramics, architecture, etc...
I mean not just any bunch of people, the artist themselves. Probably pretty difficult to find an other profession so divided about what it actually is....
But the term Art covers such a broad array: music, dance, theater, film, photography, literature... Even if we limit ourself to the visual arts, we have paintings, sculpture, drawing, prints, book arts, fiber arts, fashion, photography, film, conceptual art, ceramics, architecture, etc...
E.J.H.
Well-known member
- Messages
- 821
Well sure, thanks for pointing that out, but some fellows here had crossed a lot of those categories of the list (see my slightly flippant paraphrase, an obviously doomed attempt). Whether I agree with that is not really the point (I actually agree more with you in this aspect).
It is just another exemple of the confusion I pointed out.
Anything what you, I or anybody else states in this topic, someone will speak up with a "yes, but...continuing to argue an opposite view". And none of those views have demonstratable more merit than the next. Even on a pretty clear quesion like "is architecture art" artists don't agree.
That was my point.
OliveOyl
Well-known member
- Messages
- 301
I just read THIS...a short little thing about my “muse,” Nick Cave. He certainly qualifies as a passionately creative person, although his craft is songwriting. He says there’s always been “a strong, even obsessive, visual component to the process - a compulsive rendering of the lyric as a thing to be seen, to be touched, to be examined. I have always done this - basically drawn my songs - for as long as I’ve been writing them. “
Please, go on dearest of mans: “Song writing is largely performed in a state of deep unease that needs its points of reprieve. When the pressure of song writing gets too much, well, I draw a cute animal or a naked women or a religious icon or a mythological creature or something. Or I take a Polaroid or make something out of clay. I do a collage, or write a child’s poem and date stamp and sticker it, or do some granny-art with a set of watercolour paints.”
Because he’s not been able to tour during the pandemic, he still has a strong need to make stuff. Although he doesn’t call his stuff-making...ART...he still wants to offer up some “incidental residue of an over-stimulated mind.” So, he’s created a little online store which “is situated beyond merchandise but stops before art.” That’s probably wise of him to say. But still, I’d happily take a piece of his crafty, creatively beautiful, weird and wordy, artistically-minded brain whenever I can.
Like maybe these two incidental bits of residue for around 10 bucks each?
Even though he claims otherwise...to me, THIS IS (some kind of) ART. Or no?
Please, go on dearest of mans: “Song writing is largely performed in a state of deep unease that needs its points of reprieve. When the pressure of song writing gets too much, well, I draw a cute animal or a naked women or a religious icon or a mythological creature or something. Or I take a Polaroid or make something out of clay. I do a collage, or write a child’s poem and date stamp and sticker it, or do some granny-art with a set of watercolour paints.”
Because he’s not been able to tour during the pandemic, he still has a strong need to make stuff. Although he doesn’t call his stuff-making...ART...he still wants to offer up some “incidental residue of an over-stimulated mind.” So, he’s created a little online store which “is situated beyond merchandise but stops before art.” That’s probably wise of him to say. But still, I’d happily take a piece of his crafty, creatively beautiful, weird and wordy, artistically-minded brain whenever I can.
Like maybe these two incidental bits of residue for around 10 bucks each?
Even though he claims otherwise...to me, THIS IS (some kind of) ART. Or no?
Claude J Greengrass
Well-known member
- Messages
- 277
I found you understatement most humorous.
john
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,112
Yeah, I must confess that despite my inclination to judge art according to how much creativity is involved, I am quite happy with something I've painted that is "merely" copying nature. To think that I can improve on nature is probably arrogant. It's like saying I can paint a better Van Gogh or make "The Scream" a better painting by refining the brushwork.
Last edited:
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,317
Those things are not subjective forms of functionality. You can't subjectively be a neurosurgeon. It's pretty cut and dry. Being an artist is not.
Bongo
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,544
you missed my clarification/amendment -
StLg:
First let's limit the definition/discussion to visual arts - we need not make the task any harder. While this definition reads noble it is way too broad on one hand and way too vague on the other. It basically reads every and anything you do is art as long as it's mostly about beauty and emotion. Has to be about beauty, really? Emotional only not intellectual?
Imo as soon as you include value judgement in the definition of Art it is doomed for failure. As soon as you make it too inclusive it looses meaning.
Requiring that a (modern) object have no utility as a condition may seem a bit harsh but for a definition to have meaning we must make a distinction, we must be able to say with a measure of certainty - this is Art, this is not. One unintended benefit from this requirement is that it implies commitment.
"I just made a toaster that also happens to look cool- so it's Art". No. It's a toaster.
"I just made this thing-a ma-jig, it doesn't do anything but has interesting Color, Shape, Pattern, Line, Texture, Visual weight, Balance, Scale, Proximity and Movement." ... Okay, it's Art. Not saying it's good Art, not saying it belongs in the Met, but it's Art.
Last edited:
Bongo
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,544
Arty I feel your pain about certain things of the past now being considered art - i.e. suits or armor, Maori skull bashing clubs. But that ship has sailed imo. The best we can do is strive for clarity going forward.I'm with you Bongo. I'm pretty sure for the most part. Definitely on the toaster thing without a doubt.
There are no doubt some valid "what ifs" and "what abouts" to be said about a definition, but I believe for most cases it works.
Maybenartist
Well-known member
- Messages
- 553
The only thing that art can do is to stimulate the mind. We just happen to have different minds, hopefully! 
