... I love this. Abstract art can literally be replicated, almost perfectly, by an animal going to town on a piece of paper. That's awesome, because I have always thought that abstract art is just garbage in general.

Zadocfish2 wrote:... I love this. Abstract art can literally be replicated, almost perfectly, by an animal going to town on a piece of paper. That's awesome, because I have always thought that abstract art is just garbage in general.

As I've pointed out previously, that doesn't make it "not art".

tuco wrote:Why to call something art in the first place? Why not to use appropriate terms for appropriate products? Movie is movie, book is book, picture is picture, sculpture is sculpture etc.

Because art is the collective term for all creative endeavors. Your question is like asking why we need the word "vehicle" when we have words for "car", "boat" and "plane".

solipsist wrote:

tuco wrote:Allowed to

Now or never we should confront this bigotry. I think that the best strategy would be to admit an ape to a university as an art student.

Why?

The apes were not the artists. The scientists who used them to create abstract images were the artists.

Nicko wrote:

tuco wrote:Why to call something art in the first place? Why not to use appropriate terms for appropriate products? Movie is movie, book is book, picture is picture, sculpture is sculpture etc.

Because art is the collective term for all creative endeavors. Your question is like asking why we need the word "vehicle" when we have words for "car", "boat" and "plane".

Right I had that in mind, what I was really asking I was not sure how to put it. In my language there is "umění" - art and "kýč" - product creative endeavor which is not considered art by art critics/experts/whoever has say in art. This is my issue with art not as collective term like say pastry. Hardly I can deny it exists as collective term.

As The_Piper put it:

If The Godfather is art, then so is Seinfeld.

9.2 on IMDb vs hmm 8.9

gj The_Piper I would not guess.

---
edit: see more here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p170789

tuco wrote:Right I had that in mind, what I was really asking I was not sure how to put it. In my language there is "umění" - art and "kýč" - product creative endeavor which is not considered art by art critics/experts/whoever has say in art. This is my issue with art not as collective term like say pastry. Hardly I can deny it exists as collective term.

As The_Piper put it:

If The Godfather is art, then so is Seinfeld.

9.2 on IMDb vs hmm 8.9

gj The_Piper I would not guess.

---
edit: see more here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p170789

I think you are confusing the issue of a given piece of art's quality (all films are art, that doesn't mean all films are good) or status (a painting in a prestigious gallery vs. a cartoon in a newspaper) with the issue of whether or not something is art.

Pretty much anything can be art if you want it to be. If this seems meaningless, you're not wrong.

Indeed, I am confusing the issue. Thanks for clearing it up for me then.

So how to tell this good art from the bad art, this quality? Because I cant. I either just like it or don't. Though as Fenrir noted twice, who cares?

The interesting bit for me is that art is manipulating the environment to produce an emotional response in others. This takes imagination, planning, goal setting, self awareness, awareness of others, and other things which some people contend are human specific characters.

Finding similar behaviours in animals breaks this artificial barrier and informs the whole discussion about consciousness.

Good point, right back on topic.

tuco wrote:Indeed, I am confusing the issue. Thanks for clearing it up for me then.

So how to tell this good art from the bad art, this quality? Because I cant. I either just like it or don't.

As far as I'm concerned, you just did.

tuco wrote:Though as Fenrir noted twice, who cares?

The people who spend time discussing the issue on teh Interwebz?

Alright, I can live with that. btw this is off topic. Today I checked Gangnam Style, remember when it had 600mil? and made Guinness Book?, it has 2.5bil. That is interesting bit, along with other bits, for me. How this works as phenomena.

Nicko wrote:

solipsist wrote:

tuco wrote:Allowed to

Now or never we should confront this bigotry. I think that the best strategy would be to admit an ape to a university as an art student.

Why?

The apes were not the artists. The scientists who used them to create abstract images were the artists.

I think that you engage in speciism. The apes created the paintings entirely on their own. People merely supplied them with paints and canvas.

I like to have original art around in place of prints and posters when I can.

One of my favorite pieces wasn't really 'painted' at all: it was a piece of fiberboard that someone used to protect a counter while they were painting other things, and it had all kinds of interesting colors and shapes dribbled and smeared onto it without any aesthetic consideration at all.

But when I found it, I saw all kinds of fascinating things in it.

Lets redefine art then? Instead of the troubles with "creative activity", with action, lets take it from the other side: reaction?

That would help explain why so many people argue about 'art' - it is more subjective than objective.

The art of pitching a baseball. The art of tending a football goal. The art of using a toilet plunger.

It is my belief that another component of such arguments is importance of self-identity, thus need to defend against real or perceived attacks on it.

solipsist wrote:

Nicko wrote:

solipsist wrote:

tuco wrote:Allowed to

Now or never we should confront this bigotry. I think that the best strategy would be to admit an ape to a university as an art student.

Why?

The apes were not the artists. The scientists who used them to create abstract images were the artists.

I think that you engage in speciism. The apes created the paintings entirely on their own. People merely supplied them with paints and canvas.

Clearly it's the paintbrushes that did the real work. Your statement is deeply inanimaphobic.

I've been triggered.

The art of digging a woodchuck burrow.

Nicko wrote:

Zadocfish2 wrote:... I love this. Abstract art can literally be replicated, almost perfectly, by an animal going to town on a piece of paper. That's awesome, because I have always thought that abstract art is just garbage in general.

As I've pointed out previously, that doesn't make it "not art".

Oh, it's certainly art! I just think it's garbage. Not all art can be liked by everyone. It's just something I find terrible.

As for the monkey issue; no, it's the monkeys who are the artists. Referring to living creatures, particularly creatures possessing some kind of rudimentary creativity, as tools the same as a brush or a pencil seems incredibly nonsensical to me.