Art = Getting reactions from people.

Banksy, picturesonwalls.com, facebook, feminism.

Discuss books, film, tv, music, games and all other arts here.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#81  Postby Thommo » Jul 02, 2014 5:37 am

Nicko wrote:
Thommo wrote:Stretching the definition of argument there somewhat, aren't you? Also why does someone need to refute Duchamp's statement of opinion? Things don't stand until refuted just because someone says them, even if they are said in clever or original ways.


Well, to be accurate, the argument was not just his "sculpture".

Duchamp submitted Fountain to an open exhibition and had it rejected as "not art" by a bunch of people who - like some in this thread - found themselves completely unable to justify their position.


Let's keep it straight, you support Duchamp's view that anything done by an artist is art, correct? That is completely fine. That's an opinion and you are free to it, that does not automatically disqualify differing opinions.

If you want to go further and present it as an "argument" and having some basis in fact rather than opinion then the burden of proof, as I'm sure you're aware, is on the claimant, not the disputant.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#82  Postby Nicko » Jul 02, 2014 6:08 am

Thommo wrote:Let's keep it straight, you support Duchamp's view that anything done by an artist is art, correct? That is completely fine. That's an opinion and you are free to it, that does not automatically disqualify differing opinions.

If you want to go further and present it as an "argument" and having some basis in fact rather than opinion then the burden of proof, as I'm sure you're aware, is on the claimant, not the disputant.


However, in order to qualify as a "disputant", a person would need to present an alternative definition that made more sense.

Could you point to where in this thread this has been provided?

Duchamp's definition stands - not because it' exalts art; on the contrary, it scythes away much artistic pretension of Grand Meaning - because there is no competing definition. People often object to it, but can't seem to elucidate a better definition.

I say that Banksy's Facebook trolling is art because it is a thing done by an artist; on what grounds do you refute it?

Or, to get back to Duchamp, why is a hunk of marble carved into a shape "art", whilst a urinal with "R. Mutt" scrawled on it not?

Upon what basis are you making your distinction?
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#83  Postby Thommo » Jul 02, 2014 6:31 am

Nicko wrote:
Thommo wrote:Let's keep it straight, you support Duchamp's view that anything done by an artist is art, correct? That is completely fine. That's an opinion and you are free to it, that does not automatically disqualify differing opinions.

If you want to go further and present it as an "argument" and having some basis in fact rather than opinion then the burden of proof, as I'm sure you're aware, is on the claimant, not the disputant.


However, in order to qualify as a "disputant", a person would need to present an alternative definition that made more sense.


No. If you say "God made the universe" I don't need to tell you what did to dispute the claim. Not right at all.

It's not even as though there is some method for deciding what makes "more sense" between, say:-

"Art is just what artists do."
and
"Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Nicko wrote:Duchamp's definition stands - not because it' exalts art; on the contrary, it scythes away much artistic pretension of Grand Meaning - because there is no competing definition. People often object to it, but can't seem to elucidate a better definition.


Certainly people use the word "art" in this way, but this is not a semantic issue. Duchamp wasn't making a semantic statement, Richard Serra isn't making a semantic statement in that clip Orpheus just posted. Aside from which, "art is just artists do" is semantically insufficient anyway, since (a) artists are defined in terms of art and less importantly (b) we clearly don't consider all things artists do as art.

When Roger Ebert claims that films are art and video games are not, it's not about semantic definitions, or whether anyone has used the word art in such and such way, or even what makes "most sense", it's about a personal view of what art means to him and what has significant artistic merit.

Nicko wrote:I say that Banksy's Facebook trolling is art because it is a thing done by an artist; on what grounds do you refute it?


On the grounds that's just your opinion, man. I don't actually have an opinion of course. But really it should be clear why confusing "I consider this art" and "people use the word art in this way" is a bad idea.

Nicko wrote:Or, to get back to Duchamp, why is a hunk of marble carved into a shape "art", whilst a urinal with "R. Mutt" scrawled on it not?

Upon what basis are you making your distinction?


I didn't say I was. My view has not been asserted as the correct one. He who claims, defends and all that.

Anyway, to refocus on the main point, it is just plain wrong that if someone makes an "argument" and nobody refutes it to your satisfaction that the claim has been established. The burden of proof doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter whether the sphere of discussion is artistry or theology.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#84  Postby Nicko » Jul 02, 2014 9:59 am

Thommo wrote:
Nicko wrote:
Thommo wrote:Let's keep it straight, you support Duchamp's view that anything done by an artist is art, correct? That is completely fine. That's an opinion and you are free to it, that does not automatically disqualify differing opinions.

If you want to go further and present it as an "argument" and having some basis in fact rather than opinion then the burden of proof, as I'm sure you're aware, is on the claimant, not the disputant.


However, in order to qualify as a "disputant", a person would need to present an alternative definition that made more sense.


No. If you say "God made the universe" I don't need to tell you what did to dispute the claim. Not right at all.


Correct, but we are not talking about a factual claim here. We are talking about the definition of a word.

Thommo wrote:It's not even as though there is some method for deciding what makes "more sense" between, say:-

"Art is just what artists do."
and
"Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."


An excellent point.

Another point - the excellence of which might be disputed - is that the second definition is subsumed by the first.

Or, to put it another way, "Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." is a subset of, "Art is just what artists do." All things covered by the former are covered by the latter, but the reverse is not true.

Since we have, by your own admission, no means of distinguishing the subset from the general set it would seem proper to use the general set.

:dance:
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#85  Postby DaveDodo007 » Jul 02, 2014 10:04 am

jamest wrote:
Goldenmane wrote:
Nicko wrote:
OlivierK wrote:Sure, it's art. I don't think any of the facebook comments comment on its artistic value, though. (I'm not surprised, because there's not a hell of a lot of art beyond the text there.)


Again, the artwork that Banksy has created consists of reposting an image of some graffiti on his facebook page, thus generating controversy. The shitfight is part of the artwork. This exchange that we are having right now is part of the artwork.


Exactly.

That's bollocks, since it essentially equates anything which has caused heated discussion to be art. That would include science and maths. In other words, it would include everything. And at that juncture, the meaning of art becomes lost and art becomes obsolete as a meaningful concept.


This is a very narrow view and too limiting, the reactions could simply be a sigh, a smile or even flinching.
As long as your ideology identifies the main source of the world's ills as a definable group, it opens the world up to genocide. -Steven Pinker.
User avatar
DaveDodo007
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 923
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#86  Postby Thommo » Jul 02, 2014 10:15 am

Nicko wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Nicko wrote:
Thommo wrote:Let's keep it straight, you support Duchamp's view that anything done by an artist is art, correct? That is completely fine. That's an opinion and you are free to it, that does not automatically disqualify differing opinions.

If you want to go further and present it as an "argument" and having some basis in fact rather than opinion then the burden of proof, as I'm sure you're aware, is on the claimant, not the disputant.


However, in order to qualify as a "disputant", a person would need to present an alternative definition that made more sense.


No. If you say "God made the universe" I don't need to tell you what did to dispute the claim. Not right at all.


Correct, but we are not talking about a factual claim here. We are talking about the definition of a word.


No, we aren't. If that was what you intended then citing Duchamp (who wasn't) was seriously misleading.

If we were the conversation should run simply that by one definition such works are art, but by another they are not. End of story - the semantic considerations are utterly trivial and do not rule between differing opinions.

Nicko wrote:
Thommo wrote:It's not even as though there is some method for deciding what makes "more sense" between, say:-

"Art is just what artists do."
and
"Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."


An excellent point.

Another point - the excellence of which might be disputed - is that the second definition is subsumed by the first.

Or, to put it another way, "Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." is a subset of, "Art is just what artists do." All things covered by the former are covered by the latter, but the reverse is not true.


The second definition is not subsumed by the first because depending on how one defines artist either the first is circular or art can be created by people who are not artists.

Not that this line of discussion is remotely helpful, the definition of plant defines a subset of the definition of life, this does not mean that we can rather tritely claim that the "correct" definition of plant therefore includes all life. That's just a complete failure to engage with the discussion.

Nicko wrote:Since we have, by your own admission, no means of distinguishing the subset from the general set it would seem proper to use the general set.


I have admitted no such thing - it isn't true. It takes no particular skill to place a urinal in an art gallery - the cases are most easily distinguished between in many instances.

Anyway, this is drifting further and further from the point. Arguments do not stand until proven false, you know this.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#87  Postby Doubtdispelled » Jul 02, 2014 10:28 am

Nicko wrote:
OlivierK wrote:Sure, it's art. I don't think any of the facebook comments comment on its artistic value, though. (I'm not surprised, because there's not a hell of a lot of art beyond the text there.)


Again, the artwork that Banksy has created consists of reposting an image of some graffiti on his facebook page, thus generating controversy. The shitfight is part of the artwork. This exchange that we are having right now is part of the artwork.

If one takes what you are saying here to its logical* conclusion then feminism itself is art. But if this were true then what the mgtowers do is also art. War too.

*I'm not sure the word logical can properly be applied to this argument, but it will have to do.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

― Mark Twain
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11836

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#88  Postby THWOTH » Jul 02, 2014 10:44 am

Shrunk wrote:I think asking "What is Art?" is like asking "What words make up the English language?" You can't prescribe in advance what constitutes an English word. If English speaking people start using it, then it's part of the language.

Indeed, which why I said there was not over-arching answer to the question and so such things must be teased out in terms of our reactions to individual artworks, and artists of course.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37113
Age: 56

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#89  Postby THWOTH » Jul 02, 2014 11:30 am

jamest wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
jamest wrote:
Goldenmane wrote:

Exactly.

That's bollocks, since it essentially equates anything which has caused heated discussion to be art. That would include science and maths. In other words, it would include everything. And at that juncture, the meaning of art becomes lost and art becomes obsolete as a meaningful concept.

Can art not consist in its purpose? If something is generated for artistic purposes, if it is artistically purposed as it were, then isn't that some-thing an art work?

Also read my previous response to Nicko. We cannot define art as "what artists do", nor then can we define it by their purpose. At what point is an artist defined by his/her purpose? What sort of purpose in particular are you alluding to?

Artistic purposes - the motivation to create and means of expression - and the purpose of an artwork - to express and communicate.

jamest wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
There's no reason that thing has to be a made object, and there's no particular reason why we should give the artist laurels, and revere their creation, or like it, or agree with it's purpose, or withhold criticism of its execution, etc.

All art has to become manifest in the experienced world, even as words on a pc monitor. Otherwise, nobody can observe it to be art. And I agree that the definition of an artwork shouldn't hinge upon whether it's liked. No more than the definition of a religion should hinge upon whether it's liked.

There's no grand purpose to Art however, no single, over-arching, put-you-finger-on-it definition of what it is and what it is for.

There has to be, otherwise it's pointless and indistinct to the purpose of other pursuits. So, for example, if Banksy has no other purpose than to make a political statement, then he's doing politics, not art. Or else, if we go to the extreme whereby everything is defined as art, then we lose the meaning of politics (etc.). In which case, Banksy's political purpose is lost in the fog of art's all-encompassing significance. Whatever that is.

I understand that, but though Art (capital A) encapsulates a range of human endeavours it's not a single, unified entity strictly bounded from the other pursuits of life. And who's to say that art cannot be politics as well?



The pursuit of art is the pursuit for a means of expression. For the artist that might involve the pursuit of certain and/or specific skills; painterly technique in painting, implementing cohesive forms in architecture, erudition in literature, virtuosity in music, etc, but that does not make the acquisition of a high level of skill a necessary component of a successful artwork does it? At least I don't think art can (or should) be defined, and/or interpreted, on those terms alone.

For example, Ringo Starr was an artist, but he would hardly be lauded as a virtuoso. In his later work Jackson Pollock never made direct contact with the canvas and left an awful lot to chance. And yet their artistry is not necessarily founded in their skills but in the choices they made, choices about what was right for that which they were involved in creating, Ringo collectively and Pollock individually, choices that best expressed what they were hoping to achieve - the creation of something that communicated with others.

What they share is the common purpose of the artist; searching for a means of expression that, though relying on their own tastes and influences, was uniquely their own. Their work does not have to adhere to an over-arching definition to be validated as Art proper, as it were. They defined their art simply by the doing of it.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37113
Age: 56

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#90  Postby OlivierK » Jul 02, 2014 11:32 am

Nicko wrote:
OlivierK wrote:I get where you're coming from, I simply don't agree.


With what?

The sentiment expressed in the found image?

Or that Banksy's intent is clearly to start a shitfight, which he has done under his artistic pseudonym?

I don't agree that reposting an image of this artwork on Facebook is a separate artwork. If Banksy posted an image of one of his pieces of street art on his Facebook page, it would seem to me that any subsequent discussion would revolve around the message and the execution of the original artwork. That's what Facebook is, it's a fucking discussion forum, and on Banksy's page, they discuss street art. Reposting a piece of street art, and it getting discussed, is simply not a new artwork - it's just vox pop art crit at best, and just a bunch of Facebook posts at worst.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9828
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#91  Postby kennyc » Jul 02, 2014 11:36 am

Doubtdispelled wrote:
Nicko wrote:
OlivierK wrote:Sure, it's art. I don't think any of the facebook comments comment on its artistic value, though. (I'm not surprised, because there's not a hell of a lot of art beyond the text there.)


Again, the artwork that Banksy has created consists of reposting an image of some graffiti on his facebook page, thus generating controversy. The shitfight is part of the artwork. This exchange that we are having right now is part of the artwork.

If one takes what you are saying here to its logical* conclusion then feminism itself is art. But if this were true then what the mgtowers do is also art. War too.

*I'm not sure the word logical can properly be applied to this argument, but it will have to do.



Yep, my farts are art! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#92  Postby Nicko » Jul 02, 2014 11:49 am

Doubtdispelled wrote:If one takes what you are saying here to its logical* conclusion then feminism itself is art. But if this were true then what the mgtowers do is also art. War too.

*I'm not sure the word logical can properly be applied to this argument, but it will have to do.


This was the conclusion that Duchamp reached as well: there is no area of human activity and no act done by humans that can be said to be "not art".

If this makes art seem meaningless to you ... don't look at me; I dropped out of art school.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#93  Postby catbasket » Jul 02, 2014 12:01 pm

Animavore wrote:
OlivierK wrote:Sure, it's art. I don't think any of the facebook comments comment on its artistic value, though. (I'm not surprised, because there's not a hell of a lot of art beyond the text there.)


Is it art, though?
It's just a scribble to me.
Is art defined as anything an artist does? If an artist puts his empty dinner plate on a pedestal do we get to just call it 'art'?
I think Banksy is taking the piss here. His film Exit Through the Gift Shop is quite illuminating on this.

I watched that yesterday after reading your post. Definitely illuminating. And quite funny too. :thumbup:

User avatar
catbasket
 
Posts: 1426

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#94  Postby Nicko » Jul 02, 2014 12:36 pm

kennyc wrote:Yep, my farts are art! :lol: :lol: :lol:


If you want. In all fairness, I should warn you that you have competition though ...
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#95  Postby theropod » Jul 02, 2014 12:53 pm

Late to the party, sorry.

I made a living in graphic/web design for a good many years. My wife still calls me "Bezier God" because of my touch with Illustrator. I've smeared a some oil around and spent too many years in screen printing everything that would sit still, including doors of trucks and chicken eggs.

My very first art teacher told us that good art comes from what the artist is expressing of his/her self. It didn't matter what other people thought about it if the execution was well done the end result pleasing the producer was all that really mattered.

Of course that was a pile of it as the fact is an artist has got to make an impression on people or one can't make a living. That's not a problem with a sponsor or being born Richie Rich, much like pro golfing. For the rest of us it was conform or don't do art.

What drove me crazy was getting a base idea of what the customer wanted, doing a roughout, getting that approved, and then spending 6 to 8 hours refining an ad (or whatever) only to have the whole idea scrapped in an instant. All too often the customer had no idea what they wanted to get across, but they just knew what they didn't want. No matter if I came up with the cutest T shirt design since "Shit Happens" it would be rejected because of a color placement!

actual scenario wrote:
No, don't change that color, let's see what it would look like if we go with something else.

What else?

Not this.

Dilbert3


Being an artist for the sake of being an artist is where some truly great stuff comes from, but interest driven work can be amazing too or movies wouldn't pull in the insane money they do. I think of the cave artist(s) in southern France so very long ago. It's what they felt, lived and saw. There may have been some lost reason for the cave artwork, like training/planning hunts and such, but the art remains, and I think there's some amazing stuff there. Is it as good as some of the Hudson Valley stuff? Is it better? Who cares, they're both great.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#96  Postby kennyc » Jul 02, 2014 1:15 pm

theropod wrote:Late to the party, sorry.

I made a living in graphic/web design for a good many years. ..... I've smeared a some oil around and spent too many years in screen printing everything that would sit still, including doors of trucks and chicken eggs.

My very first art teacher told us that good art comes from what the artist is expressing of his/her self. It didn't matter what other people thought about it if the execution was well done the end result pleasing the producer was all that really mattered.

Of course that was a pile of it as the fact is an artist has got to make an impression on people or one can't make a living......



(Despite my fart comment)...

I did a lot of web design back in the early days of the web....including a lot of graphics/photoshop work etc. That got me into things like digital painting which I do on occasion. I've also done a bit of oil painting long ago and currently love doing pencil/graphite work (see the link in my sig or on my website if you're interested) I've never taken an art class but have read and studied various aspects of it. I agree that great art comes from the artist attempting to express something important to themselves and to communicate it to others though that second part is often haphazard. Art is an expression of the artist's creativity that's the best definition I can come up with, what happens after an artwork is created is NOT art which seems to be what is being claimed by some here. That' is just society, reaction, etc. that's not the artwork and has little to do with art other than marketing it and in some cases creating controversy to do it. In that case it is nothing but bogus art and there are many examples of it.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#97  Postby theropod » Jul 02, 2014 1:24 pm

Heh, kennyc, the web is done by goobers these days, and reminds me of a kid with a new toy. There don't have to be 12 scripts running in three programing languages and two videos parsed onto a single web page.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#98  Postby tuco » Jul 02, 2014 2:10 pm

Few years ago I was putting together group of friends from net to meet at our cottage. Since I wanted to have pleasant evening without going through the same, and I would dare to say senseless, arguments again and all the time I banned following topics: God, soul, astrology, art, gypsies, to deserve and .. few others. It worked quite well.

edit: To be constructive, cant help it, on topic. Since there are people who create something but is not even meant to be for others, cant get reaction, I would tend disagree with the title. At the same time, such behavior is abnormal and without the art of getting reaction from people there would be something less in the universe. The problem, for me, begins when someone attempts to draw imaginary lines between various creations assigning them imaginary values.
tuco
 
Posts: 15550

Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#99  Postby Nicko » Jul 02, 2014 3:48 pm

tuco wrote:Few years ago I was putting together group of friends from net to meet at our cottage. Since I wanted to have pleasant evening without going through the same, and I would dare to say senseless, arguments again and all the time I banned following topics: God, soul, astrology, art, gypsies, to deserve and .. few others. It worked quite well.


Two thoughts:

1. Gypsies?

2. WTF did you talk about?
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Art = Getting reactions from people.

#100  Postby kennyc » Jul 02, 2014 4:45 pm

Nicko wrote:
tuco wrote:Few years ago I was putting together group of friends from net to meet at our cottage. Since I wanted to have pleasant evening without going through the same, and I would dare to say senseless, arguments again and all the time I banned following topics: God, soul, astrology, art, gypsies, to deserve and .. few others. It worked quite well.


Two thoughts:

1. Gypsies?

2. WTF did you talk about?



The weather and clowns I suspect.......
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to The Arts & Entertainment

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest