ZOMBIE FORUMS

I have need for the most simplistic but accurate explination possable.

Care to go for it?

"Art" is a cultural institution designed to create contexts for appreciation and discussion. An "art piece" is the particular object that is being put in the context of "art". Anything that can be appreciated within the context of "art", or discussed as "art", can be an "art piece". In other words, anything that is treated as an "art piece" is an "art piece". Of course, there is still the question of whether a particular art piece is good art, and this depends on two things: On the more subjective level, whether you can appreciate it as art, i.e. within an artistic context, and, more objectively, whether the piece generates fruitful discourse within the art world - which generally would eliminate from the category of "good art" thoroughly unchallenging, conventional pieces on the one hand, and empty, pseudo-dadaist provocation-for-provocation's-sake fakery on the other.

"We are prone to see that which lies behind our eyes rather than that which appears before them."

I didn't say that. That would imply that "art" is whatever I call "art"; that is not the case. "Art" is whatever anyone calls art; that is, whatever anyone brings into the cultural context of "the art world". If it is presented in this context, then it's art. Once again, I should stress that just because something is art doesn't make it good art.

"The art world" is essentially a sort of intellectual/cultural space or set of traditions and methods. It consists of certain ways of interacting with, evaluating, and discussing objects. When something is made the object of this discourse/evaluation, it becomes, ipso facto, an "art piece" or "art" [*]. The quality of the art rests on the quality of the interaction/evaluation/discourse/etc. it inspires within "the art world".

[*] I haven't been entirely consistent with my terminology. For example, when I use the word "art", I sometimes use it synonymously with "art piece", and sometimes use it to refer to the actual cultural institution of Art (which I sometimes also call "the art world"). Generally, you can figure out what I'm saying through context. If I used "art piece" and "the art world" invariably, it would just start sounding awkward.

But if art is anything that is considered art, it has no value. To me, I would say that art is mankinds attempt to express emotion and invoke that same emotion upon onlookers.

Not necessarily. Some art has no value, and that's called "bad art". Art is simply a particular role that something can play, and it may play that role badly. For example, if I am a police officer, that simply means that I have been put into a certain social role -- it doesn't say anything about whether I perform that role well. I could be a horrible cop, but I'd still be a cop.

As for what makes art "good" art, well... it's a complicated issue, but essentially, as I said, it's mainly dependent upon how it affects the entire system of interactions between art pieces, critics, observers, etc., i.e. the institution of Art or "the art world". If the object, in its function as an art piece, serves to generate real, productive discourse and re-evalutation of how these interactions are structured, then it's "good art".

For example, Renaissance painters were innovators in that they introduced new and "better" methods of creating "realistic" images, which in turn changed both how future painters would paint their pieces, as well as how other paintings were viewed. (The standards were "higher", so to speak.) Later, the impressionists began to move away from strict realism, which led to new ways of thinking about and interacting with art pieces. Similarly, the Pop Artists of the 1960s questioned the very boundaries of art and the meaning of art in a quite direct way, which in turn led to new developments and methods of evaluating art. "Good art" is art that changes the way we think about and interact with art. [*]



[*] This is not to say that art is about "progression" in a modernist sense. It's not about the art world or the way we look at art getting "better" or "more advanced" -- rather, it's about different aspects of these things being played with, changing, and interacting with one another in new ways or in new contexts.




No, I would say that art has nothing at all to do with the expression of the artist. That idea is simply an outdated leftover of the Romantic Era. Many of the greatest artists of the Renaissance through to the early Enlightenment would have never described their art as self-expression. Most of these artists worked under commission with very strict guidelines, and in fact didn't do most of the painting themselves -- all the great Renaissance masters had workshops where they supervised underlings, who in turn did most of the actual painting. The goal was not to express yourself -- the goal was to create something beautiful. (This was true in music as well as the visual arts -- look at Bach.) Only later (c. 1800s) did the idea develop of the tortured artist, struggling to express his or her unique vision.

Art is not about the artists, and their expression. Art is about the art piece, and its impression. Sometimes details about the artists and their "intent" can add new perspectives to our understanding of the art piece, but the piece itself, and its relationship with other pieces as well as with the observer, is all that matters.

Art is porn painted 500 years ago.

Yes, those still lifes of fruit and studies in light and shadow certainly turn me on.

I was referring to the repeated theme of nude women in paintings paid for by wealthy men. You knew what I meant.

because obviously nude is invariably pornographic. There is no way to justify this point of view of yours, Nick. usually you spout something that can be "justified" somewhat with religious or philosophical points of view, but now you're just trolling. Please STFU GTFO etc.

Actually, a lot of the 15th-19th century art I've seen is pretty much blatant pornography... (Especially portraits of Venus.) I remember viewing one painting in a Berlin museum of a bunch of young, nubile women playing naked in a pool... It was about two steps removed from being an orgy. Keep in mind most of these paintings were originally locked up in some wealthy man's private room.

The fact that they did serve a pornographic function in no way detracts from their status as great art, however.

of course art and pronography overlap in quite a few instances but categorically saying that "the repeated theme of nude women in paintings paid for by wealthy men" is pornographic is just outright ignorant.

It makes me remember the Saturday Night Live skit with Dan Akroyd as a pimp and (I forget the woman's name) as a hooker doing an art review of the classic nude by... "Titian".

"She looks a little heavy..."
"Well, they liked them a little heavy back then."
"Oh." *titter*

No, it's not, arwing. It's just a poor way of putting my point. ;)

Art is anything someone creates and calls "art". Of course, if noone else recognise it as art, it's pretty bad art. Good art is art that communicates to people or evokes certain emotions, or demands intellectual consideration. The best art is stuff that has a pretty universal appeal- that nearly anyone can look at and take something away. That appeals to the elite and to the layman.

Art today is something that a bunch of rich elitist snobs look at, and decide is awesome through some arcane process known only to rich elitist fucks. Consequently, this art and no other kind should be shoved down the throat of the common people for their edification and instruction by means of state education and state sponsored art galleries- they should naturally have to pay for it in extra taxes of course, even if they are too uncultured to appreciate it. The ignorant swine.

The only alternative would be to go back to the patronage system of yesteryear, which would keep art in the hands of the people who could afford to commission it. It's much better to divert public funds towards art and then tell the common folk what art they should think is good and what art is bad.

Considering thatit was the era when women wore fifty-thousand layers of clothing and a man had to wear cave-diving gear to safely make it to her vagina... I can actually see that.

No, I think you're thinking of 100 years ago.

*bump*

Would anyone like to contend with my assertion that art has nothing at all to do with expression?

Re: what is art.

Oh baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me no more.

Art is a method of encoding ideas in a specific manner so as to invoke a specific emotion, in my opinion.