Where's the "Art"?

[Bongo]

A good video about this.

pithy aphorisms spouted by a gushing docent.

 

[brianvds]

It is perhaps noteworthy that to those of us trying to make a living out of it, the definition of art is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Artyczar]

Okay, why is that Brian?

 

[brianvds]

Okay, why is that Brian?

Because the question is whether it will sell, not whether it is "really" art.

 

[E.J.H.]

Maybe I am not really qualified to have an opinion here, as I have never sold an artwork in my life.
So with that disclaimer in mind, I respectfully disagree Brian, when you make art for a living, it is most surely a very important question, arguably the most important, "does it sell".
But not the only one, at least I don't think it should be. It doesn't make all the other aspects of the artwork irrelevant.
Three words, duct tape banana

 

[stlukesguild]

When it comes to my own work, I again like two quotes... one by a former studio mate:

"I'm a painter; I make images and objects. I'll let others worry about whether it is Art."

The second is by Andy Warhol:

“Don't think about making Art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more Art.”

 

[john]

Paul Klee sums it up for me regarding craft vs creativity....

"The painter should not paint what he sees, but what will be seen.”

 

[Artyczar]

Those are all good quotes.

I don't agree Brian. I don't have a good argument for it yet, but I can't imagine art being about business and industry in order to be "art." I think it would almost be the opposite in a pure sort of form, but I just disagree that salability is what makes an object (or concept) "art." I know artists, including me, that make some things for free on purpose. Installations, for instance can be purchased by museums at times, but the purpose of making them aren't necessarily their salability, but an experience for others.

 

[Bongo]

I read Brian's comment to mean he makes objects with an eye toward selling and is not really concerned with where they fall within a definition of art - he's NOT saying something has to be sellable to be art - quite the opposite.

 

[brianvds]

Those are all good quotes.

I don't agree Brian. I don't have a good argument for it yet, but I can't imagine art being about business and industry in order to be "art." I think it would almost be the opposite in a pure sort of form, but I just disagree that salability is what makes an object (or concept) "art." I know artists, including me, that make some things for free on purpose. Installations, for instance can be purchased by museums at times, but the purpose of making them aren't necessarily their salability, but an experience for others.

Well, I wasn't arguing that salability is what makes something art. I argued that to me, the question of whether my pictures are "really" art, or "mere illustration" or "mere decoration" or "kitsch" or whatever, is quite thoroughly irrelevant. If I ever do manage to make a living out of it, I can guarantee you that the question of whether I am making a living out of art or out of mere decoration, is not one which is going to give me any sleepless nights.

 

[Bongo]

Pablo Picasso, Georgia O'Keeffe , Matisse, de Kooning, Frank Stella , Duchamp, Gerhard Richter, Mondrian, Schiele, Chagall, Damien Hirst, Manet, Munch, Jasper Johns, Lucian Freud , Cezanne, Fernand Leger, Sol Dewitt, Richard Serra, Miro, Edward Hopper, Barnett Newman, etc.

Virtually all famous artists are in the trade of making stuff of no utility -other than to be considered for aesthetic qualities. They make a product. It's called Art. It doesn't do anything - its just made to be looked at. If you make stuff like that, then you're an Artist same as the above.

Maybe then craft is aesthetically worthy objects that have utility, and Art is aesthetically worthy objects with no utility??

 

[stlukesguild]

Pablo Picasso, Georgia O'Keeffe , Matisse, de Kooning, Frank Stella , Duchamp, Gerhard Richter, Mondrian, Schiele, Chagall, Damien Hirst, Manet, Munch, Jasper Johns, Lucian Freud , Cezanne, Fernand Leger, Sol Dewitt, Richard Serra, Miro, Edward Hopper, Barnett Newman, etc.

Virtually all famous artists are in the trade of making stuff of no utility -other than to be considered for aesthetic qualities.

You have simply listed a number of painters and sculptors who rarely made any works of that had any value beyond aesthetic appreciation as an argument that Art is limited to only that which has no value beyond aesthetic appreciation. I won't mention Picasso's ceramics as well as his, Matisse's, and Miro's posters. But what of Michelangelo (architecture), Bernini (portraits, architecture, sarcophagi), Giotto (architecture), Ghiberti (architectural details: doors to the Baptistry of Florence), Bonnard (illustration and posters), Toulouse-Lautrec (posters), Chagall (posters, illustrations, stained glass designs, theatrical stage sets), and Mucha (posters, graphic designs, jewelry, etc...) And what of those who are not painters or sculptors? I don't accept that somehow only certain art forms are worthy of being deemed art or that Art is limited to only that without any value beyond the aesthetic. A great majority of painting had/have a purpose beyond aesthetic appreciation... whether it is recording the appearance of individuals (portraits), religious veneration (icons), narrative, etc...

It's called Art. It doesn't do anything - its just made to be looked at. If you make stuff like that, then you're an Artist same as the above.

We can go back and forth stating what we each believe Art is... that doesn't make it true.

Maybe then craft is aesthetically worthy objects that have utility, and Art is aesthetically worthy objects with no utility??

Or maybe Art is that which is admired for its aesthetic merit regardless of the original intentions or the utilitarian value of the work?

 

[JohnEmmett]

the question should be where is the aesthetic beauty


which maybe is answered by artwork


maybe artwork doesn't answer that question


whereas anything could

 

[Bongo]

Or maybe Art is that which is admired for its aesthetic merit regardless of the original intentions or the utilitarian value of the work?

okay, that narrows it down to just about everything.

 

[Bongo]

....But what of Michelangelo (architecture), Bernini (portraits, architecture, sarcophagi), Giotto (architecture), Ghiberti (architectural details: doors to the Baptistry of Florence), Bonnard (illustration and posters), Toulouse-Lautrec (posters), Chagall (posters, illustrations, stained glass designs, theatrical stage sets), and Mucha (posters, graphic designs, jewelry, etc...) And what of those who are not painters or sculptors? I don't accept that somehow only certain art forms a......

IAll of that is art because it falls in the category of "Art Historical". But if Chagall made a theatrical set today imo he would be a set designer, etc.


You seem to be saying if something is beautiful or aesthetically pleasing then it's art...
but that imo fails on two counts.
1. requires a judgement call
2. so broad as to include almost everything

Objects in my world can be beautiful and aesthetically pleasing without become art - but remain toasters, and buildings and couch doilies.

 

[E.J.H.]

I think, one way or another trying to pin down a definition of art always requires that "judgement call", and then in the sense of giving room for it like in the slightly flippant one I proposed earlier..
Because if not you wil automatically land on the second failue, a definition so broad it's all encompassing.

I think because of its very nature it is impossible to make a definition that can be used to determine if a certain specific work is art, Art, or something else. I also think that is the reason of how this discussion here is running in circles.

 

[joe1It]

I saw part, some episodes of this program. here too he said as written by Stlukesguild that while in the West at a certain point they were considered artists, and no longer artisans, in the East this was not there, they still have a different conception (I don't remember well, other program they had done previously, same band who sometimes makes plans for this, at other times, on travel, or one on architecture, or on animals, other times on food, however, I had heard that an artist, in the West, was therefore envious, an artist puts his signature, he began to be therefore appreciated, recognized, in the same years or shortly after in india, east there was also an incredible level, in india they made miniatures, like paintings or those fabulous palaces but the only individual, recognition was for emperor, the rest was the community, craftsmen with a common intent, this even in the cases of the most beautiful works of art, miniatures actually do not bear the artist's signature, in any case they made various works with which there were stories, or oriental carpets that are actually incredible works of art but always considered craftsmanship, but also for paintings, that is, art is understood differently in different places or historical periods, what now perhaps at least in some parts is called as art can be considered crafts, I think it's already difficult in some cases to really separate that, but it also changes the fact that art will have different meanings) this is yesterday's program instead, The Sense of Beauty "is on: We are all interested in beauty and we think we know everything, but: where does it originate? How and why does your perception change according to time and place? Is there a universal beauty? In other words: what is beauty? The series “The Sense of Beauty” kicks off from this question, on air from Wednesday 13 January at 8.30 pm Six episodes - conducted by the actor and writer Domenico Frisby together with artists, critics, philosophers and scientists - in which art and knowledge are the lenses through which to frame the "sense" of beauty. The first appointment is dedicated to the evolution of beauty: how was it born? The answer is not the result of the mind of a philosopher or that of an important art critic but of an expert in barnacles, worms and birds: Charles Darwin. His theory on the evolutionary power of beauty takes us on a journey that starts from the first works of art ever made by man, continues among the masterpieces of nature, brings us back to the great thinkers and classical masterpieces to end today, in Seoul, temple of plastic surgery where the evolutionary process has passed from the hands of mother nature to the scalpel. have you seen this Venus?
no Boticelli.. is a chinese artist who has lived in france for years, has reinterpreted so many masterpieces

 

[joe1It]

 

[joe1It]

perhaps it does not center directly, and due to a union between art and beauty, even if here too there is probably a lot to say (and a lot of confession on my part, that is, both on what is art and what beauty is not and what does not confusion, and in any case perhaps there could never be a single answer), art is many things, it can be drama, fear, it may be that beauty is what comes to us and how, message

 

[E.J.H.]

I wonder if we saw the same documentary (it was part of a series, from the bbc I think).
I was reminded of them too, the intricate Indian miniatures from the time og the Moghuls, that were, at the time dismissed in the western world as "mere illustrations", craftmanship and not art. This opinion has changed.