What Is Art

Cinemafia was interviewing Coop, an LA artist, and asked this question...

cinemafia: For the kind of art that's more user-friendly, let's just call it cute art, what separates that from craft? I mean, is it still art if it's not pushing any boundaries, not making people uncomfortable

What the fuck is that about? If you're not "pushing boundaries" and/or making people "uncomfortable", it's only craft and not art? I'm having a hard to buying that concept. Granted there are different levels of capability (and that's super subjective), but to discredit someone being an artist because they aren't "pushing boundaries"/"making people uncomfortable", is bullshit.

I've come to the conclusion that if there's public money being spent on it, it's crap thrown together by someone the council owes a favor to. This makes many people uncomfortable, and they are inclined to call it art for want of a better word that won't upset big brother.

art v. craft is an old and contentious debate, and one that I'm pretty interested in. I think "pushing boundaries" is a worthless criterion for the distinction though.

Art is self-expression without compromise. The less the compromise, the greater the art: Michaelangelo didn't quit when he'd only mostly chipped and polished away all the bits that didn't look like David. Auguste Rodin got away with his rough mode of sculpture through his powerful sense of motion and action in his figures.

Art goes beyond the merely necessary, and into the beautiful.

A good deal of "modern art" isn't very artistic at all. Too often it's because some dope forgot art should be beautiful. And impressive doesn't hurt either. If it doesn't evoke some emotional response, it isn't going to amount to much, nohow. At the least, one should ask oneself, "Was I happy I looked?"

The alleged artist that claims that is not necessary to art is full of something that isn't art. But may rhyme with it.

I think that with enough skill, craft becomes art. But I just pulled that out of my ass...

Still you may have something there, Jinx. Too, craft is what happens when "art" lands on "object."

Urbane Guerrilla;646823 wrote:

The alleged artist that claims that is not necessary to art is full of something that isn't art. But may rhyme with it.

To be fair, the guy asking the question, writes a photography blog. I don't know if he claims to be an artist, but seems to think he knows about art.

Personally, I think of 'craft' as the process of making objects. Art is a form of expression, rather than of manufacture. The two can meet and overlap though.

Sure, monster's ceramics would probably fall in the craft category until after the first firing, then art when she gets into coloring them, for example.

Yes. I'd go with that.

I think purpose is important as well. Quilts are another interesting grey area in that sense. A quilt is an object with a material purpose. But the making of them has been elevated through history, tradition, then the reinvention of that tradition, to the point where the purpose of the quilt is no longer practical, but in many cases entirely expressive and designed to provoke an emotional or contemplative response.

So no picture in black and white is art?

At the price they want for some of those quilts, I wouldn't want to be getting any bodily fluids, or animals, on them. :lol:

monster;646846 wrote:

So no picture in black and white is art?

Don't understand what you mean, Monnie.



[eta] Oh hang on, yes I do. I don;t think the important thing there was the fact that you were colouring the pots, so much as making them into individual expressions. A 'pot' is a fairly generic and practical thing. But if the pot is effectively another canvass, it becomes an example of artistic expression.

I think she's referring to my saying she colored the ceramics.

edit - Yeah, you got it.

If an art museum will exhibit it, it's art. Even if it's not.

Nick Schade built a beautiful wooden kayak that's on display at the New York Museum of Modern Art. It's a very pretty boat, in my opinion, but not art.

Same with a Sam Maloof chair in the Renwick.

If the thing you're making has any meaning past being the thing, then it's art.

That's why I consider my tapecraft a craft, rather than art; they have no meaning or intent.

I think if you can use it for something (quilt, bowl, sweater, chair) it's a craft. If not, it's art. :2cents:

Urbane Guerrilla;646823 wrote:

Art is self-expression without compromise. The less the compromise, the greater the art: Michaelangelo didn't quit when he'd only mostly chipped and polished away all the bits that didn't look like David. Auguste Rodin got away with his rough mode of sculpture through his powerful sense of motion and action in his figures.

Art goes beyond the merely necessary, and into the beautiful.

A good deal of "modern art" isn't very artistic at all. Too often it's because some dope forgot art should be beautiful. And impressive doesn't hurt either. If it doesn't evoke some emotional response, it isn't going to amount to much, nohow. At the least, one should ask oneself, "Was I happy I looked?"

The alleged artist that claims that is not necessary to art is full of something that isn't art. But may rhyme with it.

Said like a true artiste.

Happy Monkey;646861 wrote:

If the thing you're making has any meaning past being the thing, then it's art.

That's why I consider my tapecraft a craft, rather than art; they have no meaning or intent.

I logged in to say that "craft" is not an insult. Some of our most beloved works are craft (even as defined by the individual who has produced them). Happy Monkey is happy to define his work as a craft.

Personally, I derive boundless pleasure from the accomplishments of advancing the craft of my drumming, i.e. techniques perfected in order to achieve a desired, reproducable goal. As a craftsman I can make myslef like a machine--a machine that produces something useful.

One of the applications of craftmanship is that it can be utilized in the production of art.

So what is art? Is it that which evokes an emotional response? That is one of the things that art can do. It can also evoke (or provoke) other kinds of reactions. Art "pushes buttons" inside the human mind, because the artist, either intentionally or unwittingly, has laid bare a principle which is native and universal to the human psyche.

A debate often arises regarding the validity of "modern" art. If it does not have an obvious emotional element--how can it be art? I would argue that it is perhaps an even greater work of art if the artist is able to distill something universally human without resorting to cheap emotional stimulus.

So what are they dealing with? Perception. Pushing the evolutionary buttons of raw perception, without the safety net of a "bowl of fruit" to guide the viewer's expectations. I would argue that modern art is perhaps a more pure art--because of the lack of an easy "subject" on which to focus.

...


One of the ongoing debates in my household centers on the subject of Jackson Pollock. Please take a moment to absorb these facts:

[LIST]
[*]Scientists have studies various amounts of scattered visual patterns to determine which are most pleasing to the human eye (determined by the preferences of test subjects).

[*]The highest-rated visual patterns resemble something like looking up at a canopy of trees overhead.

[*]These patterns can be classified according to a mathematical description of their properties.

[*]Computer programs can evaluate visual images in order to determine how they rate on this scale of human preference.

[*]Over the course of Jackson Pollock's career, his works steadily progressed further towards this mathematical ideal, finally settling and remaining very near the "perfect" score.

[*]In fact, said computer programs can determine a counterfeit Jackson Pollock painting, or evaluate a genuine Pollock to accurately predict at which point in his career it was produced.
[/LIST]

Tell me this: how can a drunkard madman, flinging paint at a canvas, arrive at a point where he can reliably produce images which are later determined to be mathematically perfect examples of what the human sensory mechanism perceives as ideal??? THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENT. I leave you with a question: is this art... or craftmanship?

It's crap.

Which is what Pooka says. But I have to question whether true "crap" exhibits the qualities stated above, i.e. working towards and achieving a mathematically pure form of visual perfection which is specifically tuned towards a hard-wired human preference for specific types of visual patterns. I'd have to say that is pure ƒucking genius. Take away the element of "this is a picture of a sailboat" and it could be argued that this is exactly what every artist strives to do. That is, to create visually pleasing images.

The question what is art is one of the stupidest things in the world and people devote years of their lives to mental masturbation on the subject. It is a total time waster.

It's the equivalent of asking something like "How far is far?"

More than near, and less than further.:p:

squirell nutkin;647014 wrote:

It is a total time waster.

I disagree.

Perhaps the question is completely subjective, and therefore contemplating this topic amounts to an exercise in self-examination.

The other end of the room.
[YOUTUBE]YXl0g9cmJSE[/YOUTUBE]

Flint;647025 wrote:

I disagree.

Perhaps the question is completely subjective, and therefore contemplating this topic amounts to an exercise in self-examination.

No, it isn't completely subjective. If you want to believe what art historians, art theorists, et al have to say. The discussion requires an extraordinary knowledge of art and the history of art and theories of art. Regular folks talking about "what is art" are not really equipped to make that judgement.

One of the tests of the 1st amendment relating to obscenity is if the work has artistic merit. The judgement of something's artistic merit is not left up to the average reasonable person. Artistic merit is determined by experts in the field.

Maybe it isn't like asking how far is far, it's more like two people who have never been to China arguing about what the weather is like in a certain village at this time of year.

You could have a great, long lasting argument entirely bolstered by uninformed opinion, but it would still be a waste of time.

FTR, I am not interested in art history, but I know a number of PhDs and they'd mostly just nod and smile at you if you started in on "what is art?"

Frankly, I find Art History to be a big bore. Most art today is ideas about ideas about art. It leaves me cold and it is a member's only club. Only the people who get the references get the art.

It really isn't for you, it's about creating an elite club of the illuminati. A super version of the "No soap radio" joke.

So in order to be art, it has to be pushing the boundaries and/or making uncomfortable, the Illuminati. The rest of us are irrelevant.

squirell nutkin;647056 wrote:

It really isn't for you, it's about creating an elite club of the illuminati. A super version of the "No soap radio" joke.

Agreed. I have found it is impossible not to sound like an elitist douchebag when ever making a statement like "one type of music is better than another" or "this is art when this isn't". I can understand how people like their music or artistic tastes over other people but a lot of people try to convince themselves that they are better, more mature, etc than other people better of something that is completely subjective. Eh, it annoys me.

To me its like saying "the color green is a lot better than the color red". What?

squirell nutkin;647056 wrote:

You could have a great, long lasting argument entirely bolstered by uninformed opinion, but it would still be a waste of time.

Please quit the internet. This place isn't for you. The rest of us will be proceeding into the next evolutionary phase of human culture.

What's so great about the barrier reef?
What's so fine about art?

--Old 97s

Tell me this: how can a drunkard madman, flinging paint at a canvas, arrive at a point where he can reliably produce images which are later determined to be mathematically perfect examples of what the human sensory mechanism perceives as ideal??? THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENT. I leave you with a question: is this art... or craftmanship?
[YOUTUBEWIDE]TdO6YHKfzzY[/YOUTUBEWIDE]

Let me put this out there:

A person has taken many art history courses. Along the way, they learn what made that art popular in that time, what the context was, what the social mores were that led to a certain art being popular and a certain art being shunned. You learn about who did what first, who copycatted, who expressed themselves or their world for that time, and who became famous because they knew the right people and who wallowed in poverty because their art wasn't appreciated, but they kept doing it...and so on and so on.

Art history isn't just a timeline.

So, knowing these things, having a working knowledge...doesn't that make one a more discerning critic?

We might think the caricature artist at the fair really does a bang-up job...and perhaps in other parts of their lives they are actually creating, but a caricature as we see all the time isn't really 'art' it's more 'craft.'

Everyone should absolutely enjoy what pleases them, but calling out those who have studied many aspects of the creative process (and all the things I mentioned above) as "snobs" isn't quite right either.

I could think Dick and Jane is the best literature on the planet: because even I can understand it. That hardly makes my opinion an enlightened one.

two cents and all...

(Oh, and part of MY definition of art is that it doesn't give it all to you. It makes you think. A story about how a boy and a girl meet and fall in love and break up and all the laughs and boo-hoos can be a GREAT time, but I separate that story from one where I'm not quite sure what the ending was...my imagination has to come in and make some decisions. I have to think.)

Shawnee123;647169 wrote:

You learn about who did what first, who copycatted,

That sounds to me like;

I mean, is it still art if it's not pushing any boundaries, not making people uncomfortable.

Pushing boundaries, maybe. I don't think it has to make people uncomfortable. And I think a nice painting "in the style" of a favorite artist can be just as meaningful to me as a picture in a book or one hanging on a museum wall.

Well, as someone said, it isn't an answer to be solved. It's a tricky one. I guess for me, though, is if it's too "easy" (and admittedly I can't explain what that means to me, can't quite word it out) then it doesn't evoke what something that makes me think and wonder and extrapolate and imagine does. So maybe it is partly being uncomfortable...not like a spider is sitting next to you but more like that "tug."

Hey, this is making me think! This thread is art! :)

Shawnee123;647200 wrote:

Hey, this is making me think! This thread is art! :)

Hey, stop thinking! And stop calling things art!

You aren't qualified to have an opinion on that unless you are one of squirell nutkin's condescending PhD friends who know everything.

I don't know shit (spits chaw on the ground.)

I did like that there paintin' I saw at one of them MUseums, the Bar at Folly Berger's was the pitcher I seen. Folly looked kinda cute and I always like them bars.

[YOUTUBE]J4oKXagF3IE[/YOUTUBE]

DanaC;647388 wrote:

[YOUTUBE]J4oKXagF3IE[/YOUTUBE]

What is art? "It WORKS, mate!"[COLOR="White"] . . . [/COLOR]Yes, and what makes it work?

That is the interesting question, if, as a lowly member of the uneducated masses, I may be permitted to suggest.

Which would come first: Jackson Pollock reaching the "mathematical ideal perfect score", or two card shuffles being the same? And if you put them on a treadmill...
:p:

Spexxvet;647417 wrote:

Which would come first: Jackson Pollock reaching the "mathematical ideal perfect score", or two card shuffles being the same? And if you put them on a treadmill...
:p:

....they'd buttfuck you in the mouth and kill your hobo.



Now that's art.

The Flint/Pooka family went to the Fort Worth Main Street Arts Festival, although I was a little uncomfortable with the word "art" in the title, not knowing whether a team of PhDs had scrutinized all of the participating "artists" to determine the validity of their so-called work.

In reality, though, there were some very interesting pieces to check out. Like these, three-dimensional objects that pretend to be rendered in unrealistic perspective, by Fred Stodder; these, motorized, perpetual motion "Rube Goldberg" machines, by Jeffery Zachman; these, vibrant geometrical contrivances, by Terry Habeger; these, larger-than-life "Dr. Seuss" apparatus, by Andrew Carson & Shelly Corbett.

Each of these men/women I considered to be artists with some accomplishment to speak of; although if the grand inquisition of "true art" deems them to be otherwise, I suppose I shall have to (as a good citizen) punch each of them in the nose, for tricking me into appreciating their non-art garbage.

Looks like a good non-art show.

Thanks Flint! I love the Golberg perpetual motion sculptures! I can not buy one. I would walk by it and be forced then, to cancel everything to stare at it for hours. :)

Nice stuff! Thanks! I really like the Dr Suess apparatus.

Red Green once said "If I can do it, it ain't art." I feel the same way, but I also feel that some computer measuring the mathematical relationships in a painting gives it validity is just as much crap as having to make you uncomfortable to be art. Art can only be appreciated by sentient beings. Computers can't rate art, especially when the GIGO factor is inserted.

When I was in Grad school we had a class of about 33. 4 dudes had the name of Art. How weird is that? And they all remain friends to this day.

When I was in Grad school we had a class of about 33. 4 dudes had the name of Craft. How weird is that? They all hate each other now, though.:p: