Pompous PureX Pontificates ...

[PureX]

Um (/me turns and waves at her invisible straw double that dopp must be talking to). Ah.. You're just trying to get me to admit to the futility that is the attempt to define art, as Purex said earlier, aren't you?

Art is recognizing the artist in the works. If someone puts Duchamp's shovel photo in Home Depot, and in doing so I happen upon it, and in happening upon it, I recognize the photo as not belonging there, and in recognizing that I also recognize a bit of the person who committed this act in his act, then yes, I would say that act is art. That is, of course, separate from the art that Duchamp made when he created his captioned photo.

I agree.

And I'll go further. The original snow shovel that Marcel Duchamp presented has long since been lost, and over the years various other snow shovels have been used in it's place, as Duchamp's sculpture. And I suspect that if we were to go to Philadelphia today, to the museum that owns most of Duchamps work, we would find one of these shovels on display. And Marcel Duchamp didn't buy it, the museum did. And sill, I would consider this not only a work of art, but of Marcel Duchamp's art. Because in this case, the "work of art" was the act of buying a hardware store snow shovel, and placing it on display in a gallery, with the title: "In Advance Of A Broken Arm". It is in effect an example of "conceptual art", meaning that the medium is the concept, itself, and the physical components are just symbols or emblems of the concept.

Please keep in mind that in discussing Warhol and Duchamp we are discussing two of the most extremely experimental artists in art in the last century. And keep in mind, too, that both of these artists considered their own persona as "artists" to be fodder for their own artistic endeavor. Most of us are aware that Andy Warhol became the "Andy Warhol Show" and was well aware his persona, and used it in much the same way he would use film or canvas and paint or paper and ink to express himself.

And Marcel Duchamp did the same thing, only with even more deliberation. There are still graduate art students out there writing dissertations on Duchamp's "The Green Box", or his notes on "The Large Glass", thinking that they're unravelling the mysteries of this genius artist, completely unaware that these were very clever manufactured nonsense, written after the fact just to mess with them. Duchamp loved to spread the tale that after he ended modern art (the hole in the painting back in 1917) that he did nothing for the next 20 years but sit in a rocking chair in his second floor apartment window and watch Picasso and various other modern artists walk back and forth between their studios and the bar, trying to steal ideas from each other. Later, he claimed that he spend those 20 years writing "The Green Box", which is also nonsense. He was fully cognizant of how the artist's persona among the public had a life of it's own, and that he could manipulate it by making various statements and claims, and he quite enjoyed doing that.

Few artists understood quite as clearly as Marcel Duchamp just how 'art' is the artist in the decisions he makes, as documented by the medium he chooses. He understood this so well that very often his medium was only the choices he made, and the art "object" that documented this were just the found and bought objects that he presented to us. Duchamp MADE us see that art was in the collection of decisions being made, because in his case it couldn't be in the objects, themselves. They were mass and machine produced.

 

[Willamena]

Where did PureX admit "the futility that is the attempt to define art"!?

He didn't admit it, he said it, though not a direct quote. I believe his word was "difficult," but the whole course of this thread has adequately demonstrated futility. It's kind of like trying to teach people what myth is.

And no, I'm just pointing out that if you know nothing about the artist, you can't REcognize anything about the artist in a work of art. You can recognize something of yourself and call it the artist if you want. But that's just recognizing the "Image of the artist."

That, what you describe, that is the recognition, one self communicated non-verbally, non-literally to another. I know nothing about Duchamps, but I re-cognize a sense of humor.

"We" are those composite images.

 

[PureX]

Where did PureX admit "the futility that is the attempt to define art"!?

And no, I'm just pointing out that if you know nothing about the artist, you can't REcognize anything about the artist in a work of art. You can recognize something of yourself and call it the artist if you want. But that's just recognizing the "Image of the artist."

But we do know things about the artist. Lots of things. We know they are human beings, and along with that comes a huge set of given information. And not only does it come with a this set of information, it comes with our ability to empathize with them (even though we don't know them as individuals, yet). And armed with this shared humanity, and empathy, we can intuit a lot about the person who has presented us a work of art.

 

[PureX]

Here are some quotes from my previous posts, about what art is:

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.

Yeah, that's mostly due to my own clumsy articulation of 'what art is'.

Think of it like this: way back when we humans were hunting and gathering to survive, the hunting parties would leave for days at a time to hunt for food. When they returned, they naturally wanted to share the events if their adventure with the members of their group what remained behind. So as they cooked and ate their meat over the fire, this hunter or that would begin telling stories of the hunt to those who weren't there. But just telling the story didn't feel sufficient, they wanted to convey the feeling and excitement of the moment, and so as they told their hunting stories, they would become animated, and begin to act out the story, playing the hunter, and then playing the pray, to the great delight of the audience (even the ones who had been on the hunt). And it soon became apparent that the "telling of the story" was an interesting and entertaining and insightful as the event of the story itself, if not more-so. Because in this animated telling, the story-teller began to expose something of himself, and of his "inner spirit" along with the story he was telling. And it was this glimpse at the story-teller's spirit that was as or more interesting to the audience than the facts of the story, itself.

And this is how "art" was born. "Art" is that exposing of the spirit, of the storyteller to the audience. The story becomes the medium. The light of the campfire becomes the canvas, or the stage, the storyteller becomes the artist, and the "art" is the magic of our being able to glimpse the artists spirit (and our own spirits as reflections of his), through the way he tells his story.

 

[Buttercup]

I read through all the previous posts about Duchamp's shovel. Now, I contend my definition of what "art" is is as valid as PureX's. Just because he's an artist does not mean he holds the patent on the word art and it's golden definition. I've had enough training and experience to be pompous enough to give myself the same credentials as PureX.

PureX and Willamena consider that shovel art because DUCHAMP created it. If some yayhoo like me or Dopp placed a shovel with the same caption into a museum....it would flop miserably as art.

The ONLY reason that shovel is taken seriously at all.......is because of Duchamp. The shovel could not stand on it's own, conceptual or not. It is not conceptual art in and of itself.

The name Duchamp is what makes that piece art.....it could not stand alone as art.

 

[doppelganger]

But we do know things about the artist. Lots of things. We know they are human beings, and along with that comes a huge set of given information.

But what does that tell us other than things we read into what we see from our own experiences and assumptions? Where does that "huge set of given information" reside?

Is this "art"?

 

[Buttercup]

He didn't admit it, he said it, though not a direct quote. I believe his word was "difficult," but the whole course of this thread has adequately demonstrated futility. It's kind of like trying to teach people what myth is.

PureX doesn't have any trouble at all in defining art. He claimed Neiman is no artist easily.

 

[Buttercup]

But what does that tell us other than things we read into what we see from our own experiences and assumptions? Where does that "huge set of given information" reside?

Is this "art"?

I wouldn't call it art. It's a watercolor or pen illustration of someone's kitchen .

 

[doppelganger]

I wouldn't call it art. It's a watercolor or pen illustration of someone's kitchen .

Do you see more or less of the artist in it than you do with Duchamp's fountain or Andy Warhol's cans, assuming you knew as much about those works as you do about this one?

Willamena?

 

[Buttercup]

Do you see more or less of the artist in it than you do with Duchamp's fountain or Andy Warhol's cans, assuming you knew as much about those works as you do about this one?

I see nothing of the artist....it's a utilitarian piece. I'm trying to play along and be as objective as possible, Dopp. I ALWAYS pretend I know nothing "about" the artist when I view a piece. It should stand alone.

 

[doppelganger]

I see nothing of the artist....it's a utilitarian piece. I'm trying to play along and be as objective as possible, Dopp. I ALWAYS pretend I know nothing "about" the artist when I view a piece. It should stand alone.

Yeah, I know.

I'm curious to see whether there's a way to distinguish what this watercolor tells us about its artist from what a photograph of a shovel or a commode or a realistic painting of a stack of tomato soup cans tells us about the artist.
What does this tell us about the artist that those don't, or vice versa?

At the very least we might know what the artist's kitchen looks like, right?

How about this one?

 

[Buttercup]

Yeah, I know.

I'm curious to see whether there's a way to distinguish what this watercolor tells us from a photograph of a shovel or a commode or a realistic painting of a stack of tomato soup cans.

Well, this may come as a surprise....but I don't consider those soup cans good art. Eeeek! I know, blasphemy! They may be art in somebody's art dictionary but because the pieces do not stand alone without explanation....I personally, don't call the cans art. The same with the shovel and that illustration you posted.

What does this tell us about the artist that those don't or vice versa? At the very least we might know what the artist's kitchen looks like, right?

Yep, that's about it...and the fact that the illustrator has decent drawing skills at least.

 

[PureX]

But what does that tell us other than things we read into what we see from our own experiences and assumptions? Where does that "huge set of given information" reside?

Sure, but so what? Everything we experience is experienced through us, and is recognized and identified and evaluated according to the set of information that we are already carrying around in us.

Is this "art"?

This looks to me like a watercoler illustration, and not a work of art. But I'm only looking at a computer image that's out of size, out of context, lacks definition and resolution, and is missing it's contextual information. Did the person who made this call it art? That matters. How was it presented to the public? Where was it presented to the public? Did the artist present it to the public or did someone else?

 

[Buttercup]

Did the person who made this call it art? That matters.

Wait just a minute here bucko.....what difference does that make in labeling something art?

 

[doppelganger]

Sure, but so what? Everything we experience is experienced through us, and is recognized and identified and evaluated according to the set of information that we are already carrying around in us.

Excellent point.

This looks to me like a watercoler illustration, and not a work of art. But I'm only looking at a computer image that's out of size, out of context, lacks definition and resolution, and is missing it's contextual information. Did the person who made this call it art? That matters. How was it presented to the public? Where was it presented to the public? Did the artist present it to the public or did someone else?

Are there circumstances under which you might consider it "art"? What does it show you of the artist? How about the second one I posted - the one with the tall building behind the street of shops and houses? Let's say the artist considered the painting to be art.

 

[Willamena]

PureX and Willamena consider that shovel art because DUCHAMP created it.

No; it's art because I see that a human made it.

 

[Willamena]

Do you see more or less of the artist in it than you do with Duchamp's fountain or Andy Warhol's cans, assuming you knew as much about those works as you do about this one?

Willamena?

If you're asking if the watercolour is art, no; the object is not "art", it's an object. Any object can be art; art is not the object.

 

[Buttercup]

No; it's art because I see that a human made it.

Well, I can guarantee you that piece would not make it into any exhibit, gallery or museum if I created it. It's all in the name.

 

[Buttercup]

If you're asking if the watercolour is art, no; the object is not the art.

I think he's asking if you see the artist in the piece.

 

[Willamena]

Well, I can guarantee you that piece would not make it into any exhibit, gallery or museum if I created it. It's all in the name.

Galleries are just a place to show off works, nothing more.