Art with a capital F

[Shaker]

And why is that not a valid artistic reaction?

I don't consider "Jesus Christ, how do they manage to get away with this shit?" to be the job of art.

[jeremyp]

I have a rule of thump that works for me.

I am not an artist, and I have no skills in that area, so if i think I could create a reasonable copy of the supposed art, then to me it's not art.

I could play "Stairway To Heaven" when I was 12. Jimmy Page didn't actually write it until he was 22. I think that says quite a lot.

[jeremyp]

I don't consider "Jesus Christ, how do they manage to get away with this shit?" to be the job of art.

Why not?

[Shaker]

Why not?

Because it's an attitude of contempt - although I suppose you're now going to say that some 'artists' actively seek out/encourage such a feeling and that's OK, it's art because they say it is.

[jeremyp]

Because it's an attitude of contempt - although I suppose you're now going to say that some 'artists' actively seek out/encourage such a feeling and that's OK, it's art because they say it is.

I don't know any artists actively seek out contempt for their work but I don't see why contempt disqualifies a piece from being art.

[BeRational]

Not quite the same though.

I look at a pile of bricks, and I could create a copy to the point where no one could spot the difference.

Then I look at for example that Haywain, and I would not know where to start!

[jeremyp]

Not quite the same though.

I look at a pile of bricks, and I could create a copy to the point where no one could spot the difference.

Then I look at for example that Haywain, and I would not know where to start!

So you would define art based on your specific level of skill. Like you I could create a verbatim copy of Equivalent VIII quite easily, but I could also make a copy of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18  pretty quickly too. In fact, since I just Googled it, I  could do it in seconds. Which do you think is the greater work of art?

In my opinion, the important thing is the act of creativity, the execution is secondary. Modern art shifts the emphasis away from the execution and more towards the idea.

[BeRational]

So you would define art based on your specific level of skill. Like you I could create a verbatim copy of Equivalent VIII quite easily, but I could also make a copy of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18  pretty quickly too. In fact, since I just Googled it, I  could do it in seconds. Which do you think is the greater work of art?

In my opinion, the important thing is the act of creativity, the execution is secondary. Modern art shifts the emphasis away from the execution and more towards the idea.

This is a subjective measure for me personally, something else may work for you.

Essentially, if I could recreate it, then it's not art, because I am not an artist.

This DOES NOT apply to copying text, as that is a basic skill.

This works for creating the Haywain etc, as compared to laying a pile of bricks, or an unmade bed.

[Shaker]

So you would define art based on your specific level of skill. Like you I could create a verbatim copy of Equivalent VIII quite easily, but I could also make a copy of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18  pretty quickly too. In fact, since I just Googled it, I  could do it in seconds. Which do you think is the greater work of art?

That's merely a one-for-one copy of something that already exists as made by someone else - like doing The Haywain but in paint-by-numbers.

The better comparison would be to have written an original work of your own - your own sonnet.

[Nearly Sane]

I can't build a dry stone dyke - is it art?


I might manage a good pastiche of the Rothkos at the Tate but they move me and my copies might not

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/mar/30/tate-modern-mark-rothko-room


Any prescriptive definition of art will be leaning to the idea that it is an externalised objective value - it's not and cannot be. I think it's better to talk in terms of the things you as an individual think of as art.

It's a nightmare even then because it's a word stuffed like a goose liver with big fat juicy meanings covering music, painting, scuplture, dance, poetry etc etc.. I work with the idea that something that I find beautiful/interesting and has in some way been produced, altered or even pointed out by a fellow human intentionally can be called art by me, and that others (including the artist) can name things as art for them. It's a means of trying to communicate something internal - not an external standard.

[ippy]

I've hardly any artistic tendencies so it looks like I'll have to be taking up conceptual art and have every chance of becoming an artist of note.

ippy

[BeRational]

I've hardly any artistic tendencies so it looks like I'll have to be taking up conceptual art and have every chance of becoming an artist of note.

ippy

When everything is art, then nothing is.

[Shaker]

When everything is art, then nothing is.

I think in this comment we're now starting to grope ever so slightly toward a working definition, however rough and ready for present purposes, of art and a work of art. It undercuts the idea that a pile of bricks - as found on the building site next to my house - or an unmade bed - something we all have in our homes every morning - can meaningfully be regarded as art just because someone says they are.

[Nearly Sane]

When everything is art, then nothing is.

Oddly enough this is Vlad's argument on morality, but you seem to have an issue with it in that context.

[BeRational]

Oddly enough this is Vlad's argument on morality, but you seem to have an issue with it in that context.

I fail to see how.

Morality is subjective and so is art, so I do not see the problem.

[jeremyp]

This is a subjective measure for me personally, something else may work for you.

Essentially, if I could recreate it, then it's not art, because I am not an artist.

This DOES NOT apply to copying text, as that is a basic skill.

Piling bricks on top of each other is a basic skill.

Why is Shakespeare an artist and Carlos Andre not?

Painting the Haywain or playing Stairway to Heaven is a basic skill for some people, but that doesn't mean that Jimmy Page and John Constable are not artists to them.

[jeremyp]

That's merely a one-for-one copy of something that already exists as made by someone else - like doing The Haywain but in paint-by-numbers.

Making a pile of bricks is merely a one for one copy.

The better comparison would be to have written an original work of your own - your own sonnet.

I could knock you up an original sonnet. With some effort, I might even be able to write one that doesn't have you trying to gnaw your arm off.  Does that mean Shakespeare is not an artist?

[Shaker]

Piling bricks on top of each other is a basic skill.

Why is Shakespeare an artist and Carlos Andre not?

Perhaps because being able to arrange bricks in a fairly neat pile is mere gross motor skill, open to any physically developed adult without some form of disability, which displays none of the intellect (many, myself included, would say it displays no intellect at all) so obviously at work in Shakespeare.

[Shaker]

Making a pile of bricks is merely a one for one copy.

Not in Carlos Andre's case. Beforehand, people stacked bricks in order to store them pre-use in a space-efficient way. He however tried to fob people off by calling it art.

I could knock you up an original sonnet. With some effort, I might even be able to write one that doesn't have you trying to gnaw your arm off.  Does that mean Shakespeare is not an artist?

No ... I'm not quite following the link here?

[BeRational]

Making a pile of bricks is merely a one for one copy.
I could knock you up an original sonnet. With some effort, I might even be able to write one that doesn't have you trying to gnaw your arm off.  Does that mean Shakespeare is not an artist?

So can you paint the Haywain for example. It's all just colour and brush strokes after all.

The point being that there is a level of skill required for one, that is not required for the other.

[Nearly Sane]

I fail to see how.

Morality is subjective and so is art, so I do not see the problem.

If everything is art means nothing is, then if everything is moral, then nothing is. So morality like art is essentially nothing of import since nothing is moral. As noted that's essentially Vlad's portrayal of other's arguments on morality - whether it negates them is another question.

[Nearly Sane]

So can you paint the Haywain for example. It's all just colour and brush strokes after all.

The point being that there is a level of skill required for one, that is not required for the other.

Driving a car requires a level of skil - is it art for you?

[Rhiannon]

A neatly arranged pile of bricks would work for me as art in a certain context and presented in a certain way. It's not art in and of itself but I can see it being used to say something.

[Shaker]

If everything is art means nothing is, then if everything is moral, then nothing is.

*Scooby Doo noise* Eh? I don't see how you link from one to the other.

[Nearly Sane]

*Scooby Doo noise* Eh? I don't see how you link from one to the other.

If as BR's point appears to be that if we cannot define something as not art, then nothing is, then that applies to morality for the same reason - unless he wants to apply an additional criterion, When I asked him about he, he didn't - so logically the same applies