This Is Art (it really is)

[Erebus]

The object created determines it. If I build a chair that has no other apparent purpose but to be sat on, and I call it a work of art because I feel I was expressing my personal desire for something to sit on while building it, the object is still just a chair. And I am still a furniture-maker. Even if it's an elegant, beautiful, excellently crafted chair. And the reason is that as a man-made object, it has not transcended it's functionality. Art can be functional, but it's function is not it's primary purpose. And that ulterior purpose as an act of shared expression has to be apparent within it, for it to transcend it's function.
Who decides if some new medical procedure is a success? It works as intended.
Of course not. But most of them will agree that it's art even if they don't all personally "like it", or even think it's a "good" example of art.
Why would this matter? The labels come after the experience of it. It's the shared experience that defines itself as 'art'. It's like asking if an artist works alone in a closet, and never shows his artworks to anyone else, are they still artworks? The answer is who cares? Nobody, because nobody has seen them. Works of art are vehicles for the sharing of one person's existential experience, with others. If the object succeeds in opening that doorway between the artist's experience of being, and the viewer's (audience), then it's an object of art. How well it does that, or for how many, is a question for the critics and historians.
Not a matter of opinion, but of perception. Art is a shared experience. It's a very unique and special category of human endeavor.
You're trying way too hard to avoid the obvious. People who engage in and with the human endeavor called "art", both as makers and as partakers, know more about it than people who do not. Like it or not this is a simple and logical fact. Those who do not engage in it may think they understand it better than those who do engage in it, but that's just ignorance and ego overriding their reason. Yet that kind of ignorance and ego seems to be exceptionally persistent in a culture that worships money above nearly all else. Because money is a quantifiable "value", whereas art is not. And in our culture, we are obsessed with quantifying value, because that's what's required to turn something (everything) into a salable product. Into money. So there is a persistent resentment against the whole art endeavor in this culture because it resists this kind of economic quantification. We can sell entertainment. We can sell functionality. We can sell sentimentality, we can sell novelty, we can sell titillation. Because we can quantify the value (desire) of these. But real art falls into a whole different category of human endeavor that resists this kind of commodification. And this confuses a lot of people in our very money-obsessed culture. And causes a lot of resentment. Because people tend to resent whatever they can't understand, or control (in this case through quantification).
The work goes far beyond just the commentary. The artworks become a physical ultra-manifestation of the pinnacle of our cultural rot. They are magnificent in their total resignation to a culture built on our collective lust for money and fame. And there in the middle of it all is the artist. An artist in a culture (and an art world/market) that is absolutely blinded by it's lust for money and fame. So he is doing what a smart, aware, artist would do in that situation. He's capturing it, and himself within it, as he is experiencing it, and sharing it with all of us, through his artworks. He's showing us, through his own experiences as a "famous artist" what we as a culture have become. He is not especially popular as an artist. He is quite controversial because, like Warhol, he sort of becomes an enemy of art, to make art culturally relevant, again.
A work of art is just a doorway between one human's experience of being, and other humans. Artists don't just make things. They make things to open that existential/experiential doorway between themselves and others.
COULD qualify, sure. But almost none of them do, or ever will. Because they don't open that doorway into the artists experience of being.
But that intent almost never actually manifests in the result. If it did, I'd accept calling it a work of art.
I understand, but that's a romantic bias. Artists have employed the aid of other craftsmen, forever.

You'll have to forgive me for not addressing this point by point. I foresee the conversation getting unmanageable with RF's quoting system. Instead I'll make a few general observations and reference elements I think are pertinent. Please feel free to do the same with my posts if you wish.

You've hinted that art can't (and shouldn't) be quantified. I'm inclined to agree though I draw different conclusions from that. If there is no system by which a person can determine what is or isn't art and it comes down to one's perception then art is one of two things:

1. Art is subjective. What is art to me may not be art to you and vice versa. This is what I lean towards myself though I get the impression this is a major source of irritation for you.

2. Art is something that possesses a quality that can't be put into words and that transcends the medium it was created with. I'm actually okay with this interpretation too. I'm able to recognise the limitations inherent in human language and have no real problem accepting that some things are beyond the scope of conventional description.

What I'm less okay with - and the reason I wanted you to give concrete answers - is the notion that it's possible to definitively state what is or isn't art and to reserve that privilege for a minority. You brought up comparisons with medicine but that analogy fails if you also don't want to quantify art. We can test medicine. We can determine its effectiveness with quantitative as well as qualitative data. It's not wise to compare art to medicine unless you also want to decide precisely how something is determined to be art.

Yes, it's true that some people know more about a given art-form than others. Those people are usually better equipped to provide an informed opinion on that subject. If they like or dislike something, they'll have an easier time articulating why than a layman would. This doesn't mean their perception is any more correct than that of another.

You may have heard of Pierre Brassau, an artist from the 60's who blew critics away with his work. The educated, experienced critics who observed his work positively gushed about the true art on display ... well, most of them did. One said, "only an ape could have done this." As it happens, he was right. Pierre Brassau was actually a chimp who'd been given paints to play with.

The lesson here is simple. For all their expertise in the field, those other critics had no special ability to distinguish deliberate abstract art from the random splashings of a chimp. They believed they could perceive artistic intent that just wasn't there. Be very careful about believing you can decide for everyone what is or isn't art due to your experience. It puts you at risk of being embarrassed by a chimp who was more interested in eating the paints than he was in applying them to paper.

 

[PureX]

OK. I agree with you, but, I don't think this is complete. I think, quite honestly, you're a harsh critic. Not just in visual arts, but in music as well. It's not a bad thing.

I'm not really criticizing anything. I'm just being insistent about accurately defining what art is, and what it's not. No other category of human endeavor gets disrespected the way art does simply because so few people even know what it is. Our culture is so money-obsessed that art has become nearly invisible based in the fact that it can't easily be commodified and sold for money. People think art is a form of entertainment, or decoration, because entertainment and decoration can be commodified and sold for money. We just don't understand humans making things for reasons other than gaining a profit.

 

[PureX]

I think comic art is a good example where the artist's intention and desire to express themselves is greatly diminished from the valuation/label: this is art.

@PureX , If you don't mind the question, when you provided your definition/POV on what is art, was it only for visual arts? Do the parameters change, in your opinion, for performing arts? What about improv comedy, for example?

Art is art. The various mediums used to create art doesn't change the intent nor the result. Writing, singing, dancing, acting, painting, sculpting, ... these are just different physical mediums that artists use to open that doorway between themselves and other people.

 

[PureX]

1. Art is subjective.

Everything is subjective for we humans. And art is an inter-human experience. So of course it's subjective. And yet we humans are as much alike as we are unique, such that for the art experience to occur, it must be recognized and understood by another human.

Is language "subjective"? If it were. we could not use it to communicate with each other. And yet, we all do constantly misunderstand each other to some degree, because our interpretations of the words being used is subjective. It's all relative.

2. Art is something that possesses a quality that can't be put into words and that transcends the medium it was created with. I'm actually okay with this interpretation too. I'm able to recognise the limitations inherent in human language and have no real problem accepting that some things are beyond the scope of conventional description.

This is because it's more than a descriptive intercourse. It's an existential/experiential intercourse.

What I'm less okay with - and the reason I wanted you to give concrete answers - is the notion that it's possible to definitively state what is or isn't art and to reserve that privilege for a minority. You brought up comparisons with medicine but that analogy fails if you also don't want to quantify art.

Medicine is defined by it's intention, and it's result. So is art. Quantification is not necessary for either endeavor to be engaged in. Precision is unnecessary for definition. This desire for precision is a control issue. And control is an issue with art for people because of our culture's obsession with commodification for profit. Believe me, humans have sought for centuries for a sure-fire (objective) method of evaluating works of art in monetary terms. But it just can't be done. It's like trying to measure a sunset with a ruler.

We can test medicine. We can determine its effectiveness with quantitative as well as qualitative data.

There is no need for such tests. The medicine works or it doesn't. The art fulfills it's intent or it doesn't. Once you understand what that artistic intent is, it's very easy to recognize when it's happening or not. And that intent is to capture the artist's existential experience of being through his interaction with some physical medium so that it can become available to others.

Yes, it's true that some people know more about a given art-form than others. Those people are usually better equipped to provide an informed opinion on that subject. If they like or dislike something, they'll have an easier time articulating why than a layman would. This doesn't mean their perception is any more correct than that of another.

Likes and dislikes really have nothing to do with what art is, and what it's not. So articulating these is not a sign of someone being an artist, or not being one. I have known some excellent artists that were awful at discussing their work, or anyone else's. They made their own art intuitively and simply were not that interested 'wordsmithing'.

You may have heard of Pierre Brassau, an artist from the 60's who blew critics away with his work. The educated, experienced critics who observed his work positively gushed about the true art on display ... well, most of them did. One said, "only an ape could have done this." As it happens, he was right. Pierre Brassau was actually a chimp who'd been given paints to play with.

Using a chimp or using a chainsaw: it makes little difference if it's still a reflection of the artist's experience of being. There was also a sculptor back in the 60s that parked a Chevy Impala on a large low pedestal in an art gallery. That was it. He did nothing more to it. And it still functioned as a work of art, because the original function of the "object" had been usurped by the creative intention and result of the artistic endeavor.

The lesson here is simple. For all their expertise in the field, those other critics had no special ability to distinguish deliberate abstract art from the random splashings of a chimp. They believed they could perceive artistic intent that just wasn't there. Be very careful about believing you can decide for everyone what is or isn't art due to your experience. It puts you at risk of being embarrassed by a chimp who was more interested in eating the paints than he was in applying them to paper.

Fooling the eye/mind is nothing new in art. Neither is using the skills (or lack of them) of others, to create works of art. Everything is a potential tool to an artist.

 

[PureX]

Another example for @PureX:

High fashion, how do you feel about it? Does the designer's executed intention determine whether or not the product is art and the designer an artist? The reason I ask is because, in this genre, there should be, imho, room for the happy accident to be considered art even if it did not faithfully represent the creator's vision.

@SalixIncendium , what's your POV on all this? Do you have an opinion on what is and isn't art?

Fashion design is a craft, and craftsmanship, by itself, is not art. There's nothing wrong with crafts or craftsmen, it's just not art. Artists may use all different forms of craftsmanship as an important component of their artwork, and often do, but the difference remains the intent, and the result. Fashion design is not art. Product design of any kind is not art. It's creative, expressive, and often wonderful, but it's not art.

 

[Secret Chief]

@PureX
What is your opinion on a visual artist verbalising their work to viewers?

 

[PureX]

OK... how 'bout this:

Snoopy. A common somewhat predictable comic strip character... or... the catalyst for "shockingly heated arguments over how to survive and still be a decent human being in a bitter world"? Was Charles Schultz an artist? Was he making art? I'm not sure...

The Exemplary Narcissism of Snoopy

He was an illustrator. As were Norman Rockwell and Andy Warhol. (And they were all very, very good illustrators.) But Warhol is the only one of them that actually transcended illustration, to make works of art.

 

[osgart]

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.

An inner experience that goes beyond words? Something you can't communicate with a thousand words but one picture tells the story?

I find art can be disturbing and it's not just meant to be beautiful.

That Chicago bomb thing is disturbing.

The one about waiting I understood.

Sometimes art makes you react in unexpected ways.

 

[PureX]

@PureX
What is your opinion on a visual artist verbalising their work to viewers?

Do you mean talking about what they do, and why they do it? I love it! As an artist myself, I appreciate getting that window into their thinking/creative process.

Here's is something I stumbled on recently that you might enjoy. I am fascinated by the Billie Eilish phenomena. By these two 'kids' who were raised by artist parents, to BE artists, and who are blowing a huge hole in the pop music 'industry' scene because they really ARE artists, as opposed to being manufactured pop music idols chasing after money and fame. And they did it all by themselves, from their bedrooms in their childhood home, with their own smarts, persistence, and creativity.

This is an interview with them talking about how they made one of their big hit pop songs, and it shows how even as kids, with all the requisite immaturity that comes with being kids, they still had incredible vision, control, determination, personal expression, and focused intent. They ARE artists. Young ones, yes, and working in a pop genre, but artists just the same.

 

[osgart]

I think it's true that if one goes by taste and opinion then that misses the point of art.

I don't think it has to be all about beauty.

I think art conveys something either worthy or important. Perhaps to get strong reactions from people. Other times inspire.

 

[PureX]

I think comic art is a good example where the artist's intention and desire to express themselves is greatly diminished from the valuation/label: this is art.

@PureX , If you don't mind the question, when you provided your definition/POV on what is art, was it only for visual arts? Do the parameters change, in your opinion, for performing arts? What about improv comedy, for example?

Art is defined by intent/result, not by the tools or the medium. So comedy is not art. It's a craft, like painting, sculpting, writing, singing, dancing, acting, and so on. All of these crafts can be used to create works of art, and they very often are, but they are not art, in themselves.

 

[PureX]

An inner experience that goes beyond words? Something you can't communicate with a thousand words but one picture tells the story?

I find art can be disturbing and it's not just meant to be beautiful.

That Chicago bomb thing is disturbing.

The one about waiting I understood.

Sometimes art makes you react in unexpected ways.

How other people see and experience the world can be disturbing to us. But even then, it broadens OUR experience and understanding of the world by their willingness and ability to share it.

 

[Secret Chief]

Most Americans have no idea what art is. And this becomes apparent whenever there is any sort of discussion on this site about art. It's sometimes a bit frustrating for me, as I am an artist. A real one. Not some hobbyist pretending his hobby is "art". So I thought I'd show people some real art. Powerful art; that hopefully makes the difference apparent to them.

Do you believe that one can determine, from looking at a work whether it was created by a hobbyist or an artist?

 

[PureX]

Do you believe that one can determine, from looking at a work whether it was created by a hobbyist or an artist?

I have seen non-artists 'accidentally' create works of art. It's rare, and almost never happens twice to the same person, but it can happen. But the works themselves just are what they are: either art or something else.

 

[Secret Chief]

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.

Is the teacher's comment not a flippant way of your saying that a defining characteristic of art is intent (with which I agree). Otherwise, what is Duchamp's Fountain or Cage's 4'33" ?

(Hope this doesn't look like a barrage, I'm working my way through this newly discovered interesting thread )

 

[Secret Chief]

I have seen non-artists 'accidentally' create works of art. It's rare, and almost never happens twice to the same person, but it can happen. But the works themselves just are what they are: either art or something else.

OK thanks. (I now see my post was a duplicate of another).

 

[Secret Chief]

I lived in a block often visited by a celebrated aboriginal painter. His artistic associate was one of my neighbours. She actually designed and laid out his work in pencil, for him to colour.
She bought books of Roman, Arabic, Celtic etc designs to use as inspiration. He rendered her designs in traditional dot painting form.

It was manufacture of product. Until it hit the gallery, and then it was art.

That is what I meant by entertainer (in the gallery) decorator ( for expensive homes) and salesman. It was purely business.

On the other hand, I have known people I consider real artists. They are on a very personal mission to externalise their vision.

That is the difference.

But to the viewer in the art gallery....presumably both perceived as art?

 

[Secret Chief]

Most art galleries have nothing to do with art. They are showrooms for interior decorators to buy stuff. Which is partly why there are so many lies and so much misinformation, and even resentment toward real art and artists.

That's a whole new level of difficulty there. The general public don't understand art and most art galleries contain not art, but pieces by interior decorators. In which case, the general public are on a hiding to nothing are they not?

 

[Secret Chief]

Counterfit artists are often very good technically in one or two fields within art, But yes i think they should be seen as artists too, because of their ability to copy the way they do, they would need the quality too. (but counterfeit is not a good way of being an artist since it is not allowed)

But the intent is solely to make money by deception.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But the intent is solely to make money by deception.

Yes, and that is og course wrong to do. But as painters they are often just as good as those who make originals