Most Artistic?

Use this forum to have philosophical discussions about aesthetics and art. What is art? What is beauty? What makes art good? You can also use this forum to discuss philosophy in the arts, namely to discuss the philosophical points in any particular movie, TV show, book or story.
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by Spiral Out »

Could anyone really find Mark Rothko's "No. 61" any more artistic than Jean Louis Theodore Gericault's "Le Radeau de la Meduse"? That would be difficult to believe.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj »

Spiral Out wrote:Could anyone really find Mark Rothko's "No. 61" any more artistic than Jean Louis Theodore Gericault's "Le Radeau de la Meduse"? That would be difficult to believe.
More artistical? Does one have more supercalifragilartisticality? I think I would just move to another seat on the bus.

I was in a class with Milton Glaser at SVA in NY and we were talking about what art is, and he was proposing that a kind of elevating qualityis needed to make the definition stick, and I was all, "art is just art, get over it." Somebody said that art is a human expression, and MG quietly replied that a sneeze is an expression and would that be art? He is such a mench, a buddha, a wonderful man, but I had the nerve to say if the sneeze was made by an artist and presented as art in a gallery it would surely be art, (maybe by Vito Acconci or Joseph Beuys). Later other students told me they were glad that someone in the class was arguing with the master and I felt better about it.

Everyone can use whatever definition of art they like. I like to think that I'm not arguing here, but just trying to point out that it's kind of cumbersome to wait for future generations to determine if something can be called "art."
fair to say
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by Spiral Out »

3uGH7D4MLj wrote:More artistical? Does one have more supercalifragilartisticality?
Is that an attempt to nullify a long-established concept by equating it with gibberish? Are you genuinely not able to see the logic in my example; the differing levels of skill and artistry between the two works I mentioned?
3uGH7D4MLj wrote:Somebody said that art is a human expression, and MG quietly replied that a sneeze is an expression and would that be art? He is such a mench, a buddha, a wonderful man, but I had the nerve to say if the sneeze was made by an artist and presented as art in a gallery it would surely be art ...
So then it's simply the venue that defines the properties and nature of the expression? This is a philosophy forum, is it not? Does that indicate to you that the expression within these forums is philosophy simply as presented and regardless of its content?
3uGH7D4MLj wrote:Everyone can use whatever definition of art they like.
Yes, of course. However, there must be at least some minimum objective standard or else the concept of art will cease to have any distinct purpose or meaning. If I defecate on a canvas, use my genitals to smear it around and then exhibit it in an art gallery does that make it art? I think quite the contrary.

We draw lines and distinctions for definition and contrast. If we say anything can be art, there is no definition or contrast to that which cannot be considered by reasonable minds as art. The concept of art is then negated in the lack of any definition. Accordingly, art therefore does not exist and the artist is but an imbecile.

Art must hold some distinction as works of exceptional skill and unusual vision and creativity.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
Aonghus
Posts: 194
Joined: October 5th, 2012, 7:58 am

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by Aonghus »

Paintings 1 & 2 are overly reliant on natural phenomena for my tastes (they both exploit/copy how liquids behave). The last one looks like a Miro, and I think his stuff is a bit dated now. So I'm opting for 3 because - even if it isn't art per se - it is textural, something I happen to like in a painting. So I guess it's all about personal preference.
User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj »

Spiral Out wrote:So then it's simply the venue that defines the properties and nature of the expression? This is a philosophy forum, is it not? Does that indicate to you that the expression within these forums is philosophy simply as presented and regardless of its content?
Hmm. This comment isn't really fair you must admit? For your comparison to work you would have to say "made by a philosopher, presented as philosophy, in a place where you would expect to find philosophy (maybe an article or book)." Not really a bad definition of philosophy.
Spiral Out wrote:Art must hold some distinction as works of exceptional skill and unusual vision and creativity.
This is the "hard-to-do" misunderstanding of art, that art has to be hard to do. From my point of view this is completely wrong. Look into it, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I just checked a dictionary and both definitions are in there. I don't think using my definition makes "imbeciles" of artists. Saying this for the third time, please feel free to define art however you like.

And Spiral Out, sorry about the artistical jokes -- really, I was out of line.
fair to say
Fleetfootphil
Posts: 277
Joined: May 25th, 2012, 9:33 pm

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by Fleetfootphil »

True. Art need not be hard. In fact, the easier the better. Anyone who can cut corners and still get there champions my system and I give them each a clap (a clap, not the clap).

I think it was Handson who argued that art requires craftsmanship as a necessary property. I doubted it then and still do. Art just has to hang in there and be what it is. Folk music is simple and yet it is art that can be done by anyone with the time and inclination to strum a single, open chord and say something, or say nothing, or just go doo wah, doo wha, dust is coverin the land, bah.

I will listen first and decide whether it is good art or not and whether it has value later. Of course that means it is my decision whether it is good but it is not my decision whether it is art or not.
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by Spiral Out »

Spiral Out wrote:So then it's simply the venue that defines the properties and nature of the expression? This is a philosophy forum, is it not? Does that indicate to you that the expression within these forums is philosophy simply as presented and regardless of its content?
3uGH7D4MLj wrote:This comment isn't really fair you must admit? For your comparison to work you would have to say "made by a philosopher, presented as philosophy, in a place where you would expect to find philosophy (maybe an article or book)."
Yes, perhaps. But then it makes me wonder: Does the person as an artist define their work as art, or does the work as art define the person as an artist?
Spiral Out wrote:Art must hold some distinction as works of exceptional skill and unusual vision and creativity.
3uGH7D4MLj wrote:This is the "hard-to-do" misunderstanding of art, that art has to be hard to do. From my point of view this is completely wrong. Look into it, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
I didn't necessarily mean that the art must be achieved through great difficultly, just that it shows a certain level of the qualities of skill, vision and creativity. I understand that those terms are subjective in themselves, but I think the common acceptance of what those terms indicate is proper for defining works as art.
3uGH7D4MLj wrote:And Spiral Out, sorry about the artistical jokes -- really, I was out of line.
No worries my friend. We are simply discussing our views. I appreciate your thoughts and I do enjoy the sparring.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
Blazing Donkey
Posts: 329
Joined: December 25th, 2012, 3:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Voltaire

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by Blazing Donkey »

Jklint wrote:When I spoke of "consensus" I was speaking of the overall evaluation of subsequent generations.
Yes, I gathered as much.
I thought that was clear when I wrote that art has to incubate and that even the most genius creators are often blind or underestimate the value of their creations. Just one example among many. When Beethoven completed one of the longest and grandest of his piano sonatas (#29) he was so impressed with it he wrote to a friend that this one will be played even 50 years from now. Two hundred years later the very first one's are still standard repertory.
So? That is completely irrelevant and demonstrates nothing. You seem to be arguing that art be only be interpreted as such by someone other than the creator of the art - which would be rather silly because it begs the question: why would the artist bother to create it in the first place?

If that is not what you are arguing, then I fail to see how any sort of 'consensus' or 'longetivity' has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not a piece may be called "art".
In short, if art is "what you call it" then it does not on any level suffice as a definition of art.
Sure it does: that art is fluid, not static.
It operates in reverse to the God definition whose only true validity is based on your personal view.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please clarify.

-- Updated Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:35 pm to add the following --
Spiral Out wrote:If art is not judged by it's value, what then is it judged by?
It is subjective to the individual: what each person considers to be "art".
Your statement suggests that everything is art. If everything is art, then everything is not art.
I think I have found the solution to this whole 'art' fiasco in your above response: it seems that you are trying to define "art" as a stationary, static entity. Hence the question: "what is art"? However, what myself and others are trying to argue is that, indeed: Everything is art -- to the individual. In other words, what is or isn't art is always subjective to the individual, regardless of what conventions society claims.
No man is an island, but if you tie a bunch of dead guys together they make a pretty good raft.
Simply Wee
Posts: 428
Joined: August 27th, 2012, 2:11 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by Simply Wee »

"An intelligent endeavour to inspire original thought in a pleasing or provoking way".
"Men are not disturbed by things, but the view they take of things".
Blazing Donkey
Posts: 329
Joined: December 25th, 2012, 3:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Voltaire

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by Blazing Donkey »

So here's the deal with the paintings:

The first one was painted by a 9-year-old.

The second one was painted by a modern adult artist.

The third one was painted by an elephant.

The fourth one is a famous painting by Surrealist Joan Miro.

It has been argued in this forum that art must reach a certain age or distinction in ordered to be considered "true art". The purpose of this thread is to ultimately disprove the notion that art must adhere to certain presuppositions in ordered to be considered "art".

Is a painting by a elephant less "artistic" than a painting by a famous surrealist? Clearly the answer is no.
No man is an island, but if you tie a bunch of dead guys together they make a pretty good raft.
User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj »

Blazing Donkey wrote:So here's the deal with the paintings:
Thanks for this little project. The first one is my fave.
fair to say
Fleetfootphil
Posts: 277
Joined: May 25th, 2012, 9:33 pm

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by Fleetfootphil »

I still want to know what isn't art.

Miro, although he can be decoratively good, never tells me much of anything except how to print the equivalent of money in his studio. I wish I could do that.
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5014
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by Spiral Out »

Blazing Donkey wrote:It is subjective to the individual: what each person considers to be "art".
Sure. But if I draw a circle on a piece of notebook paper, is it art? Would someone who raved about the sheer beauty and artfulness of my masterwork be ridiculed more than me if I had seriously accepted such praise? What if that person offered me $1 million for my work, and what if I had taken it? I would be persecuted for taking advantage of someone who would surely be labeled incompetent, mentally ill, crazy, delusional or some other derogatory term. If it's all completely subjective then no one should have any issue with it, right?

Will anyone attend an art show exhibiting all of my notebook-paper masterworks? I doubt it. It would be ridiculed and laughed away. Why is that?
Blazing Donkey wrote:... it seems that you are trying to define "art" as a stationary, static entity.
No, I'm trying to define it as having at the very least some type of very minimal standard.
Blazing Donkey wrote:Everything is art -- to the individual. In other words, what is or isn't art is always subjective to the individual, regardless of what conventions society claims.
This is complete BS. This is what you say, but not what you think. Why is it that no one thinks a single line drawn on a napkin is art? There is a Human standard at work. Your claim above is only valid within defined parameters and is subject to degrees of value.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by Misty »

Blazing Donkey,

My answer is yes, I think these paintings are all art and because they are art they are artistic. Each could be appreciated and used for color coordination, each has provided something I never saw before.


Art is in the eye of the beholder and so it's worth. My children's artwork while in school meant nothing to the world of art but was/is/and always will be priceless art to me.
Last edited by Misty on January 20th, 2013, 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
User avatar
HANDSON
Posts: 181
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:40 pm

Re: Most Artistic?

Post by HANDSON »

Blazing Donkey wrote:So here's the deal with the paintings:

The first one was painted by a 9-year-old.

The second one was painted by a modern adult artist.

The third one was painted by an elephant.

The fourth one is a famous painting by Surrealist Joan Miro.

It has been argued in this forum that art must reach a certain age or distinction in ordered to be considered "true art". The purpose of this thread is to ultimately disprove the notion that art must adhere to certain presuppositions in ordered to be considered "art".

Is a painting by a elephant less "artistic" than a painting by a famous surrealist? Clearly the answer is no.
The problem, as I see it,with your little test is that in the case of one and three particularly there is a control factor involved: setting up the format providing the color and tools and finally and most importantly, the presentation which usually involves cropping. I continue to reiterate there is a craftsmanship involved and agree whole-heartedly with Spiral Out that there is indeed a human standard at work in the identification of art.
Belief is truth to the believer.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy in the Arts”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021