What is art?

[Adrian II]

The thread on the Shvarts hoax gave rise to questions about art. Let's open a new thread and savour the fresh air, open skies and beckoning horizons of this thing called 'art'.

Papewaio stated that art has three characteristics: it creates insight, it has a 'wow' factor and it stimulates debate. I beg to disagree. I will concede that some art certainly has those three characteristics, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient in order for a thing to be called 'art'. My own view was summed up by Eric Fischl, one of my favourite modern painters along with Marlene Dumas and Lucian Freud (I am a portrait lover).

Fischl said that art 'creates a unique experience in the viewer without him having to ask what the hell it is about'.

The subject matter should be clear, i.e. recognisable, to the viewer. The reason for that is straightforward: this is how the connection between artist and viewer is established. In order to have a connection, there must be a common point of reference between artist and audience. You must be able to identify, either with the subject matter or with the artist's approach to it.

What the artist adds is the 'unique experience'. This could be anything, from profound shock to immediate adoration. The uniqueness is in the fact that it evokes insights, thoughts and emotions which you already had without realising it. In other words, it tells you something new about yourself as much as about the subject matter. And it keeps telling you new things all the time. It makes you wonder, makes you think, look again, and then it keeps you wondering even more.

Hans Gadamer, the philosopher, was no dupe when he stated that the best works of art are never exhausted.

It never becomes empty. No work of art addresses us always in the same way. The result is we must answer it differently each time we encounter it. Other susceptibilities, other attentiveness, other opennesses in ourselves permit that one, unique, single, and self-same unity of artistic assertion to generate an inexhaustible multiplicity of answers.

This is how it works for me in one of teH best works of art ever, Fischl's Bath Scene 2 from the Krefeld series. I put it in a thread before and I can't help doing so again.





I saw this painting last year in a Rotterdam museum. I kept coming back to it then, and I am still coming back to it in the catalogue on my bookshelf. The subject is familiar. This is me, this is you. I could be the woman, you could be the man in the picture. The woman could be a man and it wouldn't make a difference. Gender is not the subject matter here. The subject is intimacy. These two people are intimate, even physically close, yet far away with thier thoughts. Is she thinking about another lover or about her shopping list? Is he relaxed or is he unconcerned, even indifferent to her presence?

Discuss, those who feel like it.

Oh, and let's try to measure our various points of view against the Fischl painting, as a common point of reference.

[Pannonian]

You could always try the view that one defines what is not art, and at the end of it all what's left must be art. I'm somewhere in the middle between defining art by substance and defining what isn't art by void.

[Adrian II]

You could always try the view that one defines what is not art, and at the end of it all what's left must be art. I'm somewhere in the middle between defining art by substance and defining what isn't art by void.

Would you say that Bath Scene 2 is art?

[naut]

L'Ange du Foyeur ou le Triomphe du Surréalisme, Max Ernst

[Adrian II]

Max Ernst, Der Elephant von Celebes

[Pannonian]

Would you say that Bath Scene 2 is art?

Anything that takes work to create is craft, and for me the distinction between art and craft blurs. Art does not have to be craft, but it certainly pushes me towards concluding that a work of craft is art. Art can theoretically exist without craft, but I tend against concluding that a statement is a work of art. If an artist has to resort to words to explain why his statement is art, then they'd better be bloody good with those words to convince me.

Is Bath Scene 2 art? I'll need more time to consider, but the very fact that it was worked on pushes me to view it favourably.

[Fragony]

Here's art for ya

[Fragony]

wut no praise for my beautiful collection? Rub me right there if you will

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are we talking only about visual art? What about literature as art, or performance?

[Adrian II]

Are we talking only about visual art? What about literature as art, or performance?

All art. Film, sculpture, the works.

And come on, guys, I didn't ask for picture galleries. I can make my own. Inserting a picture in your post is fine, but at least tell us why. What do you make of it; what does it say about your expectations of art, your views, whatever?

[Adrian II]

Anything that takes work to create is craft, and for me the distinction between art and craft blurs.

OK, so art has something extra that craft doesn't have. What is it?

Put your views to the test. For example, take the famous antique Scythian bronzes. Here is one from the 3rd century BC, a goat attacked by a griffin. Superbly crafted, particularly given the restrictions of the age. But is it art?

[Fragony]

Well I expect pure genius that connects with me. I am a big fan of impressionism, the haystacks of monet are a great example, as are my completily pwning industrial aquarels you can see on the third pic in my post. My favorite work hangs in the petit palace in Paris, to the left first painting on the right, it shows the celebration of the 9th of june and it's absolutily swirling with activity. You forgot videogames by the way, some of them I consider to be art, Shadow of the Collosus, Okami...

[Pannonian]

OK, so art has something extra that craft doesn't have. What is it?

Put your views to the test. For example, take the famous antique Scythian bronzes. Here is one from the 3rd century BC, a goat attacked by a griffin. Superbly crafted, particularly given the restrictions of the age. But is it art?

My answer would be, why not? Having been trained in art appreciation to some extent, I've become blase to people who self-consciously proclaim themselves as artists. For me, if they wish to be recognised as so, then they'd better make a ruddy good argument for it. My preferred mode of art is the everyday, or things created for the everyday, that nonetheless somehow makes me look at the world in a different way. More often that not, it is extensive experience of or reaching towards the extraordinary that allows one to make the ordinary extraordinary. That, for me, combines craft and art at the highest level.

Hmm, a bit of daoism creeping in there.

[Adrian II]

[..] my completily pwning industrial aquarels you can see on the third pic in my post.

They look great.
Heijenbrocks, perchance?

EDIT
Probably not, too much light in them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Art used to mean skill. Now it means whatever anybody wants it to mean. Very little is skill.

I equate most "artistic skill" these days with the level of "artistic skill" that is necessary to make spit hit the floor and then suck it back into your mouth.

The visuals presented by Adrian and that other guy can safely be considered art.

art police

[ICantSpellDawg]

OK, so art has something extra that craft doesn't have. What is it?

Put your views to the test. For example, take the famous antique Scythian bronzes. Here is one from the 3rd century BC, a goat attacked by a griffin. Superbly crafted, particularly given the restrictions of the age. But is it art?

Absolutely.

[Adrian II]

Having been trained in art appreciation to some extent, I've become blase to people who self-consciously proclaim themselves as artists.

I agree; a lot of modern art is really decoration and a lot more doesn't even deserve that title.

But it sells. There is a market for it and it is large enough to justify the mass production of crap on a scale the world has never seen. It's a bit like tv and film, actually. I mean, compared to the number of good movies that come every year, isn't it amazing how much really bad television you can watch round the clock every day, truckloads and truckloads of cheap shows, junk games, pseudo-literate public service crap, useless health advice, giggling anchors, idiots blabbering about the weather, movie stars, themselves? Jeesus!

And it pays! It's a trillion dollar industry.

[Vladimir]

OK, so art has something extra that craft doesn't have. What is it?

Put your views to the test. For example, take the famous antique Scythian bronzes. Here is one from the 3rd century BC, a goat attacked by a griffin. Superbly crafted, particularly given the restrictions of the age. But is it art?

Given the restrictions of the age. Given restrictions.

Art is anything which is designed with an aesthetic, or maybe not purely utilitarian function. Can a stapler be art? Yes; if it is designed with an aesthetic quality.

When people think about what art is they think about what it means to them, not what it is. “Given restrictions” is important because all art is given restrictions. Whether it is the size of the canvas, the talent of the artist, or the need to make a profit as with our stapler manufacturer, it doesn’t matter.

Art is not simply something which inspires emotion as there must also be an intent to do so. A utilitarian stapler can inspire emotion (usually anger in my case) as well as a geode: Neither is art.

When you consider what is art, think about restrictions the artist may have faced. Keep a subtle eye on things as much as possible and you’ll find much art in the world. If you want to appreciate art, give up all your preconceptions about it.

But what do I know? Apparently grotesque images pass as art now.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For those of you who don't like my broad term, think of another word: War.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree; a lot of modern art is really decoration and a lot more doesn't even deserve that title.

But it sells. There is a market for it and it is large enough to justify the mass production of crap on a scale the world has never seen. It's a bit like tv and film, actually. I mean, compared to the number of good movies that come every year, isn't it amazing how much really bad television you can watch round the clock every day, truckloads and truckloads of cheap shows, junk games, pseudo-literate public service crap, useless health advice, giggling anchors, idiots blabbering about the weather, movie stars, themselves? Jeesus!

And it pays! It's a trillion dollar industry.

I agree with you 100%

[Sasaki Kojiro]

*yawn* I know it when I see it. This is the only true definition.

[Ser Clegane]

If it touches you beyond pure function it is art for you.

In case of the Fischl painting that would mean, that if it provokes you to think beyond the simple information that is given in the "picture" (i.e. a naked man shaving, a woman sitting in the bathtub) it is art for you (and I emphasize the unspecific "you" as "art" is purely subjective, IMHO)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Craft and Skill have often been equated with art but things are never that simple, thank God.

Often without craft it is difficult to create art, but not impossible. I think art needs to have a subjective element to it's presentation, but at the same time it also needs to be something crafted, i.e. effort went into it's creation.

[Adrian II]

[..] "art" is purely subjective, IMHO)

That sounds reasonable until you take it apart and put it together again. It is like saying that a classic coq au vin may be just as tasty as a tub of lard - it all depends on your taste, doesn't it? That's right. You can like them both. You can even prefer the tub of lard over the coq au vin. But there is still a difference in quality. The coq au vin is a dish, the lard isn't.

Of course there is a subjective component in everyone's taste. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. But art does not equal beauty. Edvard Munch's The Cry for instance is not beautiful, but it is art. A sunrise may be beautiful to behold, but it is not art, if only because it was not created by man.

Just as there is a difference between artists in craftsmanship, empathy, intelligence, vision, enthusiasm and concentration on detail, there is a difference between viewers. This is the difference between the trained and the untrained eye, between love of detail and appeciation of craftsmanship on the one hand and superficiality on the other hand. The precise nature of that difference is what we are trying to establish in this thread, even if we can never exclude the subjective element.

This means that in theory, you and I and TuffStuffMcGruff could agree on a criterium for what constitutes art, and at the same disagree completely about whether any particular object qualifies as beautiful.

For those who would still object I propose a simple challenge. Below are two images. One is Phoebus and Esmeralda from Walt Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, the other The Painter's Daughters and a Cat by Thomas Gainsborough. Tell me if they are of the same quality. If not, what exactly is the difference? (The cat is invisible, I know! )

[Soulforged]

Fischl said that art 'creates a unique experience in the viewer without him having to ask what the hell it is about'.

If that's his central argument I don't disagree completly, but perhaps it could be formulated better without expanding it too much: "Art is any mancrafted product that creates a unique experience in the viewer without him having to ask what the hell it is about. Without that adendum it might as well be refering to natural phenomena. Of course art could also refer to a certain tecnique that requires a certain skill and a certain ritual, and often brings forth the notion of talent (as Philipus put it). I'm actually amazed at how well that definition, short but concise, works.

However, though that certainly wraps the notion of art as a product of man, as far as I can tell, some other kind of art bears a message. One could disect the message it carries from what it has of art (that unique experience which doesn't need to be explained).

By convention we call this art, natural language refers to this as art. We could go against the convention but that will truncate the very purpose of defining what is art. We could also argue that the message (written below the pipe) is as much a part of the painting as the pipe or the background, but the message needs to be taken out, read, interpreted and analyzed to even experience what the picture wants to transmit.

We could also say that it simply isn't art, but then what is it. Just a picture?

EDIT: Sorry for that Banquo. By the way, how do I post an image hosted locally on my computer, I've tried the file and the http protocol for URLs but it doesn't seem to work. Thanks.

[Adrian II]

We could also say that it simply isn't art, but then what is it. Just a picture?

It is art commenting on itself!

That has become a genuine function of art in modern times, at least since the surrealists. This is a perfect example (bravo!) of an image that to the untrained eye looks like a fairly decent pipe advert, whereas if you followed developments in art in Magritte's time it was immediately obvious that this was a funny comment on faux realism.

The actual title of the painting is La trahison des images (Betrayal of the Images). It marks the beginning of conceptualism that put ideas over execution. Most of his work elaborates on this theme, like the 'windows on reality' series. It tells you something about the artists's approach to his subject matter; apparently he considers putting 'reality' on canvas impossible, or only through a distorting mirror.

[Lemur]

The best definition I ever heard was from Christopher Ricks: "Art is for talking about emotion intelligently." Admittedly, this doesn't define what art is, but rather what it's for. The two are not unrelated, however ...

[Banquo's Ghost]

I hope to make a more constructive contribution later, but for now, may I remind all contributors:

The rule is that any pictures posted must be hosted by yourself, not hotlinked.

So far, most posters have abided by this rule, and I would rather not disrupt the flow of the thread by editing out pictures that don't.

Great thread, BTW.

[Adrian II]

The best definition I ever heard was from Christopher Ricks: "Art is for talking about emotion intelligently." Admittedly, this doesn't define what art is, but rather what it's for. The two are not unrelated, however ...

Not bad at all, Lemur, that one got me thinking. Like I said about the Fischl in my OP, I keep coming back to my favourite paintings, to look at them, look again, then look some more. But I also want to talk about them, heck, that's why I posted that bugger in the first place.

It's the same with the Gainsborough I put up in #23 (which, as a portret lover, I totally adore) because after I posted it here I looked it up in a book, took it to my significant and discussed it with her. We have seen the real thing years back in a travelling expo or something, yet we always find new angles to it. G.'s painting of his daughters is also about us and our kids - though of course it isn't - and yet it is..

I hope to make a more constructive contribution later [..]

Please do.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
This reminded me of a months long thread on rec.music.classical.contemporary (or some such usenet thinglet) titled "What is music?", which didn't conclude, unsurprisingly.

So, go figure... Whaat iis aart?
.

[Adrian II]

.
This reminded me of a months long thread on rec.music.classical.contemporary (or some such usenet thinglet) titled "What is music?", which didn't conclude, unsurprisingly.

So, go figure... Whaat iis aart?
.

It's a free Web. You don't have to contribute if you feel that Internet discussions should somehow be 'conclusive'.