Does form inhibit quality?

Is a hammer always merely going to be a tool? Or can it, when very carefully crafted, ascend to the level of an artwork?

Is 'art' a higher aesthetic? Or is it merely a different aesthetic, having no more inherent value than others?

If a grand master chef makes bacon and fried eggs sunny side up, is it a better dish than if I made it? Was Andy Warhol right? Is there art in the banal?

are you trying to get me to study for my Masters Exam by asking this question? Art historians thrive on this stuff. and as such, i will attempt not to become excessively didactic and boring.

hammer as a tool: see Marcel Ducmaps "fountain." it's a urinal. turned sideways. in a gallery.

maybe function and art are mutually exclusive, in the academic definitions of both those terms.

does art have a higher aesthetic? well, yes. because we let people get away with stuff in "art" that we'd never let them do anywhere else. it's like the classic argument over pornography. when is a naked woman art, and when is she just a naked woman? of course objectively, it's art cause we say it is, in a postmodern, anti-Sausseurian kind of way.

I could go on rambling for several pages, but this is making my head hurt.

In Response to saskia (#5207):

Duchamps, perhaps?

I'm not asking about academic defintions. I'm asking about opinions and gut feelings.

Of course, studying for your Masters Exam has probably forced academic definitions to *be* your opinions. The distinction between Education and Brainwashing is cultural, not technical.

So you're saying that context determines Quality? If a urinal is hung on the wall in an art gallery, it's no longer a piece of mass produced cheap porcelin, it's Art. If a Picasso is hung over the urinal in the rest room of a run down gas station, it's no longer Art, it's simply something to look whilst I pee?

And if your head hurts, DRINK A LITTLE BEER.

In Response to zamphir (#5208):

although yes, i did mean Duchamps, I still prefer Ducmaps somehow...

And i have two very different sets of opinions, for different occasions. I am in a department consisting primarily of modernists, and it is never politic to say to a group of pretensious academics "i think what you study and everything you say about it is pretentious crap, but that's just a gut reaction." it's the kind of thing that gets one a lot of enemies...which is the last thing you need in a small department. Academic opinions are also not necessarily brainwashing, nor does my agreement/disagreement with them mean they have been "forced" on me. Not all academics are idiotic clones. But for your edification:

Personal: modern art is (mostly) complete and utter crap, and urinals are *not* art. it isn't about placement (i.e picasso at a urinal) because picasso at least had some sense of form and color and composition and a good idea to back it up. Art does *not* have to be figurative (leaving room for me liking certain recent artists) but i would like some sense of the traditions of art and some sense of composition, etc. Art can be didactic, but it can also exist solely to look nice. Take Monet. primarily a painter who is decorative, but also is intensely interested in light. That aside, there is stilla touch of genius to it, an ability to make us see something differently than we did before.

context definitely does not determine quality, but it lends an air of "authority" that it doesn't necessarily deserve. I don't care who calls it art, I still have no desire to look at any art involving human excrement. There *are* limits.

ok, rambling, i know, but essentially, personally...give me renaissance and early modern (by which i mean 15th-17th centuries) and I'm happy. 18th century is either frivolous or heavy, 19th century is those silly impressionists who bore me to tears from over exposure and 20th...well...*sigh* (not saying 18th-20th cent isn't art. it's just not what _I_ like.)

What really irks me is the whole Thomas Kinkaid phenomenon, which i definitely consider "not art". but that is another discussion for another time, perhaps.

Upon viewing the infamous pile of bricks in the Tate, one Glasgae Wifie turned to the other and said "It's no like they're even nice bricks."

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#5212):

So, a desk lamp is just a desk lamp? Tiffany was just a lighting supplier?

If the artist in question had hand crafted those bricks, after steady years of toil to dig his own clay, build his own oven from scratch, and successfully fire sets of brick until he came to a batch that was really really good, would THAT be art?

Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Doubtful. Possibly.

Glad I could be of help.

In Response to zamphir (#5213):

If the artist in question had hand crafted those bricks, after steady years of toil to dig his own clay, build his own oven from scratch, and successfully fire sets of brick until he came to a batch that was really really good, would THAT be art?

Yes/no.

The problem is that you are attempting to reduce "art" to a boolean attribute of an object. Art is in the eye of the beholder. To take your example of a hammer : Sometimes a hammer is a tool for hitting things with; sometimes a hammer is a symbol of worker liberation through revolutionary struggle; sometimes its the same hammer.

So the answer to most of your questions is : If you think so. (Or, cynically, if you are a would-be artist "If you can convince someone with lots of money so".)

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#5215):

you are attempting to reduce "art" to a boolean attribute of an object

While the geek in me would appreciate the elegance of that result, it's not what I'm trying to do.

I agree that there is a fuzzy line between art and object.

I'm looking to engage in conversation about that the boundaries of that line, and talk to people about what their eye beholds.

Personally, I think 'If you can convince someone with lots of money' is not a determining factor in what how to turn something into art.

I believe that art is fundamentally a communication between an artist and a viewer. This is part of what makes it so subjective - the viewer brings as much to the communication as the artist does. One of the more fascinating experiences I've had with art was several years ago. I ran across an abstract painting at a studio gallery. I could tell that it was a simplified and abstracted image of something, but I couldn't tell what. I spent about twenty minutes looking at it, trying to figure it out. I still wish I'd had the money to buy the work, and I wish I had a reference or something to point you all at.

If a work doesn't speak to you, you'll never consider it art, no matter what other people say. My sister, for instance, is known to say 'Oh, I don't like that painting. It's got too much paint on it.'.

On the other hand, I would spend some time looking at the bricks. Not a lot of time, necessarily. The aesthetic quality of bricks is limited. There's only so much that the texture, color, and cultural context can convey. Now, if on the other hand, there was a *hint* of story - a scrap of fabric, an identifieable blood-stain, something just a little more...

I've always gone by the following definition of art; it seems to work in most instances, and it skirts most of the tricky conundrums that arise during most of these sorts of arguments.

It's a three part definition:

1. The artist (creator) intends for it to be art.
2. The audience (viewers, readers, etc.) accepts it as art.
3. The artwork (movie, painting, hammer) invokes an emotional or intellectual response from the audience.

The first two aren't original to me, although my memory isn't good enough to recall the source from which they were swiped. The third was the core of my original definition, and seemed to round everything out -- it's not art unless it communicates something, no matter how nebulous the communication, and communication requires the alteration of the target of the message in some fashion.

The beauty of this definition is that an item that is art to someone doesn't have to be art to you, and vice-versa.

As far as form inhibiting quality, it can, but it doesn't have to. Form imposes limits, which in turn require creative leaps to overcome. Form can actually stimulate creativity in that regard.

In Response to jon (#5221):

I could live with that, if I couldn't think of things I thought were definately Art even though they failed #2.

Of course, searching my memory for a specific example fails me right now. Sigh.

Well, how about Penn & Teller? They want their show to be entertaining, and in fact I think they intend to be artists (although they'd probably deny it as too high-falutin). They definately provoke an response- sometimes emotional, sometimes intellectual, sometimes visceral.

Their audience treats them as showmen, and not artists.

But I think it's Art.

In Response to zamphir (#5224):

Then, in their relationship with their audience, it's not Art. But in their relationship with you, it is Art. You are the "audience" in that instance -- a distinct, separate audience from the general mainstream one.

The definition hangs on the interaction, not the people involved, you see.

In Response to zamphir (#5224):

If you have ever heard Teller talk, you know they are artists. He is extremely philiosophical about performance, and the *art* of magic, sometimes.

The problem here is that the public at large fails to see performance magic as an art, because what they go into a performance thinking is "he's going to trick me and I want to catch him and see the "trick". They fail to see that no, it's not about being tricked. It's about watching a (potentially) amazingly beautiful piece of art. I think the two most intense artistic moments of my life have been watching Teller do his shadow/rose routine and watching Copperfields flying routine.

Magic is one of the things I am very philosophical about. a good number of my friends are magicians, and to them, it's about pushing boundaries...boundaries of your skill, of what you can make it look like is happening. (ick, what grammar in that sentence.) Where is the difference between a trick and a super-real painting? They both have the ability to convince you that something is real. That's why Copperfields flying was so intense to me. because despite what i logically know, it looked *real*. And that, for a long time, was the goal of art. The story of Xeuxis (i think) where his painting was so real that the birds tried to eat the fruit in it, and that was what made it art.

Don't get me wrong; realism does not equal art, because there is a lot of great abstract art as well. But it's one point, and it's part of what makes magic an art.

In Response to jon (#5226):

So context is fundamental to determining if something is 'art'?

If I stare at that pile of bricks in the art gallery, and I'm moved and receive communication, and accept that it's art, then it is for me. If someone else looks at them and says "It's no like they're even nice bricks.", then for them it's not art.

Should art be more universal than that? I mean, this almost seems to allow child pornography - as for certain audiences and certain creators it would be Art...

Or is Art not a valid defense against sin?

In Response to zamphir (#5229):

That's the thing -- no art is universal; it always depends on context. Should it be universal? I suppose that's one measure of a piece of art's success. If everyone accepts it as art, then maybe that's a way to evaluate how effective it is. It's not how I would hold a ruler up to art, though. I think the strength of the individual connections being made between artist and viewer are more important.

Your child porn example is irrelevant. The issue there is not the content, but the fact that children are being abused in its creation. The supposed reason for its illegality is to protect children from abuse, not because of the obscenity of the image. That's one of the reasons why the more recent laws against "simulated" child porn were so hotly contested -- the people crafting those laws wanted to forbid the ideas themselves, which gets into dangerous territory, first amendment-wise.

In Response to saskia (#5228):

I go back and forth about 'realism' myself. Basically, my belief is that realism is best achieved with a camera. Realistic painting is merely an expression of the skill of the painter, which doesn't add any value per se. Realism is really just a technique, and as such should be used only where the technique makes sense and contributes to the intended result - it's not a result on it's own. Abstraction is the same way.

On the other hand, I agree with Jasper Johns. A painting of the number 5 is as real as it gets. It's not even technically a 'painting of the number 5'. It's a number 5 created with paint. So it's perfectly real. In that light, I think realism is a good goal - one should strive to produce real things rather than realistic images of real things.

In Response to jon (#5230):

One of the prevailing theories of 'modern' art, and one of the reasons for the success of Jackson Pollock, is that the process of making a piece of art should be part of the context of viewing.

Jackson Pollock's works are almost all contextual - what you see is the process - the layering on of splattered paint.

In that light, children being abused in the creation of art should count as part of the measuring of the artistic quality of a piece. So, regardless of final image, the work is flawed by the process used to create it.

Which I'm troubled by as well. What if someone doesn't like the brand of film I use, or the scanner?

In Response to zamphir (#5229):

So context is fundamental to determining if something is 'art'?

Yes.

If I stare at that pile of bricks in the art gallery, and I'm moved and receive communication, and accept that it's art, then it is for me. If someone else looks at them and says "It's no like they're even nice bricks.", then for them it's not art.


Exactly. That was kinda my point.


Should art be more universal than that?


Nope. Then you get into bollocks like "Shakespeare is the greatest writer in the English language". Whether you think that is true or not *now* is irrelevant. It has reached the point where some treat it as a statement of absolute truth. However good someone in the future may be, it has become impossible to be better than Shakespeare, according to a certain literarty mindset.

Universal concepts of art, ultimatly, stiffle creativity. It becomes about obeying the rules, meeting the standard, whatever. Not about exploration, communication, inspiration. Which is, IMO, where you find good art.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#5233):

That was kinda my point.
In an extremely understated way, perhaps.

Should art be more universal than that?
Nope.
Universal concepts of art, ultimatly, stiffle creativity. It becomes about obeying the rules, meeting the standard, whatever. Not about exploration, communication, inspiration. Which is, IMO, where you find good art.

So you, personally, don't object to the bricks in the gallery. You might not think they're ART, but you think it's appropriate for them to be there?

To be painfully literal in answering, a hammer can be a work of art.

If you have a look in some of the late 19th century blacksmith trade compilation books you can occasionally find in libraries (and even rarer case in second hand bookshops, where you then grab them and scurry to the counter ready to fight off people that want to steal these tomes of knowledge, which invariably worries the 14 yr old behind the counter) you can see some beautiful hammers, also ballustrading. Some of the other tools are also beautiful works of art. The books themselves can get a little tedious, one of mine has abut 300 pages on the design of a fire for heating iron with... but often have some amazing stuff that beggars belief.

There is a reason that artists tend to waffle on about honing "their craft". Partly because most of them are wankers. But also because, I believe (and apparently a lot of other people do too), that most great pieces of art really require a certain amount of craft behind them.

There are the occasional things that come along which are more of an artistic statement than a piece of art I think, and maybe that is where things have become blurred.

Regarding the eggs, it's not really a relevant question is it? Probably the master chef would make better eggs than you (especially if he wears a toque and knows why (the 101 pleats are supposed to represent the number of ways the chef can prepare an egg)). The only correlation I see there is that pieces of art require a level of technical mastery.

Art in the banal is possible in my opinion, especially as an artistic statement, because (as jon pointed out) the artistic statement can create emotional responses to the banal quite easily as the audience is more likely to be aware of the banal and have personal involvement in it.

In Response to tor (#5240):

The eggs is a relevant question. It's a rephrasing of the hammer question. What I'm asking is 'How artistic is it possible to make a plate of bacon and fried eggs'?

Sure, give a Master Chef two raw eggs, and some bacon, and say 'go', and he'll probably come up with something I wouldn't and it would be better than something I could make. Tell him he has to cook those eggs as fried eggs, sunny-side up and has to also fry the bacon, and I'm not so sure that he'd 'win' anymore.

Although, I must say, I'm a pretty darn good cook.

I agree that craft is necessary. But craft only takes you so far - you need vision or something.

I didn't know that about the folds in a toque, though. That's kinda cool. Although I'd blame Escoffier for it.

In Response to zamphir (#5241):

I think that aesthetics is the shroud we cover with. It allows those who see the world around them differently to force that impression upon others. They can cover something with the idea of how they want everyone to see it and yet still have no effect upon the people who realize that the emperor is still naked.

In Response to zamphir (#5236):

So you, personally, don't object to the bricks in the gallery. You might not think they're ART, but you think it's appropriate for them to be there?

I haven't seen the bricks myself, so can't comment directly. (The Tate is a 900 mile round trip away.)

But, I have seen things in a gallery that *I* thought was art, but others didn't. I want to be able to see things I appreciate, so would not deny others the same courtesy. Which brings me back to the point that in order to get stuff into the gallery in the first place the artist must convince someone that it is "art" - i.e. whoever is in charge of that bit of the gallery.

Perhaps changing the asthetic slightly will help. What is good music? As I type this, I'm listening to Bass Communion. I think this is good music, but getting hold of the CDs involves visiting one or two specialist web sites (Burning Shed [burningshed.com] mainly) since I've never seen them in the shops. The economics of music sales mean that someone decides what is "good" music, then effectively enforces their taste on everyone else. Which, in the UK at least, means that mainstream music is dominated by stuff I wouldn't give house room to. To me, this is a good example of what I mean by "universal concepts of art, ultimately, stifle creativity".

Interesting discussion, thanks.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#5243):

Could you expand on this a little bit? Maybe give an example?

I get a vague sense of what you're talking about, but it's very blurry.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#5243):

They can cover something with the idea of how they want everyone to see it and yet still have no effect upon the people who realize that the emperor is still naked.

Let's fire this at a logical target: Andy Warhol. I can draw a soup can too. When I do it, it's a doodle. When AW does it, it's art. Why? I don't believe it has anything to do with "shrouding", let alone parables involving royal clothing. I would argue that something that expresses a mood, be it sublime or ridiculous, becomes art through such expression. Warhol isn't an artist because he can recreate a soup can. He's an artist because onlookers/experiencers of his recreation are challenged to evaluate their concept of "soup can". 20th Century art and music were often focused on taking that which is ordinary and making it something of which to take notice. For example, Philip Glass' Einstein on the Beach features a section in which a small chorus counts to 4, 6, and 8 repeatedly for an extremely long period of time. Glass isn't trying to "fool" his empire into believing he's doing something new. He's pointing out that something so rudimentary, so taken-for-granted, can be of use.

It sounds to me as though you understand this, but somehow, you feel cheated by it. I agree that a hammer is always a hammer. It will always have a poundy-end and a pully-end. However, anyone who's ever played Mouse Trap knows that objects have uses far beyond their intended functions. This is how art, especially 20th century art, works. Come up with something new, and the art community is excited by it; not because you've reinvented an object, but because you've pulled it away from what it used to be. It's fun. Live a little.

In Response to daubergoat (#5249):

Warhol isn't an artist because he can recreate a soup can. He's an artist because onlookers/experiencers of his recreation are challenged to evaluate their concept of "soup can".

Which is intriguing, since this is almost the diametrical opposite of my understanding of the Soup Can. i.e. That onlookers are challenged to evaluate their concept of "art". In other words, a very literalist picture of a very mundane object is treated as "art" by the creator, gallery owners, etc. and the viewer is therefore asked pretty much the same questions Zamphir started out with.

Or, he could have been taking the piss. With Warhol it was hard to tell...

Cheers,
Graham