Art, all a load of crap really?

boring_job_guy · 16-12-2008 02:44PM #1

I was talking to one of those arty-farty types yesterday and he didn't like what i had to say.

As far as I'm aware everything and anything can be considered art. From a 17th century painting, to the music on your mp3, to a guy throwing dog faeces at a canvas, or some weirdo running up and down grafton street.

In fact every object and action in existance can be considered art. But if absolutely everything is art, then the whole concept is meaningless.

Now i like a good song as much as the next person, but i listen to music because it makes me feel good not because it is "art".

Also i can look at a really good painting and be awe-struck by the skill that was required in creating it, such as this. But admiring someone's skill is completely different from some false notion of "art".

Imo anyone who says they understand "art", is actually buying into the biggest game of "emporers new clothes" this world has ever seen.

what ya think?

Thanks for reading my rant, and please don't move this from AH, I want to hear normal peoples opinions.

thelordofcheese · 16-12-2008 02:46PM

Art, like taste, is subjective.

Thread over.

IvySlayer · 16-12-2008 02:46PM

I appreciate art although I'm not a big fan of it. I mean what the hell are those things on O'Connell Street?

Most artistic people, I know one in college, are stuck up when it comes to art. 'Your opinion is irrelevent, I have an artistic mind'

MizzLolly · 16-12-2008 02:47PM

Double dare ya to post it in Art and Architecture! :P

boring_job_guy · 16-12-2008 02:48PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Art, like taste, is subjective.

Thread over.

But we know that taste exists. Art on the other hand is a completely meaningless concept.

tell me, what is art?

brianthebard · 16-12-2008 02:49PM

Your concept of art is meaningless. Using the entire make up of society to negate art is pointless.

seamus · 16-12-2008 02:49PM

Where the interpretation of a piece is left entirely up to the person viewing it, yes that's a complete pile of ****.

"You have to listen to the notes she's *not* playing!"

"Pfft, I can do that at home".

I've seen a tonne of modern art that looks like just junk, but when explained is actually quite clever.

MagicMarker · 16-12-2008 02:51PM

boring_job_guy wrote: »

tell me, what is art?

ART
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

drunkmonkey · 16-12-2008 02:52PM

I went to the modern art museum latley and found it to be utter rubbish, I can appreciate good art work but what was on dispaly was dismal, The whole building is a complete waste of space, I'm not happy about my tax dollars being used to fund it...

6th · 16-12-2008 02:56PM

Art is bollix but alot of the people involved in it are. I studied Fine Art in college, seemed some of the staff would only listen if you cried while talking about your work.

That said I majored in sculpture and some of those guys knew their trade, woodcraft, welding, stone work etc. The guy that thought me to weld did the palmtreet seat in Temple Bar - guy is a legend and a genius.

ScumLord · 16-12-2008 02:56PM

Art should be pushing boundaries which just can't be done anymore. All art these days is just slight variation on established ideas. Even music has run it's course and we'll soon have used up every possible combination of notes.

Now it's just a matter of choosing the product you like, the creativity and innovation are long gone.

I like engineering as an art form.

Zaph · 16-12-2008 02:57PM

When you have the sort of rubbish that gets nominated for the Turner Prize being classed as art it really doesn't help the cause of those advocating that "there is art in everything". Tracy Emin's unmade bed is a perfect example. My 15 year-old nephew's bedroom looks like a bomb hit it, but his is just a mess while her's is worth a load of money? Similarly the guy who had the empty room with the light switching on and off. I had that here recently but I didn't call it art. I called it a lightswitch in need or replacing. It's pretentious b*ll*cks like that, and the people who try to "explain" it to me, that really bug me.

thelordofcheese · 16-12-2008 03:00PM

boring_job_guy wrote: »

But we know that taste exists. Art on the other hand is a completely meaningless concept.

tell me, what is art?

Art is the creative arrangement of elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. Or something like that.
It's hard to categorically defined it because it's a nebulous concept and of course "OLOL OPINIONS". Basically if the creator is using a medium, be it music, comics, film, painting, sculpting etc etc to say something (and it can be as grand as "war is wrong" to simple like "Im in love") then it's art.

That doesn't mean that it's any good though.

BroomBurner · 16-12-2008 03:05PM

Art = H. Bosch

Not art = P. Picasso

boring_job_guy · 16-12-2008 03:06PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Art is the creative arrangement of elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. Or something like that.
It's hard to categorically defined it because it's a nebulous concept and of course "OLOL OPINIONS". Basically if the creator is using a medium, be it music, comics, film, painting, sculpting etc etc to say something (and it can be as grand as "war is wrong" to simple like "Im in love") then it's art.

That doesn't mean that it's any good though.

If you want to say something, say it. You don't need to vaguely use any irrelevant mediums to say it.

People can interperet anything from everything.

I could point to a dog shít on the street and say "look, it symbolises humanity's inability to fully conquer nature".

What i'm trying to say is you cannot put something up on a pedestal and say "this is art" while at the same time look at something else and say "this is not art".

to me that makes the whole concept kinda meaningless.

Dave! · 16-12-2008 03:07PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Art, like taste, is subjective.

Thread over.

I agree! I've been thinking about this a bit recently. Art is just totally subjective. There isn't really any objective criteria by which you can judge art, is there?

I mean, what can you judge it by?

*Beauty is subjective
*Complexity? eg. in music if you go between different keys and modes, does that make it better? No -- Pachelbel's Canon is in D major for most/all of the song and is not complex at all. Still sounds gorgeous though.
*Difficulty to make/perform/do? Not really. I'd again point to the canon in D major, it's a piece of p*ss to play (certainly compared to most other classical pieces). That song 'I'm Yours' by the Script is rather nice, I find it more appealing than -- say -- some songs by the Eagles that are alot more difficult.
Is the Sistine Chapel 'better' than the Mona Lisa because it took longer to do, or was more difficult?

It's pretty ridiculous to try and judge them objectively. I think most Britney Spears songs are a load of me bollix, but they appeal to some people. I'm not too keen on most of the stuff that passes for 'modern art' these days (the one time I was in the modern art museum in Dublin, one of the pieces was simply a load of rocks on the ground. Dunno if they were arranged in a particular way, but it just looked like a load of rocks

), but evidently some people are.

Even in the likes of poetry... how do you judge that? Emily Dickinson is considered one of the greatest poets ever even though she used weird hyphens all over the place, and stuck with the same basic rhyme schemes for most of her stuff... Does that mean her poems are 'worse' than Seamus Heaney's? Cos I prefer her work to his, even though he mixes it up a bit.

Same with film...

There's just no objective way to say what's art and what is not! Saying something like "that isn't art" when you see a load of rocks is as meaningless as saying "that is definitely art" when you see a car crash.

6th · 16-12-2008 03:08PM

I made the art I did for my own reasons. All I wanted was for people to appreciate the effort it took and hopefully they would enjoy looking at or touching the pieces.

I'll throw up 2 pieces I did.

brianthebard · 16-12-2008 03:21PM

Zaph wrote: »

When you have the sort of rubbish that gets nominated for the Turner Prize being classed as art it really doesn't help the cause of those advocating that "there is art in everything". Tracy Emin's unmade bed is a perfect example. My 15 year-old nephew's bedroom looks like a bomb hit it, but his is just a mess while her's is worth a load of money? Similarly the guy who had the empty room with the light switching on and off. I had that here recently but I didn't call it art. I called it a lightswitch in need or replacing. It's pretentious b*ll*cks like that, and the people who try to "explain" it to me, that really bug me.

That just means we need a better definition of art, not an all inclusive one like the OP suggested. Postmodernism is to me a wrong turn, its slock in the vast majority of cases. People will look back in the future and look at it in shame. But it is necessary for a variety of reasons; there must be decay for regeneration. It reflects the high capitalist period's obsession with itself. It reminds us that current trends are becoming more and more obsolete, and a new movement will come about in time that will radically reject what has come before. That isn't much consolation when you have to look at someone's rehashing of an idea that was radical when Duchamp did it, but has become cliched since the sixties.

thelordofcheese · 16-12-2008 03:21PM

boring_job_guy wrote: »

What i'm trying to say is you cannot put something up on a pedestal and say "this is art" while at the same time look at something else and say "this is not art".

to me that makes the whole concept kinda meaningless.

It's subjective. Anything who's merit is judged on your reaction to it is subjective by definition.

boring_job_guy · 16-12-2008 03:22PM

Dave! wrote: »

I agree! I've been thinking about this a bit recently. Art is just totally subjective. There isn't really any objective criteria by which you can judge art, is there?

I mean, what can you judge it by?

*Beauty is subjective

no, it's about good genes, usually a symetrical face/body with certain desireable traits is what lends beauty to a person. People will vary in how beatiful they think a person is as we all have different genes and thus, are all looking for different traits in our partners.Beauty is a real concept, with real factors behind it.

*Complexity? eg. in music if you go between different keys and modes, does that make it better? No -- Pachelbel's Canon is in D major for most/all of the song and is not complex at all. Still sounds gorgeous though.
*Difficulty to make/perform/do? Not really. I'd again point to the canon in D major, it's a piece of p*ss to play (certainly compared to most other classical pieces). That song 'I'm Yours' by the Script is rather nice, I find it more appealing than -- say -- some songs by the Eagles that are alot more difficult.
Is the Sistine Chapel 'better' than the Mona Lisa because it took longer to do, or was more difficult?

It's pretty ridiculous to try and judge them objectively. I think most Britney Spears songs are a load of me bollix, but they appeal to some people.

People listen to music because it makes them feel good. This has been demonstated by science on countless occasions. It does by several methods, one of which is that in many songs the rythm mimics the sound of footsteps of someone walking fast/running.This tricks the brain into thinking you're walking fast/running and the brain then releases certain chemicals (dopamine norepinephrine) to motivate you to keep moving (which also feels good).

Complexity also plays a small part. Sometimes people don't allow themselves to enjoy a song if they feel not enough effort went into writing it. This is about appreciating skill, not about art.

btw, britney spears' old songs actually were good. I'd never listen to them myself as they're to girly for me, but they were good. Her new stuff isn't that great, but it's probably better than a lot of "indie" shíte some people listen to.

Same with film...

People watch films because humans are naturally interested in other peoples storys. Also, watching action/drama scenes on a screen can suck us in and make us half believe we're actually there, leading to us feeling emotions while watching it (ever try watching a film when you're drunk? you get way more emotionally engaged because your brain cannot regulate itself as well).

There's just no objective way to say what's art and what is not! Saying something like "that isn't art" when you see a load of rocks is as meaningless as saying "that is definitely art" when you see a car crash.

agreed. And that's why you can never describe anything as "art".

drunkmonkey · 16-12-2008 03:36PM

The Man above is an Artist
=-==-=-=-=
The Man in the middle is dancing to himself
=-==-=-=-=
The Man below wishes he was the man above
=-==-=-=-=

From Memoirs of a dead thread
by DrunkMonkey
16/12/2008

======================================================
Ctrl+P lads this will be worth big money in years to come:)

ejmaztec · 16-12-2008 03:41PM

boring_job_guy wrote: »

I could point to a dog shít on the street and say "look, it symbolises humanity's inability to fully conquer nature".

I like where you're coming from there....

I suppose it would depend on whether or not a dog can be artistic.

If it was Damian Hirst's turd, it probably would be regarded as art, and as a consequence would be worth a sh1t-load.

Kold · 16-12-2008 03:47PM

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I know a lot more about this than most of you... What with dedicating my life to it and everything.

The simple problem here is that what you are doing is elevating the word 'art' to something you want it to mean when 'art' is simply the work of an 'artist'.

There are books upon books of theory if you're really interested but it never really seemed that difficult to me. Don't put a capital A in art in an attempt to try and make it the zenith of human endeavor, it's a product of labour, thought and feeling and even when you pour all of that into it, it might still be sh*t. Doesn't mean that it isn't art to you, however you're probably best off not trying to make a living off it.

So OP, instead of trying to knock art off it's pedestal, trying to get it to prove it's worth to you. How about you just try to appreciate why so many people might put so much worth in something. It's not a case of 'I get art now, it's f*cking brilliant' it's more of a case of 'Wow, I can actually get something off this, well isn't that nice?'

boring_job_guy · 16-12-2008 03:49PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

I like where you're coming from there....

I suppose it would depend on whether or not a dog can be artistic.

If it was Damian Hirst's turd, it probably would be regarded as art, and as a consequence would be worth a sh1t-load.

consider this (i read this in a philosophy book).

The random forces of nature sculpt perfectly out of rock a statue of a human. At first people thought it was belong to an ancient civilisation, and people flocked to see this magnificant piece of art.

Then after rigourous scientific tests, they realised that the statue was actually randomly created by the forces of nature.

Does this mean this beautiful staute is no longer art, even though it was once considered so?

does it really matter who made it?

Dragan · 16-12-2008 03:50PM

boring_job_guy wrote: »

And that's why you can never describe anything as "art".

You are forgetting about the factor of intent.

boring_job_guy · 16-12-2008 03:52PM

Kold wrote: »

The simple problem here is that what you are doing is elevating the word 'art' to something you want it to mean when 'art' is simply the work of an 'artist'.'

ahhhh, but if there's no universal concept of "art", then there can also be no universal concept of an "artist"

.

Dragan wrote: »

You are forgetting about the factor of intent.

see the post above yours.

ejmaztec · 16-12-2008 03:55PM

Kold wrote: »

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I know a lot more about this than most of you... What with dedicating my life to it and everything.

The simple problem here is that what you are doing is elevating the word 'art' to something you want it to mean when 'art' is simply the work of an 'artist'.

There are books upon books of theory if you're really interested but it never really seemed that difficult to me. Don't put a capital A in art in an attempt to try and make it the zenith of human endeavor, it's a product of labour, thought and feeling and even when you pour all of that into it, it might still be sh*t. Doesn't mean that it isn't art to you, however you're probably best off not trying to make a living off it.

So OP, instead of trying to knock art off it's pedestal, trying to get it to prove it's worth to you. How about you just try to appreciate why so many people might put so much worth in something. It's not a case of 'I get art now, it's f*cking brilliant' it's more of a case of 'Wow, I can actually get something off this, well isn't that nice?'

Anyway, as my daughter said to me after she graduated from Crawford "Do you want fries with that?"

Kold · 16-12-2008 03:56PM

boring_job_guy wrote: »

ahhhh, but if there's no universal concept of "art", then there can also be no universal concept of an "artist".

My universal concept is that art is the work of an artist/artists. One defines the other.

Kold · 16-12-2008 03:58PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

Anyway, as my daughter said to me after she graduated from Crawford "Do you want fries with that?"

Crawford could do with a slightly more business-friendly approach. Then again, the more an art college tries to direct their students, the more some are bound to rebel. It's the problem with going straight to art college from school imo. Especially one as loose as the Crawford.

AnonoBoy · 16-12-2008 03:59PM

I don't know art but I know what I like.

And I don't like El Topo.

There are a lot of 'artists' out there who are full of sh*t and basically going to bull**** their way through their lives and perhaps even be successful at it.

On the other hand there are lots of artists who are dedicated professionals with a true purpose and logic behind their work.

Now if only there was some way to tell the difference from the outset........

GirlInterrupted · 16-12-2008 04:00PM

boring_job_guy wrote: »

In fact every object and action in existance can be considered art. But if absolutely everything is art, then the whole concept is meaningless.

Now i like a good song as much as the next person, but i listen to music because it makes me feel good not because it is "art".

Also i can look at a really good painting and be awe-struck by the skill that was required in creating it, such as this. But admiring someone's skill is completely different from some false notion of "art".

Imo anyone who says they understand "art", is actually buying into the biggest game of "emporers new clothes" this world has ever seen.

what ya think?

Thanks for reading my rant, and please don't move this from AH, I want to hear normal peoples opinions.

Mmm, I suscribe to the view that the 'value' of art, is the response it evokes in the viewer/listener etc. What leaves the OP cold could be an almost spiritual experience to some. To negate art as a concept is to deny others their individual responses.

If you enjoy listening to music, you enjoy art. If a painting leaves you in awe of the skill of the painter, you are appreciating art. If you've ever even wondered what motivated an artist to come up with a painting, a sculpture, a song, you are involved in art.

Art, all a load of crap really?

Comments