Art with a capital F

[Shaker]

So driving well is art?

No - to start talking about art there has to be an aesthetic component, some appeal to the emotions as well as the intellect (and again: no, in artistic terms I don't think that revulsion, boredom or cynical contempt at cynical contempt for the viewer/listener/etc. are emotions worth arousing. There's plenty of other stuff in life - too much by half - to give us those).

[Nearly Sane]

No - to start talking about art there has to be an aesthetic component, some appeal to the emotions as well as the intellect (and again: no, in artistic terms I don't think that revulsion, boredom or cynical contempt at cynical contempt for the viewer/listener/etc. are emotions worth arousing. There's plenty of other stuff in life - too much by half - to give us those).

Isn't that just circular? Art appeals to the aesthetic sense? And surely trying to define what that is, other than saying this is what appeals to me, is trying to externalise an internal.process?

[jeremyp]

So driving well is art?

Have you seen the film "Senna"? There's an in cockpit sequence of a lap of Monaco. That was definitely art.

[jeremyp]

no, in artistic terms I don't think that revulsion, boredom or cynical contempt at cynical contempt for the viewer/listener/etc. are emotions worth arousing.

That is your subjective opinion.

[Rhiannon]

So driving well is art?

Now that's interesting. I've posted before about how I used to be phobic of driving; now I mostly drive country lanes that are stupidly bendy and often undulating to boot. I'm not a great driver but every now and then I'll execute a particularly difficult bend or stretch of road as well as I think it can be done; the sense of satisfaction I get from nailing it is unlike anything else I can think of that I do. But I don't think anyone else would see anything especially balletic in my driving.

[Nearly Sane]

Now that's interesting. I've posted before about how I used to be phobic of driving; now I mostly drive country lanes that are stupidly bendy and often undulating to boot. I'm not a great driver but every now and then I'll execute a particularly difficult bend or stretch of road as well as I think it can be done; the sense of satisfaction I get from nailing it is unlike anything else I can think of that I do. But I don't think anyone else would see anything especially balletic in my driving.

If a painter does paintings which no one gets to see, but they think they are 'doing' art, are they art?

[Nearly Sane]

I was in Barcelona at the weekend and in one particular bar, I was admiring the cocktail making skills of one of the bartenders. It was beautiful, controlled, skillful. I watched enthralled. For me it was art.


Walking down a back street the next day, I saw an old drunk man, do a little dance just for the sake of it. It was shuffly, uncontrolled and a bit shite. Still art

[wigginhall]

Interesting points above about negative feelings about art.   Traditionally, art was meant to be uplifting or to arouse noble feelings, but modern art has discovered the power of negativity.   That is, if you look at Duchamp's urinal, and you find it repellent, then Duchamp chuckles.

Of course, this is all a matter of taste.  But I don't think you can define art in terms of noble feelings really.   Art is a matter of transactions between studios, galleries, collectors, museums, and so on.   It's that stuff which is transacted.  This is what is meant by anti-essentialist theories of art, although of course essentialist theories still exist.  In fact, there is a half-way house, where you have a bit of both. 

[Nearly Sane]

As a species we seem adept at transactional definitions, but I think that's Art rather than art. Which makes me want to read Reza's Art.

[wigginhall]

As a species we seem adept at transactional definitions, but I think that's Art rather than art. Which makes me want to read Reza's Art.

Yes.  Nobody minds if you want to call your fridge magnets art, or your kid's doodlings, or the clouds in the sky.   It's an open concept.   I suppose the discussion heats up when people say 'that's not art', meaning a pile of bricks, or a urinal, or an unmade bed.    I think the discussions over this have been interesting, see for example, John Berger, who thought in original terms about art.  But let's face it, conceptual art can be very dreary.   

[wigginhall]

One interesting idea has been the application of Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance, thus there are different arts, or, if you like, overlapping areas of artistic production.   These could include children's art, outsider art, naive art, amateur art, as well as professional art.   The local shopping mall often has an exhibition of local art, and it seems churlish to say, it's not art.  I suppose the problem with open concepts is that the bottom can fall out, and then everything is art. 

[Nearly Sane]

Ceci n'est pas art

[Nearly Sane]

Surely it's not that everything is art but that everything can be art if it is so designated? It's the designation that is the creation.

[wigginhall]

Surely it's not that everything is art but that everything can be art if it is so designated? It's the designation that is the creation.

Spot on.  You can see the beginnings of an interesting theory of art here, since the designation is done by artists, and then various institutions, and it's sometimes called the institutional theory of art,  as opposed to definitions of the spark of genius or whatever. 

It's interesting that the institutions also drive artists crazy, and they try to break out from them.  But then when Saatchi is hovering with his millions, it must be tempting.  I think the Impressionists were rebelling against certain galleries in Paris.

There was a Cornish painter who was a fisherman, who did very naive sea-scenes, but very charming, anyway, he used to say it's not art; but he was befriended by local artists, and now he's in the Tate!  Alfred Wallis.

http://tinyurl.com/zxs9x57

[Rhiannon]

Can clouds be art if there is no mind that has created them?

[wigginhall]

Can clouds be art if there is no mind that has created them?

That's very nice.  My local group is looking for new koans.  We have tried 'how many stars are there in the sky?', but yours is better.

[Nearly Sane]

I think designation is not limited to the artist or the institution though. It can be done by any observer who then in a sense becomes the artist. So in answer to Rhiannon, clouds are not art unless an observer somehow designates them as such. The intention is not about the creation but about the designation

[wigginhall]

It reminds me of performance art.  An artist could take you out to a hill, and you lie on your back and look at the clouds.   If he charges you £100, it's definitely art!

Also brings up those murky discussions about the mind creating everything, but this is why Rhiannon's post reminded me of some Buddhist ideas.   Mind creates world, Mind is artist, world is art, but there is no Mind and no world.   That will be £200, please, times are hard.

[Rhiannon]

That's very nice.  My local group is looking for new koans.  We have tried 'how many stars are there in the sky?', but yours is better.

 

[Rhiannon]

I think designation is not limited to the artist or the institution though. It can be done by any observer who then in a sense becomes the artist. So in answer to Rhiannon, clouds are not art unless an observer somehow designates them as such. The intention is not about the creation but about the designation

Yes, I agree with this. Sometimes you can come across something that is accidental - old clay pots, say, or a folded pile of linen - that feels like art. But then you might take a photograph of it - what is then the art, the object or the photograph? I don't think clouds are art until they are captured in some way - through words, music, on canvas, in clay, on film - but who is to say I am right about that?

[wigginhall]

One of the interesting things about performance art is that it's not usually permanent, in fact, it's not an artifact at all.  This seems to infringe one of the traditional criteria, that we have an actual object made by somebody.  But then theatre already stages performance art, as does ballet, etc. 

But modern artists (some of them) wanted to smash up conventional notions of art, so that people would say, that pile of bricks is not art, or force them to consider what art is.   One of my grievances about some of it is that it's ferociously intellectual.   But as against that, Emin's 'My Bed', which I've seen several times, is (for me) very mournful and lonely, and actually highly emotive.   But not everyone likes it!

[Rhiannon]

Well I suppose where we are now going is whether labels really serve any purpose. Does it matter if something is art to you and not to me?

[wigginhall]

Well I suppose where we are now going is whether labels really serve any purpose. Does it matter if something is art to you and not to me?

Not really, but I suppose it gets involved in politics and money.   Saatchi spends a fortune on what he considers to be relevant art, and the Tate spends a dribble, but I am interested in both collections, and the fact that they have exhibitions is a useful advertisement.   But they could call it advanced trash kitch, which a lot of it is, but 'art' is sort of neutral.     

[Rhiannon]

I dunno, I think 'art' - and 'the arts' - are loaded terms. Thus Picasso is art, a soft focus crying Pierrot print isn't, and the people who like the latter think (or are made to think) that 'art' isn't for them.

[wigginhall]

Kitsch at its most beautiful:

http://tinyurl.com/jo9c9n3