This Is Art (it really is)

[PureX]

Ahh - I see - "real art!"

Sorry, though a long time member of the Chicago Art Institute and someone who has visited a number of superb art museums in a number of countries. I'm not a big fan of your selection. But, then again, I'm not a huge fan of Picasso either.

Which artist you are "a fan of" is not much relevant to the point of this thread. I chose works that are visually striking, yet easy to 'grasp' as a general idea. By the way, my MFA is from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. And I lived and worked as an artist in that city for 25 years.

 

[Erebus]

Their intent to be art, before and beyond anything else. They don't exist to teach, to entertain, to be beautiful, to be feats of craftsmanship, or to be physically functional, (though they can employ any of those characteristics, or not). They exist to express the artist's unique experience of being in a way that allows the rest of us to experience it with him/her, through the art.

Interesting.

You also said this:

It's sometimes a bit frustrating for me, as I am an artist. A real one. Not some hobbyist pretending his hobby is "art".

Now I could be wrong here but I suspect that most of those who consider art to be their hobby intend to create art. Am I missing something?

Perhaps the distinction is that they failed in expressing their unique experience in a way that allows us to experience it with them. If that's the case though, then there's something wrong with some of the pieces you showed as I'm not getting that feeling from most of them. I quite like the Dali sculpture but I'm honestly baffled at what unique experience the giant balloon animals are meant to convey. Is the artist lamenting his missed opportunity to become a birthday clown?

Maybe I'm just uncultured swine. That's probably it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which artist you are "a fan of" is not much relevant to the point of this thread.

Clearly.

I chose works that are visually striking, yet easy to 'grasp' as a general idea.

I would have tossed in Munch and, perhaps Kllmt. Both were beautifuly displayed at New York's Neue Galerie.

By the way, my MFA is from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. And I lived and worked as an artist in that city for 25 years.

That's impressive.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Their intent to be art, before and beyond anything else. They don't exist to teach, to entertain, to be beautiful, to be feats of craftsmanship, or to be physically functional, (though they can employ any of those characteristics, or not). They exist to express the artist's unique experience of being in a way that allows the rest of us to experience it with him/her, through the art.

In terms of the visual arts, I'm essentially ignorant (or at least untrained). However, I've spent the last 50 years with memberships in various galleries, and in particular the Art Gallery of Ontario, which happens to be where I live. My partner and I go regularly, and rarely miss any new shows, some of which have been quite wonderful.

I confess, I don't always know what I'm looking at, yet at other times I feel fairly sure that I do. Picasso's Guernica (we had a replica and several studies at AGO), Turner's water colours from Venice (and so many others -- we had a big Turner exhibit here a couple of years ago), and so much more.

When I really don't know what I'm looking at, however, I like to stop, sit down (I carry a folding stool) -- and just wait. And sometimes, I think that pays off. No idea if I'm discerning anything about what the artist might have had in mind, but then, I'd bet the artist may never have anticipated what I got, either.

And surely that's worth something...

 

[PureX]

Now I could be wrong here but I suspect that most of those who consider art to be their hobby intend to create art. Am I missing something?

Intending to create art when one has little to no idea what it is, is a bit of a crap-shoot, though. It's not to say they might not succeed (I've seen it happen a number of times) but it's not very likely, and even if they do succeed, how would they even know? Unless someone else explained it to them.

Perhaps the distinction is that they failed in expressing their unique experience in a way that allows us to experience it with them.

Yes. And that's going to be the likely result if one is not cognizant of the actual purpose of art, don't you think? Again, I have seen it happen, but Ihave also seen the 'artist' stomp off in disgust when people tried to explain to them WHY what they had done was art (and a very good example of it), as opposed to everything else they'd been doing and calling art, but was in fact just decoration.

If that's the case though, then there's something wrong with some of the pieces you showed as I'm not getting that feeling from most of them. I quite like the Dali sculpture but I'm honestly baffled at what unique experience the giant balloon animals are meant to convey. Is the artist lamenting his missed opportunity to become a birthday clown?

Interestingly, that particular artists is globally famous, and sells his works for many, many, many thousands of dollars to the uber-wealthy overlords of our modern greed-based culture. Add that bit of info to the idea that he is selling them gigantic stainless steel balloon animals and you begin to get to what the artist is experiencing, and commenting on through those works. Jeff Koons is a very smart fellow who comments on the absurdity of wealth and fame in our modern culture, including his own, from within it, in wildly obvious and absurd ways, that the very people he's commenting on still don't seem to grasp. Or maybe they do and just don't care. It's really quite an amazing phenomenon. Also, for those who seem to think art is defined by it's technical prowess, his works are masterpieces in craftsmanship. So much so that he employs the absolute top technicians in the world to create them, and taxes their skills to the limit of physical possibility.

 

[MNoBody]

what kind of art do you make PureX?
I am interested in what fellow artists produce.

 

[PureX]

I would have tossed in Munch and, perhaps Kllmt. Both were beautifuly displayed at New York's Neue Galerie.

I was trying to stay more recent and less familiar. I didn't want to post anything too iconic. I wouldn't have used anything from Dali except that sculpture of his is magnificent, and not very well known.

 

[dybmh]

Sure, because doctors don't really know anything about medicine just because they studied it in expensive schools, and practiced it in the real world for decades. Instead it's reasonable to assume that YOU know more than they do, because , well, because you just think so.

In this case, I think you'd need to offer some form of credentials. For a Dr, they have the degree.

And hey, I never claimed to know anything. I stand by what I said in the other thread. My High School Art teacher said, "Art is anything you can get away with." It works in any circumstance I can think of.

 

[PureX]

In terms of the visual arts, I'm essentially ignorant (or at least untrained). However, I've spent the last 50 years with memberships in various galleries, and in particular the Art Gallery of Ontario, which happens to be where I live. My partner and I go regularly, and rarely miss any new shows, some of which have been quite wonderful.

I confess, I don't always know what I'm looking at, yet at other times I feel fairly sure that I do. Picasso's Guernica (we had a replica and several studies at AGO), Turner's water colours from Venice (and so many others -- we had a big Turner exhibit here a couple of years ago), and so much more.

When I really don't know what I'm looking at, however, I like to stop, sit down (I carry a folding stool) -- and just wait. And sometimes, I think that pays off. No idea if I'm discerning anything about what the artist might have had in mind, but then, I'd bet the artist may never have anticipated what I got, either.

And surely that's worth something...

Not everything works for everyone. And let's face it, not all the art put up on the gallery walls is, ... well, ... deserving of that honor. Artists are people, too, and come in all sorts and qualities. But as an artist, myself, I thank you for your interest. It's hard living in these new "dark ages" as an artist. It feels like I'm living on the moon, surrounded by silence and dust, with other artists, way off in the distance, also sitting alone in the same silence and dust.

 

[PureX]

what kind of art do you make PureX?
I am interested in what fellow artists produce.

While living in Chicago, I made painted wood and aluminum sculptures. I am now semi-retired and living in Pa., and I make prop-type sculptures/objects used in public events and artist's films.

Here's a Chicago-type sculpture ... All wood, paint and graphite, the fingertip is eye level.

(The base on this was changed before it was sold)

And a drawing machine I made for an artist friend's film called "Stitch". The machine draws a broken line on the ground as you pull it.

... Being used ...

 

[MNoBody]

nice work PureX, thanks for sharing that.

 

[PureX]

In this case, I think you'd need to offer some form of credentials. For a Dr, they have the degree.

And hey, I never claimed to know anything. I stand by what I said in the other thread. My High School Art teacher said, "Art is anything you can get away with." It works in any circumstance I can think of.

I have a master's degree in fine art from one of the top five U.S. art schools. I was an active showing and selling artist in Chicago for 25 years.

Your art teacher was an idiot about art. And one can understand this easily enough by simply applying his definition, literally, to anything. Because it's a meaningless (empty) definition. Anything is whatever you say it is. Nothing is whatever you say it is. Anything is nothing. Whatever you say is whatever you say. It's all just gibberish masquerading as some sort of homey wisdom.

 

[dybmh]

I have a master's degree in fine art from one of the top five U.S. art schools. I was an active showing and selling artist in Chicago for 25 years.

Your art teacher was an idiot about art. And one can understand this easily enough by simply applying his definition, literally, to anything. Because it's a meaningless (empty) definition. Anything is whatever you say it is. Nothing is whatever you say it is. Anything is nothing. Whatever you say is whatever you say. It's all just gibberish masquerading as as wisdom.

I think you're taking it as simplistic, but, it's actually not. It's talking about the artistic community. What defines art? Who defines art? it's not one person or one thing. And that's my objection. You're acting like you represent the entire artisitc world. Do you? Is your opinion about what is and isn't art the consensus?

Here's what I think, maybe my Art Teacher said something stupid. Fine.

I think that art is defined just as much by the process as the product. Do you agree with that? At least in a small degree?

 

[PureX]

I think that art is defined just as much by the process as the product. Do you agree with that? At least in a small degree?

No, it's defined by the intent/result. Is an automobile defined by how it's constructed, or by what it's intended to do once it's been built?

However, I do agree that process plays a huge part in how the artist's intent is being discerned by those experiencing the artwork. The process that creates the artwork becomes the 'language' through which the person experiencing it, 'reads' it.

Think of a song. The words are part of the content, but so is the melody, the rhythm, the choice of instruments, the tone of the voice(s), the way the voice is delivered, ... every detail becomes a bit of information that the listener then assembles in their minds into an idea of the existential experience that the artist is trying to share with them. In that sense "process" is very important. It conveys the artist's experience to the audience. But it does not define what art is. What defines what art is, is that intention to convey one human's experience of being, to others.

 

[Thief]

when I was sooooooo much younger......art

was given leeway to not only display expression and creativity
it was intended to offend

can't
and won't
post such material here

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was trying to stay more recent and less familiar. I didn't want to post anything too iconic. I wouldn't have used anything from Dali except that sculpture of his is magnificent, and not very well known.

Actually, I'm not a big Dali fan either. Perhaps it's my age, but I prefer Monet and Renoir.

Let me add that, despite what I said above, I rather like The Old Guitarist.

 

[PureX]

when I was sooooooo much younger......art

was given leeway to not only display expression and creativity
it was intended to offend

can't
and won't
post such material here

Sometimes it does offend.

I often think of gansta rap music, which I find quite offensive. Yet even in it's ugliness (admonitions of violence, stealing, and the gross sexualization of women, etc.) it is a legitimate expression of being for those who have grown up in the environment that generated that music. It should be offensive. As offensive as the environment that forces human beings to become that violent and callous. And we should have it all shoved in our faces, the way those angry, shouting male voices spits those angry words at us like a machine gun spitting bullets. It's art that intends to offend us. And that needs to offend us.

 

[PureX]

Actually, I'm not a big Dali fan either. Perhaps it's my age, but I prefer Monet and Renoir.

Let me add that, despite what I said above, I rather like The Old Guitarist.

I'm not really a Dali fan either. Nor Picasso. But they both produced such enormous bodies of work that they were bound to make something for just about anyone, at some point.

I much prefered the 'in your face' kind of art that was all around me in my Chicago days. I always felt that if you're going to do it, then DO IT. H.C. Westerman, Roger Brown, Ed Paschke, Jim Nutt, ... Artwork that punched you in the face, and in the gut. I loved that city for it's true grit, and it's willful ignorance of New York and L.A.

Years ago when the Studio 54 type nightclubs were all the rage in New York, and people waited for hours in line to be insulted by the bouncers at the door to try and get in, someone got the brainy idea to open one of those nightclubs in Chicago. They spent millions on it. But instead of people waiting in lines for hours for the goons at the door to deign to let them in, people started going there just to insult and throw stuff at the goons at the door. They didn't even want to go in. God, they made me proud to be a Chicagoan!

The club was a flop.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I much prefered the 'in your face' kind of art that was all around me in my Chicago days. I always felt that if you're going to do it, then DO IT. H.C. Westerman, Roger Brown, Ed Paschke, Jim Nutt, ... Artwork that punched you in the face, and in the gut. ...

I'm sorry.

 

[Erebus]

Apologies for the late reply. I was tired and needed a good night's sleep for a long day of isolation procrastination.

Intending to create art when one has little to no idea what it is, is a bit of a crap-shoot, though. It's not to say they might not succeed (I've seen it happen a number of times) but it's not very likely, and even if they do succeed, how would they even know? Unless someone else explained it to them.

This doesn't really sit well with me as it leads to a few awkward questions.

If somebody needs to be told whether or not their creation is art, who decides that? Can anybody declare something to be art/not art or is it the duty of a few "in the know" types? Does it matter what the ratio of art/not art opinions is?

Yes. And that's going to be the likely result if one is not cognizant of the actual purpose of art, don't you think? Again, I have seen it happen, but Ihave also seen the 'artist' stomp off in disgust when people tried to explain to them WHY what they had done was art (and a very good example of it), as opposed to everything else they'd been doing and calling art, but was in fact just decoration.

I'll grant that conscious awareness of one's goals is more likely to produce success. Again though, who decides that the piece was a success?

For the sake of argument, let's say that there are 1000 people in the world who know what art is. Would they all have to come to the same conclusion on something being art for it to qualify? That seems unlikely to happen.

If it's acceptable to just have a majority, how many should that be? If 501 of those people say it's art, is that enough or do you need closer to 750?

Also, it's possible that all the people in the dissenting minority are mistaken in their conclusions. Mathematicians can get the odd equation wrong so there's no reason an artist can't occasionally make a mistake in declaring something art/not art. However, the closer the 1000 people mentioned above get to a 50/50 split on the subject, the less likely it is everybody on the minority side made a mistake. This would imply that the distinction is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

If art is a matter of opinion, your stance that most people have no clue what art is doesn't hold water. It really is up to them to decide for themselves. The best you can accuse them of is having an uninformed opinion.

Interestingly, that particular artists is globally famous, and sells his works for many, many, many thousands of dollars to the uber-wealthy overlords of our modern greed-based culture. Add that bit of info to the idea that he is selling them gigantic stainless steel balloon animals and you begin to get to what the artist is experiencing, and commenting on through those works. Jeff Koons is a very smart fellow who comments on the absurdity of wealth and fame in our modern culture, including his own, from within it, in wildly obvious and absurd ways, that the very people he's commenting on still don't seem to grasp. Or maybe they do and just don't care. It's really quite an amazing phenomenon. Also, for those who seem to think art is defined by it's technical prowess, his works are masterpieces in craftsmanship. So much so that he employs the absolute top technicians in the world to create them, and taxes their skills to the limit of physical possibility.

I can always appreciate ripping off the shallow, snobbish upper classes. However, this seems to indicate that by your own definition, those sculptures are not art. If they're created to provide commentary on the absurdity of wealth and greed, they don't exist to be art before and beyond everything else.

There's also a circular quality to the definition you provided. If the definition of art is primarily rooted in the intent to create art, this doesn't tell us what art actually is.

If instead art is defined as a means of expressing one's unique experiences for others to share, any random teenager's online blog (or even their facebook profile) would qualify. They are after all intended to convey that person's unique experiences for others to share, which would mean they achieve both components of your definition.

Finally, Jeff Koons loses a fair few points with me for not actually creating those pieces himself. This is of course personal opinion but it strikes me as cheating