What is art?

[Soulforged]

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.

I agree with you, but wouldn't that mean that the definition by Fischl doesn't apply in this case? (look at the bolded fragment)

[Adrian II]

I agree with you, but wouldn't that mean that the definition by Fischl doesn't apply in this case? (look at the bolded fragment)

I don't think so. The subject matter is immediately clear, it even says what it is. You see an image of a pipe and the warning 'this is not a pipe', in other words: 'This image is not about reality, it is about artsy pipe ideas inside you head.'

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think it was Marcel Duchamp that claimed that anything the artist does is art. Apart from being bollox and helping to initiate the deluge of dross that engulfs art in modern times, this marks for me the fundamental mistake afflicting current art - which is that somehow it is all about the artist, and not the observer.

Great art gives one an insight into the artist's mind, of course, but in a manner that frees one's own wit to arrive at different conclusions - or none at all. Great art may be supplemented by the written title, but should not be defined or explained by it. The viewer should be inspired to search the meaning out for himself. In this, I find myself in some agreement with Adrian and Fischl.

Art is also notoriously difficult to separate from its roots and other disciplines of creative effort. Pannonian makes some good points about the boundaries between art and craft - and up to the Renaissance, I suspect those boundaries were indistinguishable. Now, we see craft as linked firmly to utility, whereas fine arts pay mere lip service to that attribute. Upon the walls of my house, for example, hang many portraits of ancestors - several of which are now considered art works - but to the men who commissioned them years ago, were acts of utility and posterity - mere records, even. The Scythian bronze is similarly a creation of utility that is also designed to be decorative and communicate status. That desire for communicating more than its function - a mythological parable perhaps, reflecting on the owner's passions; as well as the message he is rich and powerful enough to spend resources on things not strictly functional - that makes it art. I have no idea what it's "title" as a piece of art might have been - yet it speaks to me across the centuries.

Personally, I would also append the notion that as with any act of worthwhile creation, the making of art should expend time and effort. It should show technique and dedication. This lack is what affronts me about the tiresome modernist art we see paraded - it is cheaply fashioned (in terms of time and effort).

Adrian's posted picture acquaints me with an artist I knew little about. Viewing the painting for the first time, what does it say to me?

Firstly, I struggle with the immediate impression it is actually two paintings, unconnected. The dividing edge of the window is harsh, dark and bisecting. The reflection of the outside woods seems to tell me the man is in a different world to the woman. Then one's eye falls upon the understated elbow intruding into the woman's habitat - suddenly, there is not distance but intimacy. Now their unconnectedness, divisive before, speaks of long familiarity, of domestic harmony unburdened by the need to present masks. The man's bulging stomach is relaxed, unwilling to make the effort to impress a mate.

But there is also something dark. The woman's body language is closed, foetal - her eyes could just be full of soap and water, but look scared. Is her hand wiping away lather, or is she hushing her whimpers, biting her nails? What has happened here? Normally when we shower, we stand. Is it just the lack of shower curtain that makes her crouch, apparently fearfully? The man is surrounded by dark colours and his face is neutrally unreadable. Is there a hint of a sadistic, self-satisfied smile?

Is this painting about domestic intimacy or domestic violence? Now the bleak sash of the window slicing the scene in twain makes me think - maybe it is not just a device, but a symbol of the brutal and violent - yet often unspoken and unseen - heart of some relationships. Or am I, through the skill of the artist, communicating something to myself about my current state of mind?

It is a great painting, and I shall need to consider it some more - as Adrian notes - time and time again.

[Guildenstern]

I think that art is an extremely genuine attempt to give a form to feelings and to share them with the others. Since Fischl’s painting conveys emotions to me, resignation from the man and a sense of anxiety from the woman, it is art to me. A kind of art I don’t like very much though.

[Adrian II]

Wow, Banquo, that was worth waiting for. Your impressions of the painting are eloquent as ever and make me feel all the more inadequate as a non-native English speaker.

Funny how both you and Guildenstern interpret the woman's pose as anxious. I think she has simply crouched down – as you do – because there is no shower curtain, period. This makes the situation more intimate, not less. And her expression is pensive if you ask me. Her thoughts are somewhere else entirely, not directed at the man, not even remotely connected with him. Maybe that is why the male, in turn, may appear a tad worried as he studies her in his shaving mirror..

We’ll never really know, will we? Therefore, to me, this painting evokes the painful void that forever hides in the folds of intimacy. These people are as close as a man and woman can be and yet they are alone, isolated, two non-colliding planets in an otherwise empty universe. They are apparently at ease. But we know that deep inside all of us there are unspeakable obsessions, fears and desires, suppressed to the point of silence, yet screaming at the tops of their voices inside soundproof cells and oubliettes in the depth of our minds. At quiet moments like this we tend to hear them – if only faintly.

On the other hand, neither is drawing attention to him- or herself, yapping on, making faces or disturbing the other in any way. They feel totally non-threatened in each other’s presence, even while their minds are absent. Maybe that is the true essence of intimacy: that you don’t have to act intimate.

It’s funny, too, how almost all of us complain about the ‘deluge of dross’ (as you call it) that passes for art these days. For lack of proper insight I blame modern capitalism, my default position. Art and economy have merged, museums have become (extensions of) shopping malls and mass entertainment tours, great works of art have become strategic investment objects. In 2004, Pablo Picasso’s Garçon à la pipe sold for over $100 million, shattering Van Gogh’s record. It’s a painting of a boy who used to come to his studio, wearing a silly garland and holding a pipe which he probably never smoked in anger. It’s well done, that’s about it. It was probably bought by a guy who never gave it a second look. He didn’t have to. The name ‘Picasso’ was enough. At the time, Picasso expert Pepe Karmel stated in The Washington Post: "I'm stunned that a pleasant, minor painting could command a price appropriate to a real masterwork by Picasso. It shows how much the marketplace is divorced from the true values of art."

I don’t think we have to rescue true art. It will no doubt rescue itself, or else it isn’t worth rescuing. I don’t mean to restore its previous elitist connotations either. The whole ‘art for art’s sake’ thingy doesn’t hold anymore at least since 1979, when French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu shot a big ******* hole in it. His research indicated that a person’s perception of art is closely tied to his social status (wealth, education, family background) and that ‘taste’ is a social indicator more than a personal attribute; an esoteric code, so to speak, that serves to delineate class. The lower a person’s social status, the more likely he was to treat ‘high’ art with respect. Those (usually from the upper classes) who were raised amid the products and creators of ‘high’ art were the most likely to have a more relaxed attitude, not to be ashamed at their lack of knowledge of certain art forms or artists, to be able to pass independent, even irreverent judgment on works of art and to appreciate renewal, iconoclasm and the mixing of styles.

But it can’t hurt to sharpen our wits a bit by discussing possible new delineations or criteria. Instead of the faux elitism of the past we now have faux populism that says: ‘Dude, art is, like, whatever floats your boat - you know?’ Yeah right. Only yours doesn’t float.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The dude clearly ripped a juicy fart, hence the smirk. He made a beard out of shaving cream and blew out his gut to simian proportions in a display of faux-manliness.The woman (his married partner) is clearly being a good sport because she is holding her mouth and nose and acting like she is in agony - possibly alluding to the Jews in Auschwitz as though her lovers butt discharge were akin to zyklon-B (don't call me an a-hole, I didn't draw the comic strip.) He holds out his hand and looks into the mirror at her, feigning innocence ("what's the matter? Never been to Beijing before?")

Commenting on art is about as fun as commenting on shapes in cement or tripping out and arranging turds in the bathtub as though it were the battle of Trafalgar.

Woah - you guys got my artistic juices running - i'd better go change my underwear.

[Mouzafphaerre]

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

.
My apologies if I implied any 'should'. That was was a cute mind excercise; why shouldn't this one be?
.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The dude clearly ripped a juicy fart, hence the smirk. He made a beard out of shaving cream and blew out his gut to simian proportions in a display of faux-manliness.The woman (his married partner) is clearly being a good sport because she is holding her mouth and nose and acting like she is in agony - possibly alluding to the Jews in Auschwitz as though her lovers butt discharge were akin to zyklon-B (don't call me an a-hole, I didn't draw the comic strip.) He holds out his hand and looks into the mirror at her feigning innocence ("what's the matter? Never been to Beijing before?")

Commenting on art is about as fun as commenting on shapes in cement or tripping out and arranging turds in the bathtub as though it were the battle of Trafalgar.

Woah - you guys got my artistic juices running - i'd better go change my underwear.

[Adrian II]

Woah - you guys got my artistic juices running - i'd better go change my underwear.

Sounds like you're ready for those tv shows I mentioned.

"Tuff, how's the weather looking today?"

"It's llllooking great, Tracy! Hahaha! But first lemme tell you about a painting I saw yesterday. Hold on, people, you're not gonna believe this.."

[Soulforged]

I don't think so. The subject matter is immediately clear, it even says what it is. You see an image of a pipe and the warning 'this is not a pipe', in other words: 'This image is not about reality, it is about artsy pipe ideas inside you head.'

Ok, then I've to wonder how did you interpret that part of his definition which says: "without him having to ask what the hell it is about". I'll tell you how I interpreted it: the unique experience he's talking about has to be generated upon the first view, a priori, there should be no need to read it or examine it. If we take Magritte's work, it's just the drawing of a pipe as any other on first sight, so we can hardly call that unique. What do you think?

[Adrian II]

If we take Magritte's work, it's just the drawing of a pipe as any other on first sight, so we can hardly call that unique. What do you think?

No, no, the painting itself says 'This is not a pipe'. So the clue is in the painting. It addresses the viewer: who said a painting of a pipe should look like a photo of a pipe shot from one angle?

Picasso would answer: 'Here, I'll paint you a pipe':




Pipe, verre, bouteille de Vieux Marc

[naut]

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

I better comment on what I added. In all honesty I've never understood what Ernst's paintings were or what they represented, I have simply enjoyed them as they cause me to think, to try to understand. I have no idea what L'Ange de Foyeur in this painting is, mostly because of the irregular vector lines and contrasting textures of the Angel. The bold white head certainly invokes a punctum. While the odd shading and lighting, with no distinct light source and the near unbroken landscape leads to little progression or insight into the size or scale of the Angel. The one thing I have come to understand in my own view is why it is called le Triomphe du Surréalisme. I think that since the brain usually works on contrasts and comparisons between an object and its surroundings, and yet since there is a distinct lack of any contrasts between the focal point (i.e. the Angel) and its surroundings I am left to ponder and comprehend something I cannot without the aid of comparison, thus creating a surreal experience.

[Guildenstern]

No, no, the painting itself says 'This is not a pipe'. So the clue is in the painting. It addresses the viewer: who said a painting of a pipe should look like a photo of a pipe shot from one angle?

René Magritte described his paintings by saying (from Wikipedia):

My painting is visible images which conceal nothing; they evoke mystery and, indeed, when one sees one of my pictures, one asks oneself this simple question, 'What does that mean?'. It does not mean anything, because mystery means nothing either, it is unknowable.

Interesting and funny.

[Ironside]

Somewhat on topic, does anybody know if there's an "art center" in the brain like there's for music?

You can for example have a broken memory (aka you cannot remember anything that happened "recently" (extended into years and decades as time passes), because the tranfer to the long-term memory is broken), while still being able to remember and learn new music under these conditions.

Anybody knows if a simular mechanism exists for art?
That is, that you can recognise something that you consider a piece of art that you saw after your memory went into almost full stasis? Or another method to actually see this.

[Louis VI the Fat]

one of teH best works of art ever, Fischl's Bath Scene 2

Great choice, Adrian.

However, personally, I liked the sequel even better, Fischl's Bath Scene 3:



*Ceci n'est pas un post troll*

[RoadKill]

Art is an excuse to draw naked people and you all know it.

[BananaBob]

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.

Well, Id say Art is an aesthetic attempt at creative expression. Their is a huge demand for abstract art because everyone wants to be cool and have a chic factor to them. But, art could be just someone splashing paint on a wall. The chances of getting a good result are rare, but it could happen. In regards to 'skill'... Their is the vast topic of art theory (eg shape, colour, etc), and if you follow this theory, you almost have a guaranteed decent art piece. The goal and the end of toiling away meticulously and studying the masters is the same as the self styled maestro punch a canvas: aesthetic pleasure of the viewer. Following either path is difficult: effort and luck respectably.

My thoughts on it anyway

[LeftEyeNine]

Art is brain fart.

Everybody does (you can't prevent some from saying that he/she is doing arts) and essentially the owner can actually stand it at all terms.

[Vladimir]

Answer = Lice

[KukriKhan]

First, full disclosure: I am an art cretin.

For me, art = story.

That is: an abstraction or extraction of the essential elements of some human experience, "real" or imagined; then rendered by sound, sight, touch, taste (one or more of those) by one person - a transmitter - to generate a mental image to the receiver, that is hopefully similar to the transmitter's originally intended image - which seldom succeeds perfectly.

If it (the artifact) tells me a story, I feel like I "get" it. If it doesn't, then communication failed (maybe on my part, maybe on the sender's), though it may still be "art".

I "get"



It speaks to me across 17 thousand years of humanity, though it's crude and childlike. The story 'Grogg', the artist, intended, and the story I think I understand may be different, but the mere fact that his (her?) wall-scratchings inspire an image (and story) in my brain makes his/her effort - not required for his/her individual survival - "art".

And AdrianII's specimen

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I would, at first, dismiss as banal. A depiction of an ordinary, everyday scene. Until I realize that it's not a snapshot, a photograph taken quickly, telling me that a beer-bellied guy shaves while his wife showers - the only question being: Does he nonchalantly shave while she is on the toilet also, and does she return the favor - brushing her teeth while he defecates? Are they that "used" to each others' company?

Then it hits: it's a painting. Somebody took time to display the details shown; nothing is "incidental", accidental, unintended.

The tiled room, built by the man or woman? Probably not. Apparent running water? Likely not installed by the 2 humans seen. So: presumeably, they are beficiaries of modern, industrial society. The guy, shaving away his final primordial tie to barbarism (beard) pauses, hand flat, as if something has occured to him. The woman, showerhead in-hand, eyes downcast (busy) rather than naturally aimed at the guy's butt, ignores his question/observation while fumbling with her nose/mouth/eye apparatus.

Nakedness in industrial society not equalling real intimacy, I think.

Art.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

hmm coming back to reread this it's a very interesting thread. I looked at the first painting as just a scene but now I see what you guys are talking about.

[naut]

Just some general trivia, Lascaux has large portions of odd patterns painted over and among the animal images. This is believed to be due to the light/sensory deprivation the people painting on the cave walls would have experienced while in the caves for extended periods of time. That is, when you have sensory deprivation your mind plays tricks on you and you see odd coloured patterns, like star-bursts, black and white grids, etc, it's pretty fun to do.