"If you look at what he's doing from an art perspective"
What exactly is an art perspective? I buy stuff every month from Amazon to serve different purposes, so that they are pseudo-random if looked from outside without context. That doesn't make me an artist, at least not in my book.
I don't want to start a modern art flame fest, but where do we draw the line? I mean, it seems like nowadays anything is or can be art. And if I say that I don't get it, well, then it is my problem for not looking at it from the right perspective.
That's a question art philosophy has been tackling for a few thousand years, without a conclusive answer :)
And yes, anything can be art, given the right circumstances. And it's not necessarily a "problem" that it is not art to you. Art is defined by the viewer as much as the artist. (And the critic, and the gallerist, ...)
I remember reading something that had a funny perspective on this.
The main idea was that the joke used to be on the art critics that couldn't determine the difference between what was good art and what was just garbage. You could hang up paintings and then hang up the rag you used to clean the brushes and the critics would swoon over both.
All that's needed to cross this "line" is for the creator to say "Yes, this is art" and the question is answered. The creator's intent is enough to make this distinction because art can be so varied and unique that holding preconceptions is self-defeating.
I believe what lies at the core of this point is really the question: "Is this good art?" This is an entirely different discussion that can be answered with some objectivity by judging things such as: "Is this work original or derivative?", "Is it thought-provoking or banal?", "Does it try to expand or otherwise enhance the chosen medium?"
Regarding the bot creator - I'm unable to see a post where he explicitly says that he's an artist or his bit is an art project or that he's creating art. However, if he were to do so then I'd whole-heartily agree and then proceed to explore his creation from an art perspective.
Regarding the bot creator - I'm unable to see a post where he explicitly says that he's an artist or his bit is an art project or that he's creating art. However, if he were to do so then I'd whole-heartily agree and then proceed to explore his creation from an art perspective.
He does actually, in his "Address a criticism" post, he explicitly says he considers the budget for the bot's purchases as money for "art supplies".
He isn't claiming it's art. He's saying that we wouldn't criticize the guy spending $50 a month on art supplies to spread on a canvas with their feet, so what's wrong with his hobby?
It would be difficult for me to defend the statement "random consumerism isn't art" and quite easy to say "random consumerism is shitty narcissistic art"
We draw the line at everything is art when viewed from the perspective of art.
It is like asking when a coffee cup becomes a jerry can, or vice versa, and the answer is always: it depends on how it's used.
It's not that you don't get it, it's that it means something different, possibly nothing, to you than to others. It's only a problem if you want to appreciate it from the same perspective as others.
Art is in the eye of the buyer. If the buyer thinks it's art then it is art.
The answer is very simple, and I wish I could tell everyone this:
When most people argue over what is "art", they actually intend to be arguing over what is good art. "Art" is just a descriptor that can be given to any noun at the discretion of any observer. The state of being "art" is not an elevation of status, it's not something that necessarily needs to be honored or revered, and it does not necessarily mean that something is particularly valuable, impressive, or creative. It's just a category that means that some observer (not necessarily the creator) has intended that said piece of art is to be experienced with a point of view that is focused on some particular concepts intended by the observer. These concepts can be (but does not have to be) aesthetics, craftsmanship, creative expression, communication of ideas, etc.
Art can be bad. It's time we stop arguing if something is art or not, and instead discussing if the subject in question successfully achieves the creative goals intended by either the creator or observer (whoever decided to look at it as art).
TLDR: Art is anything anyone wants something to be. What we actually care about is if the art is good or bad.
> When most people argue over what is "art", they actually intend to be arguing over what is good art.
No. When I argue over what "art" means, I intend to argue about what "art" means.
> "Art" is just a descriptor that can be given to any noun at the discretion of any observer.
According to you.
My definition is much closer to the dictionary definition:
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
I'm not a hater; I like lots of modern art, conceptual stuff, etc.
...but that doesn't mean that there are just two positions here: hidebound classicists and utterly-loosey-goosey "the manner in which I took a shower this morning was ART" hippies.
I can be open-minded about art and still think that " "Art" is just a descriptor that can be given to any noun at the discretion of any observer. " is nonsense.
I think most people do actually intend to argue about what is "good" art. When a layperson says, "Look at that plain white canvas in this museum, how can that be art?", they're not claiming that they think this particular artifact is a different medium of creative expression than the other paintings. What they are saying is: "I don't feel this work effectively embodies the principles of what I consider to be good art." Whether that thought is justified or not is another story.
An amateur filmmaker with poor taste can create a horrible movie with no sense of design or understanding of the medium. But it's still an artistic work - it's just a poor one. Asking, "How is this movie art?" is like saying, "How is this movie a movie?" If the creator intended it to be art, then it's art, good or bad. Of course, a creator can intend something not to be art, and it's not, until it's intentionally presented or experienced as art by another observer.
Is a toilet art? What if an artist put one in a museum? Is an advertisement art? What if it was placed in a museum? These things have happened, and it's all been accepted as art. It's really about context and how an artists intends it to be. If someone has artistic intention, then they can create art, regardless of the medium or artifact.
It sounds like perhaps you may be arguing that for something to be art, it needs to meet a minimum threshold of quality. I guess that's fair, but at that point it seems futile to argue over those bounds. My definition of art is that those bounds are very low, and yours is that they should be high. Past that threshold, we're still left with bad art and good art.
I personally don't see the need to distinguish between things that are below that threshold ("art" so bad it's not even art), and things that are just above it (art so bad it's barely art). That's why I think it's best to keep that quality threshold at zero, because what we actually care about is determining that value of quality, not whether or not it's above some subjective threshold.
"I can be open-minded about art and still think that " "Art" is just a descriptor that can be given to any noun at the discretion of any observer. " is nonsense."
Declaring that your subjective, value-laden opinion is objective fact is rarely the best way to be open-minded.
People are trying to make normative statements regarding art. Being sick of the semantic dispute, I favor your positivist description. Let's drop the A-word completely.
I define "art" as something I (the proverbial unskilled layman) couldn't do in a weekend.
I was in a Syndey art museum recently, and there are a lot of beautiful art paintings I couldn't create in a thousand years. There are a few proudly displayed "things" that I could create in a couple hours with zero skill. I have no idea what people see in those "things".
>I define "art" as something I (the proverbial unskilled layman) couldn't do in a weekend.
Art is also about context. Look at prehistoric cave paintings: I have no technical skill as an artist, but I could easily recreate the paintings myself. But does that mean they're not art? Of course not. To take another example, how about the hasty sketches of a soldier in the trenches in the First World War?
I only use such a stark example to prove the point that technical skill isn't all that makes art art. If you don't know what people see in these "things" then perhaps you just need to look a little more carefully. A lot of modern art is taking the mundane, that which we are used to, and challenging our assumptions about it. Assumptions that we didn't even know we had.
I'm not commenting on this post in particular, but all too often I see this dismissive attitude towards modern art, and I think it's unfair and deserves more careful consideration.
Consider a painting I saw on TV a while back that is suspected of being done by da Vinci. If the experts concur, it would be worth millions. If they do not concur, it would be worth $20,000 because it's old. If joe starving artist down the street painted it, it would be worth $500 at best.
Art has always been a fuzzy term. My personal interpretation, today at least, is that what you're referring to is "craft", the ability to skillfully manipulate materials to either create something attractive or a piece of art. "Art" on the other hand is the act of creating something with the intent of provoking thought through a new perspective. (I realise you could use that definition to describe a report ;) but that's the best I got...)
Seems like a fuzzy line still. What if the artist doesn't really "explain" that it is art so much as he tells someone it is art? If, as a classic example, you submit a urinal on it's side to an exhibit, I don't think the act of submission would necessarily be an act of explanation.
Of course you can go the other direction, and wonder who this explanation has to be directed to in order to disqualify something as art. If I am a particularly dense person and ask what the point of the Sistine Chapel is, that certainly does not disqualify the chapel's ceiling from being art.
Is there perhaps a threshold percentage of the population that has to understand something as art for it to be art?
Yes. An unfuzzy line would imply an objective definition, and I think it's clear a such doesn't exist.
But what I meant by "explain" was more the other way around - if the intended observer can't independently identify it as art, it's not. Mostly, really, I just tend to get a little upset over the pompousness of declaring something fairly trivial you've done "art", because you can construct some platitudes about it being a commentary on some social issue.
My criterion (which is no more valid than anyone's) is that it's art if it elicits emotion. This clearly does. I'm fairly confident that this has already intellectually/emotionally stimulated the human race more than, say, some stodgy Renaissance portrait of some figure of minor royalty.
As for the people complaining about this being a waste of money, please, give it a rest. I assume you don't have cable TV, or a car, and live like Gandhi, if you feel you have the right to complain about how this guy spends his money.
IMO, Art exists for the sake of itself. It serves no other purpose. It has no intrinsic value. Whether you like it as is or not is a different question.
So, while anyone call anything art, If the random shopper is doing to have a surprise gift every month, it is not exactly art. But, he is doing to this to show the world how random materialism looks like, I guess he has a point. :)
What exactly is an art perspective? I buy stuff every month from Amazon to serve different purposes, so that they are pseudo-random if looked from outside without context. That doesn't make me an artist, at least not in my book.
I don't want to start a modern art flame fest, but where do we draw the line? I mean, it seems like nowadays anything is or can be art. And if I say that I don't get it, well, then it is my problem for not looking at it from the right perspective.