What is art?

[MrsMo]

I'm so angry, I'm sputtering!

From Yahoo.news world section:
By SARAH BLASKOVICH, Associated Press Writer Thu Jul 21, 5:44 AM ET


LONDON - Mark McGowan went into the tiny backroom kitchen of a south London gallery three weeks ago and flipped on the cold water. He didn't turn it off, and doesn't plan to for an entire year.

"The Running Tap," as it's called, is McGowan's effort to protest against wasted water in London by blatantly letting it go down the drain.

"When you've got the tap on at home, you don't think about it. That's why this is art, because it makes people consider it," the environmentalist said.

(You can read the whole thing here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050721/ap_on_re_eu/britain_tap_water_artist;_ylt=ApA69Oanr1PzS5YDH0cpE8DtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl )

Aargh! This is NOT art, it is stupidity on the artist's part, with a LOT of extra blame to go around to the studio that is supporting him. This is a practice in excess and is no more art than the unfortunate person who has gained weight to the point where the only way to get them out of their house is to take out a wall.

This man has obviously never had a moment when there wasn't any clean, fresh water available. Third world countries would love to make that statement. Hell, there's a dought in London - I'll bet there's some Londoners who wonder if they'll still be able to make that claim in the near future.

And don't hand me the crap that since it evokes an emotion it must be art. A waiter spitting in your food also evokes an emotion, but that's not art either.

Fresh water is one of the most precious commodities on this planet. Without it, we all die.

[Rikku]

Wow!! That's so awesome! Right I'm off to turn on some taps...maybe in actuality terrorists are just extreme artists...weird...ever see that one with the lightbulb in a room? :D

[Kitz E Kat]

Nope , that ain't art, a protest sure , art no !
As in every walk of life there are good and bad, and artists ain't no different.
I have met many in my travels.

Gotta be honest , most are pompous twat's that think we need them.
They have an air about them , we ( non artists) are merly subhuman forms , not worthy of their attention , except when they need us, like to show the idiot's how to change a light bulb .

I do work for an art gallery , one or two artists i met are nice people, the rest can take a long jump off a short pier :-)

Perhaps the local council will sue them over wasting water , i hope !

[Rikku]

Artists are awesome, we need something to laugh at, Giger is an awesome artist, I love his work, also that Damien Hurst, another of my faves, and Salvador Dali with the melting clocks!! :D

[TreeFrog]

>> A waiter spitting in your food also evokes an emotion, but that's not art either.

I'm not sure about the necessity of emotion for art but be careful what you suggest.
If a small animated model of a waiter spitting in food was put in the right context it could very well be something many would regard as art. It could be a vidio too. You could make millions in the Tate. Right next to the cow!!.. or cut-in-half-cow. Is that still there?

What makes me interested is the place he did it. In the context of a south London gallery it makes the thing a show of gluttony. It make the extravagance more intense..
It may not be art but if it gives coverage to a problem that London is going to have to face more and more intensely over the coming years, then it is perhaps a good thing.

For a while there has been a flvour of "art" that plays on the over usage or exploitation of the very subject in question.
The burning of 1 Million pounds.
The use of children's hands to make a picture of a face. A face that belongs to a lady, who killed children.
There are many examples of this type of "art". Despite my initial disregard for them as being just attention seeking expressions by "artists" I have grown to see them in a new light. When I think of them as a group of art works rather than just one off madness things, they work for me.

I don't like all of it but I see what they mean when they say "art"
I can call it art.

[=BB=]

I'm with you MM:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v451/bigbenjamin/art3.jpg

artsy cheers :D!

[Rikku]

The cow thats cut up is by Damien Hurst dude, he's amazing =p

[Kitz E Kat]

I kinda hear ya TreeFrog , but is he not guilty of the "gluttony" by his act ?

[MrsMo]

>> A waiter spitting in your food also evokes an emotion, but that's not art either.

I'm not sure about the necessity of emotion for art but be careful what you suggest.
If a small animated model of a waiter spitting in food was put in the right context it could very well be something many would regard as art. It could be a vidio too. You could make millions in the Tate. Right next to the cow!!.. or cut-in-half-cow. Is that still there?

What makes me interested is the place he did it. In the context of a south London gallery it makes the thing a show of gluttony. It make the extravagance more intense..
It may not be art but if it gives coverage to a problem that London is going to have to face more and more intensely over the coming years, then it is perhaps a good thing.

For a while there has been a flvour of "art" that plays on the over usage or exploitation of the very subject in question.
The burning of 1 Million pounds.
The use of children's hands to make a picture of a face. A face that belongs to a lady, who killed children.
There are many examples of this type of "art". Despite my initial disregard for them as being just attention seeking expressions by "artists" I have grown to see them in a new light. When I think of them as a group of art works rather than just one off madness things, they work for me.

I don't like all of it but I see what they mean when they say "art"
I can call it art.
I understand what you are saying, but wasting millions of gallons of fresh water when so many are forced to do without is criminal. The artist who created the picture of the murderess from the children's hands did not kill children to create his image. Using excess to make a point can be art; just not in this case.

[Kitz E Kat]

That's where i would draw the line, he is wasting water, a precious commodity to many people around the world.
That ain't art, that's just waste.

I am not impressed !

[TreeFrog]

I dont agree with the act. I dont even like it.. even as art.. but I do see it as art..
It is just me.. I dont say you have to as well.

Hey If you take a Simpsons show.. the one about Johny apple seed.. you know the one where all the buffalo get shot.
well the last one.
There are hundreds of skeletons around and Homer shoots the last living Buffalo.
I dont agree with shooting the last one. However there is something final about it. It is a form of art.

I think it is rather odd to look at half a cow. I'm not squeamish about it but it is odd. At the time I could not get it at all. but now I do ..
Go figure I dont know.. I see the art in it what can I say.

[Rikku]

How can you not call that art!?!? It's amazing!!

[=BB=]

Art is something that has been made for its own sake, not out of basic need.
Although today the word art usually refers to the visual arts, the concept of what art is has continuously changed over centuries.
Maybe the most concise definition is its broadest—art refers to all creative human endeavors, excluding actions directly related to survival and reproduction. From a wide perspective, art is simply a generic term for any product of the creative impulse, out of which sprang all other human pursuits — such as science from alchemy, and religion from shamanism.

Then there is "good art" and "bad art" and "fake art" . . etc., but that way lies endless, irresolvable matters of taste and philosophy, all boiling down to - some folks like chocolate and some like vanilla . . me, I like both :D!

artsy fartsy cheers!

[Daremo]

art refers to all creative human endeavors, excluding actions directly related to ... reproduction.Obviously Canadians just haven't done it right. I know this girl that could suck-start a Harley -- Now That's art.

Can I get an "AMEN"?

[=BB=]

Obviously Canadians just haven't done it right. I know this girl that could suck-start a Harley -- Now That's art.

Can I get an "AMEN"?

Yes, amen! there could be a lot of art to that . . but it is still inside my definition - very few blow-job babies :o !

cheers for its own sake!

[Daremo]

And that reply of yours proves my statement that Canadians just don't do it right....

Stopping at that point is fine for art critics, but true afficienados will revel in the 'art' from every angle and try to position it for maximum effect. We will thrust ourselves into all gallery openings in order to expose ourselves to new artistic techniques. We will give sway to our most basic urges to penetrate deeply into the artists inner being and come to know them at an intimate level. We do this over and over and over again in a frenzied endeavor to immerse ourselves in the art until we can literaly taste the art. We must be certain of completely satisfying both ourselves and the artist that we have at last come to the climax of the art's true nature. When that happens we shout:

"Yes...Yes..YES...OH GOD YES!!"

(I think I need a cigarette, now)

[=BB=]

Good one, D . . but now you are talking about technique or "art of" . . not quite the same as the thread's "What is Art?" topic.
(6. a. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

7. a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice" Joyce Carol Oates.

8. a. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
b. Artful contrivance; cunning.


Synonyms: art1, craft, expertise, knack, know-how, technique
These nouns denote skill in doing or performing that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of rhetoric; pottery that reveals an artist's craft; political expertise; a knack for teaching; mechanical know-how; a precise diving technique.)

As regards a comparison study of the sexual skills of one nation versus another,to my knowledge, no such study exists.

artful cheers!

[Daremo]

Since you seem intent to educate me, it must be that either you are bit dense yourself or you cannot recognize...sar·casm
n.




A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

As to an international study about sex try HERE, (http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2004Content.asp?intQid=398&intMenuOpen=9) There are numerous such studies and surveys by various organizations. They range from scientific to self-serving.

This example however is Satire (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/sex/61242), In case you need a definition of that:sat·ire
n.


A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
The branch of literature constituting such works.
Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

You know, for an intelligent guy, at times you can seem awfully...pe·dan·tic
adj.
1. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.2. Marked by a narrow focus on, or display of, learning especially its trivial aspectspe·danhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifti·cal·ly adv.Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.

[SyntaxHeir]

I know this girl that could suck-start a Harley -- Now That's art.

Can I get an "AMEN"?

I'll give you an AMEN if I can get a phone number. ;)

[=BB=]

Since you seem intent to educate me, it must be that either you are bit dense yourself or you cannot recognize...sar·casm
n.






A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

As to an international study about sex try HERE, (http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2004Content.asp?intQid=398&intMenuOpen=9) There are numerous such studies and surveys by various organizations. They range from scientific to self-serving.

This example however is Satire (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/sex/61242), In case you need a definition of that:sat·ire
n.


A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
The branch of literature constituting such works.
Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

You know, for an intelligent guy, at times you can seem awfully...pe·dan·tic
adj.
1. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.2. Marked by a narrow focus on, or display of, learning especially its trivial aspectspe·danhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifti·cal·ly adv.Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.

Let's see, I said "good one D", indicating that I appreciated your sense of humour . . gave you the "Amen" you requested, and noted that although "funny", your biz was not quite on target. Now you want me to understand more clearly that you are being sarcastic and I am "dense" and being too pedantic . .
WTF???!!! I am trying not to think that you continue to be on my case, but you make that very difficult. Where I come from mods and admin do not pick on members, rather we try to calm such bullshit. Is there anything else you want to make sure I understand? I am happy enough here on this board, lots of nice folks. Just get you foot off of my neck, okay? Thanks.

enough cheers

[Kitz E Kat]

Easy there now dude's , or is this some form of "art" type thing that i am missing out on here?


Big happy be nice to everybody (except perhaps Radical Ed! ) Cheers :-)

[Rikku]

Lol so happens you arent a mod here, so watch your back! :D Where are you a mod anyway? Out of interest...

[Kitz E Kat]

Now now Rikku! Ain't no need for anybody to have to "watch their back" around here, this ain't that type of site.
Thankfully.

Group hug :-)

[Rikku]

Well...you only gotta look at the URL to know whos boss :D

[Daremo]

Let's see, I said "good one D", indicating that I appreciated your sense of humour . . gave you the "Amen" you requested, and noted that although "funny", your biz was not quite on target. Now you want me to understand more clearly that you are being sarcastic and I am "dense" and being too pedantic . .
WTF???!!! I am trying not to think that you continue to be on my case, but you make that very difficult. Where I come from mods and admin do not pick on members, rather we try to calm such bullshit. Is there anything else you want to make sure I understand? I am happy enough here on this board, lots of nice folks. Just get you foot off of my neck, okay? Thanks.Heck I was just giving you what you gave me...You must think I can't understand the difference between 'art' and 'art of' and have to give definitions as if I'm a child. I'm not one of your students, I'm at least your age and as well educated.

My 'biz', as you put it, was not meant to be 'on target' but humorous, a play on words and a segue between art and technique. You just happened to be the straightman because of your comment about reproduction. However you missed that entirely and took everything literally rather than seeing the humor in the transition (as well as the obvious dirty joke) and had to 'pedantically' explain the difference to me. Something that would have been unneeded if you got the joke and understood that I was playing with words.

I'm not on your neck, I just spoon-fed you the same treatment I perceived I got from you. I'm not picking on you, in fact this is about the first time I've interacted with you since your last tantrum.

Now I'm really not trying to insult you or get on your case, but I do feel you are quite a sensitive person and perhaps you're taking more offense than was intended. If my foot was on your neck, there would be no mistake about it, I'm blunt, rude, crude and lewd - by choice not out of ignorance. I prefer being a barbarian, civilization is over-rated. I play rough, like Syntax I enjoy confrontation and a good air-clearing argument.

In short -- I'm not after you personally, if I were the screen of your monitor would blister from reading the post. I just stick up for myself, if snapped at or talked-down to, I snap back. It seemed you were talking down to me -- I felt two could play at that. I didn't bring a gun to a knife fight, I responded with what I felt was equal reaction. I'd do the same thing to anybody, absolutely anybody. You got no special attention. I'm an equal opportunity curmudgeon.

[Daremo]

Rikku -- please chill,

I'm trying *not* to be the boss. I'm trying for a user-directed community. I was interacting as an equal, not an admin.

Also - if I want to flame someone -- well, thank's Rikku, but I think you know I really don't need help in that regard. However, as you're aware, I wasn't flaming anyone. I just handed back a portion of what I was handed.

[Arlene]

We were just having this debate lastnight! What is art...I argued that there has to be a degree of heartache or an understanding that life kinda sucks ass. I feel that art, music or other, needs to reflect the creators desire to escape their reality. If your life is a shiney happy cloud, then chances are the art you create would be a bit cookie cutter and lack a certian degree of soul. My example was the phenomina of canadian/american id. Here the only soul the winners have is that they stood in line for 2 days, I mean who the f*uck cares!!! Now cut of your ear or have a life that sucks, your art is going to have soul. The other example I used was Blues players, you can hear the diffrence between a fake blues player who has not suffered and one who is. End of the day art has soul.

Well? Anyone agree?
A

[Kitz E Kat]

Actually i do Arlene!
In music most bands/artists start out great , make it, then pump out crap .
U2 , i rest my case :-)

[Radical Ed]

dis is crap art is 4 rich people
i have no cares 4 rich people
i shit on rich people and art there is no money 4 me in art
Thanks

[Rikku]

OK I'm chilled...and I'm just ignoring Radical Ed's post...:p

[Kitz E Kat]

Just place the keyboard in another room Rikku :-)

[Arlene]

Hay Kitz E Kat, I forgot all about U2...I realy have no repsect for Bono and a bit if gossip on that point, I have a G/F whose sister was his kids nanny for 5 years and apparently he is a huge coke head, more so than the bassest!

a

[MrsMo]

We were just having this debate lastnight! What is art...I argued that there has to be a degree of heartache or an understanding that life kinda sucks ass. I feel that art, music or other, needs to reflect the creators desire to escape their reality. If your life is a shiney happy cloud, then chances are the art you create would be a bit cookie cutter and lack a certian degree of soul. My example was the phenomina of canadian/american id. Here the only soul the winners have is that they stood in line for 2 days, I mean who the f*uck cares!!! Now cut of your ear or have a life that sucks, your art is going to have soul. The other example I used was Blues players, you can hear the diffrence between a fake blues player who has not suffered and one who is. End of the day art has soul.

Well? Anyone agree?
A
To a large part, I agree. Yet Mozart lived a life of ease; although a he was a bastard, Leonardo da Vinci lived with his paternal grandparents and did not have a particularly hard life. I don't think anyone could deny the artistic genius of these men. Sometimes, a person just has "art" within their soul and the rest of the world is lucky enough that they share it with us.

[Arlene]

Good point Mr. Mo, but...

Mozart had no community, no friends no life outside his music. He was an ass and people treated him like a social leper. Da Vinci was a nut bar, and it is speculated he suffered from OCC. He was terrified to leave his grandparents. On an interesting not, Leonardo de Caprio (sp?) sufferes from the same thing and in hte aviator, all thos twitches and getting caught in words is realy his own personality poping into the character. He refused medication through out the whole filming because he wanted authanticity. I have since forgiven him for Titanic...

Cheers!
A
PS I am loving this debate!

[Kitz E Kat]

Bono is a twat !
I have seen T-shirt's for sale "Make Bono History" , gotta get one :-)

Sorry for that short non-academic interlude .....
Now back to the debate :-)

[TreeFrog]

Ya Kits E Kat I got to agree with you one that.. I only said tonight that U2 were much better when they had jeans and TShirts.

I think there is something being mixed up here.
What is art and who makes it.


Who makes it..
Well it seems to be usually someone with some insight into the world and how it all fits together.. or doesn't as the case may be..
As the Homo Sapiens to a large extent, by nature are a lazy creature (a trait that many say helped give rise to its developments both socially and technologically) they need to find something to push against or make them uncomfortable in order to wake up and look out of their comfortable little shells.
It is quite standard for a writer to almost maroon themselves so they can find the inspiration to produce anything they like as art.
I think it is quite a big discussion in itself, what it is someone must have or know or experience before they can make "art".
However it seems safe to say that all artists and other people who have similar interests in understanding the world are never satisfied when finished.. Like a successful business man or an explorer. There is always another place to go and explore or understand. They are hungry people.
Also I don't think it is necessary to say that something is art before it is art..
Without a label from someone else one can give it that status oneself.
You make art too in simply seeing it as such.


What is art..
I think that is quite subjective.. It depends to a large degree on what you yourself are open to seeing. When I say "seeing" I mean that something you see or hear etc. brings a meaning across. Not necessarily a meaning that you can verbalise. This often turns out to be horse shit. But a meaning non the less that strikes a note however small for the individual experiencing it.

There are some formula that tend to give that result. This is because we tend to have a similar outlook and understanding of what has meaning.. hence talking and writing work.

The reason art trends changes so much all the time, I would guess is because artists like to see what else can give them, and others that sense of meaning. They like to see if there is another way, another medium, another unexplored expression that can carry other perhaps untold meanings.

So is art anything that holds a meaning !?..
Meaning is often held within irony, contrast, pattern and .. I'm sure there is something else.. artist look for it all the time. where do you think meaning is held!!??

About what meaning is:
We are creatures of habit and we see contrasts and patterns...
Our very brains are maps of habits. .. they are flexible but very much patterns all the same..
We are only able to see something because it contrasts with something else..
Irony is something more complex. I guess it is where there are contradictions in the patterns in some way. They dont fit together in the way the patterns would suggest they might. the contrast is not where it should be or it is even the other way around.

I have often wondered just how much of any ones life is just a repetition of patterns.. Just habit.
How much of any ones single day is something else. Something that is not part of the pattern.
Probably not very much really. So I guess it is very important to be aware what it is we do.

As for me:
Art for me has something to do with experiencing things outside the normal pattern. I suppose it must fit some sort of pattern or I would not be able to experience a meaning but it is not a meaning I would normally experience.

Smile, it is good for you.

My 22.5 cent.

[Kitz E Kat]

Smile, it is good for you.



Not if your Shane McGowan , all his teeth could fall out :-)

[TreeFrog]

Not if your Shane McGowan , all his teeth could fall out :-)

To quote the man himself
" It's not a fucking fashion show"

:D

[=BB=]

Could this board be art? Not exactly "found art", but a sort of communal quilting bee employing diverse scraps and remnants from our time and place.
We read other's contributions and add our own . . there is a layering of thoughts and images . .

Art can be made by any of us
"Art is not icing on the cake of culture. Art is an intrinsic part of human behavior; we can call human kind not only Homo sapiens but, as Ellen Dissanayake has it, Homo aestheticus. Probably quite by accident and without understanding what they had done, our remote ancestors co-opted some adaptive behaviors to add to their elaboration of ordinary things. These behaviors, such as fear at the sight of predator eyes and teeth, turned a previously ordinary thing, such as a covering for the head, into a
frightful mask.
Art can be made by any of us. It need not result in museum-quality work; it can be only an elaboration of an ordinary object: a hair style rather than plain hair, fashion rather than a simple covering to keep warm, decorating rather than a room with furniture. We can all dance, sing, and doodle; some just do these better than others.

Art is a species-specific behavior
Art is appreciated by all of us. We need no special knowledge or sensory apparatus or experience to respond to a rhythm, a tune, a series of bright colours, a monumental building, or a parade. We can all be thrilled and soothed by art.
Art is a species-specific behavior which can be used for social manipulation. All of us are subject to art's whim. Art can direct thinking, beliefs, and behavior. Art is a means to educate, subjugate, subvert, and convert. Art has this power because it can tap into and use our reflexive responses to natural, biologically relevant stimuli. We are unable to control these responses. We do not even realize what is happening." - The Biological Origins of Art , by Nancy Aiken

A reflection of us all
"My role in society, or any artist's or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all." - John Lennon

Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come cheers!

[Kitz E Kat]

So where does that leave our friend the water waster, by your definition is he an "artist" ?

Bye the way i heard him on the radio last week being interviewed.
He is being sued for wasting water by the local council :-)

[=BB=]

Yes, the water waster is probably an artist. He is not running water to aid in procreation and not to survive, so it is an expressive effort. The "waste" aspect is a red herring, IMHO. Look at the public money that gets spent on all kinds of useless shite, even harmful and deadly shite . . that is the way of the world.

Do I think the water guy is practicing "good" art? No, I think it is moronic art, but by definition, "art" never-the-less.

different strokes cheers!

[Daremo]

The definitions given for art thus far are so loose, that a muderer could be considered practicing 'art'.

A mass-murderer could kill his victims in a certain fashion, arranging the remains in an artistic and psychologically meaningful manner, and using the remains to create a graphic representation evoking an emotional response.

Likewise a serial killer could kill in a specified manner and leave his victims in such a manner as to be considered art.

Even warfare could be considered art. Wholesale destruction and mayhem could be orchestrated in an artful manner.

It seems that anything and everything is art if the person performing the action so declares. Wasting water, plasticizing and displaying human remains, building sculpture or painting with feces and all sorts of acts meant more to culturally shock rather than to create an enduring masterpiece.

The pseudo-intellectuals, media whores and effete snobs that would die for a sound-bite perpetuate the myth of 'modern' art by using their influence, money and position to push this crap as culturally and artistically significant.

I hereby declare this forum to be art. It is a monument to living expression and therefore requires governmental protection and sanction as well as massive governmental funding to maintain.

[Kitz E Kat]

So, what if a guy cut's up someone and lay's them out funny, and he thinks in his weird mind that it's art, and someone else see's it and they think it's art.
Is it art ?
If a person does something and call's it art, is it art?
If person sees something and call's it art, is it art?
Or do a given number of people have to call something art before it's art?

[SyntaxHeir]

I find it rather futile to attempt to define art. It's the same as asking "What's funny?" or "What tastes good on french fries?"

There is no *right* answer but it appears there are a lot of wrong ones.

[Arlene]

Greetings all!

I just read everybody's posts and have come to one brief conclusion, art is meant to elicit a mental response from the audience, be it a positive or negative response. end of the day, it is meant to evoke a response.

As for serial killers, they cannot be artists as their medium is socially unacceptable and they don't get to put the bodies in a show. Society deems that unacceptable. As for war, I think that is art, look at the war photos, starving children those images from Rwanda. They are meant to evoke a social response and attempt to get other countries to answer a cry of help.

Cheers!
A

[Daremo]

But wouldn't painting with feces or blood be 'socially unacceptable' as well? Yet it's been done and been called art.

Plasticized human bodies, flayed and partially disected have been called art.

Half a cow has been called art.

How is that materially different from a killer's art?

[Arlene]

It is not dehumanizing there for it can be art. Social norm may feel angered at half a cow or poop and pee on a wall, but there is an element of shock and either acceptance or the ability to refute the integrity of the peice. As for half a human, we have shock and no ability to argue the peice because society is left to wonder how that person dies and the humanity of the situation. hehehe!
A

[Kitz E Kat]

Call me old fashioned, but i think of art as a "nice" painting, or a good piece of music, or a nice sculpture, or a decent poem, book, etc..
Performance art leave's me thinking "what was all that about" which sometime's can be good , but usually it's a case of "that is crap/stupid/silly" and clearly the work of a "nonartist" , or a conman as it where.

I am just a humble moggie ( an ally cat ) don't get all this "high art" stuff !

[Daremo]

Is this art?--> http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/home.asp

Is this materially different from a killer arranging and displaying the bodies of his victims? Both involve dead people. This way is just more legal. Legality aside, what's the difference? It's the arranging of dead people. A mortician would argue his science is an art. If it is, why isn't the killer's work considered art?

Animal rights has argued that taxidermy is wrong and cruel. Is this not human taxidermy?

I agree that it's fascinating, but is it art? According to =BB='s definition the killer, the mortician and the guy who plasticizes bodies are all artists.

[Kitz E Kat]

Given my simplistic view of "art", no it's not, don't know what you may call it , but "art" no!

I have a truck load of really neat oil painting's.
I worked for a rather cool artist, we traded :-)

Many are abstract, every time you look at them you see someting new, he ( the artist) , put a lot of effort into each painting, a labour of love .

That shit is just "in your face" with little depth, or any real meaning.
Ain't art !

[SyntaxHeir]

Just because it can convey a message or evoke a response doesn't mean it's art, that just means it "media".

In my opinion in order for it to be "art" it needs to be beautiful, creative, and at least somewhat pleasant.

[Yes I do realize how subjective all those things are.]

[Kitz E Kat]

Just because it can convey a message or evoke a response doesn't mean it's art, that just means it "media".

In my opinion in order for it to be "art" it needs to be beautiful, creative, and at least somewhat pleasant.

[Yes I do realize how subjective all those things are.]

I tend to agree !

[maryjane]

Just because it can convey a message or evoke a response doesn't mean it's art, that just means it "media".

In my opinion in order for it to be "art" it needs to be beautiful, creative, and at least somewhat pleasant.

[Yes I do realize how subjective all those things are.]
I don't think art has to be "beautiful" or "pleasant" but it should be creative.

[=BB=]

"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it." -Frank Zappa


You gotta love Frank, eh? "Making something out of nothing", is the part that really resonates for me. Putting an idea that is not "practical" or "necessary" into some action or creation that exists for its own sake, is the heart of art, IMHO. The broader the definition, in the case of "art", the better.


Frank's, ". . and selling it" was just Zappa being provocative. All kinds of art has been produced with no concern for its commercial "value".


Whether we enjoy, like, agree with or "buy" a particular type or form of art, is a highly personal and subjective matter, that has no bearing on the definition of "art".


hungry freaks cheers!

[SyntaxHeir]

Rats, I just lost a very long and well thought out post. You'll have to trust me on this one, it was the most insightful thing EVAR!! Now you'll have to settle for whatever crap I hack out next.

MaryJane and =BB= make good points. Just last night I was reading "The Gold Bug" by Poe and it occured to me, "This isn't beautiful and only some people would find it pleasant." So I guess my previous comment wasn't too sound. That's okay it wasn't one of my better comments anyway.

So what is one true constant of art? Creativity? What about hack writters that bang out the same ol' crap over and over. Jim Davis [Garfield] has been accused of this on more than one occasion. Is Garfield art?

Is there some level of quality or social acceptance that is required before, creativity is elevated to the "art" status? That reminds me of what my economics professor used to say "Nothing has value until somebody wants it."

So is the definition of art defined and redefined on a per user basis? You may find punk to be just a bunch of shouting and screaming noise but I can find artistic merit in it. =BB= doesn't seem to like Longfellow or Frost but others do. Is it art for some and not others?

Conversations like these make me happy I got into IT. Binary is a beautiful thing, it's almost like... nah I won't say it.

"Hmm... I think that bit may be a one."
"Nahh... I say that's a zero."
"It's clearly a one! Just look at its perfect vertical position!"
"Looks a bit roundish on the edges, I think it may be leanining toward zero-ish-ness."
"Can it really be in a transition period? Is it *is* or is it *not*?"
"GAAAHH!!! It's Schrodinger's Binary Cat!! Egads!!!"

[For those of you completely confused and also inclined to punish yourselves with quantum physics theory, check out the Schrodinger's Cat paradox.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat)

[SyntaxHeir]

Heh... after leaving here I see this on Google as one of the Quotes of The Day.

"He knows all about art, but he doesn't know what he likes."
- James Thurber (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/James_Thurber)

[Daremo]

Therefore, we are a race of artists as EVERYTHING we do is art, by that definition.

Even the practical and neccesary is art. The design of an auto or a house, the preperation and presentation of food, The clothes we wear, the computers and software we use is all art.

No matter what human endeavor, it is artistic. even the slaughter of other creatures or ourselves. We tend to arrange our belongings in patterns and make our surroundings pleasing.

If that is the case, what is the Mona Lisa, Michelangelo's David and the works of Beethoven, Mozart and Wagner? I doubt very much the answer that it's "great art" can be given. These things are as far removed from the arrangement of your socks in the dresser drawer as anything could be. Art is enduring and timeless, it passes cultural barriers and language.

While most human endeavors can be artistic and contain some elements of artistic merit, it is plainly obvious that, despite =BB='s assertation, only a very narrow range of endeavor is really and truly art. While most humans have some artistic talent only a very small percentage have the talent, vision, training, time and opportunity to become true artists. It is environment and circumstance that produces a true artist as much as talent and vision.

I still contend that it is the pseudo-intelectual con-man who foists off crap as art that is the problem. It is in their financial interest to find the next great artist and exploit him. Thus they try to blur the lines of art. They try to use their 'educated' position to snob-ize art. To be told that the common man cannot understand art is plain bullshit. True art speaks to all. Race, nationality, education and age make little difference. The con man uses that snob arguement to get the status concious, overly wealthy to part with their money. The intelligensia and literati at the universities will resonate with the snob arguement as they have, for centuries, been a highly stratified priesthood of formal education and thus they perpetuate they myth and bluring of art from artistic. Too often we have seen someone who has a PhD in art or music consider themselves an artist or a musician. The two are not related. An artist may have a PhD in art, but it is not required nor needed. A PhD in art may have no talent whatsoever. The true artist has a spark and a vision that encompasses humanity as a whole.

[=BB=]

Whether we enjoy, like, agree with or "buy" a particular type or form of art, is a highly personal and subjective matter, that has no bearing on the definition of "art".




"True art"??? False art, big art, little art, good art, bad art, new art, old art, dead art, unrecognised art . . the adjectives modify but do not change the noun -"art".

Think of a chair . . or a chair leg . . if all the leg does is support the arse of the diner so he can eat, then it is not art . . but, if for no practical reason it has a a curve to it, then it is art. Whether or not you or I like the curve does not alter the fact that it exists.

Art is not always "great", many times it is lousy and better forgotten. We have "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and we he also have "Gone With The Wind", both are films, both have their followings. Some hate one and love the other, but they are both still "art".

"I never intended to make art".
Walt Disney, when his work was displayed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.


"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once
he grows up."
Pablo Ruiz y Picasso



dead horse cheers!

[SyntaxHeir]

"

Think of a chair . . or a chair leg . . if all the leg does is support the arse of the diner so he can eat, then it is not art . . but, if for no practical reason it has a a curve to it, then it is art. Whether or not you or I like the curve is not related to the fact that it exists.


So if it serves no pratical purpose it's art? Does that make me sitting on the couch watching TV a work of art? Where's my check?

[=BB=]

I don't see why "couch potato" would be excluded from the material available to "art" . . whether or not anyone wishes to pay for art on this subject is, again, neither here nor there.

"Art" is not necessarily a license to print money, nor is it always great. Art is an endeavor, a human endeavor that does not spring from mere need and necessity. Everyone has made some sort of art; it is virtually impossible not to be an artist.

Where art and business become intermingled, that is but one aspect of "art".

Art is the product of our human tendency to digress and dream. "Art" is just the entry level . . Adjectives follow.

stick-figure cheers!

[Kitz E Kat]

Id agree with that =BB=, i would say if you wan't to make money then art is the last place to try.
Most artists i know , make a living at best.

One good thing the government did here was that artist's are tax free, they pay no tax.

Tax free cheers :-) hee hee !!!

[Daremo]

Well if everything we do is art then we are all artists. Therefore art is absolutely nothing special. Everyone does it, it's all around us and it's a Brave New World.

However, I feel there must be a distinction. There must be a differentiation between every day art and REAL art. =BB= may not like, nor agree with this distinction, but it has to be made. Otherwise we totally devalue the work of great artists, musicians and writers.

Most art is NOT art. it just someone making something more pleasing to them. REAL art, as I said before, is enduring and timeless, it passes cultural barriers and language. Most of this other stuff, called art, is not. It is some gallery owner or manager or someone attempting to make a buck off of the next fad or shock-value media representation.

There has to be a way to tell REAL art from a fad or a pleasing bit of fluff. I can call anything art -- that no more makes it art than me calling a TV by the name 'couch'. Clearly the TV is not a couch. The definition =BB= gives is so overly broad that absolutely anything can be art.

There is also a distinction between practicing an art and actually creating art. I can write an elegant exploit to crack a particular OS. The code itself can be flawless, elegant and incredibly creative. I have practiced my art, but the code is not art. The code is actually a sequence of 1's and 0's meant to produce a given response from a given machine configuration.

Art is an aspiration of the human spirit to immortality. Even the poem about Ozymandias:

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

-Percy Bysshe Shelley
1792-1822


This poem that purports to show how transitive and fleeting all things are, really shows, to the scholar, the opposite. We do know who Ozymandias was, he really existed. Ozymandias is the Greek name for Pharoh Rameses II and his works live on as does his name in many forms. The REAL art endures the centuries.

If we call these fads and fluffs art we elevate them to the level of timeless masterpieces. This is absurd. We should venerate the masters and attempt to surpass them.
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulder of giants.
-- Isaac Newton

If we venerate and call this crap art we perhaps inhibit those that could surpass the masters of old. We must encourage the arts and those who exhibit real talent and vision, but most of what we see is commercial drek. We must make a distinction of what REAL art actually is. I cannot believe, that with all the intellegent people in the world that we cannot differentiate between bullshit and REAL art.

[Kitz E Kat]

Sure , but the question is "what is art" not "what is real art" a subtle but significant difference for sure !

[SyntaxHeir]

More artsy fartsy BS.

Artist Grant Alma Wolsey refuses to dismantle the 33-year-old yellow Maytag machines that lie in the parking lot of the All-Star Laundromat at 220 S. 700 East, saying the T-shaped sculpture represents a view of the Christian trinity.
[with picture]
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2898004

[Arlene]

Okay folks I got one! I went to a show and encountered some 'interesting' works. Some where funny others, well, hmmm....the hmm artist though had the most effect on me. When I entered the room there was a large pile of spooled rope, in the middle of the room was a square filled with coyote bones and some others that I realy cannot remember. However the pile of rope spools looked stupid, I though what the hell when I saw it and was grossed out by the bones. But the rope spools had this smell about them that reminded me of an old tack room in a barn on a farm where we lived for a short time, that room housed some pet rabbits and other poor little creatures I 'saved' from the wild. I have not thought of that room or that time in my life in ages because living on that farm was NOT the best time in my life and I never thought that there was anything happy about that period of time. But that little room, I had tea partys and all that little girl crap in there, dressed up those poor creatures. To be honest had it not been for the smell of that rope pile I would have NEVER thought of that! I may never have recovered that memory! So then is the rope pile real art as the intention of the work was to remind the viewer of the hardhips of the First Nations People in Canada, Yet my responce to the work was diffrent. So then is art defined by how the viewer sees it or by the initial intentions of the artist. Who GETS to define art?


Cheers and thanks for reading my little story!

A

[=BB=]

Very nice moment you describe, Arlene, and so like the one that Marcel Proust described in this famous scene from his "Rememberance Of Things Past":

"And suddenly the memory revealed itself. The taste was that of the little piece of madeleine which on Sunday mornings at Combray . . ., when I went to say good morning to her in her bedroom , my aunt Léonie used to give me, dipping it first in her own cup of tea or tisane . . .But when from a long-distant past nothing subsists, after the people are dead, after the things are broken and scattered, taste and smell alone, more fragile but more enduring, more unsubstantial, more persistent, more faithful, remain poised a long time, like souls, remembering, waiting, hoping, amid the ruins of all the rest; and bear unflinchingly, in the tiny and almost impalpable drop of their essence, the vast structure of recollection.'

Thanks also for bringing another aspect of this thread's original title, "What Is Art?", to our attention.The experience of Art is not a one-way street, "traffic" needs to move between the Art presented and its audience. Ideally there is some intersecting of the minds, some desire to understand and appreciate. And who can say how much we add or subtract from the experience by our attitude and expectations?

I took my daughter, who was no more than 3 or 4 years old at the time, to see a big, traveling collection of Van Gogh's pictures at the Art Gallery Of Ontario (AGO).Being a bit tired and distracted, I carried her through the gallery, not really "open" to the experience, until my daughter started pointing at the surface of one of the paintings ( I think it was of The Postman) - and there I saw was a small tuft of bristle imbedded in a thick dollop of paint. In that moment I got such a chill, and I could almost feel the artist's presence. The rest of the exhibit held my attention and became immediately deeper and more profound.

:D serendipitous cheers!

[MrsMo]

For another example of "excess as art" I give you Cosimo Cavallaro...

NEW YORK -- Brooklyn-based artist Cosimo Cavallaro regards his finished work of art, a bed with more than 300 pounds of sliced ham, at a gallery in New York. Cavallaro, 41, the son of immigrants from southern Italy, said the ham is "a pure form of America: all kinds of parts, boiled and pressed together." Despite his Italian heritage and training in an Italian art school, Cavallaro said he had rejected Prosciutto because "It would have been pompous." (06/03/04 AP photo)
I've posted the image that goes along with this news article in the Media Gallery (with the key words "ham" and "art" -- in case it gets bumped off the first 4 newest pics).

[Kitz E Kat]

It's a rather interesting image siting agianst the PETA one you posted !
I thought it was more PETA protests.

Like the water , it's a total waste of good food.

Well next time i am caught pissing against a wall in the wee hours of the morning well rubber , i am goin to claim it's "art" :-)

[TreeFrog]

Its true,
The Artist and the PETA could just swap jobs. at least in that case.
This is probably rude and arrogant or something but I have been following this thread and keep coming back to my earlier post. so here is a quote from it again.
Sorry if its not cool to quote oneself.


What is art..
I think that is quite subjective.. It depends to a large degree on what you yourself are open to seeing. When I say "seeing" I mean that something you see or hear etc. brings a meaning across. Not necessarily a meaning that you can verbalise. This often turns out to be horse shit. But a meaning non the less that strikes a note however small for the individual experiencing it.

There are some formula that tend to give that result. This is because we tend to have a similar outlook and understanding of what has meaning.. hence talking and writing work.

The reason art trends changes so much all the time, I would guess is because artists like to see what else can give them, and others that sense of meaning. They like to see if there is another way, another medium, another unexplored expression that can carry other perhaps untold meanings.

So is art anything that holds a meaning !?..
Meaning is often held within irony, contrast, pattern and .. I'm sure there is something else.. artist look for it all the time. where do you think meaning is held!!??

About what meaning is:
We are creatures of habit and we see contrasts and patterns...
Our very brains are maps of habits. .. they are flexible but very much patterns all the same..
We are only able to see something because it contrasts with something else..
Irony is something more complex. I guess it is where there are contradictions in the patterns in some way. They dont fit together in the way the patterns would suggest they might. the contrast is not where it should be or it is even the other way around.

I have often wondered just how much of any ones life is just a repetition of patterns.. Just habit.
How much of any ones single day is something else. Something that is not part of the pattern.
Probably not very much really. So I guess it is very important to be aware what it is we do.

As for me:
Art for me has something to do with experiencing things outside the normal pattern. I suppose it must fit some sort of pattern or I would not be able to experience a meaning but it is not a meaning I would normally experience.

[MrsMo]

As to what started this thread in the first place:
The Thames Water company succeeded in pressuring artist Mark McGowan to abandon his project at the House Gallery in south London in July in which, to protest society's profligate use of water, he turned on House's faucet and planned not to turn it off for a year (wasting an estimated 3.9 million gallons).

[Kitz E Kat]

I propose an alternative exhibition!
We fill a big pool with all the water that twat wasted , and chuck him in it tied to a large concrete block!

I call it " The drowning man in a pool of water" :-)

[=BB=]

Good one, KK :D! You should appreciate this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v451/bigbenjamin/weewee5.jpg
an item from Bert Christenson's Weird, Strangeand Just Plain Bad Art Collection at http://bertc.com/weirdart.htm

also check out The Museum of Bad Art at http://www.museumofbadart.org./

Non, non Fifi! Cheers!

[Arlene]

OMG I LOVE that ugly thing, that is sooo bad, but would bee a good laugh for a bathroom picture!!!