Pompous PureX Pontificates ...

[PureX]

I'm sure this thread will die quickly from fear and/or lack of interest, or perhaps from ya'wl's disgust of my arrogant and unapologetic snobbishness when it comes to the artistic endeavor. But somewhat of a debate began on another thread, and although I began it mostly tongue-in-cheek, the more I thought about it the more I felt I was in the right and wished to further defend my position.

The debate is about the term "art" and how I believe and contend that it's being grossly misused by almost everyone. And why I think this is so. And since this was fairly far afield from the actual topic of the thread, I've decided to move the beginning of the debate to it's own thread, and see if anyone cares enough about it to actually debate me, or even to just toss in their few cents worth of opinion. Frankly, I doubt anyone cares that much, but we'll see.

The debate sort of begins here, between myself and Danisty:

I disagree with you. You cannot know the intent of an artist any more than anyone else. There is a good deal of fine art out there that is created for the purpose of sexual gratification and I think it's safe to presume that the artists are making money doing their work. What about Sorayama or Luis Royo? Most of their art is designed to get a sexual response and much of it is exploitative in nature.

I assert that there are many forms of art that seek to exploit. What about propaganda art? It seems to me that you are picking and choosing what you define as art rather than accepting art as a form of expression that sometimes goes against what you believe acceptable. Just because you are uncomfortable with something doesn't mean it ceases to be art. I would think as an artist you'd already know this. What are they teaching in art school these days???

Ummm ... you are using the term "art" WAYYYY more loosely then I am. Sorayama and Royo are illustrators. They make posters and fantasy/comic book images and whatnot. And they sell these for money. It's a craft, it's not art in the way I understand and mean "art".

Illustration, decorative design, photography, painting, sculpting, etc.,: these are all crafts that people engage in for money. These are not "art" (yes, I understand that by the dictionary definitions, they are, but the dictionaries are wrong in this case *smile*). Art is a specific kind of human endeavor that has nothing to do with making money, facility in manipulating physical media, or promoting products or ideas or sexual gratification or whatever. The art I'm talking about does have an intent, that is evident in the objects that it produces, and is identifiably different from the intent of other craftsmen even though it may employ a similar craftsmanship.

When it comes to art, I am a complete and unrepentant snob. To me, there is fine art, and there is everything else that is not fine art, but keeps trying to call itself art to give itself a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve. Comic book illustrators are not really artists. They're comic book illustrators. Nor are pornographers artists, no matter how "artsy" they try to make their pornography look.

Then you understand the word incorrectly. What you are referring to is fine art which is a form of art, but not the only art. I'm sorry, but your definition is incorrect.

There is only fine art. The rest is just functional object-making. The rest is craft.

Savannah has one of the biggest art schools in the country (SCAD - Savannah College of Art and Design) and it teaches "comic book illustration" which, by the way, is known as sequential art. Illustration is also taught at SVA (School of Visual Arts) in New York. Your snobbery is nothing more than ignorance.

They are artists...sequential artists.

They are cartoonists, and everyone knows it. They're just trying to adopt some extra credibility by calling themselves "artists" when they're not. And as for that school, it's a business. They'll call you whatever you want them to, as long as you'll pay them a big tuition. All art is fine art, and the rest is just craft. Cartooning is a craft. Illustrating is a craft. Even painting and drawing and sculpting are crafts. Artists may employ any of these crafts, or none of them in their art endeavor, but their art endeavor is not defined by or limited to these crafts. Crafts are crafts, and art is art. That's the way it is. Real artists deserve my respect, and I won't accept the pretenders.

You're just a snob and you're not going to change your mind regardless. I know what art is and it looks like several other people here do too. I don't care if you want to take your snobbery to another thread because I'm not going to indulge it anymore anyway. Oh, and in case you didn't know it...being a snob is not something to be proud of, but since you called yourself that, I have no problem repeating it.

 

[PureX]

And then spreads to:

Art, like everything else, is a word or a concept defined by how we use it. No one has a monopoly on words, not even art snobs or scholars.

When words mean whatever anyone feels like they mean, then they basically become meaningless. This is what's been happening to the word "art" over the years. It unfortunately fell into the bottomless pit of being used as an overly-exaggerated adjective, and whenever that happens to a word, it becomes more or less meaningless.

I believe, however, that through great effort, the word could be brought back from the brink of oblivion, and that's why I'm so snobby about it's use. I won't let people get away with calling things "art" that are not art.

Being good with our hands does not make us an artist.
Being clever or inventive does not make us an artist.
Doing anything well does not make the person doing it an artist.
Quality is not art.
Popularity is not art.
Craftsmanship is not art.
Salesmanship is not art.
Saying something is "art" does not make it art.
People who make images are not artists just because they make images.

The word "art" when properly used, refers to a specific category of human endeavor, based on the exploration of human perception and understanding. It's basically an endeavor defined by it's lack of definition. Which is why the word has been so easily abused over the years. But here's a good rule of thumb for the proper use of the word "art". If you can call it something else, then it's probably not art, and is in fact that something else.

Illustrators are illustrators, they are not artists. We know this because what they're doing is making illustrations. However, artists can and do often use the craft of illustration when doing art. The difference is that they aren't doing it for the illustration, they're doing it to explore the perception and understanding of illustration, itself, or of some other subject that requires them to use illustration to explore it. The real difference is in the intent, because the real definition of art is that it's a specific kind of exploratory human endeavor, and it's NOT any specific process, or set of ideas. And that's why processes like drawing, painting, sculpting, photography, writing, singing, acting, dancing, etc., etc., etc., are not art. They are processes that artists often use when doing art, but they are NOT ART IN THEMSELVES.

I don't care what the dictionary says, and I don't care how many fools have fallen into the linguistic abyss of using the word "art' to mean whatever they happen to feel like it meaning at whatever time the feel like meaning it. They are ALL wrong, and I'm on a one-man (if that's all that's left) crusade to put a stop to this terminal abuse of the word "art".

I do suppose that the majority does rule, and how most people accept terms, definitions, and spelling and grammar usage. I also suppose that as in all things, the consumer defines the product. The art that sells as art is art, and the ones who are convinced that what they buy is art - by the broker, the art snob, or the pornographer - determine what art is...

The "majority" of us are idiots. That's why there are no purely democratic governments on Earth: they would implode under the weight of their own selfish stupidity almost immediately. Pure democracy is barely a step away from total chaos and anarchy. And for the same reasons that we wouldn't want to live in such a democracy, we shouldn't let such a democracy govern or language, either.

No, no, and NO! The word "art" has a good and important meaning in this world, and we can't let our own laziness and ignorance render it useless just because most of us are too dumb to actually know what the word means. I'm drawing the line, here, and anyone who want to abuse the word "art" will have to fight me to do it!

 

[PureX]

OK, so the floor is open, and I'm ready to defend the term "art" from my elitist, snobbish, all-or-nothing position. Anyone caring and daring enough to give it a go?

 

[A. Leaf]

.

No, no, and NO! The word "art" has a good and important meaning in this world, and we can't let our own laziness and ignorance render it useless just because most of us are too dumb to actually know what the word means. I'm drawing the line, here, and anyone who want to abuse the word "art" will have to fight me to do it!

I agree totally,

Intelligence is knowledge gained by experience, good or bad, when good experiences help overcome the bad experiences and bad experiences happen to make sure they don't happen again. 'Art' becomes 'Holy' as expression by ones innerself to others can help us as a collective search for the 'Truth' using ll the senses that have been given to us to help on our quest for Kingdom of Heaven on Earth

 

[Buttercup]

You've explained quite satisfactorily what you don't consider "art". Now, could you give us more examples of what you do consider art? With pictures and concise descriptions? My perceptions of what constitutes art has been blown out of the water....and I majored in an art based curriculum in college. I need more examples.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm drawing the line, here, and anyone who want to abuse the word "art" will have to fight me to do it!

A one man Crusade to force the rest of us to conform to your opinion. I will live by my own tastes, happily pretending like your opinion does not exists, being perfectly content in my own snobbery.

There is no way that you are more arrogant than I.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Art objects... are objects displaying artistic merit to the viewer.
The viewer may or may not have any artistic perception
artistic perception is not quantifiable.

Art objects showing artistic merit, may or may not have been made by some one with recognized artistic talent.
Artistic talent is not quantifiable.

Artists who win international prizes, may or may not have talent as artists.
They have a talent in winning prizes.

Great art has come down to us for hundreds even thousands of years.
Old Art objects are not necessarily great art or even created as art.

Art is not quantifiable.
Great artists do not always produce great art.
Great art is not always liked by this or any other generation.
Great art is unpredictable in its qualities.

What is great art?
Do you know it when you see it?
are you a recognized competent judge of Art?
is any one competent to judge art?

 

[Buttercup]

Oh....on a side note, do you consider yourself an artist? If so, why?

 

[Mike182]

When words mean whatever anyone feels like they mean, then they basically become meaningless.

you bring up some good points, however this premise is one i disagree with. words that have a meaning based in personal interpritation, experience and cultural context do not suddenly become void of meaning as you suggest.

i can't really construct an argument here, words fail me lol, but i would suggest that there are other words that have a masive plurality of meaning which are still very much meaningful:

~God
~Home
~safety
~Hinduism
~Love

probably many others besides... my point is that you do not debase the value of a word simply by giving it a plurality of meaning.

i saw that premise as being central to your argument, but i could be wrong

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh....on a side note, do you consider yourself an artist? If so, why?

Sure I do. Mainly because I'm not a scientist. I engage in the art of biblical, historical, and theological research and interpretation.... hopefuly, someday like most of the world's great artists, I will be recognized and compensated for my work. I do use some scientific methodologies, but in the end, what I do is an art (following dictionary definition of the word that reflects common and scholarly usage that the OP rejects/ignores).

 

[PureX]

I agree totally,

Intelligence is knowledge gained by experience, good or bad, when good experiences help overcome the bad experiences and bad experiences happen to make sure they don't happen again. 'Art' becomes 'Holy' as expression by ones innerself to others can help us as a collective search for the 'Truth' using ll the senses that have been given to us to help on our quest for Kingdom of Heaven on Earth

Hmmm ... I'll take this as an affirmation. *smile*

 

[YmirGF]

I have the temerity to describe myself as an artist. The reason I do so is that I have always, and I mean always, expressed myself in pretty creative ways. To my viewpoint, it doesn't particularly matter if my skill level is somewhat stunted, as I am simply doing the best I am capable of doing. Does that stunted ability make me less of an "artist"? It certainly doesn't stop me from expressing myself in ever new ways. For example, I don't write for others. I write to amuse myself or to work out some idea that doesn't quite gel in my mind. I have to express myself... perhaps it is an illness.

What is "real" art to me? Michelangelo and Da Vinci come to mind and a host of other towering figures from the past. I also consider Tolkein to be a great "artist" due to his incredible creativity. I also consider some great chef's to be "artists". Ditto architects. Ditto musicians.

In essence, art is the expression of personal creativity and to lesser and greater degrees EVERYONE is an artist at heart. The simple fact is that some souls are better at expressing that creative potential than are others. I guess all I ask is as I gaze in wonder at your genius, don't look down your nose at mine.

(Note: The last line is not meant specifically between you and me, as you were quite gracious recently in regards to my own primitive "scratchings". I am meaning more in the sense of the "truly tanlented" towards those who are not so abundantly endowed... as it were.) :bunny:

 

[PureX]

You've explained quite satisfactorily what you don't consider "art". Now, could you give us more examples of what you do consider art? With pictures and concise descriptions? My perceptions of what constitutes art has been blown out of the water....and I majored in an art based curriculum in college. I need more examples.

Defining art is a bit like defining the tao, if it can be defined, it's probably not art. And I'm not just being flippant.

Art is an endeavor, not a methodology, or a set of ideas. And what is being endeavored is the exploration of our own perceptions: of how we perceive, define, and ascribe meaning to the world around us, and why. The art endeavor is a way of looking into ourselves, and exploring how we see things and why we see them as we do. I don't mean how we see them physically, but how we see them intellectuall/emotionally/spiritually. The key, though, to recognizing the art endeavor is it's exploratory nature. That's why art is so hard to define. Throughout the history of art, if someone were to purport an ultimate "definition of art", the artists around him would immediately begin "exploring" the boundaries of that definition. So in many ways it really is easier to define art by what it's NOT, rather then by what it is. Because what it is, is sort of effervescent, dynamic, quicksilverish. Whatever parameters we try to put on art, artists will begin breaking them open. That's the nature of the art endeavor.

This is why it's so easy for people to become confused about what is and what isn't art. And why it's so easy for non-artists to get away with pretending they're artists when they aren't. The best rule of thumb I know of is to ask yourself if it's anything else, and if it is, then it's probably not art. Because art is an endeavor, not a process or set of ideas, and as an endeavor it's defined by it's intent. If you can define the intent of the object before you, then it's probably not art.

Is the intent (function of) the object/image/whatever to be "pretty"? If so, then it's probably decoration, and not art.

Is the intent (function of) the object/image/whatever to be sexually titillating? Then it's probably some form of pornography, and not art.

Is the intent (function of) the object/image/whatever to promote some ideology? Then it's probably propaganda, and not art.

And we could go on and on. If you can identify the purported "art object's" purpose, then it's probably not art. There are of course exceptions, because artists can use anything, and any other kind of object/image/whatever in their art endeavor, and often do. But when they do, the purpose will be changed, somehow, by the context of it's presentation.

I once saw an artist put an automobile on a pedestal in a gallery. That was it. He did nothing else to it but place it on a pedestal in a gallery. Yet by his doing so he had completely changed the context in which we were looking at this object, and as a result, we began looking at what was otherwise just another automobile, in a whole new way. We began looking at it as if it were a sculpture rather than a functional object. And we began thinking about the lines and definitions that we normally automatically apply to both categories (automobiles and sculptures).

Please look here.

 

[Buttercup]

I have the temerity to describe myself as an artist. The reason I do so is that I have always, and I mean always, expressed myself in pretty creative ways.

You know, I have studied art and have been employed in several "artistic" based occupations....but I have never felt comfortable calling myself an artist. When other people call me an artist I almost look over my shoulder and wonder who they're talking about and realize it's me. I am much more comfortable calling myself a jewelry designer and not a jewelry artist. I'm hoping PureX can help me figure out my subconscious inability to call myself an artist. I do think he has a point.....and I'm waiting for his responses to see if I agree.

 

[PureX]

A one man Crusade to force the rest of us to conform to your opinion. I will live by my own tastes, happily pretending like your opinion does not exists, being perfectly content in my own snobbery.

There is no way that you are more arrogant than I.

Wuss! *smile*

 

[Buttercup]

Is the intent (function of) the object/image/whatever to be "pretty"? If so, then it's probably decoration, and not art.

Is the intent (function of) the object/image/whatever to be sexually titillating? Then it's probably some form of pornography, and not art.

Is the intent (function of) the object/image/whatever to promote some ideology? Then it's probably propaganda, and not art.

But this list is still entirely subjective. If the object happens to be "pretty" yet the original intent was not to make it so......who's to judge whether it's art or not? How can you know the motivations of the artist?

 

[PureX]

Art objects... are objects displaying artistic merit to the viewer.
The viewer may or may not have any artistic perception
artistic perception is not quantifiable.

Art objects showing artistic merit, may or may not have been made by some one with recognized artistic talent.
Artistic talent is not quantifiable.

Artists who win international prizes, may or may not have talent as artists.
They have a talent in winning prizes.

Great art has come down to us for hundreds even thousands of years.
Old Art objects are not necessarily great art or even created as art.

Art is not quantifiable.
Great artists do not always produce great art.
Great art is not always liked by this or any other generation.
Great art is unpredictable in its qualities.

What is great art?
Do you know it when you see it?
are you a recognized competent judge of Art?
is any one competent to judge art?

You're making some good points, here. Especially with examples like "artists who win art prizes are good at winning prizes, but not necessarily at making art". It's exactly this kind of discernment that real artists work with and from, and that enables an art viewer to really appreciate and understand what he/she is seeing.

I had a professor in a graduate seminar, once, begin the first class of his seminar by putting his hand on the chalk board in front of the room, and drawing the outline of it with a piece of chalk, and then took his hand away and asked the class, pointing at the image on the chalk board in a very arrogant and condescending manner "What is that?"

It took a surprising number of guesses and descriptions to finally just label accurately that squiggly mark he'd left on the chalk board, and this was a class of graduate students. Learning how to just see what's there, and not jump to conclusions about what it means, is key to viewing real works of art and discerning the artist's real "intent".

 

[Sunstone]

PureX, how would your definition of art make art any different than a specialized study of human psychology conducted by other than scientific methods?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wuss! *smile*

There's nothing wussy about ignoring an insignificant and uninformed opinion.

 

[PureX]

But this list is still entirely subjective. If the object happens to be "pretty" yet the original intent was not to make it so......who's to judge whether it's art or not? How can you know the motivations of the artist?

Those are good questions, and there will always be a degree of subjectivity involved. How could it be otherwise? What in life does NOT involve some degree of subjectivity?

When a man says he's a surgeon, where exactly are the defining lines between his doing surgery, and his doing things that are similar to surgery, but are not really surgery? Is drilling out a cavity in a tooth, "surgery"? Is cutting into the gum to extract a tooth, "surgery"? Is removing a mole, "surgery"? How deeply do you have to cut into a body for that act to become "surgery"?

Yes. The definition of art is somewhat subjective. But not all THAT subjective, either. We all know, somehow, where the lines are. We know that removing a tooth isn't really surgery. And we know that the pictures on hallmark greeting cards aren't really art. And I have found that those who tend to argue with my definition of art, and especially with my excluding crafts as art, know they're wrong, and know that they're being disingenuous when they call themselves an "artist" when they are in fact craftsmen. The very fact that they are arguing with me about it, is actually evidence of my point. If they didn't believe that "art" was something different and more special that what they're doing, they wouldn't be arguing to appropriate the term.