When does "Art" cease to be "Art"?

[Cudzoziemiec]

"I think a work of art is a work that speaks to me of another world and arouses in me the feeling that the artist wants to convey. It must lead my thoughts to something we do not think about every day, and I must see the image in my mind and think about it afterwards for a long, long time. It is quite obvious that that can be achieved by good naturalism, but it is even more obvious that it can be achieved easier through stylisation."
Hugo Simberg, 1896.

[Ben T]

I remember they used to use the Hansard at Southampton for Student's medical registration

They had a piece of art that was a tumbler with cotton buds in it

A couple of students not realising that.... used the cotton buds, and they had to get the artist back in to "re-install" the work

But this precisely illustrates my point - why did they "have to" get the artist back in - why couldn't they* have just put some more cotton buds in the jar?

*the curators

[Steph]

The problem, for a lot of people, can be defined as prissy ponciness.. During my last degree course, I had a lecturer in Art History, who was a particularly pretentious idiot. She can be summed up by the following conversation.

Her: "This coke can, if I leave it here, is litter. If an Artist leaves it here, as part of an installation, it becomes Art" [Capital lettesr audible]
Me:  "What if I leave it there as part of an installation?"
Her: "It would be litter, not Art"
Me: "Why so?"
Her: "Because you are not an Artist"

The course later introduced the work of David Crystal and Ronald Carter, and Carter in particular addressed my own views on her pompous bollocks: everybody is creative. Genius sits as a cline on humanity; art is something anyone can do, to a greater or lesser extent. The problem is that it is presented as a closed shop, with those on its inside elevated above the plebs.

As an example, I am a writer, according to those who read my work. I am a writer by strict definition--I have thirteen full-length works for sale, ranging from around 50k words to well over 150k. The BBC calls me a writer. I am not a writer according to others as I have not been anointed by any particular commercial publisher.

Here's my take on the 'definition': it is not the name of the creator who determines whether a work is art or not, it is the work. Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes art, and I am not going to stir that pot. I just say that the work should be judged on its own merits, not on any name attached to it. That brings us back to the earlier question about the fake works.

Judge them on their merits, which includes the artist's intent in creating them. Don't judge any art by price, as that is bollocks.

And while I was typing this, Ben T hit th enail on the head.

[Ben T]

The point that the curators could have recreated it is exactly the reason for my "it must have taken skill to create, not just to conceive" condition.


The exact problem with the conversation that ended up with "Because you are not an Artist" is that, without the ability to reference to standard accepted industry qualification, it is entirely subjective who is or is not an Artist yet she was talking as if it was objective fact which is why she was talking complete bollocks.

What if an Artist actually did leave some litter and when they were interviewed later on,
"so, - what inspired you to create such a thought provoking work?"
"which piece do you mean?"
"the coke can."
"oh - er... what? What coke can? ... SHIT!"
Go and pick it up and put it in the bin! 

[Steph]

 

[Cunobelin]

I remember they used to use the Hansard at Southampton for Student's medical registration

They had a piece of art that was a tumbler with cotton buds in it

A couple of students not realising that.... used the cotton buds, and they had to get the artist back in to "re-install" the work

But this precisely illustrates my point - why did they "have to" get the artist back in - why couldn't they* have just put some more cotton buds in the jar?

*the curators

Because others lack the artistic ability to arrange them correctly

[pcolbeck]

Perhaps if you have to put a sign n front of it to make people realise that its art and explain what it means then its not art.

[T42]

The point that the curators could have recreated it is exactly the reason for my "it must have taken skill to create, not just to conceive" condition.


The exact problem with the conversation that ended up with "Because you are not an Artist" is that, without the ability to reference to standard accepted industry qualification, it is entirely subjective who is or is not an Artist yet she was talking as if it was objective fact which is why she was talking complete bollocks.

What if an Artist actually did leave some litter and when they were interviewed later on,
"so, - what inspired you to create such a thought provoking work?"
"which piece do you mean?"
"the coke can."
"oh - er... what? What coke can? ... SHIT!"
Go and pick it up and put it in the bin! 

The converse of the old story about Picasso: after interviewing him for some mag or other, the reporter asked if he might have a small memento of the occasion for himself, a discarded sketch out of the waste-paper basket, for instance. Picasso assented, pulled a crumpled-up drawing out of the trash, flattened it out and said "You can have this one for $10,000".

[citoyen]

Perhaps if you have to put a sign n front of it to make people realise that its art and explain what it means then its not art.

Alternatively, perhaps nothing is art until you put a sign in front of it and explain what it means.

Think on that.

[Ben T]

I remember they used to use the Hansard at Southampton for Student's medical registration

They had a piece of art that was a tumbler with cotton buds in it

A couple of students not realising that.... used the cotton buds, and they had to get the artist back in to "re-install" the work

But this precisely illustrates my point - why did they "have to" get the artist back in - why couldn't they* have just put some more cotton buds in the jar?

*the curators

Because others lack the artistic ability to arrange them correctly

OK- hypothetical situation. The curator phones up the artist - she can't make it back for two weeks. She's got a gig tonight, busy glueing some leaves to a plank of wood thursday, chucking some monitors tastefully into a skip friday, and then she's off on a tour of ireland at the weekend.
So the curator decides to just put the cotton buds back in the jar himself.
No-one says anything.
How can you tell?

[Tigerrr]

I blame Marcel Duchamp.

Interestingly, the piece in question was a forgery. It wasn't Marcel Duchamp's piece, he stole it from a female artist who had submitted it, and put his own name on it.

[Cunobelin]

Which rather makes a point about the piece.

If it is genuinely a piece of Art of sufficient quality, should it not have the same value whether it was Marcel Duchamp or Ethel Gladstone who lives next door

.. or is so much of this a pretentious thing where it is bought because of the "artist" rather than the quality of the actual piece

[citoyen]

Interestingly, the piece in question was a forgery. It wasn't Marcel Duchamp's piece, he stole it from a female artist who had submitted it, and put his own name on it.

Actually, it wasn't his own name that he put on it.

[Ian H]

Interestingly, the piece in question was a forgery. It wasn't Marcel Duchamp's piece, he stole it from a female artist who had submitted it, and put his own name on it.

Actually, it wasn't his own name that he put on it.

And the 'point' was very much aimed at the organisers of that particular exhibition.

[citoyen]

Interestingly, the piece in question was a forgery. It wasn't Marcel Duchamp's piece, he stole it from a female artist who had submitted it, and put his own name on it.

Actually, it wasn't his own name that he put on it.

And the 'point' was very much aimed at the organisers of that particular exhibition.

You could almost believe Duchamp himself had given some thought to the question of what is and isn’t art.

[Ian H]

Interestingly, the piece in question was a forgery. It wasn't Marcel Duchamp's piece, he stole it from a female artist who had submitted it, and put his own name on it.

Actually, it wasn't his own name that he put on it.

And the 'point' was very much aimed at the organisers of that particular exhibition.

You could almost believe Duchamp himself had given some thought to the question of what is and isn’t art.

Nah.  He can't possibly have thought about it as much as people in this thread.