Art with a capital F

[wigginhall]

I didn't like the pile of bricks, but I accept that it's art.   There is no essential quality which makes something art; it's a commodity exchanged in galleries, auction houses, studios, museums. 

[Rhiannon]

So then are we talking about art in different ways? There's art that is a status symbol, a wealth generator, a commodity, and then there's art that moves us, speaks to us?

[wigginhall]

So then are we talking about art in different ways? There's art that is a status symbol, a wealth generator, a commodity, and then there's art that moves us, speaks to us?

Yes, but trying to define art through something intrinsic is a notorious dead end.   It can't be done.   A lot of art historians today use a more sociological approach, thus, art is the stuff that is exchanged in various places, such as studios, galleries, etc.   This is why you can take a urinal, put it in a gallery, and it is art.   Or an unmade bed. 

[Nearly Sane]

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.

What would 'art in and of itself' be?

[Nearly Sane]

So then are we talking about art in different ways? There's art that is a status symbol, a wealth generator, a commodity, and then there's art that moves us, speaks to us?

If it's subjective, then surely we can ONLY speak of it in different ways - though we can seek to understand how others speak of it

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't like the pile of bricks, but I accept that it's art.   There is no essential quality which makes something art; it's a commodity exchanged in galleries, auction houses, studios, museums.

I can accept that others think of it as art (as it happens, so do I) but that doesn't mean that I need to accept it is art beyond that.

BTW - just to note as a point for the thread it's Carl Andre, not Carlos

[wigginhall]

I don't mind people saying X is not art, but I think they are really saying they don't like it, aren't they?   There is no objective criterion!  You can't say that art is inherently skillful, talented, beautiful, or whatever, this is all bollocks.   A lot of art was seen as very ugly at first, e.g. Impressionists, Jackson Pollock, our Tracey. 

[jeremyp]

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.

Oh right, so you have to have a certain intellect to be an artist. Well I'm sure it took some intellect to come up with the idea that a pile of bricks is a work of art. Of course, now that it has been done once, it wouldn't count to do it again.

I think the thing that makes something art is that spark of creativity, of originality. The quality of the execution is a separate matter.

[Shaker]

I think the thing that makes something art is that spark of creativity, of originality.

As far as creativity is concerned I agree completely - which is why I judge a Shakespeare sonnet as art (artifice) and whatshischops's bricks not. For all the difficulties of definition as pointed out by wiggy, art (or at least some kinds, and more so than others) can be said to have certain structures, even strictures, and the degree of skill in handling these structures/strictures can determine how art-full we regard the art to be.

For example, there's a specific 'recipe' in writing a Petrarchan sonnet, a distinct form to follow. Because of the relative paucity of rhymes in English compared to Italian (in which language they developed) they are pretty tricky to do in English (far more so than Shakespearean sonnets), so a skilful Petrarchan sonnet shows formal proficiency and creativity - how well a poet negotiates the limitations of the form says something about whether it's a successful work of art. Bad art doesn't - see William McGonagall. So much of once-modern art - abstract expressionism, for example, or free verse - turns people off because it looks formless, random, incoherent. Free jazz turns many people off for the same reason - it seems like random noise rather than music which has been thought about.

[jeremyp]

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.

Well it is art.

The criterion "could I copy it" that you are subscribing to, doesn't work. All it tells us is that the copy is not art.

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

Well, apparently, the ability to stack bricks disqualifies Carlos Andre's work from being art and yet my ability to write a sonnet does not disqualify Shakespeare's sonnets from being art. That seems rather snobbish towards brick stackers.

The real point is that the criterion "can it be copied" is absurd. Art is not about "is it hard to make this thing", it's about creativity and original ideas.

[Shaker]

Well it is art.

Says who?

The criterion "could I copy it" that you are subscribing to, doesn't work. All it tells us is that the copy is not art.

That was Be Rational, not me.

The real point is that the criterion "can it be copied" is absurd. Art is not about "is it hard to make this thing", it's about creativity and original ideas.

But there's nothing creative or original much less artistic about a neat stack of bricks, or the building site fifty yards away from where I'm writing would be an open-air gallery - Tate Leicester, rather than Jelson's latest rabbit warren of identical little boxes.

I actually think "Is it hard to make this thing?" may very well be one of the sundry criteria of art, as it happens. This goes back in a way to B.Rat's #36, about if everything is art then nothing is. If art is something that anybody, everybody can do just because, no matter how thoughtless/shapeless/formless it is, what right do we have to speak of art at all?

[jeremyp]

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

Actually, I reckon I could. As a child, I had a pretty good ability to paint or draw a picture that was an exact facsimile of another picture that somebody else had done. I admit, it would be easier to do a Picasso or a Mondrian.

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

What you are describing is what makes somebody an artisan, not what makes somebody an artist. Both are worthy of praise but for different reasons.

[jeremyp]

Says who?

Lots of people, the curators of the Tate Gallery and Tate Modern for a start.

That was Be Rational, not me.But there's nothing creative or original much less artistic about a neat stack of bricks, or the building site fifty yards away from where I'm writing would be an open-air gallery - Tate Leicester, rather than Jelson's latest rabbit warren of identical little boxes.

I sad you subscribed not that you invented the criterion. Anybody could put a pile of bricks in an art gallery and call it art , but frankly, nobody did before Carlos Andre.

I actually think "Is it hard to make this thing?" may very well be one of the sundry criteria of art, as it happens.

I disagree, unless you want to call the flatpack wardrobe I got from Ikea art.

[Shaker]

Lots of people, the curators of the Tate Gallery and Tate Modern for a start.

There's an argument from authority hovering over this one.

I disagree, unless you want to call the flatpack wardrobe I got from Ikea art.

No, because difficulty isn't the only factor ... as I said previously.

[jeremyp]

There's an argument from authority hovering over this one.

What do expect? Appreciation of art is entirely subjective.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't mind people saying X is not art, but I think they are really saying they don't like it, aren't they?   There is no objective criterion!  You can't say that art is inherently skillful, talented, beautiful, or whatever, this is all bollocks.   A lot of art was seen as very ugly at first, e.g. Impressionists, Jackson Pollock, our Tracey.

I don't think it means they don't like it. There are many things I didn't particularly like that I might still accept as art. I might think it bad art, or just upsetting but good art but my liking it isn't my criterion.

[wigginhall]

The urinal represented a major shift in modern art, as Duchamp was really raising two fingers to the art establishment, which of course, eventually embraced it.   Metaphorically. 

Not only is it art, but really a key icon in 20th century art, (and probably the most important art-work of the modern era),  which shattered many preconceptions, and led the way forward to conceptual art, installations, performance art, readymades, and the like. 

Quote from Stephen Hicks: 'The artist is a not great creator—Duchamp went shopping at a plumbing store. The artwork is not a special object—it was mass-produced in a factory. The experience of art is not exciting and ennobling—at best it is puzzling and mostly leaves one with a sense of distaste. But over and above that, Duchamp did not select just any ready-made object to display. In selecting the urinal, his message was clear: Art is something you piss on.'

[Shaker]

... and hordes have been doing just that ever since.

[wigginhall]

My wife is a hot shot on modern art, so I tail along in her wake, picking up crumbs.   Well, it is incredible fun, most of it.   Her favourite artist is Bridget Riley, nice if you like stripes. 

[Shaker]

Posted without comment: http://goo.gl/F21jbw

http://goo.gl/GM6DeC

[Udayana]

Accidents will happen. "Broken" art is still art, luckily. 
 

[Shaker]

I don't think it says much for so-called art if it's indistinguishable from the contents of my wheelie bin.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think it says much for so-called art if it's indistinguishable from the contents of my wheelie bin.

So what makes it art for you other than you opinion?

[Shaker]

So what makes it art for you other than you opinion?

Technical skill or accomplishment; some degree of proficiency in form (like the example of the Petrarchan sonnet I used earlier); intelligent management of formal constraints (ditto), for starters.

Arnold Schoenberg is supposed to have said that what he wanted from music more than anything was to walk past a building site and hear workmen whistling his tunes. Perhaps his forbidding reputation as the godfather of musical modernism prevented people from taking him aside and breaking it to him that if he wanted builders to whistle his tunes, he should have written some.

[Nearly Sane]

Technical skill or accomplishment; some degree of proficiency in form (like the example of the Petrarchan sonnet I used earlier); intelligent management of formal constraints (ditto), for starters.

Arnold Schoenberg is supposed to have said that what he wanted from music more than anything was to walk past a building site and hear workmen whistling his tunes. Perhaps his forbidding reputation as the godfather of musical modernism prevented people from taking him aside and breaking it to him that if he wanted builders to whistle his tunes, he should have written some.

So driving well is art?