What is art?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.