This Is Art (it really is)

[PureX]

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 )

I appreciate the interest!

I recognize the similarity of saying that art is whatever one says it is, and the fact that anything can made into a work of art. But I think the statement was meant to imply the message that art is defined by individual whim. And that's an idea I completely disagree with. As it trivializes the art endeavor to pointlessness.

Also, an 'artist' can intend to make art, and still fail to do so. So the art is not solely defined by the artist's intent. That intent must be sufficiently manifested in the result of the endeavor (the artwork). And not everyone is going to be able to recognize that it has been, if it has been, in every instance. So I do recognize that there is some degree of subjective evaluation going on, there. But as someone who has participated in MANY group art critiques, involving people with varying degrees of expertise, I can safely say that this determination is comfortably universal once the basic parameters of the endeavor are understood.

 

[PureX]

But the intent is solely to make money by deception.

... And no art is produced. Just RE-produced.

 

[Secret Chief]

When i went to art school we did a lot of copy the old masters, and yes we learned a lot about technique, so in this way copy someone is good, to make a copy so well that t is almost impossible to see the difference, then sell it as the real art, that to me is going to far

All artistic endeavour involves an element of influence (if "only" from lifes experiences, if not techniques). Hendrix was influenced by T-Bone Walker and Steve Vai was influenced by Hendrix. No counterfeits there.

 

[Secret Chief]

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

I'm thinking the chimp wasn't a tool for communicating existential experience, rather the exercise was simply to be an indictment of the "art world."

 

[PureX]

I'm thinking the chimp wasn't a tool for communicating existential experience, rather the exercise was simply to be an indictment of the "art world."

I agree. But there is a long tradition of artists indicting the 'art world', and rightly so. That world and the indictment of it does tend to play significantly in their experience of being who they are.

It's surprising how much this piece of art tells us about the artist's experience of being himself even though it is a 'found object' once one recognizes the context within which it was created and shown. Sometimes that indictment of the 'art world' is a crucial aspect of the individual's expression. As it certainly was in this case.

The students at my alma mater (the Art Institute of Chicago) boycotted and picketed on the steps of the museum because they were so incensed by the inclusion of this piece in the Armory Show, in 1918. Now it's one of the most celebrated and appreciated pieces of modern 20th century art.

 

[Secret Chief]

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.

Cool stuff. Don't know Billy Eilish but yeah, artistic endeavour. This alludes I think to your point abour money. In popular music, the industry has all but killed creativity (no ****). Putting my rose-tinted glasses on, that was not the case in the 60s/70s. Someone like Eilish succeeds (whatever that is) DESPITE the industry, not WITH its assistance.

 

[PureX]

Cool stuff. Don't know Billy Eilish but yeah, artistic endeavour. This alludes I think to your point abour money. In popular music, the industry has all but killed creativity (no ****). Putting my rose-tinted glasses on, that was not the case in the 60s/70s. Someone like Eilish succeeds (whatever that is) DESPITE the industry, not WITH its assistance.

She is being called the "anti-pop" star. And the real corporate turds in the industry (like Simon Cowell) hate her because she blew up their paradigm of the male discovered, male produced, and male managed 'strutting sl*t' supermodel female pop star. She's only 18 yrs old so there is no telling where she'll go, creatively. And she is not alone in her open defiance of the media money train of the pop music industry. But for the moment, she and her brother Finneas are a shining light in a sea of mostly greed and mediocrity.

 

[PureX]

 

[PureX]

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?

When money becomes the overriding motive, art tends to just get in the way, and is left out of consideration. I can't tell you how many times I've heard gallery owners reject showing an artist because he or she doesn't have a whole pile of similar works ready for them to sell. One good artwork just puts them in 'big sales' mode, and if they don't see ten more like it piled up in the corner, they get frustrated and reject everything. Quantity trumps quality when money gets involved, every time,

 

[Secret Chief]

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.

OK, I can get that. In respect of visual art: given that it is a non-verbal transmission from object to viewer, what do you say to the suggestion that to speak about the work (explain) means coming between the object and the viewer, thus affecting what the viewer's response would otherwise be?

 

[Secret Chief]

I appreciate the interest!

I recognize the similarity of saying that art is whatever one says it is, and the fact that anything can made into a work of art. But I think the statement was meant to imply the message that art is defined by individual whim. And that's an idea I completely disagree with. As it trivializes the art endeavor to pointlessness.

Also, an 'artist' can intend to make art, and still fail to do so. So the art is not solely defined by the artist's intent. That intent must be sufficiently manifested in the result of the endeavor (the artwork). And not everyone is going to be able to recognize that it has been, if it has been, in every instance. So I do recognize that there is some degree of subjective evaluation going on, there. But as someone who has participated in MANY group art critiques, involving people with varying degrees of expertise, I can safely say that this determination is comfortably universal once the basic parameters of the endeavor are understood.

Is there not much disagreement amongst professional art critics?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is there not much disagreement amongst professional art critics?

Art critics.....as essential as the telephone sanitizers.

 

[Secret Chief]

When money becomes the overriding motive, art tends to just get in the way, and is left out of consideration. I can't tell you how many times I've heard gallery owners reject showing an artist because he or she doesn't have a whole pile of similar works ready for them to sell. One good artwork just puts them in 'big sales' mode, and if they don't see ten more like it piled up in the corner, they get frustrated and reject everything. Quantity trumps quality when money gets involved, every time,

(Feel free to call me a hobbyist!)
I took a piece into a local art shop for consideration (to sell). She basically said yes as long as I brought three others in of different sizes and with different coloured frames. People are looking for things that match their wallpaper, apparently. Yes, interior decoration.

 

[Secret Chief]

Art critics.....as essential as the telephone sanitizers.

From the book, I recall that ended badly.

 

[Revoltingest]

From the book, I recall that ended badly.

Aye, we'd all be wiped out without art critics.

 

[PureX]

OK, I can get that. In respect of visual art: given that it is a non-verbal transmission from object to viewer, what do you say to the suggestion that to speak about the work (explain) means coming between the object and the viewer, thus affecting what the viewer's response would otherwise be?

I don't think any explanations would be warranted or necessary for those experiencing the artworks. If I could speak the experience into being, I wouldn't have to paint/sculpt/sing/dance/act/whatever it into being. And in most instances, such explanations only get in the way of the actual art experience.

On the other hand, I really like artists. They are 'my tribe'. So I very much enjoy hearing about and discussing our unique commonalities and differences wit them. I met a somewhat well known sculptor once that proclaimed that all he wanted to know about another artist was who they slept with and where their money came from. He said this to make the point that he didn't care AT ALL what they thought they were doing in terms of their own artwork, because he could see that for himself. He only cared about what they could teach him about surviving as an artist in a culture obsessed with sex and money.

He was an excellent artist, but unfortunately not good at social/survival skills. He was an alcoholic (though sober when I met him), and had been fired from many teaching positions for inappropriately groping and propositioning his female students.

 

[PureX]

Is there not much disagreement amongst professional art critics?

Not that much, really, no.

I have an artist friend who has always been more interested in discussing and writing commentaries on art then on actually making art, himself. He used to carry around cards with him to all the art openings in town that said "YOU WILL PAY TO BE TOLD WHAT YOU THINK" on them, with a phone number. Artists liked him because he was an artist acting as a critic. Artists don't generally think much of 'professional critics' because they aren't artists. They advocate for the viewer, and for history, and for culture, but not for the artist. No one advocates for the artist, really.

 

[PureX]

(Feel free to call me a hobbyist!)
I took a piece into a local art shop for consideration (to sell). She basically said yes as long as I brought three others in of different sizes and with different coloured frames. People are looking for things that match their wallpaper, apparently. Yes, interior decoration.

Exactly. And this is what the vast majority of Americans think is "art". Decoration, entertainment, propaganda, craftsmanship, even hucksterism, ... as long as it can be sold for money, they "get it". But real art completely mystifies them, and in many cases, angers them.

 

[Secret Chief]

Exactly. And this is what the vast majority of Americans think is "art". Decoration, entertainment, propaganda, craftsmanship, ... as long as it can be sold for money, they "get it". But real art completely mystifies them, and in many cases, angers them.

Another art shop proprietor said one of my pieces would likely offend vegetarians. She was rather non-plussed when I said I'd made it because I'm a vegetarian

Speaking of which, tea won't make itself so I need to toddle off. Been good thanks, responding to all my disordered posts.

 

[Tambourine]

Exactly. And this is what the vast majority of Americans think is "art". Decoration, entertainment, propaganda, craftsmanship, even hucksterism, ... as long as it can be sold for money, they "get it". But real art completely mystifies them, and in many cases, angers them.

This is not unique to America, and it is, I feel, intrinsically tied with making art in a capitalist world. In order for work to be seen as valuable, it must produce something of value to the capitalist market economy.

Even pieces of high art tend to be traded, bought and sold on the market, for the same purposes you outline above. At their very best, they end up being displayed as part of private collections, in order to heighten the social status of their owner and present them as people of fine taste.


Unrelated to this, thank you for making this thread and posting both these beautiful pieces of visual art as well as your thoughts on the topic. I haven't visited a museum or gallery in a good while, but you've reminded me of why I used to enjoy that.