Not Art

[3uGH7D4MLj]

I've seen poop, mirrors, running water, airplanes, cd cases, old movie clips, bricks, toilets, ****, mushrooms, dead plants. fingers, fingernails, monkeys, cigarett butts, squirrel bones, mouse bones, butt holes, diamonds, words without meaning, loops of stupid video, light bulbs, etc. Where is the boundary? If everything is art then nothing is art. If I like all music, I really don't like any music. If I like all recipes, I really don't like any recipes. If I like all art, I don't really like any art. N'est pas?

I have trouble with this paragraph. Liking recipes or not, liking music or not, they are still recipes and music. The music that you have a bland general liking for with no passion for any specific type of music and not disliking any, even disco or polka or yodeling, well ok, but it's all music, no, liked or not?

Are you conflating liking things with defining things?

Comparing art with music or recipes may be helpful. What if we used the word music as a judgement instead of a simple definition? We do, but less than we do with art, and even less with recipes. I'm for simple definitions all around. Is John Cage's music really music? Yes it is! Because he courageously said so, but also because he was an important musician, presented his music in concert halls, etc., fulfilling the simple definitions of music.

The simple definitions are the best. The "is it art?" question is distracting, annoying, tiresome, never-endingly subjective. Why go through all this headache to assign an object to a simple category? Yes, it's art. For me the question "is it good or bad, interesting or not" is much easier to deal with. It's a recipe, it's music, it's art; now is it any good?

I have a second definition for art: The highest aspiration of humankind. It's also useful, but the definition no.1, the everyday, walkin' around, bread and butter definition is a good one to keep in mind. Just saying it works for me.

[Fleetfootphil]

Several folks have had trouble with that paragraph. But, I'm still okay with it. If everything is art, then nothing is not art and also nothing is art, which means that no artwork is special and no artwork is different from anything else. What is liked and what is good are different questions, ones that I raised as the crux of the issue some time back somewhere in this forum.

As far as if I like all music I really like none, that means what it says. Liking something is to prefer it. If I see everything as equal, I have no preference, it's all the same to me.

[Hughsmith23]

Speaking of art in cold and idle times, here's a quick read about an exhibit- worth a few minutes I think. I particularly noticed the minimization of our celebrated artists, like Matisse. http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... than-jones

-- Updated February 7th, 2013, 1:30 pm to add the following --

Art is shared by allowing others access. It's not like a pie, consumed into non-existence. But, anyway, I tire of picayune quibbling over minutia at the expense of the idea.

'Quibbling over minutia' is the attempt to find the assumptions that underlie what people say. Everything else is ideology; statements like 'Art is shared by allowing others access' = ideology, until you know what sharing and access refer to.

[Fleetfootphil]

Right, and so quibbling is fine if you're into it.

[Encolpio]

What is bewildering today is that everything can become an object of art. But why are we bewildered? Because we can no longer clearly and steadily point out the procedures and objects specific to art. Yet, if we focus solely on artifacts and procedures, we are wide of the mark.

Today, art has gone conceptual. This shift from material to conceptual, and the neglect of the traditional artistic skills thereof, is intentionally shocking. The aim of this new art is not creating something beautiful any more, but making people think about the very foundations of art itself.

Consequently, the object of art becomes de-materialized. Then, we are forced to review our assumptions about the necessity of a first-hand experience of the piece of art. Art lies in a procedure, not in the outcome of that procedure.

Beauty is laid aside altogether, because the only value is now a cognitive one. Art is such insofar as it makes us think. That is an insubstantial definition. As a matter of fact, the object can really be everything, since the results, the actual piece of art we can see or touch, seem to be merely accidental.

Notwithstanding, I deem it the only way for art to survive. Traditional, aesthetically pleasing art is dead, swallowed up by kitsch.

[Hughsmith23]

What is bewildering today is that everything can become an object of art. But why are we bewildered? Because we can no longer clearly and steadily point out the procedures and objects specific to art. Yet, if we focus solely on artifacts and procedures, we are wide of the mark.

Today, art has gone conceptual. This shift from material to conceptual, and the neglect of the traditional artistic skills thereof, is intentionally shocking. The aim of this new art is not creating something beautiful any more, but making people think about the very foundations of art itself.

Consequently, the object of art becomes de-materialized. Then, we are forced to review our assumptions about the necessity of a first-hand experience of the piece of art. Art lies in a procedure, not in the outcome of that procedure.

Beauty is laid aside altogether, because the only value is now a cognitive one. Art is such insofar as it makes us think. That is an insubstantial definition. As a matter of fact, the object can really be everything, since the results, the actual piece of art we can see or touch, seem to be merely accidental.

Notwithstanding, I deem it the only way for art to survive. Traditional, aesthetically pleasing art is dead, swallowed up by kitsch.

I am not sure about the claim 'everything can become a work of art' because really, so few things actually do become a work of art. Duchamp's urinal and Emin's bed, and okay, there are hundreds of similar examples, but it doesn't follow that 'everything can become a work of art' - only that the statement artists are making is, 'everything can become a work of art' - it is an aesthetic rather than sociological fact. So, we can point to the works of art - everyone knows that Duchamp's urinal was a work of art, but we don't go into a toilet, and think, "wait! is this a work of art!"

Second point; its possible to stretch the category of beauty a little; if beauty is what is beautiful at a given time, it seems possible that today we find concepts more beautiful than anything else, perhaps because of the visual bombardment - it might have tamed our visual-aesthetic sense, but the conceptual is much harder to 'bombard' for most forms of media.

Perhaps - it has become beautiful to think, because we have so little time to do it, or so little encouragement.

[Encolpio]

I am not sure about the claim 'everything can become a work of art' because really, so few things actually do become a work of art. Duchamp's urinal and Emin's bed, and okay, there are hundreds of similar examples, but it doesn't follow that 'everything can become a work of art' - only that the statement artists are making is, 'everything can become a work of art' - it is an aesthetic rather than sociological fact. So, we can point to the works of art - everyone knows that Duchamp's urinal was a work of art, but we don't go into a toilet, and think, "wait! is this a work of art!"

Potentially, there are no boundaries as to what can become a work of art (a glass of water on a shelf, a urinal, an unmade bed, etc.). It seems that an artist is allowed to create with no holds barred, because there’s no definite object that is specific to art anymore.

The fact is that the statement “everything can become a work of art” is untrue if we construe it as ‘everything is potentially a work of art, regardless’. I mean, we cannot say that, as if an artist were not absolutely necessary for a work of art to be created. So, in this respect, I feel I can agree with you (if I got your objection right).

Second point; its possible to stretch the category of beauty a little; if beauty is what is beautiful at a given time, it seems possible that today we find concepts more beautiful than anything else, perhaps because of the visual bombardment - it might have tamed our visual-aesthetic sense, but the conceptual is much harder to 'bombard' for most forms of media.

Perhaps - it has become beautiful to think, because we have so little time to do it, or so little encouragement.

Maybe we need to define the concept of beauty first. Can we provide a definition that goes beyond any “given time”? Perhaps, such an idea of beauty entails the concept of pleasure. If it is so—let us assume that it is the case—, then we may be forced to concede that conceptual art or modern art is not about beauty anymore. What is aesthetically pleasing in a glass of water?

What do you make of it?

[3uGH7D4MLj]

Notwithstanding, I deem it the only way for art to survive. Traditional, aesthetically pleasing art is dead, swallowed up by kitsch.

The art scene is splintered, traditional art is actually pretty alive and well, paint on canvas. The march of manifestos is over and since the 70s we have parallel universes. The idea of a main trunk of art progress is gone now, thankfully, and everyone can get involved no matter what kind of art they make.

I love the old painters, new painters, sculptors. I get a palpable thrill from dada and fluxus, conceptual art and preformance. Marina Abromovich live at MOMA was pretty exciting. (is it art? yes!) I mostly don't like Jeff Koons and Julian Schnabel, his movies are great though. Art is pretty wonderful, I say enjoy it, there's so much. There is crap art out there and fraudulent art, but there is also delightful and inspiring stuff if you care to partake.

-- Updated February 9th, 2013, 2:09 pm to add the following --

What is aesthetically pleasing in a glass of water?

What do you make of it?

This is the first question. It's a powerful one. It's a question to be savored, enjoyed rather than answered.

[Hughsmith23]

Sorry for odd format, I haven't really worked out the quote system.

You said:

Potentially, there are no boundaries as to what can become a work of art (a glass of water on a shelf, a urinal, an unmade bed, etc.). It seems that an artist is allowed to create with no holds barred, because there’s no definite object that is specific to art anymore.

I say:

I think it possible this is an appearance; e.g., that there are structural/social reasons why we were given a bed, and a urinal; a glass of water on a shelf is so typically normal, it is chosen to represent the normal; a urinal is so typically private, as is an unmade bed. E.g. there is, then, a reason why it was an unmade bed, and not a made bed. So there are parallels that can be drawn between the objects that are used. There are boundaries we are not aware of - has anyone (and it has to have been acknowledged by the artistic community) suggested that 'a fox in the wild' is a work of postmodern art? No, because you cannot put a 'fox in the wild' in a museum (it would no longer be a fox). Or for example, 'a fox that we don't know exists, a hypothetical fox'. So; there are limits; the argument that there are no limits is an ideological position.

You said:

The fact is that the statement “everything can become a work of art” is untrue if we construe it as ‘everything is potentially a work of art, regardless’. I mean, we cannot say that, as if an artist were not absolutely necessary for a work of art to be created. So, in this respect, I feel I can agree with you (if I got your objection right).

I say:

I am not sure I understand the difference between 'everything can become a work of art' and 'everything is potentially a work of art'. Do you mean that, 'potentiality' (as of an object) would be independent of artistic agency (the person who makes the thing into art)?

You said:

Maybe we need to define the concept of beauty first. Can we provide a definition that goes beyond any “given time”? Perhaps, such an idea of beauty entails the concept of pleasure. If it is so—let us assume that it is the case—, then we may be forced to concede that conceptual art or modern art is not about beauty anymore. What is aesthetically pleasing in a glass of water?

I say:

I think it is possible that 'aesthetics' can include its own negation, though this requires a rethinking of aesthetics; for example, atonal music is experienced as beautiful, definitely; that is why people enjoy it. I agree; the argument is less powerful for a glass of water; it has no aesthetic qualities or the level of atonal music, or 'noise' music.

But again, there is the possible of a social explanation; if we find the beautiful ugly (because, say, you believe that 'beauty' is bourgeois, or beauty is irrelevant to modern society, or beauty is oppressive - all these beliefs are conceivable) then why can we not find the ugly beautiful?

[Encolpio]

I think it possible this is an appearance; e.g., that there are structural/social reasons why we were given a bed, and a urinal; a glass of water on a shelf is so typically normal, it is chosen to represent the normal; a urinal is so typically private, as is an unmade bed. E.g. there is, then, a reason why it was an unmade bed, and not a made bed. So there are parallels that can be drawn between the objects that are used. There are boundaries we are not aware of - has anyone (and it has to have been acknowledged by the artistic community) suggested that 'a fox in the wild' is a work of postmodern art? No, because you cannot put a 'fox in the wild' in a museum (it would no longer be a fox). Or for example, 'a fox that we don't know exists, a hypothetical fox'. So; there are limits; the argument that there are no limits is an ideological position.

I’m with you on this one. So, we can say that the language of art has simply changed its grammar: whereas a traditional artist avails himself or herself of, say, colors, undertones, light and the like, a conceptual artist may also make use of commonplace, trivial stuff. There are limits because one cannot choose whatever one likes: the outcome must follow the unwritten rules of a sort grammar of conceptual art.

I am not sure I understand the difference between 'everything can become a work of art' and 'everything is potentially a work of art'. Do you mean that, 'potentiality' (as of an object) would be independent of artistic agency (the person who makes the thing into art)?

No, I meant quite the opposite. This is somehow linked to what you said above: the artist is the only one that is knowledgeable about a specific “grammar”, so it’s not true that everything can become a work of art unless you construe the word “everything” as ‘even commonplace things that were not included before within the boundaries of what was considered art’. I don’t know if I managed to get the message across: maybe my argument is too contorted.

I think it is possible that 'aesthetics' can include its own negation, though this requires a rethinking of aesthetics; for example, atonal music is experienced as beautiful, definitely; that is why people enjoy it. I agree; the argument is less powerful for a glass of water; it has no aesthetic qualities or the level of atonal music, or 'noise' music.

But again, there is the possible of a social explanation; if we find the beautiful ugly (because, say, you believe that 'beauty' is bourgeois, or beauty is irrelevant to modern society, or beauty is oppressive - all these beliefs are conceivable) then why can we not find the ugly beautiful?

If we bring the social explanation into the definition of beauty, we will perhaps be allowed to consider the ugly beautiful and the other way round. But if we also took pleasure into account, this would not be possible anymore, since ugly works of art cannot give a pleasant experience to the viewer. So, we might end up acknowledging that what a conceptual artist aims at is making you think rather than creating something beautiful.

[Hughsmith23]

I’m with you on this one. So, we can say that the language of art has simply changed its grammar: whereas a traditional artist avails himself or herself of, say, colors, undertones, light and the like, a conceptual artist may also make use of commonplace, trivial stuff. There are limits because one cannot choose whatever one likes: the outcome must follow the unwritten rules of a sort grammar of conceptual art.

Yes! And what is so interesting is; what remains outside something which pretends to include everything? I think modern art certainly makes gestures to include everything, but of course, fails; for example, if something remains in its proper place, it cannot be art; think of Tracey Emin's actually bedroom, in her house. If she says 'everyone can come into my bedroom and watch me having sex!', with the purpose of extending the concept art infinitely, she fails; because what remains 'not art' is 'her in her bed having sex and NOT being watched'. There always remains; the thing that is not observed; and when you observe that, the obversation simply jumps back and step. Imagine; someone in an art gallery looking at a piece of art. Then the modern artist says; ah, but it is art to watch people in an art gallery! But then; what of the person observing the observing? There is always an outside.

Or more simply; what is outside is the traditional experience of art, as something unquestioned (if that traditional experience ever happened anyway)

No, I meant quite the opposite. This is somehow linked to what you said above: the artist is the only one that is knowledgeable about a specific “grammar”, so it’s not true that everything can become a work of art unless you construe the word “everything” as ‘even commonplace things that were not included before within the boundaries of what was considered art’. I don’t know if I managed to get the message across: maybe my argument is too contorted.

Yes, I think this what I am trying to say; the danger, it happens to me as well, is that it comes out contorted.

If we bring the social explanation into the definition of beauty, we will perhaps be allowed to consider the ugly beautiful and the other way round. But if we also took pleasure into account, this would not be possible anymore, since ugly works of art cannot give a pleasant experience to the viewer. So, we might end up acknowledging that what a conceptual artist aims at is making you think rather than creating something beautiful.

Here I disagree; I am not sure the concept of pleasure gives a way out. The same goes with 'noise' music - it undoubtedly gives pleasure (that is why it is popular), but is also self-consciously ugly. There are people who just listen to white noise basically, through various treatments; and white noise is the archetype of 'ugly sound'. The question is; is there an analogy between 'white noise' and forms of self-consciously ugly art, or are the mediums (sound/vision) too distinct for this analogy?

[Belinda]

Encolpio wrote:

So, we might end up acknowledging that what a conceptual artist aims at is making you think rather than creating something beautiful.

The pursuit of truth is beautiful when the idea is explicitly portrayed as in traditional art. In conceptual art the pursuit of truth involves the audience a lot more because the audience is required to think, and not to necessarily agree with the artist that the artefact is either well made or beautiful. Perhaps Tracy Emin applauds the opinions that her bed is meaningless because it is a banal object. This is quite possible because this verdict at least means that the nature of meaning has been reflected on even if reaction predominates.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

The pursuit of truth is beautiful when the idea is explicitly portrayed as in traditional art. In conceptual art the pursuit of truth involves the audience a lot more because the audience is required to think, and not to necessarily agree with the artist that the artefact is either well made or beautiful. Perhaps Tracy Emin applauds the opinions that her bed is meaningless because it is a banal object. This is quite possible because this verdict at least means that the nature of meaning has been reflected on even if reaction predominates.

Peter Schumann does a lot with beds, he fills the field with cardboard beds and you never think of a bed in quite the same way again.

I don't know why conceptual and performance art is so difficult, as it all relates back to poetry -- a poetic object or event. It's theater, you could say. What about Beckett's work, is it theater or performance art? for me these categories all connect. Rauchenburg's goat, Beuys's fat chair, these artists are working with shared human data streams. It's not different from the aura held by a word in a poem or an object in a painting. We respond with our gut or our memory, imagination. It works because as humans we share this data, these reactions.

Aren't truth and beauty archaic concepts? I'm not used to seeing them talked about in this way as if they existed.

[Hughsmith23]

(Nested quote removed.)

Peter Schumann does a lot with beds, he fills the field with cardboard beds and you never think of a bed in quite the same way again.

I don't know why conceptual and performance art is so difficult, as it all relates back to poetry -- a poetic object or event. It's theater, you could say. What about Beckett's work, is it theater or performance art? for me these categories all connect. Rauchenburg's goat, Beuys's fat chair, these artists are working with shared human data streams. It's not different from the aura held by a word in a poem or an object in a painting. We respond with our gut or our memory, imagination. It works because as humans we share this data, these reactions.

Aren't truth and beauty archaic concepts? I'm not used to seeing them talked about in this way as if they existed.

I think the categories of truth and beauty are fundamental to human experience, however many things you pile on top of them to try and make them disappear; in fact, it is clear that those attempts take 'truth' / 'beauty' as their object. Why would they have existed in the first place, 'archaically', if not because they were also necessary?

[3uGH7D4MLj]

I think the categories of truth and beauty are fundamental to human experience, however many things you pile on top of them to try and make them disappear; in fact, it is clear that those attempts take 'truth' / 'beauty' as their object. Why would they have existed in the first place, 'archaically', if not because they were also necessary?

I've tried to consider your strongly held point but I'm not making much progress. Weren't belief in the four humours and the geocentric universe also archaic necessities? I haven't had much experience with the word truth used as a stand alone concept, and I'm having trouble getting a handle on it now. Can you talk more about truth or give me a link to what you mean by it? Does it refer to a reliable system of knowledge about reality?

I can see beauty as an attribute of art but not a requirement. It may even indicate a slide toward prettiness. We've all seen beautiful artworks, ok, but what about Anselm Kiefer? I see beauty as referring to such a wide and subjective spectrum of qualities, who can say? It's a useful word, but always qualified and personal. cultural, it doesn't seem rigorous enough to stand by itself.

When you talk about truth and beauty I don't know what you mean.