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

[Cunobelin]

I know that art is a personal thing, and that just because I dislike it, doesn't mean that it will not be liked by others.

However I have come across a couple recently that I can neither understand, nor think of as anything but vandalism

Last year I went to Carcassonne in France, and that he Castle was excellent. I thoroughly enjoyed it. However it is now the "Victim" of an Artist who has yellow tape in  concentric circles all over the structure. Ironically to celebrate the anniversary of its protection by declaration as a UNESCO site.






Had I visited and found this I would not be happy

Which brings me to another "Installation" visiting an old Church in Amsterdam where all the features, carvings, memorials were covered in gold cloth as an "Art installation"

In with cases all I can see is the destruction of the very things that attracted me there in the first place

[T42]

Yes. If that tape doesn't peel off cleanly that inflated twat should (a) be charged for restoration and (b) hanged from the battlements, along with the city fathers (and mothers) that permitted it.

I blame that bugger Christo who wrapped everything any fool would pay him to. He popularized it.

[Ben T]

For me the definition of art is quite simple, it must conform to ALL of three things, any 2 or fewer and it isn't art.
(1) it must take skill to conceive
(2) it must take skill to create
(3) it must be enjoyable for the 'consumer' to look at / experience.

A lot of supposed "art" falls into the trap of hoping that (1) alone, rather than a combination of (1) and (2), will carry it through to success in (3). For instance Damien Hirst's cow in formaldehyde didn't take skill to create. Anyone could have done it, given the idea, and the necessary tools. In fact I don't think Damien Hirst even did it himself, he got lackeys to do it. To me, it's therefore 'not art'.

I think this yellow tape on a castle certainly fails on (2), fails on (3) and I think probably even fails on (1) - it wasn't even a good idea.

[ian]

Sorry, but I think the castle looks ace.

[Ham]

Art is defined as (whatever).

Sorry, no. Art is all about that very human trait to scratch things on walls, fling faeces in pretty patterns, whatever. Some of it is going to be "good" art, some of it is going to be "bad", who knows, and who gives a flying? Some artists will be lucky enough to have their work appreciated and paid for in their lifetimes, some will have to wait until after they are dead, some won't and some won't ever be "appreciated" (ie, their art is good only in their own head, which is where it all starts).

In this case, I reckon it would have been pretty awesome to see, I'd hope it didn't do too much damage as it was taken off, but if it was equivalent to, say, 10 years of wind and rain, where's the harm in that? Chateaux and castles are 10 a penny, making it an alternative experience is no bad thing.

[LEE]

Sorry, but I think the castle looks ace.

Me also.  Very clever, it made me think of The Avengers for some reason.

You've had quite a few years to see Carcassonne without yellow tape on it and there will be many more years to do so again.

I regret that I can't get to it in order to see it like this.

[Ben T]

Art is defined as (whatever).

Sorry, no. Art is all about that very human trait to scratch things on walls, fling faeces in pretty patterns, whatever. Some of it is going to be "good" art, some of it is going to be "bad", who knows, and who gives a flying? Some artists will be lucky enough to have their work appreciated and paid for in their lifetimes, some will have to wait until after they are dead, some won't and some won't ever be "appreciated" (ie, their art is good only in their own head, which is where it all starts).

In this case, I reckon it would have been pretty awesome to see, I'd hope it didn't do too much damage as it was taken off, but if it was equivalent to, say, 10 years of wind and rain, where's the harm in that? Chateaux and castles are 10 a penny, making it an alternative experience is no bad thing.

Ok, let me put it another way. To me, any art that deliberately attempts to stretch the definition of art has by definition already broken it.
What about Tracy Emin's untidy room, wasn't that the one where a cleaner tried to tidy it up because she didn't realise it was art - sorry, intended to be art? I would personally say the cleaner was right and that it needed tidying up.

[Ian H]

For me the definition of art is quite simple, it must conform to ALL of three things, any 2 or fewer and it isn't art.
(1) it must take skill to conceive
(2) it must take skill to create
(3) it must be enjoyable for the 'consumer' to look at / experience.

I have a chest of drawers that fulfills all those criteria. Very fine piece of furniture.

[Cudzoziemiec]

What are those yellow lines on the castle if not art?

I don't think art even requires skill to conceive and create, though 'good' art might, and it certainly doesn't have to enjoyable. If a toddler draws a house or a tree, is that not art?

[citoyen]

Ok, let me put it another way. To me, any art that deliberately attempts to stretch the definition of art has by definition already broken it.

That view of art went out of fashion in the 19th century.

[Ben T]

For me the definition of art is quite simple, it must conform to ALL of three things, any 2 or fewer and it isn't art.
(1) it must take skill to conceive
(2) it must take skill to create
(3) it must be enjoyable for the 'consumer' to look at / experience.

I have a chest of drawers that fulfills all those criteria. Very fine piece of furniture.

Ah, sorry - (4). It must be intended to be art. But it can't simply be art if being intended to be art is the only thing going for it...

In fact, that can be (1) because my current (1) isn't actually necessary, as some Turners, Constables etc for example didn't actually require that much imagination, they're just a nice landscape scene - i.e. he didn't conceive it, it's just what he saw before him. But it sure took a lot of skill to create it, and is pleasing to look at.

Basically I don't think what's art or not should be able to be self-selecting. i.e. something can't just be art just because the 'artist' says it is.
Note that going by my criteria it doesn't have to necessarily be good art (in my, or anyone's, opinion) - to be art. So criteria (3) doesn't mean it has to look nice to everyone, or to me, just to some.

[Ben T]

What are those yellow lines on the castle if not art?

I don't think art even requires skill to conceive and create, though 'good' art might, and it certainly doesn't have to enjoyable. If a toddler draws a house or a tree, is that not art?

Grey area. The toddler hasn't got any skill, but is trying to use skill. So it sort of is, albeit probably not very good art , it fulfills (3) as it is pleasing for someone to look at, even if only the toddler's parent(s).

What are those yellow lines on the castle if not art?

A mess? 

[Cudzoziemiec]

Two people have said they like the castle lines, it took imagination to think it up and it definitely takes skill to make it on that scale, so that makes it art by your own reasoning. 

[Mr Larrington]

Two people have said they like the castle lines, it took imagination to think it up and it definitely takes skill to make it on that scale, so that makes it art by your own reasoning. 

 It still looks fuckin' 'orrible to THIS uncultured oaf though.

[spesh]

The visual effect reminds me of The Time Tunnel.

[Kim]

The visual effect reminds me of The Time Tunnel.

+1

[noisycrank]

This is one of those conversations
my contrarian line is to include the criteria that the creator has to have gone to art school and to dismiss it as a closed shop but I don't really believe that.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Your-Five-Year-Could-Have/dp/0500290474

Since we seem to be going for a popular vote I:
a)like it
b)would accept that it is art

[LEE]

For me the definition of art is quite simple, it must conform to ALL of three things, any 2 or fewer and it isn't art.
(1) it must take skill to conceive
(2) it must take skill to create
(3) it must be enjoyable for the 'consumer' to look at / experience.

I have a chest of drawers that fulfills all those criteria. Very fine piece of furniture.

1 - 3 are describing Design and Craft.  Art doesn't depend on having a skill but it does depend on having imagination.  Tracey Emin CAN draw and paint well, it's just that she's known more for her imaginative exhibits than her ability to draw and paint.

I'd add that Art shouldn't have any practical use or it crosses over into design.

The castle is art as it clearly has no practical value.  A chest of drawers has a practical use so, whilst it could be beautiful to look at, it's still more artisan than artist.

[T42]

I'd add that Art shouldn't have any practical use or it crosses over into design.

Yet objects that were formerly practical cross over into the world of art as they age. Maybe they become art when they become obsolete.

The castle is art as it clearly has no practical value.

I'd think a few of the rooms in the walls & tower would be habitable, or in use as shops or offices.

However, the walls and towers in their current state are the result of a much-disputed "restoration" in the 19th century*, when Europe was in the grip of the Romantics, and as such I'd agree that they are indeed art.

So Varini's circles are something akin to sticking a moustache on the Mona Lisa.

They're coming off on 30th September. Supposedly.

* same goes for Montségur - Public Works job. They've buggered up one of our local castles that way, too.

[Ben T]

Two people have said they like the castle lines, it took imagination to think it up and it definitely takes skill to make it on that scale, so that makes it art by your own reasoning. 

It doesn't take particular skill to create it, any more than , say, an ikea chest of drawers takes skill to assemble.
Anybody could do it with the correct tools and instructions.
Perhaps a more descriptive term for what it requires would be talent.

[LEE]

I'd add that Art shouldn't have any practical use or it crosses over into design.

Yet objects that were formerly practical cross over into the world of art as they age. Maybe they become art when they become obsolete.

The castle is art as it clearly has no practical value.

I'd think a few of the rooms in the walls & tower would be habitable, or in use as shops or offices.

I was referring to the yellow tape on the castle rather than the castle itself.  Castles themselves are generally the epitome of function and practical value.

[TheLurker]

I think, to answer the question in the thread title; when the overwhelming majority of people experiencing the "artwork" declare it to be bollocks.  If a sizeable minority of people think something is art then we have to accept that it is art even if our personal opinion is that it is utter bollocks and that an acid crazed goldfish could have created something better.  Defining the cut-over point for a "sizeable minority" is left as an exercise for the interested reader.

The castle thing?  Not for me. Lke the wrapped buildings it strikes me as a purely mechanical exercise and as considerably less creative than the grafitti tags one sees all over the place in urban areas.

[Ham]

I think, to answer the question in the thread title; when the overwhelming majority of people experiencing the "artwork" declare it to be bollocks.  If a sizeable minority of people think something is art then we have to accept that it is art even if our personal opinion is that it is utter bollocks and that an acid crazed goldfish could have created something better.  Defining the cut-over point for a "sizeable minority" is left as an exercise for the interested reader.

Y'know, that fails, too, because people's tastes change, over time and place. For example, the overwhelming majority believed impressionism wasn't art at one time, not the case now. Art created in one culture doesn't always transfer to another. If you want a definition that you can objectively apply to something to decide whether it is art or not, you are doomed to fail.

Get over it. Art is - uh, by its definition - subjective. However you want to understand the word, it is essential that it involves some subjective interaction. Each person's reaction is different. I'd offer a criteria for good art that is where most that experience the artwork feel positive about it. That can change. I can think of something as art and pay the artist money for it, you can think me a fool, the status of the item can waver between good art - where everyone enjoys it - to bad art - where few enjoy it. There's a bit of herd behaviour that goes on there, possibly a lot, but it makes no difference to the subject, that has remained the same throughout.

When you say "That's not art" all you are saying is, you don't see it as art. That's fine too.

[mrcharly-YHT]

For me, something is art when it is:
1) intended to be art
2) communicates something to me

The communication does not have to be pleasurable, emotional, or in fact make any sense whatsoever. If it has an impact on me, it is significant. It 'works' as a piece of art, whether I enjoy it or not.

[ElyDave]

I'd have thought, whenever you have to ask that question

But then I is a engineer, so wot does I know?