Originally posted by JS357 OK I can at least say I understand your position. It is not entirely inconsistent with my view that the observer determines whether a work is art and he determines that only for himself. In your case, you determine whether a work is art by seeing whether the artist says it is. You defer to the artist. Of course I think when you determine that a work is art by seeing whether the artist says it is, you determining that it is art is only for yourself.
I'm not clear what you mean in your last sentence. Please clarify.
Originally posted by rwingett I'm not clear what you mean in your last sentence. Please clarify.
Well it means that you decide a work is art based on whether the creator of the work calls it art, and then, I agree that work is art, to you. But that does not make it art for me.
Unfortunately if you ask me what does make a work art for me, I will have a hard time answering. One answer I like is, is I call it art if it puts me in a thoughtful mood, and can do that again and again.
Originally posted by JS357 Well it means that you decide a work is art based on whether the creator of the work calls it art, and then, I agree that work is art, to you. But that does not make it art for me.
Unfortunately if you ask me what does make a work art for me, I will have a hard time answering. One answer I like is, is I call it art if it puts me in a thoughtful mood, and can do that again and again.
That is your definition of "good" art. Our opinions of what is "good" is subjective. But at no time do you get to take it upon yourself to say that something is NOT art.
Originally posted by rwingett That is your definition of "good" art. Our opinions of what is "good" is subjective. But at no time do you get to take it upon yourself to say that something is NOT art.
Good point. I don't classify art into good and not good.
Originally posted by JS357 Good point. I don't classify art into good and not good.
edit. If we differ on this, so be it.
Neither do I. I only classify it into art that appeals to me and art that doesn't. In reality, it's all good. Even the art that does not appeal to me. There seems, however, to be an overwhelming desire among many people to denigrate art that does not appeal to them. Typically they do so by denying that it is even art at all (a moronic position). I have tried to leave an avenue for them to vent their frustrations by allowing the possibility that there is (in theory) bad art. Whether they avail themselves to it is up to them.
What very few modern art critics realise, or more likely, want to face up to, is that A. Mutt was being sarcastic when he signed it. It was, at least originally, not meant as art, but as a screw-you.
Once the artist has TOLD you what art IS, then you have the freedom to declare whether you think it is good art or bad art. But you are NEVER at liberty to say that is ISN'T art.
Quatsch. I'm always at liberty to say whether I consider something to be art or not, artist or con artist be hanged.
After all, quite a lot of artists, historically, never did proclaim their works to be art. They just made them; we, of later centuries, called it art. Do we not have that right? Of course we do. Why, then, would we not have the opposite right, either?
Originally posted by Shallow Blue Quatsch. I'm always at liberty to say whether I consider something to be art or not, artist or con artist be hanged.
After all, quite a lot of artists, historically, never did proclaim their works to be art. They just made them; we, of later centuries, called it art. Do we not have that right? Of course we do. Why, then, would we not have the opposite right, either?
Richard
You're free to include, but never to exclude. To do so would be to say that your personal taste is binding on all peoples at all times. You're free to include an otherwise neglected artist into the whole of Art, to thereby complement the multiplicity of artistic tastes, but you are never free to exclude an artwork in contradiction of any other artistic taste. Once accepted into the canon, it can never be removed. Least of all by someone as fallible and finite as yourself.
To include something as being art, the breadth and depth of your gaze need only encompass that one particular piece of artwork to recognize it as such. To exclude something as being legitimately recognized as art would require that the breadth and depth of your gaze be infinite. It would require that your knowledge of art be total and complete, not just for the current era, but for all time. Since your powers fall far short in those regards, you are wholly unfit to exercise judgement to the point of excluding something from even being considered as art in the first place. The most that you are qualified to do is to tell us which pieces of art appeal to your own sensibilities. But that is merely trivia.
Originally posted by rwingett To include something as being art, the breadth and depth of your gaze need only encompass that one particular piece of artwork to recognize it as such. To exclude something as being legitimately recognized as art would require that the breadth and depth of your gaze be infinite. It would require that your knowledge of art be total and complete, not just for ...[text shortened]... o is to tell us which pieces of art appeal to your own sensibilities. But that is merely trivia.
So I hereby declare the entirety of my experiences to be art. đ
What very few modern art critics realise, or more likely, want to face up to, is that A. Mutt was being sarcastic when he signed it. It was, at least originally, not meant as art, but as a screw-you.
Originally posted by rwingett You're free to include, but never to exclude. To do so would be to say that your personal taste is binding on all peoples at all times. You're free to include an otherwise neglected artist into the whole of Art, to thereby complement the multiplicity of artistic tastes, but you are never free to exclude an artwork in contradiction of any other ...[text shortened]... he canon, it can never be removed. Least of all by someone as fallible and finite as yourself.
Well, that's one opinion, the opinion of the modern art critic. Mine differs rather starkly: I think that too much nonsense these days is called art merely because somebody once said it is, and modern art critics talk meaningless baloney more often than their fair Sturgeon's Law share is worth.
Originally posted by Shallow Blue Well, that's one opinion, the opinion of the modern art critic. Mine differs rather starkly: I think that too much nonsense these days is called art merely because somebody once said it is, and modern art critics talk meaningless baloney more often than their fair Sturgeon's Law share is worth.
Richard
With statements like this, you reveal not the limitations of art, but the limitations of your own personality. Your pronunciations on what is 'not' art are about as edifying as Josef Goebbels' pronunciations on what constituted 'degenerate' art.
Genuine Art
05 Aug '12 17:54
Back to Top