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?

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[naut]

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

[Adrian II]

Max Ernst, Der Elephant von Celebes

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.'

[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?

[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'.

[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?
.

[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.

[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.