"I don't get art"

[Legs]

Why repugnant?  I think Tigerrr is pretty much on the money.

[red marley]

Of course Tigerrrr is right about art. If you choose to define 'art' in that way, a statement of your definition, is, by definition, correct.

Where that gets us I'm not sure. I agree there is a significant strand of activity associated with the commodification of artistic output and the maintenance of an artistic elite that bears little relation to what we might otherwise judge as artistic merit.

However I don't agree that everything else is usefully labelled as 'decorative arts'. As well as being (deliberately) dismissive, it seems rather too close to some of the (in my view simplistic) definitions of art upthread that value only aesthetic appeal or the skill of a craftsperson.

There is still a role for the kind of art that challenges, that benefits from deep thinking, that relies on context and setting and that is neither commodified or elitist.

[Tigerrr]

Some pretty repugnant concepts there Tigerrr.

Sorry if you find the ideas repugnant - but I don't think the discomfort is at odds with the underlying truth.
I expect the idea that one might not actually be an Artist is not going to be popular if one has devoted a lot of time and effort to the romantic notion and cause of Being an Artist and one's 'art'.
In essence, Art was and is the keystone of what we now call the 'luxury' market, and has always served a similar purpose in society. The romantic notion, which is important to that role, that Art is for arts sake, and pure, tormented,  etc - the oppositions and transgressive challenge are very important to the intellectual underpin of its role for the rich and powerful.

[benborp]

"Only the powerful and wealthy are imbued with the ability to fully appreciate art."

"Servants, acolytes and priests of art... supporting the wealthy and powerful."

"lesser people should not be able to fully appreciate it."

"Art is a tool by which the powerful self justify on the basis of finer sensibility, intelligence and understanding."

If that is what art is, it's founded on some pretty repugnant tenets and the emperors are happily waving their bits in our faces. If Tigerrr believes that is how the powerful see the rest of the world then there are some pretty repugnant people in power. Some might find being defined as dupes of the system they constantly present an alternative to repugnant. Let alone having their entire lives dismissed as a failure dependent upon the value of their work to the status quo.

[Tigerrr]

Well, it is of course much more nuanced and fuzzy at the edges than a couple of posts permit.
But - the challenge for the rich man (or woman) is a real one. Having achieved wealth, and typically a degree of power, one needs to demonstrate that one is more than merely rich. It is not enough to command respect. One needs to believe that ones position is due to innate distinction and qualities not held by others. Not by luck, or advantage taken over others, etc.
That is the reason chiefs and kings and aristocrats have all claimed divine ordinance in the past. That is the reason one starts to appreciate foods and drinks the common man cannot access - literally nectars of the gods. An appreciation of and understanding of art is likewise evidence of finer sensibility - conveniently also being a high ticket status symbol. Such appreciation is immediately recognisable to others in similar position and helps reinvent e.g. admen, city spivs, and mafiosi as patrons of Art. The Borgias were at the same game.
One can achieve similar effects with e.g. Opera and Ballet.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Why repugnant?  I think Tigerrr is pretty much on the money.

Boom, tish!

[Cudzoziemiec]

I was in Waterstones earlier today and I saw a book, Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That. Its basic idea seems to be that since the invention of photography rendered realistic reproduction of portraits, landscapes and objects at the press of a button, the focus of art has shifted from technical skill to concept.

[Aunt Maud]

Which is correct.

Although it's much harder to pass yourself off as a craftsman, than as an artist.

[Mr Larrington]

Although the Borgias
Were rather gorgeous
They preferred the absurder
Kind of murder

We live in an infinite universe (floppy-haired cleverness dispenser Professor B Cox said so, ergo ect ect).  The purpose of Art is to hold a mirror, possibly one of those fairground ones, up to Nature.  Therefore Art cannot exist, as there isn't a mirror big enough.

With apologies to DNA.

[Exit Stage Left]

I picked up some trophies at the National Hedgelaying competition last month. One can make a bit of a claim as a work of art. It was commissioned by the Prince of Wales from a noted wood-carver, and has hallmarked silver bands made by Aspreys.



A second one was donated by Tarmac, and is a big chunk of magnesian limestone on a wooden plinth, indicative of a different sensibility.



I'm not particularly keen on the idea of hedge laying as 'craft', as it limits the potential market, so I'd tend to the Tarmac approach. The wooden tankard is a nice piece of work, but a bit 'twee' to reward an activity that largely consists of throwing a chainsaw about.

[SteveC]

Grayson Perry did a series of Reith Lectures on this very question a couple of years ago.
Don't think he came to any definitive conclusions but it was worth listening to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt

[hellymedic]

I have not read this whole thread.
I note the Turnip Prize is current news.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/12010395/The-2015-Turnip-Prize-spoof-art-award-in-pictures.html?frame=3506988

These visual puns are groanworthy but they do make me laugh cos I'm a simple fool.
Methinks Banksy is very, very clever.

Is his work art?

Who cares? He's a skilful satirical communicator.

[Wowbagger]

The temperament to which Art appeals … is the temperament of receptivity. That is all.

If a man approaches a work of art with any desire to exercise authority over it and the artist, he approaches it in such a spirit that he cannot receive any artistic impression from it at all. The work of art is to dominate the spectator: the spectator is not to dominate the work of art. The spectator is to be receptive. He is to be the violin on which the master is to play. And the more completely he can suppress his own silly views, his own foolish prejudices, his own absurd ideas of what Art should be, or should not be, the more likely he is to understand and appreciate the work of art in question.

I wish I'd said that.

[Aunt Maud]

Is his work art?

Who knows, but there are a few who have spent a lot of money, that certainly hope it is.

Maybe they are the works of art "in progress" themselves, and it's all a big con. Robert Banks may not be so far from the truth after all.

[Bledlow]

Can there be art without art? What happens when people who have not mastered any art call themselves artists? Should we have a new word for, for example, a box of dirty knickers, which has no art in its making, only an idea?

[crowriver]

Sorry if you find the ideas repugnant - but I don't think the discomfort is at odds with the underlying truth.
I expect the idea that one might not actually be an Artist is not going to be popular if one has devoted a lot of time and effort to the romantic notion and cause of Being an Artist and one's 'art'.
In essence, Art was and is the keystone of what we now call the 'luxury' market, and has always served a similar purpose in society. The romantic notion, which is important to that role, that Art is for arts sake, and pure, tormented,  etc - the oppositions and transgressive challenge are very important to the intellectual underpin of its role for the rich and powerful.

I agree that not everyone who wants to be an artist is actually an artist. However it is not very interesting to talk about what is or is not art: potentially many different things can be called art. It is the value placed on art: that is what we are really discussing here.

This point about art being a luxury commodity is only true if you view the whole of art history through the lens of late Capitalism and our current neo-liberal political mindset.

Art has served many different purposes throughout history. Arguably it still does, despite the prevailing orthodoxy that only art validated by the market has any worth. Artists and craftsmen have only been validated in this way since around the 17th century. Even now the market is not the sole determinant of value. Other institutions in society, particularly the various organs of the state, confer status and value on art too. So do academics, critics and art historians, who may or may not agree with what the market values.

I would prefer to discuss visual art as part of a wider field of cultural production which includes craft, the performing arts, design, music, publishing, media and entertainment. Different values are placed upon the various products of culture according to their function in society, perceived status, etc.

I can recommend reading Pierre Bourdieu and Walter Benjamin as starting points to demystify what is really going on in the arts and culture (in the West at least). More accessible is John Berger's "Ways Of Seeing", a BBC series from the 1970s and an accompanying book which distils some of Benjamin's ideas (and those of others, eg. Marshall McLuhan) in a "popular" format.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDE4VX_9Kk

[mattc]

At the risk of being labelled an idiot*, I have a question for those with a more educated/arty background than me:
Is there an official/agreed term for the sort of "meaning rich" art that we are arguing about? As opposed to "art that is nice to look at".

*N.B.* I appreciate this will be a spectrum (and some works can be at both ends!), but I think many works are clearly at pretty much one end or the other.
i.e. at one end, works that are superficially quite dull [hoovers??] but have meaning waaaay beyond what they actually physically represent (typically philosophical, or sociological, or commenting on nature of art itself).
At the other, images that are recognisably of Real Things, and are simply visually attractive (in the same way most clothing or wallpaper is).

Someone used "decorative art" upthread, which certainly fits somewhere in this; at least to this dunce!


*hopefully much less inevitable than when one asks such Qs in POBI ...

[Ruthie]

I don't know that there is, Matt.  So much of it is down to personal taste.  Art has been commodified but outside the circles of those who GAF about such nonsense, does it really matter?

I have Klimt prints, pencil drawings and my Grandad's oil paintings hanging in my house, as well as some sculpture, and paintings by various painters.  They have meaning for me.  They communicate something to me.

Others would probly sneer or look askance.  Fair enough.

Good enough.

[Aunt Maud]

For some, the meaning behind a Hoover is to vacuum up the dust.

[Efrogwr]

For some, the meaning behind a Hoover is to vacuum up the dust.

For Jeff Koons it's a ticket for the gravy train, as defined by Tigerrr.

[citoyen]

Is there an official/agreed term for the sort of "meaning rich" art that we are arguing about? As opposed to "art that is nice to look at".

Yes, the term you're looking for is "art". HTH.

[Wowbagger]

Art isn't meant to be "nice to look at". Some is deliberately hideous.



compare (much more recent, but just as strong in my view)

[Bledlow]

I don't know that there is, Matt.  So much of it is down to personal taste.  Art has been commodified ...

As always. Think of 17th century Dutch workshops mass-producing genre paintings. Decorative prints have been commonplace for centuries, both in Europe & E. Asia.

[Mr Larrington]

I have Klimt prints, pencil drawings and my Grandad's oil paintings hanging in my house, as well as some sculpture, and paintings by various painters.  They have meaning for me.  They communicate something to me.

Some might argue that prints are of art, not art itself.

[Exit Stage Left]

I don't know that there is, Matt.  So much of it is down to personal taste.  Art has been commodified but outside the circles of those who GAF about such nonsense, does it really matter?

Commoditisation is a valid subject for art, especially across social media, where how information is presented becomes the story. I've got a few favourite strands to follow.
One reduces action to a series of graphs, reminiscent of how the prices of commodities are displayed.

Computer terminals report some gains in the values of copper and tin
While American businessmen snap up Van Goghs
For the price of a hospital wing