What is the difference between art and advertising?

[volatile]

Or, how about some performance art? Self-portrait as a Fountain by Bruce Naumann, or Zereissprobe by Gunther Brus. What are they "selling"?

These are non-commercial works, by their very nature. They cannot be exchanged for money; they (especially in the case of Brus) are spontaneous and unplanned, contextually-specific, unrepeatable and untradable, non-commodifiable performances.

If you have art without intention (as Brus was trying to create), what's that selling?

[CFLarsen]

no attempt by the artist to increase his status, wealth or accomplishment.

I covered that in post #140, 173 and 175: Even with practice, you get better as an artist.

Painting Zola certainly didn't hurt Manet's status as an artist, did it?

It presents Zola in a specific way, but not one of his own request, and not one intended by the artist to have any wider affect of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature.

It presents Zola in a positive way, doesn't it? It sells the idea of Zola the educated (books), culturally hip (the japanese art). Famous enough to get painted by Manet.

[volatile]

I covered that in post #140, 173 and 175: Even with practice, you get better as an artist.

Painting Zola certainly didn't hurt Manet's status as an artist, did it?


It presents Zola in a positive way, doesn't it? It sells the idea of Zola the educated (books), culturally hip (the japanese art). Famous enough to get painted by Manet.

There was no monetary exchnage, no patronage, no public exhbition of the portrait to 'advertise' Zola to the wider world. It was a private gift, for Zola to display in his home. It might "present" him in a positive way (it certainly does; as I said, it was a gift in gratitude for Zola writing positive things about Manet), but what does it sell?

You really need to define "sell".

[CFLarsen]

Or, how about some performance art? Self-portrait as a Fountain by Bruce Naumann,

It's a portrait. Already covered in post #76.

or Zereissprobe by Gunther Brus. What are they "selling"?

These are non-commercial works, by their very nature. They cannot be exchanged for money; they (especially in the case of Brus) are spontaneous and unplanned, contextually-specific, unrepeatable and untradable, non-commodifiable performances.

You think I can't buy a photo of Naumann's work? (http://dl.coastline.edu/classes/internet/art101/module15.cfm)

If you have art without intention (as Brus was trying to create), what's that selling?

Then, the intention is to create art without intention. Dadaism is an idea in itself.

Are you sure you want to restrict what art is and does?

[CFLarsen]

There was no monetary exchnage, no patronage, no public exhbition of the portrait to 'advertise' Zola to the wider world. It was a private gift, for Zola to display in his home. It might "present" him in a positive way (it certainly does; as I said, it was a gift in gratitude for Zola writing positive things about Manet), but what does it sell?

You really need to define "sell".

I told you: That it presents Zola in a positive way, as the cultural hip, learned person.

If you don't agree that that is selling, fine. But don't say I haven't defined it.

[volatile]

It's a portrait. Already covered in post #76.

No it isn't a portrait. It was a performance piece (and a very clever one). The work is not "selling" anything by any conventional use of the word sell (as far as I can tell), has no intrinsic or inherent value, cannot be bought or sold, and does not present or advertise something else that can be bought or sold.

What is Naumann selling?

You think I can't buy a photo of Naumann's work? (http://dl.coastline.edu/classes/internet/art101/module15.cfm)

That you can by photographic reproductions of a work of art does not imply that the work itself is selling something, unless you want to argue that Naumann performed Fountain in order to sell postcards!

Then, the intention is to create art without intention. Dadaism is an idea in itself.

Exactly. So what's Brus selling?

[volatile]

I told you: That it presents Zola in a positive way, as the cultural hip, learned person.

If you don't agree that that is selling, fine. But don't say I haven't defined it.

Right. Now we're getting somewhere.

So even though there's no market, no capital exchange and no intended audience (is Manet selling Zola to himself for free?), you still maintain that this type of exchange can be called "selling"? I think you're so far out on a linguistic limb that the bough is about to break.

[CFLarsen]

No it isn't a portrait. It was a performance piece (and a very clever one).

Why isn't it a portrait? I think it is.

The work is not "selling" anything by any conventional use of the word sell (as far as I can tell), has no intrinsic or inherent value, cannot be bought or sold, and does not present or advertise something else that can be bought or sold.

And I have given you my explanation. You may disagree or not - but don't say that I haven't done it.

What is Naumann selling?

I told you. You may disagree or not - but don't say that I haven't done it.

That you can by photographic reproductions of a work of art does not imply that the work itself is selling something, unless you want to argue that Naumann performed Fountain in order to sell postcards!

Do you want to argue that he didn't try to sell his ideas?

Exactly. So what's Brus selling?

I told you. You may disagree or not - but don't say that I haven't done it.

Right. Now we're getting somewhere.

So even though there's no market, no capital exchange and no intended audience (is Manet selling Zola to himself for free?), you still maintain that this type of exchange can be called "selling"? I think you're so far out on a linguistic limb that the bough is about to break.

One thing I have learned about art is that, whenever you try to restrict what art is and what it does, you always run into trouble.

Had you lived in Rembrandt's days, would you have said that Naumann's work was a work of art?

[HarryKeogh]

I told you: That it presents Zola in a positive way, as the cultural hip, learned person.

If you don't agree that that is selling, fine. But don't say I haven't defined it.

You're stuck so to wriggle out of the mess you simply have to say "well, that's how I define it".

Your definition of sell is as broad, vague and all-encompassing (and useless as most people don't define "sell" that way) as those fundamentalists who claim that science or evolution is a religion or the new-ager who claims God is energy or nature.

I just don't understand all the pages of people trying to get more information from you. They wouldn't debate Ken Hovind for five days. I wonder why they feel compelled to debate you for so long when, presenting your argument, you can behave as dishonestly or as silly as the most ardent creationist.

[CFLarsen]

You're stuck so to wriggle out of the mess you simply have to say "well, that's how I define it".

But then, I have defined it. Don't say otherwise.

Your definition of sell is as broad, vague and all-encompassing (and useless as most people don't define "sell" that way) as those fundamentalists who claim that science or evolution is a religion or the new-ager who claims God is energy or nature.

I just don't understand all the pages of people trying to get more information from you. They wouldn't debate Ken Hovind for five days. I wonder why they feel compelled to debate you for so long when, presenting your argument, you can behave as dishonestly or as silly as the most ardent creationist.

My definition of art selling is broad, I quite agree with that. But, as I said before, whenever you try to restrict what art is and does, you get into trouble. I don't like Cubism very much, but I recognize that it is art. I don't consider a fish in a blender art, but some do - peace with them. I certainly isn't going to tell them that they can't think it is art - and what it does.

Science, energy, religion, on the other hand, are pretty well defined. Art is not. Art is what you make it. And what you make of it.

Argue otherwise, fine. But would Rembrandt have thought abstract art was art? I think not.

[volatile]

It's not about the definition of art; it's about the defintion of sell.

You haven't said what you think Brus is "selling", other than 'ideas', but given that Zereissprobe was a free-to-attend, one-off, unrepeatable piece of performance art. Yes, Brus is presenting ideas (in the same way Manet was), but you haven't really explained why this is selling, by any conventional defintion. The same goes for Naumann - how can an unrepeatable, nebulous, free-to-attend piece of performance art which earned the artist no money be "selling" anything at all?

I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that Naumann performed Fountain to sell postcards. I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that Manet intended to sell Zola's reputation. But that's what you seem to be claiming, and will continue to be seen as claiming as long as you fail to define exactly what you mean by 'sell'.

[CFLarsen]

It's not about the definition of art; it's about the defintion of sell.

You haven't said what you think Brus is "selling", other than 'ideas', but given that Zereissprobe was a free-to-attend, one-off, unrepeatable piece of performance art. Yes, Brus is presenting ideas (in the same way Manet was), but you haven't really explained why this is selling, by any conventional defintion. The same goes for Naumann - how can an unrepeatable, nebulous, free-to-attend piece of performance art which earned the artist no money be "selling" anything at all?

I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that Naumann performed Fountain to sell postcards. I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that Manet intended to sell Zola's reputation. But that's what you seem to be claiming, and will continue to be seen as claiming as long as you fail to define exactly what you mean by 'sell'.

It's about the definition of what art does.

Does it sell? Yes, it does.

Does all art sell? Yes, I think it does. And I have explained why. One major function - purpose, if you like - of art is to sell new ideas, the same way anyone sells ideas. We want to see our ideas promoted, explained, interpreted, and - hopefully - accepted.

Disagree all you like. That's fine, because that's how we get a better understanding of what art is - and what it does.

But I get really worried when people try to force their own ideas of what art is and what it does onto other people. I really do.

[athon]

In post #8, I pointed out the function of patrons, as a means to sell their

Their what? Nonetheless, I don't see a definition here. Just that patrons sell something.

What do you mean by 'sell'?

In post #14, I explained that graffiti is some form of advertising, selling the information of who made it.Selling information? What do you mean by the word 'selling'? I understand that's how you're defining advertising - that's not what we're asking.

In post #19, I explained how lots of art intend to make you do something, and gave two examples, David's paintings of Napoleon (Napoleon Crossing The Alps and Consecration), and religious art.So 'sell' means 'make you do something'? Besides you, who the hell else defines 'sell' like that?

It's the closest we can come to a definition, in which case. So, are we in agreement now that you're defining sell as 'makes you do something'? Because now you need to show that this is a definition of the term that goes beyond your own private usage.

Woos invent words, remember.

In post #76, I provided a link that showed how Turner advertised the idea of fin de siecle, as well as Mona Lisa, expressing not just the visual appearance of a person, but also (if successfully painted) give at least some clue as to how the person is like. The patron thingie again.

No definition here. I'm assuming you're throwing these in just to swamp the table with unnecessary information?

In post #76, I also pointed to the similarities of at least contemporary art and advertising. Exemplified in the Marlborough Man and Cover Girl. *snip rest as there is nothing on defining what you mean by 'sell'*Pathetic. Truly pathetic. You still can't simply say 'by 'sell' I mean...'. We have to get this vague indication, which obviously will give you wiggle room now to say 'that's not what I mean'.

So, we'll assume until you state later that by 'sell', you are using the reference in post #19 that sell means 'make you do something'.

In addition to this meaning of 'sell' being an invention of yours, it only serves as circular defining of the term 'advertise'. It was stated long ago in the thread that advertising is any form of display that which influences an intended behaviour from its target audience.

You state that 'all art is advertising'. We ask 'what is advertising', and you suggest it is 'that which sells something'. Now, when asked what you mean by 'sell', the closest we can get is 'it makes you do something'. In other words, it advertises. So...advertising is selling something, and selling something is advertising.

If you disagree, then you must have a better, clearer, definition.

You may disagree with what I am saying.

But don't claim that I have evaded the question of how I define "sell". I have not only been elaborate, but also very consistent. So no moving of goal posts. No evading.Bahaha. You seriously think you've been 'elaborate'? Man, I'd hate to ask what definition you have for that, then.

Mate, you seriously live in a fairy-land with a population of one. I'm even starting to wonder just how well you understand Danish, if your confidence in English produces this sort of arrogance.

I told you: That it presents Zola in a positive way, as the cultural hip, learned person.

If you don't agree that that is selling, fine. But don't say I haven't defined it.

You never defined it, Claus. You used the term over and over and then referred back to each reference, leaving people to glean what meaning that they can scavenge from your rambling nonsense. To then claim you're being clear is laughable.

And you again turn to 'it's just your opinion'. Again, can all art be milked for beer? I know it's a ridiculous statement, but if you say 'of course not', then the definition of art isn't completely open to whatever we want. The term becomes meaningless.

The definition might be hazy, but you've erased all boundaries and allowed it to be whatever somebody wants.

My definition of art selling is broad, I quite agree with that. But, as I said before, whenever you try to restrict what art is and does, you get into trouble. I don't like Cubism very much, but I recognize that it is art. I don't consider a fish in a blender art, but some do - peace with them. I certainly isn't going to tell them that they can't think it is art - and what it does.

More dishonesty. Man, it just doesn't stop with you, does it?

Nobody was contending what art was. It was your statement that 'all art sells something'. The word 'sell' was under the microscope, not your view of what is and is not art.

So, by italicising 'art' instead of 'selling', you're insinuating that we are accusing you of having the word 'art' be defined broadly. No, no, no, my little Danish friend. It is 'selling' you should have accented. But you knew that, and once again tried to dishonestly twist the debate away from that.

And yes, your use of the word 'sell' is ridiculously broad that nobody other than you uses it in such a fashion. You then hide behind the 'you don't have to agree' silliness. Words, Claus, aren't malleable to mean whatever the hell you want. Unlike most facts, their definitions are formed by popular opinion. They'd be a fairly useless means of communication if, like you seem to believe, they mean whatever we want them to.

Science, energy, religion, on the other hand, are pretty well defined. Art is not. Art is what you make it. And what you make of it.Nobody's contending what is and is not art. The contention is that all art - whatever it might be to an individual - sells something.

Argue otherwise, fine. But would Rembrandt have thought abstract art was art? I think not.Would Rembrandt have thought through his painting he was setting up for an exchange of goods or services? I think not.

Athon

[athon]

But I get really worried when people try to force their own ideas of what art is and what it does onto other people. I really do.

Wake up to yourself, Claus. You bloody well know nobody is arguing what art is and is not. You'd do well to listen to Volatile, given it's more or less what the guy does. His understanding of art in all its definitions puts our amateur ideas to shame.

I couldn't care if somebody wanted to call my coffee cup art. If they suggest then that my coffee cup is selling something, I'd be asking what it is it wants me to buy.

By again turning this into a 'you can't define art' conversation, you've tried to avoid the point that this is about whatever definition one chooses and applying it to the term 'sell'.

This hole you've dug is just about through to China now, mate. I don't think your digging will get you much further unless you want to start back down again.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Athon,

You have not paid any attention to anything I have said.

And you clearly don't want to.

[athon]

You're stuck so to wriggle out of the mess you simply have to say "well, that's how I define it".

Your definition of sell is as broad, vague and all-encompassing (and useless as most people don't define "sell" that way) as those fundamentalists who claim that science or evolution is a religion or the new-ager who claims God is energy or nature.

Yup. Which is why I guess I keep arguing here, even though it's useless. Claus stalks, badgers and annoys any woo who happens to come through here proclaiming their silliness. Should they dare evade, obfuscate, avoid answering questions, make up their own definitions etc., Claus is on them like a rat on a corpse, teasing out their responses, attacking their use of words, demanding dictionary meanings etc.

Here, he feels inclined to do the very same thing. It turns skepticism into a game rather than a way of thinking. People then associate skepticism with badgering, arrogance and dishonesty as Claus crows about being a skeptic.

It might be futile, but I've got more sympathy for a woo who honestly doesn't know how to think than a self-proclaimed skeptic who knows he's being dishonest yet is too arrogant to back down from an argument.

Athon

[athon]

Athon,

You have not paid any attention to anything I have said.

And you clearly don't want to.

That's not a response, Claus. That's a cop-out akin to your last little whinge.

Try again; is my understanding of how you've defined 'sell' correct?

Athon

[volatile]

Would Rembrandt have thought through his painting he was setting up for an exchange of goods or services?

Great post until this last sentence. Rembrandt was basically the first commercial artist - he definitely was selling something. He set up a system of workshops and apprentices to produce commercial pieces. Rembrandt was producing art for a commercial market, so in that sense the art was selling itself, as a product.

I think Claus seems to think all art does this - that is, 'advertises' its own inherent 'worth' as an art-work (or, by proxy, 'advertises' the artist lui-meme) - and that this particular self-contained sense of production can be termed "selling". I think this fails most obviously when we think about, as I mentioned, performance pieces, or gifted works not intended for sale or public display, or ephemeral pieces, or digital art. The formal and conceptual styles of these types of pieces seem, to me, to preclude the use of the term "sell" in any conventional sense.

Of course, Claus might not mean sell in a conventional sense, but we just don't know.

[CFLarsen]

That's not a response, Claus. That's a cop-out akin to your last little whinge.

Try again; is my understanding of how you've defined 'sell' correct?

Athon

I have explained what I meant. Not much more I can do.

You don't like my stance on what art is and what it does. Exemplified by whether all art sells or not. And it makes me such a woo.

What are you going to do about it? Apart from bitching about it on an Internet forum?

[CFLarsen]

Great post until this last sentence. Rembrandt was basically the first commercial artist - he definitely was selling something. He set up a system of workshops and apprentices to produce commercial pieces. Rembrandt was producing art for a commercial market, so in that sense the art was selling itself, as a product.

Leonardo wasn't?

[athon]

I have explained what I meant. Not much more I can do.

Another lie. It might be easier for you to dust your hands and feel like you've actually succeeded in arguing your case...but it doesn't do a great deal when the thread stands a testimony to your dishonesty.

You don't like my stance on what art is and what it does. Exemplified by whether all art sells or not.

And again, an obvious, blatant display of dishonesty.

I specifically articulated above that this was not about what art is and is not, but rather than whatever it is, it sells something.

And it makes me such a woo.

Your lying and dishonesty makes you a woo, Claus. Your hypocritcal behaviour makes you a woo. Your fantasy approach to language makes you a woo.

But all of this is like water off a duck's back for you, because you'll simply change all of this criticism into something different in order to feel better.

What are you going to do about it? Apart from bitching about it on an Internet forum?

WTF?? Are you eleven? Grow the hell up. This isn't the playground, Claus. You've been called out on your dishonest behaviour, and your response is now 'so what are you going to do about it?'.

Mate, you've gone off the deep end. Seriously, like I've said before - leave the keyboard and go see what the world is like outside your front door. Get some perspective. You need it.

Athon

[athon]

Great post until this last sentence. Rembrandt was basically the first commercial artist - he definitely was selling something. He set up a system of workshops and apprentices to produce commercial pieces. Rembrandt was producing art for a commercial market, so in that sense the art was selling itself, as a product.

Hm, ok. Point taken.

I think Claus seems to think all art does this - that is, 'advertises' its own inherent 'worth' as an art-work (or, by proxy, 'advertises' the artist lui-meme) - and that this particular self-contained sense of production can be termed "selling".I wish I could agree, but to be honest I still have no idea what he means by 'sell'. I'd like to think he means that all art conveys a feeling, message or an idea from the artist to the audience...but that's stretching the word 'sell' into being meaningless, and 'advertise' to the point of absurdity. Nonetheless, if he said that's precisely what he meant, the most I might say is for him to buy himself a better dictionary.

That said, I still don't know what he means with any certainty.

Claus starts with a premise and then tries to argue it, even if it isn't well thought out or if he really understands the words. That in itself is no great crime, but the fact he continues the charade is what is truly sad.

Of course, Claus might not mean sell in a conventional sense, but we just don't know.Either he doesn't know either, or he knows he's in a corner and if he gives the definition now, he'll have to admit his definition is unique to his mind.

But this is his usual tactic - there's a score of threads he's engaged in where he's shown he doesn't have any idea of how most people use a word. I've speculated before that it might have to do with having most of his communication only being online, rather than actually engaging with a diversity of people in real life. Of course, it is only speculation, but I'm stuck as to how somebody who seems to have such a good grasp of English can display such naivity on how language works.

Athon

[volatile]

Leonardo wasn't?

Not to the same extent. Leonardo was very much a product of his patronage, as far as I am aware (not really my period of expertise). From what I've read, Rembrandt is considered really the first slavishly commercial artist, given that works were produced to sell, rather than painted on commission.

Would you mind addressing the second part of that post, because I think it cuts to where we disagree. You seem to think art is always already selling either itself (as a product) or, by proxy, some 'essence' of the artist, right?

Where I and Athon would disagree with you is that the term "sell" is not appropriate for this context without some serious linguistic bastardisation. Performance art such as the Vienna Actionists were producing did not sell anything, unless by 'sell' you mean something contrary to customary usage. Hence us asking for a defintion.

[CFLarsen]

Another lie. It might be easier for you to dust your hands and feel like you've actually succeeded in arguing your case...but it doesn't do a great deal when the thread stands a testimony to your dishonesty.

"Another lie"? A lie, Athon?

I have done my best to explain what I mean.

OK, you don't agree. Fine with me.

But don't call it a lie.

You do not decide whether I have explained it to the best of my ability or not.

Who do you think you are? God?

And again, an obvious, blatant display of dishonesty.

I specifically articulated above that this was not about what art is and is not, but rather than whatever it is, it sells something.

But you are not making my case. I am. Go with what I say the claim is - not what you want me to say the claim is.

Your lying and dishonesty makes you a woo, Claus. Your hypocritcal behaviour makes you a woo. Your fantasy approach to language makes you a woo.

But all of this is like water off a duck's back for you, because you'll simply change all of this criticism into something different in order to feel better.

Criticize me for what I say. Not what you want me to say.

WTF?? Are you eleven? Grow the hell up. This isn't the playground, Claus. You've been called out on your dishonest behaviour, and your response is now 'so what are you going to do about it?'.

Mate, you've gone off the deep end. Seriously, like I've said before - leave the keyboard and go see what the world is like outside your front door. Get some perspective. You need it.

Take your own advice. Leave your keyboard. Take your criticism outside this forum.

Or are you just words and no action?

I am such a woo. Oh, my! I have a different opinion of what art is and what it can do, than you have!

What are you going to do about it?

[CFLarsen]

Not to the same extent.

But he was. At least to some extent.

So, Manet isn't the first commercial artist.

Right?

Or, are you going to argue the meaning of "basically the first commercial artist"?

You are not going to do that, are you?

I mean....why should you be allowed to argue your point - if I am not?

Why don't you just acknowledge that I have a right to my opinion about art - as I acknowledge that you have a right to yours?

[volatile]

I wish I could agree, but to be honest I still have no idea what he means by 'sell'. I'd like to think he means that all art conveys a feeling, message or an idea from the artist to the audience...but that's stretching the word 'sell' into being meaningless, and 'advertise' to the point of absurdity. Nonetheless, if he said that's precisely what he meant, the most I might say is for him to buy himself a better dictionary.

I'm inclined to agree. The use of the word "sell" in this way is certainly not what was meant when this thread began. It's just about within the bounds of syntactical sense (as in, I think I now understand where Claus is coming from, somewhat), but it's certainly not meaningful in light of the original premise of the discussion.

I'd like to hear him explain what Brus was selling when performing Zereissprobe in 1970. That'd clarfiy things a great deal.

[athon]

"Another lie"? A lie, Athon?

I have done my best to explain what I mean.

OK, you don't agree. Fine with me.

But don't call it a lie.

You do not decide whether I have explained it to the best of my ability or not.

Who do you think you are? God?

I don't have to be God to see your dishonesty, Claus.

So now it's you've 'explained it to the best of your ability'. You're not a complete linguistic cripple, so I don't think you can claim that you're incapable of providing a simple sentence explaining what you mean by 'sell'. To state you've explained to the best of your ability, as if your ability is that of a five year old's and you can't do any better, is really scrambling.

You've got five people asking now what you mean by 'sell'; all you need to do now is agree with my interpretation or disagree. Nod or shake the head. Is that beyond your capability?

But you are not making my case. I am. Go with what I say the claim is - not what you want me to say the claim is.

I'm asking for clarification of the claim. You know that.

Criticize me for what I say. Not what you want me to say.

I'm asking for clarification of what you're saying. What do you mean by the word 'sell'? A simple sentence is all that is needed.

Take your own advice. Leave your keyboard. Take your criticism outside this forum.

Or are you just words and no action?

You have one serious problem with reading, Claus. I suggest you go out and learn how the world works, and you reflect that back to me as 'why don't you go out and take the criticism outside this forum?'

Actually, I do just that Claus, for what it matters. I do far more for science communication than just sit on this forum, and my criticism of self-proclaimed skeptics who don't turn skeptical thinking onto themselves has been taken outside here on a number of occasions.

Nice try, though.

I am such a woo. Oh, my! I have a different opinion of what art is and what it can do, than you have!

*sigh* I'll say it again, just because I like the echo it makes when it bounces through your head - this is not about differing opinions of art. It is about trying to get you to tell us what you mean by the word 'sell'.

Why can't you just provide a sentence that states it? Simple as, and it'd move this conversation on.

What are you going to do about it?

I don't see the relevance of this statement at all. It's another one of your distraction comments - if we criticise you, you feel the need to tell us to take up a crusade against you which involves speaking to the public. Why would I entertain your delusions of grandeur?

Once again Claus, the world is bigger than this forum, believe it or not. I know that comes as a surprise to you.

Athon

[volatile]

But he was. At least to some extent.

So, Manet isn't the first commercial artist.

Right?

Or, are you going to argue the meaning of "basically the first commercial artist"?

You are not going to do that, are you?

I mean....why should you be allowed to argue your point - if I am not?

Why don't you just acknowledge that I have a right to my opinion about art - as I acknowledge that you have a right to yours?

Rembrandt, not Manet. The suggestion that Rembrandt was essentially the first commercial artist has been made by more eloquent and informed people than me, but it's an interesting debate for another time. Interestingly, I just found an article claiming Hogarth was the "first commercial artist", but anyway. I'm agreeing with you - a large proportion of art work "sells" itself; it is commodified. Rembrant's work definitely sold something. (http://books.google.com/books?id=sJI-RulUVTIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Rembrandt%27s+Enterprise&sig=awsjCcpAB-BTHYzYJ2E8-BWX_mE#PPA6,M1, http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507(198812)48%3A4%3C949%3ARETSAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G)

But this is in no way to say that all art does this. To argue this, you need a very strange defintion of the word "sell". This is what we're trying to explain. The argument here is not about pure opinions. It's about, as Athon has tried to explain, substantiating uses of words and justifying those opinions. You still haven't given a full definition of "sell", and it'd help us all if you woudn't mind producing one. Please.

Start your post, "When I say "All art sells something", I define the term "sell" to mean...". That'll really help us all.

[Morrigan]

Then, provide a work of art, and I'll tell you what it sells.

My father-in-law is retired and paints watercolour sceneries, animals, flowers, etc. as a hobby. He receives no money and no prestige from his painting. He just likes painting.

What is he selling?

[CFLarsen]

I don't have to be God to see your dishonesty, Claus.

So now it's you've 'explained it to the best of your ability'. You're not a complete linguistic cripple, so I don't think you can claim that you're incapable of providing a simple sentence explaining what you mean by 'sell'. To state you've explained to the best of your ability, as if your ability is that of a five year old's and you can't do any better, is really scrambling.

You may think it is - but how it is lying?

You've got five people asking now what you mean by 'sell'; all you need to do now is agree with my interpretation or disagree. Nod or shake the head. Is that beyond your capability?

I had a feeling you would end up there.

Either I would have to agree with your interpretation, or I wouldn't. It had nothing to do with me providing my definition of "sell", after which we could discuss whether it was true or not.

I'm asking for clarification of the claim. You know that.
...
I'm asking for clarification of what you're saying. What do you mean by the word 'sell'? A simple sentence is all that is needed.

And I have given you that.

What is it about my many explanations that you don't understand?

You have one serious problem with reading, Claus. I suggest you go out and learn how the world works, and you reflect that back to me as 'why don't you go out and take the criticism outside this forum?'

Actually, I do just that Claus, for what it matters. I do far more for science communication than just sit on this forum, and my criticism of self-proclaimed skeptics who don't turn skeptical thinking onto themselves has been taken outside here on a number of occasions.

Nice try, though.

I didn't ask if you went out into the world, promoting science communication.

I asked what you would do about my claim about what art is and what it does.

*sigh* I'll say it again, just because I like the echo it makes when it bounces through your head - this is not about differing opinions of art. It is about trying to get you to tell us what you mean by the word 'sell'.

Why can't you just provide a sentence that states it? Simple as, and it'd move this conversation on.

About what art sells. Which is what I have given.

Do you really deny that I have?

I don't see the relevance of this statement at all. It's another one of your distraction comments - if we criticise you, you feel the need to tell us to take up a crusade against you which involves speaking to the public. Why would I entertain your delusions of grandeur?

Once again Claus, the world is bigger than this forum, believe it or not. I know that comes as a surprise to you.

Yes, the world is bigger than this forum. According to you, I am such a woo, because I happen to disagree what art is and what it does. That makes me such a problem for skepticism.

This isn't about what you call my "delusions of grandeur". It's about putting your mouth where your argument is.

What will you do about this? Aside from bitch, moan and whine about what goes on an Internet forum?

Nothing?

[CFLarsen]

Rembrandt, not Manet. The suggestion that Rembrandt was essentially the first commercial artist has been made by more eloquent and informed people than me, but it's an interesting debate for another time. Interestingly, I just found an article claiming Hogarth was the "first commercial artist", but anyway. I'm agreeing with you - a large proportion of art work "sells" itself; it is commodified. Rembrant's work definitely sold something. (http://books.google.com/books?id=sJI-RulUVTIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Rembrandt%27s+Enterprise&sig=awsjCcpAB-BTHYzYJ2E8-BWX_mE#PPA6,M1, http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507(198812)48%3A4%3C949%3ARETSAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G)

If it is a matter of debate, then it is not as clear-cut as you claimed.

Didn't Leonardo's factory - because that's what it was - sell anything? What didn't it sell?

But this is in no way to say that all art does this. To argue this, you need a very strange defintion of the word "sell". This is what we're trying to explain. The argument here is not about pure opinions. It's about, as Athon has tried to explain, substantiating uses of words and justifying those opinions. You still haven't given a full definition of "sell", and it'd help us all if you woudn't mind producing one. Please.

Start your post, "When I say "All art sells something", I define the term "sell" to mean...". That'll really help us all.

I'm sorry, but what it is about my explanation that you can't accept?

My father-in-law is retired and paints watercolour sceneries, animals, flowers, etc. as a hobby. He receives no money and no prestige from his painting. He just likes painting.

What is he selling?

Already explained: He gets better.

Improving your skills is not selling? Tell that to Mutter. Tell her that her many thousands of hours practicing did not sell her art.

[volatile]

"When I say "All art sells something", I define the term "sell" to mean..."

Please.

------------

On the subject of Rembrandt, the intorduction to Alpers' book on Rembrandt and the Market is readbale on Google Books. She makes the case that his approach to the market was novel and idiosyncratic - in other words, he was the first to really approach the market in this way. I'm agreeing with you - Rembrandt's art was selling something - itself (which was markedly different to the work of his predecessors or contemporaries, whose work was intended to advertise (or "sell") civic, religious or individual patronage). Leonardo's work did not sell itself (it was not commodified) in the same way.

How is Gunther Brus' work doing this, or similar?

[Tricky]

Improving your skills is not selling? Tell that to Mutter.
No, Claus, Improving your skills is not selling. It may be one part of potentially selling something in the future, but it is not, by itself, selling. I'd tell that to Mutter and any other artists, and I'd bet they'd agree with me, just as other artists in this thread have agreed with me.

Spelling words is not writing a novel. It is one fairly important part of writing a novel, but it may or may not be used for that purpose. I'd tell that to William Faulkner or any other novelists, and I'd bet they'd agree with me.

Turning on the stove is not cooking. It is often one of the first steps in cooking, but by itself, it will not prepare any food. You can turn on the stove without cooking anything. I'd tell that to Julia Childs or any other chef, and I'd bet they'd agree with me.

You have taken one part (and not a required part) of art and extrapolated it to make a blanket statement about all art. You have used the word "sell" in a way that does not match any standard dictionary defintions and you have refused to give a strict definition of it yourself. Your opinion is wrong. The evidence clearly shows this.

If you would admit that your statement "all art sells something" is an incorrect statement, you might begin to regain some of the respect that you might otherwise have here.

[volatile]

Tricky: Further, if we take the process of performing an action to itself be an act of selling then I am selling myself cooking lessons every time I make dinner, selling myself driving lessons every time I get in my car or selling myself oration lessons every time I open my mouth.

If we reduce the meaning of the word "sell" to include not only "practice" but also "individual, non-purposive, unconscious practice", then every single action on the whole planet "sells". Which is absurd, clearly.

Calus: How can I sell myself something? How can an artist's practice be termed a sale? How can we posit a transaction when there is no "trans" and no "action"? How can an act involving a solitary agent be considered a "sale"?

In other words - please define "sale".

[CFLarsen]

"When I say "All art sells something", I define the term "sell" to mean..."

Please.

No. "Art sells something".

On the subject of Rembrandt, the intorduction to Alpers' book on Rembrandt and the Market is readbale on Google Books. She makes the case that his approach to the market was novel and idiosyncratic - in other words, he was the first to really approach the market in this way. I'm agreeing with you - Rembrandt's art was selling something - itself (which was markedly different to the work of his predecessors or contemporaries, whose work was intended to advertise (or "sell") civic, religious or individual patronage). Leonardo's work did not sell itself (it was not commodified) in the same way.

I didn't ask if Leonardo's work sold the same way as Rembrandt's. I asked if it sold. Did it?

No, Claus, Improving your skills is not selling. It may be one part of potentially selling something in the future, but it is not, by itself, selling. I'd tell that to Mutter and any other artists, and I'd bet they'd agree with me, just as other artists in this thread have agreed with me.

Then, please explain how studies of the great masters can sell so well.

Spelling words is not writing a novel. It is one fairly important part of writing a novel, but it may or may not be used for that purpose. I'd tell that to William Faulkner or any other novelists, and I'd bet they'd agree with me.

You think War and Peace would be a great novel if it were full of spelling errors? Someone who can't spell is a great writer?

Bollocks!

Turning on the stove is not cooking. It is often one of the first steps in cooking, but by itself, it will not prepare any food. You can turn on the stove without cooking anything. I'd tell that to Julia Childs or any other chef, and I'd bet they'd agree with me.

Can Julia Childs cook without knowing how to master a stove?

You have taken one part (and not a required part) of art and extrapolated it to make a blanket statement about all art. You have used the word "sell" in a way that does not match any standard dictionary defintions and you have refused to give a strict definition of it yourself. Your opinion is wrong. The evidence clearly shows this.

If you would admit that your statement "all art sells something" is an incorrect statement, you might begin to regain some of the respect that you might otherwise have here.

You do not decide how I make my argument.

Calus: How can I sell myself something? How can an artist's practice be termed a sale? How can we posit a transaction when there is no "trans" and no "action"? How can an act involving a solitary agent be considered a "sale"?

In other words - please define "sale".

Now you are trying to determine how I use "sell".

[volatile]

No. "Art sells something".

Some art does. Not all. What did Zeriessprobe sell?

Please define "sell". Or:

"When I say "Art sells something", I define the term "sell" to mean..."

I didn't ask if Leonardo's work sold the same way as Rembrandt's. I asked if it sold. Did it?Why make an argument here? To distract from the main point? I already agreed that Leonardo's work "sold" or, indeed, "advertised" his patrons. But that doesn't make him a commercial artist in the way Rembrandt was. I can't believe you're arguing with me even when I agree with you!

Now you are trying to determine how I use "sell".That is how you use "sell". You said, and I quote:

Improving your skills is not selling? Tell that to Mutter.

If "improving your skills [at painting]" is equivalent to your painting engaging in an act of selling, and if all acts of painting are "improving [one's] skills" at art, then all acts of x are equivalent to improving one's skills at x, ergo all acts of x are engaging in an act of selling. That means, Claus, that everyone on the planet is selling (and has been selling, and will be selling for evermore) all the time, in every act they perform! Absurd!

I honestly don't understand (which is why I asked). How can an artist's practice inherently produce works that sell? How can a solitary agent (whose work, by your assertion, "sells" the artist his own self-improvement) engage in a sale?

If you intend to suggest you use "sell" different to the way I have indicated, then please define "sell".

[volatile]

One question. Please answer.

What did Gunther Brus' Zereissprobe sell?

[CFLarsen]

Some art does. Not all. What did Zeriessprobe sell?

Answered in post #254.

Please define "sell". Or:

"When I say "Art sells something", I define the term "sell" to mean..."

No, you do not get to define what I argue. I argue that all art sells something.

Why make an argument here? To distract from the main point? I already agreed that Leonardo's work "sold" or, indeed, "advertised" his patrons. But that doesn't make him a commercial artist in the way Rembrandt was. I can't believe you're arguing with me even when I agree with you!

That is how you use "sell". You said, and I quote:


[COLOR=black]
If "improving your skills [at painting]" is equivalent to your painting engaging in an act of selling, and if all acts of painting are "improving [one's] skills" at art, then all acts of x are equivalent to improving one's skills at x, ergo all acts of x are engaging in an act of selling. That means, Claus, that everyone on the planet is selling (and has been selling, and will be selling for evermore) all the time, in every act they perform! Absurd!

It is one way to sell art.

I honestly don't understand (which is why I asked). How can an artist's practice inherently produce works that sell? How can a solitary agent (whose work, by your assertion, "sells" the artist his own self-improvement) engage in a sale?

If you intend to suggest you use "sell" different to the way I have indicated, then [B]please define "sell".

I have explained what I mean. What is it you don't understand about that?

Did Leonardo's work sell, yes or no?

How can studies of the great masters can sell so well?

Do you really think tht War and Peace would be a great novel if it were full of spelling errors? Someone who can't spell is a great writer?

Can Julia Childs cook without knowing how to master a stove?

[Tricky]

Then, please explain how studies of the great masters can sell so well.
People want to buy them. So what? As we have pointed out to you virtually from the first post in the thread, the argument you need to defend is not that some art sells, but that all art is selling something. This misdirection didn't work the first time you used it, and it is still not working.

You think War and Peace would be a great novel if it were full of spelling errors? Someone who can't spell is a great writer?
Yeah, it probably would be. In fact, it might have been. Editors fix spelling. In any case, spelling is a small part of novel-writing. It is not a synonym for novel-writing. People can spell without writing a novel. People can create art without selling something. We have given you numerous examples.

Can Julia Childs cook without knowing how to master a stove?
Probably. There are other ways to cook besides using a stove. Also, in most recipes, the biggest part of takes place outside of a stove. Like selling is to art, a stove is something that is used in SOME cooking.

Now you are trying to determine how I use "sell".
We are merely pointing out that you are using it incorrectly. This has been what we have been pointing out since early in the thread. Your incorrectness has been shown by evidence and numerous examples. You can use "sell" to mean "spelunking" if you like, but you will be using it incorrectly. If it were your opinion that they meant the same thing, then your opinion would be wrong.

[volatile]

Answered in post #254.

You posted a single question - "Do you think I can't buy pictures of Naumann's work?".

This has nothing to do with what the work Zereissprobe was or might have been selling, unless you think Brus carried out his performance art in order to sell postcards. Do you think he did?

Or, in other words: please explain, in clear sentences and without resort to further questions, what Zereissprobe was selling in and of itself. Then, define "sell".


No, you do not get to define what I argue. I argue that all art sells something.

Howdoes all art sell, and what does all art sell. You still haven't explained why this is the case - as such you're hardly "arguing" it at all. You're just stating it.

It is one way to sell art.

How? How does improving your skills at a given task imply that that task is selling?! It's absurd, as I've tried to show you.


I have explained what I mean. What is it you don't understand about that?

Did Leonardo's work sell, yes or no?

Yes. I already said that, at least twice. That's quite different from him being a commercial artist, but never mind. I agree with you on this point. Always have done. Indeed, I interjected in Athon's post to show that he was wrong and you were right. Why would you argue with me when we agree, unless you were deliberately trolling?

How can studies of the great masters can sell so well?

Because people buy them. How is that related to their inherent selling?

How does craftsmanship or ability mean that something is, inherently, "selling"? I don't understand.

Please define "sell". Please?

[CFLarsen]

People want to buy them. So what?

Precisely. So an increase in skills will sell what you do. (You didn't acknowledge this earlier, but thanks for conceding this point)

As we have pointed out to you virtually from the first post in the thread, the argument you need to defend is not that some art sells, but that all art is selling something. This misdirection didn't work the first time you used it, and it is still not working.

Where have I said that one way fits all art?

Yeah, it probably would be. In fact, it might have been. Editors fix spelling. In any case, spelling is a small part of novel-writing. It is not a synonym for novel-writing.

You know nothing of writing. If you can't command the language, you cannot write.

People can spell without writing a novel.

I didn't say otherwise.

People can create art without selling something. We have given you numerous examples.

Who has given an example of art that didn't sell anything?

Probably. There are other ways to cook besides using a stove. Also, in most recipes, the biggest part of takes place outside of a stove. Like selling is to art, a stove is something that is used in SOME cooking.

Exactly. But mastering your stove makes you a better cook, thereby selling your skills.

We are merely pointing out that you are using it incorrectly. This has been what we have been pointing out since early in the thread. Your incorrectness has been shown by evidence and numerous examples. You can use "sell" to mean "spelunking" if you like, but you will be using it incorrectly. If it were your opinion that they meant the same thing, then your opinion would be wrong.

You do not decide how I argue my point.

[NoZed Avenger]

If you intend to suggest you use "sell" different to the way I have indicated, then please define "sell".


When you get that definition, could you also find out his definition of "unenforceable"?


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51706&highlight=unenforceable

I tried for a while, but was never quite able to get a definition . . . .


I think you'll get a kind of deja vu feel around pages 11-12.


But my favorite comes around page 16 (post 639):

I am saying that, judging from the actual court cases, and especially the cases that never got to court, the law is unenforceable.

Could it [enforcement] happen? I don't think it is impossible . . . .

followed by page 17 (post 643):


I am saying that the law is unenforceable. . . .

But I am not certain that the law could not lead to a conviction.

And then, of course, it really gets fun.




So if you have the stamina, I'll still take the over on 20 pages. But (at the risk of ruining my winning chances on that bet, but of saving the next few weeks of your lives) you may want to skim portions of the above before continuing much further.

[volatile]

Also: as I said in another post, "You seem to think art is always already selling either itself (as a product) or, by proxy, some 'essence' of the artist, right?"

If you could clarify if this is indeed your position, I think we can better pinpoint where you're going wrong. I think I kinda see what you're trying to claim, but it really doesn't hold much water...

[volatile]

Precisely. So an increase in skills will sell what you do.

Unless, of course, you don't sell your work (like the other poster's father), or you're increasing your skills at something with no inherent commercial value (like driving, eating or talking), or your work is not intended for public display, or the work was an ephemeral and conceptual performance piece. Not all art sells something. Some art just is. Or, to put it another way, all art does something, but that action is not always selling.

Your argument here, as I showed you earlier on, is reducible to "Every act anyone ever performs is selling something (undefined)". It's a nonsense argument.

[CFLarsen]

You posted a single question - "Do you think I can't buy pictures of Naumann's work?".

This has nothing to do with what the work Zereissprobe was or might have been selling, unless you think Brus carried out his performance art in order to sell postcards. Do you think he did?

He sold his art in exactly the same way Naumann did.


Howdoes all art sell, and what does all art sell. You still haven't explained why this is the case - as such you're hardly "arguing" it at all. You're just stating it.

That is simply not correct. I have given ample examples. And asked for examples that didn't - so far, no luck.



How? How does improving your skills at a given task imply that that task is selling?! It's absurd, as I've tried to show you.

See my response to Tricky (and also previous answers): The same way Mutter practicing.

What part about this do you refuse to accept? Practicing doesn't improve your skills? Improving your skills doesn't improve your art? Improving your art doesn't make it sell?

Yes. I already said that, at least twice. That's quite different from him being a commercial artist, but never mind. I agree with you on this point. Always have done. Indeed, I interjected in Athon's post to show that he was wrong and you were right. Why would you argue with me when we agree, unless you were deliberately trolling?

You dismissed the example of Leonardo because he didn't sell the same way as Rembrandt.

Because people buy them. How is that related to their inherent selling?

...because people buy them?

How does craftsmanship or ability mean that something is, inherently, "selling"? I don't understand.

You really don't understand how better craftmanship can sell something?

Where am I losing you?

Do you really think tht War and Peace would be a great novel if it were full of spelling errors? Someone who can't spell is a great writer?

Can Julia Childs cook without knowing how to master a stove?

[volatile]

I am currently drinking a cup of tea. Is my imbibing selling?

[CFLarsen]

Also: as I said in another post, "You seem to think art is always already selling either itself (as a product) or, by proxy, some 'essence' of the artist, right?"

If you could clarify if this is indeed your position, I think we can better pinpoint where you're going wrong. I think I kinda see what you're trying to claim, but it really doesn't hold much water...

Wait a second.

Now you are doing the same as Athon: You tell me I am wrong, but you don't understand what I am saying - so how can you say I am wrong?

Make up your mind:

Do you understand what I am saying or not?

Unless, of course, you don't sell your work (like the other poster's father), or you're increasing your skills at something with no inherent commercial value (like driving, eating or talking), or your work is not intended for public display, or the work was an ephemeral and conceptual performance piece. Not all art sells something. Some art just is. Or, to put it another way, all art does something, but that action is not always selling.

Show me an example of such a work of art.

Your argument here, as I showed you earlier on, is reducible to "Every act anyone ever performs is selling something (undefined)". It's a nonsense argument.

I am not arguing that.

[volatile]

He sold his art in exactly the same way Naumann did.

Which was? Seriously, I don't understand.

How was Zereissprobe selling, and what was it selling?


That is simply not correct. I have given ample examples. And asked for examples that didn't - so far, no luck.

:rolleyes:


See my response to Tricky (and also previous answers): The same way Mutter practicing.

What part about this do you refuse to accept? Practicing doesn't improve your skills? Improving your skills doesn't improve your art? Improving your art doesn't make it sell?

Not if you're not selling it, no.

If you do not sell your art, and if it has no pretensions or intentions to sale, then it is not selling.

Are you instilling all art with inherent commodity value? That seems to be the line of reasoning? That I could sell my painting should I choose to, and thus it is inherently "selling" itself?


You really don't understand how better craftmanship can sell something?

Where am I losing you?

I think it's how you're using the word "sell". Could you define it, please?

[volatile]

Make up your mind:

Do you understand what I am saying or not?No, because what you're saying is nonsense. You can hardly blame me for not quite grasping your argument under these circumstances...

Show me an example of such a work of art.Manet's portrait of Zola. Bruce Naumann's Self-Portrait as a Fountain. Gunther Brus' Zereissprobe.

Much internet art doesn't seem, to me, to be selling anything. Take "Biennale.py", for example (http://www.0100101110101101.org/home/biennale_py/index.html), or "Life Sharing" (http://www.0100101110101101.org/home/life_sharing/index.html).

These types of work cannot be bought, sold or transacted, can often not be displayed in galleries, are produced by anonymous individuals and distributed for free. What are they selling?If you think they sell, please explain what you mean by sell.

I am not arguing that.Yes you are. You're saying that the very act of painting improves your skills at painting, thus painting is selling something. You are arguing that doing something means the same thing as that something selling. At least, that's how I read it.

Unless you have a different definition to the word "sell" than I do? Care to state your definition, for clarity's sake?

[CFLarsen]

I think it's how you're using the word "sell". Could you define it, please?

Do you understand what I am saying or not?

[volatile]

Another one: What was Michael Landy's Destruction selling? The guy pulped everything he owned except the clothes he was standing up in.

What was he selling?

[volatile]

Do you understand what I am saying or not?

Not a word. You know what would help, though? If you defined what you mean by "sell".

ETA: Further, it would also help our understanding you answered those questions intended to help us understand your position more clearly, that is to say those beginning "How" and "What" which you keep leaving unanswered, as in the post this quote is from - How was Zereissprobe selling, and what was it selling?

This doesn't need to be a game. It could be a discussion. But you need to engage. Honestly, I'd love to get your point, but you're not being clear enough. If you'd take a second to answer the "How" and "What" questions, I'd be much more likely to agree with you.

[CFLarsen]

Yes you are.

It serves no purpose continuing a debate when you insist on making my arguments for me.

[volatile]

It serves no purpose continuing a debate when you insist on making my arguments for me.

You're right, of course. So to save me having to interpret an argument from your posts, wouldn't it be easier if you made one yourself?

* A starting point might be, if our premise is "All art sells something", then what do you mean by sell?

* After that, you could explain what Zereissprobe is selling, and how it is doing so.

That'd be great. I'd actually like to continue this discussion, so you need to provide some input.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You just want me to be wrong.

It's not a matter of want. You are wrong***.



***Assuming that you are using the common definition of "sell". Which, as far as we can tell, you aren't. You see, you could clear this whole thing up in an instant, if you would just give us your definition of "sell". But you won't, because it would be admitting that you are wrong. And you'd rather twist yourself into a pretzel for 20 pages than to just admit that you were wrong.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

One thing I have learned about art is that, whenever you try to restrict what art is and what it does, you always run into trouble.

There go those goal posts again.

We're looking for your definition of "sell", not of "art".

[Tricky]

Who has given an example of art that didn't sell anything?
Me, Volatile, Athon, several others.

Want another example? Without looking at the information on this painting (which of course, is not part of the art), tell me what this art is selling?

http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/a000151brd.jpg

[CFLarsen]

Me, Volatile, Athon, several others.

Want another example? Without looking at the information on this painting (which of course, is not part of the art), tell me what this art is selling?

http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/a000151brd.jpg

Rothko, yes. No, I didn't have to look.

Why do you think that is art?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I didn't ask if Leonardo's work sold the same way as Rembrandt's. I asked if it sold. Did it?

Using who's definition of "sell"? Yours or everyone elses? And we can't really use yours, since we don't know what it is.

:hb:

[Tricky]

Rothko, yes. No, I didn't have to look.

Why do you think that is art?
Oh, is that your new tack? We show or tell you about some art that is not selling something and you question whether or not it is art?

That's okay. We'll just chalk this up as yet another example of art that doesn't sell anything that you have been unable to refute. The list is growing long.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Rothko, yes. No, I didn't have to look.

Why do you think that is art?

:hb:

We need an emoticon for moving goal posts.

[CFLarsen]

Oh, is that your new tack? We show or tell you about some art that is not selling something and you question whether or not it is art?

No, it's not my "new tack". I asked volatile the exact same question in post #249.

Do try to keep up. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, it's impossible to debate with you.

That's okay. We'll just chalk this up as yet another example of art that doesn't sell anything that you have been unable to refute. The list is growing long.

"Refute"? You are actually arguing that art and what it does is not a matter of opinion but of fact?

I would love to see you argue that in any art gallery.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, it's not my "new tack". I asked volatile the exact same question in post #249.

Do try to keep up. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, it's impossible to debate with you.



"Refute"? You are actually arguing that art and what it does is not a matter of opinion but of fact?

I would love to see you argue that in any art gallery.



Push them (goal posts) to the left! :cheerleader4
Push them (goal posts) to the right! :cheerleader1
Stand up, Sit down! :cheerleader2
Fight, fight, fight!

Yeah team!

:cheerleader5

[volatile]

What was Michael Landy's Destruction selling?

[Tricky]

No, it's not my "new tack". I asked volatile the exact same question in post #249.
Yes, and it was off-topic and evasive then too.

Do try to keep up. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, it's impossible to debate with you.
LOL. Yes, I have noticed you find debate impossible. I think we've all noticed that.

"Refute"? You are actually arguing that art and what it does is not a matter of opinion but of fact?
No, that would be you. I gave you an example of art that does not sell anything, and you asked me to defend it as art, clumsily avoiding the question of what it "sells", as is your wont.

I would love to see you argue that in any art gallery.
I would love to see you walk up to a famous artist and tell them that their art is "advertising". At best, you would be called an idiot. At worst, you would be beaten senseless. I think I have that order right.

[athon]

No, you do not get to define what I argue. I argue that all art sells something.

Man, this is the part I got to when I realised that Claus is not just the crazy uncle off his medication; he is not just the forum pet clown; he is certifiably of his rocker.

How the hell do you get 'No, you don't get to define what I argue...' from 'Please define the word 'sell'? I'm imagining this as an actual verbal conversation and busting a gut laughing - it is so pythonesque it's hilarous. Cleese couldn't do as good a job as Claus!

The argument is obvious to all but Claus - not a single person is arguing what is and is not art here. Nobody. Not a single person. Art is whatever you want.

Now, when we have a piece that we all agree is art...we are now asking whether it sells something. By our definition of sell (the exchange of goods or services) not all art does that.

Maybe he'll play multiple choice. Claus, does sell mean

a) the exchange of goods or services
b) to improve your skill
c) to promote an idea or a message
d) a combination of the above
e) something else
f) chicken, because motorcycles have no doors

Pick one. Or several. Or just finish this sentence for us:

'In the phrase 'all art sells something', sell can be defined as doing...'

Athon

[Prometheus]

....
Pick one. Or several. Or just finish this sentence for us:

'In the phrase 'all art sells something', sell can be defined as doing...'

Athon

Ooh, can I try?:

In the phrase "all art sells something", sell can be defined as doing...art. :eusa_doh:

[CFLarsen]

No, that would be you. I gave you an example of art that does not sell anything, and you asked me to defend it as art, clumsily avoiding the question of what it "sells", as is your wont.

It's a black square - you could also show me a black wall. How would that be art?

You'll have to explain why you think it is art, before I can tell you how it sells. If you can't - or won't - then I can't do it.

I would love to see you walk up to a famous artist and tell them that their art is "advertising". At best, you would be called an idiot. At worst, you would be beaten senseless. I think I have that order right.

You clearly haven't met many artists.

Man, this is the part I got to when I realised that Claus is not just the crazy uncle off his medication; he is not just the forum pet clown; he is certifiably of his rocker.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Claus, does sell mean

You seem to have missed post #247.

[athon]

You seem to have missed post #247.

Same old crap, Claus. Nobody falls for it.

It's your usual misdirection, and fumbled like a man who just doesn't care whether he's making sense or not. Post 247 has a collection of examples, with one post which vaguely provides some hint at what you might mean.

So, again; why can't you provide a clear, single sentence in definition of what you mean by 'sell'? Why can't you answer one question? Why do you evade it when you would chase a woo down through the months, resurrecting threads just to badger them when they do what you are doing now?

Answer the question Claus.

Athon

[athon]

Ok, since you're going to keep harping on this post, I might as well address it now.

In post #8, I pointed out the function of patrons, as a means to sell their

Incomplete sentence. Doesn't make sense, let alone tell us what sell means.

Fail.

In post #14, I explained that graffiti is some form of advertising, selling the information of who made it.Advertising 'sells' information? Doesn't say what 'sell means, other than it has something to do with information. By traditional usage of the term, it suggests graffitti requests money, goods or services in exchange for information. Bollocks.

One possible definition - sell means promoting information.

In post #19, I explained how lots of art intend to make you do something, and gave two examples, David's paintings of Napoleon (Napoleon Crossing The Alps and Consecration), and religious art.Nobody is arguing that some art does not inspire the audience to behave in a particular manner, just as nobody is arguing that some art does not act as advertising.

Moving goal posts.

In post #76, I provided a link that showed how Turner advertised the idea of fin de siecle, as well as Mona Lisa, expressing not just the visual appearance of a person, but also (if successfully painted) give at least some clue as to how the person is like. The patron thingie again.Again, nobody is arguing that some art does not inspire the audience to behave in a particular manner, just as nobody is arguing that some art does not act as advertising.

Moving goal posts.

In post #76, I also pointed to the similarities of at least contemporary art and advertising. Exemplified in the Marlborough Man and Cover Girl.Another example. Again, nobody is arguing that some art does not inspire the audience to behave in a particular manner, just as nobody is arguing that some art does not act as advertising.

Moving goal posts.

In post #91, I pointed to propaganda as another way art sells: Ideas.Propaganda art does promote ideas. But it does not require any goods, money or services in exchange for those ideas. So again, you must mean something else by 'sell'.

What is it?

More evidence for Claus thinks sell means promoting information.

In post #93, I elaborated on the Turner example.So? You still don't provide a defintion on what you mean by 'sell'.

Fail.

In post #95, I gave the example of how an ad turned into art, with the clear intention of selling a war.How does one 'sell' a war? What do you mean here by 'sell'?

Fail.

In post #130 and #135, I pointed to Gericault and his study of The Raft as an example of how even practicing art is advertising - selling.This sentence makes no sense when you just tack 'selling' on the end, when one does not understand your use of the word.

Are you suggesting that practicing art is equivalent to selling?

Ok, so we might have one definition here.

'By 'sell', Claus means practicing art'. This is an invention you came up with, though. So, your opinion is wrong.

In post #140, I explained that it takes not only talent, but also skill to make your art worthwhile.This does not address selling in any way.

In post #159, I again pointed out why Gericault's study is worth something, even though it isn't even a finished piece. I also included Picasso and Leonardo.This has nothing to do with selling.

In post #173, I use the quip about how to get to Carnegie Hall - practice, practice, practice. Each time you practice your art, it becomes more valuable.More about 'selling is the same as practicing'? So, is this seriously your definition?

In post #175, I pointed to van Gogh and his whole new way of painting. Today, his art sells for millions.Ok, so by 'sell' you mean 'exchange of the art piece for goods or services'? Not all art does this. So if this is your definition, it again does not support your opinion.

In post #175, I also point to Mutter, Stern and Zukerman as examples of how practice improves the value of of your art.Practice = selling again.

You may disagree with what I am saying.Yes. You are wrong. Words are not opinions. Selling is not the same as practicing.

But don't claim that I have evaded the question of how I define "sell". I have not only been elaborate, but also very consistent. So no moving of goal posts. No evading.You move the goal posts to insinuate we are discussing whether something is art or not, rather than whether all art sells. You evade our straight forward question 'what does sell mean'.

You lie and are dishonest. Your hypocracy grows by the post.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

Yes, you really want to portray me as dishonest and a liar.

You may disagree with what I say. But don't claim I haven't explained what I mean.

[athon]

Yes, you really want to portray me as dishonest and a liar.

You may disagree with what I say. But don't claim I haven't explained what I mean.

If the shoes fits...

What do you mean by 'sell'? Why can't you answer the question?

Athon

[Tricky]

It's a black square - you could also show me a black wall. How would that be art?

You'll have to explain why you think it is art, before I can tell you how it sells. If you can't - or won't - then I can't do it.
Odd. You don't have such a litmus test for the examples you cite.

You clearly haven't met many artists.
Actually I'm good friends with a number of artists here in Houston. Also, I've met Athon, who is an artist. Also, I've created art myself (re: the example I provided for you earlier). I'd guess that the percentage of artists who agreed that all art was selling something, would be roughly the same as the percentage of people who agree with you on this thread. I think that number is hovering close to zero.

[CFLarsen]

Odd. You don't have such a litmus test for the examples you cite.

Of course not: That's what I call art. Why do you assume that what you call art, I also call art?

Actually I'm good friends with a number of artists here in Houston. Also, I've met Athon, who is an artist. Also, I've created art myself (re: the example I provided for you earlier). I'd guess that the percentage of artists who agreed that all art was selling something, would be roughly the same as the percentage of people who agree with you on this thread. I think that number is hovering close to zero.

Oh, you polled them, did you? Sure. :rolleyes:

Lame, lame, lame...

[Tricky]

Of course not: That's what I call art. Why do you assume that what you call art, I also call art?
Your statement wasn't "Anything that I call art is advertising", the statement was "All art is advertising". That means anything that anybody calls "art". (In the OP, I did specifically restrict the definition to certain kinds of art, but most of the examples that have been provided to you have satisfied those restrictions.)

Now obviously it would be foolish to make such a blanket statement about "all" art. Alas, the world is not devoid of fools.

Oh, you polled them, did you? Sure.
No, but I'm a pretty good judge of people. Note how I made a correct prediction about you early in this thread.

Also, one of the artists on that list has already made his position clear.

I note that when you say, "Try telling that to <some artist name>" you haven't actually told them. If you can speak for artists you've never met, I think I can be allowed to do so for artists I have met.

[CFLarsen]

Your statement wasn't "Anything that I call art is advertising", the statement was "All art is advertising". That means anything that anybody calls "art". (In the OP, I did specifically restrict the definition to certain kinds of art, but most of the examples that have been provided to you have satisfied those restrictions.)

Now obviously it would be foolish to make such a blanket statement about "all" art. Alas, the world is not devoid of fools.

....OK. So, explain why you think it is art.

You do think it is art, don't you?

No

Then you don't know.

[volatile]

....OK. So, explain why you think it is art.

You do think it is art, don't you?



Then you don't know.

In order to avoid answering a simple question, you want to start a side-track as to whether Mark Rothko is an artist, and what he produces is art?

Are you serious?

I think you'll find that it's pretty uncontraversial that Mark Rothko is an artist - his paintings are bought and sold (by your definition, do they "sell" themselves?), his work is exhibited in galleries and held in private collections all opver the world. His work features in art anthologies, is discussed in art journals, and taught on art courses.

Yes, he's an artist, and yes his output is art.

What's that paining selling?

What's Zereissprobe selling? What's Life Sharing selling? What's Biennale.py selling? What's Breakdown selling? You still haven't answered...

[Tricky]

....OK. So, explain why you think it is art.

You do think it is art, don't you?
Actually, I explained that in post #325, but since you decided to ignore it, I'll rephrase it for you. (You see, some of us here actually do answer direct questions.) If anybody thinks a person's creation is art, then as far as I'm concerned, it is art.

Then you don't know.
Aren't you clever the way you edit the post to eliminate the pertinent parts! It's no wonder everyone here respects you the way that they do. If you want to see how that is, I'd be glad to poll them for you, since you think polling is so important.

[Morrigan]

Already explained: He gets better.


"Getting better" is not "selling something". He also has no intention of ever exchanging his paintings for money. He just paints as a hobby, for fun.

If you still think that this is the same thing as "selling", then you are using the word "sell" in a way that no one else is. Or, more likely, you are just trolling.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, he's an artist, and yes his output is art.

OK. Why do you think it is art? Because his paintings are bought and sold?

Gee.

Actually, I explained that in post #325, but since you decided to ignore it, I'll rephrase it for you. (You see, some of us here actually do answer direct questions.) If anybody thinks a person's creation is art, then as far as I'm concerned, it is art.

Okie doke.

Why is it art? Is a black square painted on a wall art?

Aren't you clever the way you edit the post to eliminate the pertinent parts! It's no wonder everyone here respects you the way that they do. If you want to see how that is, I'd be glad to poll them for you, since you think polling is so important.

I'm not eliminating the pertinent parts, quite contrary. The only pertinent part was "no".

[volatile]

OK. Why do you think it is art? Because his paintings are bought and sold?



That's one reason.

Another is "I think you'll find that it's pretty uncontraversial that Mark Rothko is an artist - his paintings are bought and sold (by your definition, do they "sell" themselves?), his work is exhibited in galleries and held in private collections all opver the world. His work features in art anthologies, is discussed in art journals, and taught on art courses". This is what you might call the consensus defintion of art.

This piece also fulfills what is called the formal defintion of art - this piece is formally identical to that which has traditionally been understood as art; it is paint on canvas. It also fulfills what is known as the romantic defintion of art, in that it is the creative product of an individual, designed to express a specific or nebulous set of ideas and concepts. Further, it fulfills what might be called something like the personal defintion - Rothko self-identifies as an artist, and presents these pieces as art-works.

So yes, Rothklo is an artist, and the piece Tricky posted is an artwork, quite uncontraversially. That's off-topic, though.

So: What is it selling? Itself? If you want to make the case that it is, I'd probably even agree with you. But you'd need to make the case.

Oh, and define "sell" while you're at it.

[CFLarsen]

That's one reason.

And that's all you need.

[Tricky]

Why is it art?
(Sigh) As I just told you, it is art because at least one person thinks it is art.

Is a black square painted on a wall art?
If someone thinks it is, yes.

How many times will I have to explain this concept to you?

I'm not eliminating the pertinent parts, quite contrary. The only pertinent part was "no".
I do not doubt that the only pertinent parts to you are the ones you can dissect out to make it look as if they support your points. If you feel clever by doing this, then go right ahead. I don't think you're impressing anyone with your reasoning skills though. Rather you are enhancing your reputation for being honesty-challenged.

[Don At Work]

Here is what the dictionary says about the word SELL:
–verb (used with object)
1. to transfer (goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money; dispose of to a purchaser for a price: He sold the car to me for $1000.
2. to deal in; keep or offer for sale: He sells insurance. This store sells my favorite brand.
3. to make a sale or offer for sale to: He'll sell me the car for $1000.
4. to persuade or induce (someone) to buy something: The salesman sold me on a more expensive model than I wanted.
5. to persuade or induce someone to buy (something): The clerk really sold the shoes to me by flattery.
6. to make sales of: The hot record sold a million copies this month.
7. to cause to be accepted, esp. generally or widely: to sell an idea to the public.
8. to cause or persuade to accept; convince: to sell the voters on a candidate.
9. to accept a price for or make a profit of (something not a proper object for such action): to sell one's soul for political power.
10. to force or exact a price for: The defenders of the fort sold their lives dearly.
11. Informal. to cheat, betray, or hoax.
–verb (used without object)
12. to engage in selling something.
13. to be on sale.
14. to offer something for sale: I like this house—will they sell?
15. to be employed to persuade or induce others to buy, as a salesperson or a clerk in a store: One sister is a cashier and the other sells.
16. to have a specific price; be offered for sale at the price indicated (fol. by at or for): Eggs used to sell at sixty cents a dozen. This shirt sells for thirty dollars.
17. to be in demand by buyers: On a rainy day, umbrellas really sell.
18. to win acceptance, approval, or adoption: Here's an idea that'll sell.
19. sell (someone) a bill of goods. bill of goods (def. 3).
–noun
20. an act or method of selling.
21. Stock Exchange. a security to be sold.
22. Informal. a cheat; hoax.
—Verb phrases
23. sell off, to sell, esp. at reduced prices, in order to get rid of: The city is selling off a large number of small lots at public auction.
24. sell out,
a. to dispose of entirely by selling.
b. to betray (an associate, one's country, a cause, etc.); turn traitor: He committed suicide rather than sell out to the enemy.
25. sell up, British. to sell out: She was forced to sell up her entire stock of crystal.
—Idiom
26. sell short. short (def. 50).

So, are any of these definitions for "sell" meaningful to the way CFLarson is using the word? I could not tell. He maintains he has defined the word numerous times, yet I cannot find these definitions, even when I go back and check the posts he cites. He may have USED the word, but the usage was not clear to me. Number 7 on this list comes the closest, but I am not sure if it is what he means.

Is there any particular reason as to WHY you will not give a simple dictionary definition of "sell" that you are using CFLarson? :confused:

[CFLarsen]

(Sigh) As I just told you, it is art because at least one person thinks it is art.

No, that answers the question "Is it art?". "Yes", you say. So I ask "Why?"

Why is that painting art? I'm asking you.

If someone thinks it is, yes.

Do you think a black square on a wall is art?

[Prometheus]

....

Do you think a black square on a wall is art?

Do you think it isn't? What does "sell" mean to you?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, that answers the question "Is it art?". "Yes", you say. So I ask "Why?"

Why is that painting art? I'm asking you.



Do you think a black square on a wall is art?

What does "sell" mean to you?

Finish the following sentence:

"When I (Claus Larsen) say that 'all art is selling something', I am using the word 'sell' to mean...."

[Piscivore]

So, are any of these definitions for "sell" meaningful to the way CFLarson is using the word? I could not tell. He maintains he has defined the word numerous times, yet I cannot find these definitions, even when I go back and check the posts he cites. He may have USED the word, but the usage was not clear to me. Number 7 on this list comes the closest, but I am not sure if it is what he means.

Is there any particular reason as to WHY you will not give a simple dictionary definition of "sell" that you are using CFLarson? :confused:

One suspects that sense #22 is coming into play here somewhere... :)

[volatile]

And that's all you need.

So: What is it selling? Itself? If you want to make the case that it is, I'd probably even agree with you. But you'd need to make the case.

What are Zereissprobe, Biennale.py, Life Sharing and Breakdown selling?

[Tricky]

No, that answers the question "Is it art?". "Yes", you say. So I ask "Why?"
And I told you. "Because" somebody thinks it's art. I was afraid I would have to explain this to you again. Please try to keep up.

Do you think a black square on a wall is art?


I'd have to see it. I certainly wouldn't rule it out. But if somebody else said they thought it was art, then I would agree. There is so much that art can be that your sweeping statement about "all art" is ludicrous. I can only think of two things that I would say about "all art", and they are:
That a conscious being created it.
Somebody thinks it is art.I cannot think of any other rules. Maybe others can.

Now that I have directly answered your question, would you please give us your "rules" for what is and isn't art? Yeah, it's off topic, but I would be interested to see if you could do this without being evasive.

Of course, it would be nice if you complete the sentence The Central Scrutinizer started for you, but I'm predicting you won't. Prove me wrong.

[athon]

No, that answers the question "Is it art?". "Yes", you say. So I ask "Why?"

Why is that painting art? I'm asking you.

He said 'because somebody says it is'. That's his definition of art.

Why are you trying to limit his definition of art, Claus? Isn't that your bitching from before - people are limiting your definition?

Do you think a black square on a wall is art?

Goalpost chift - why are you generalising this from 'do you think this black square is art?' to 'do you think a black square on a wall is art?'

You just can't be honest in any of your posts.

Not only that, when my post is reduced to one question - what do you mean by the word sell - you can't even respond to it.

So...what do you mean when you say 'sell'?

Athon

[CFLarsen]

And I told you. "Because" somebody thinks it's art. I was afraid I would have to explain this to you again. Please try to keep up.

You are still evading the question: Is it art to you?

I'd have to see it. I certainly wouldn't rule it out. But if somebody else said they thought it was art, then I would agree. There is so much that art can be that your sweeping statement about "all art" is ludicrous.

You may think that. But it doesn't make me wrong. I just have a different opinion of what art is and what it does.

I can only think of two things that I would say about "all art", and they are:
That a conscious being created it.
Somebody thinks it is art.I cannot think of any other rules. Maybe others can.

Ahhhhh......

When someone creates something, does it not have value - of some kind?

Why are you trying to limit his definition of art, Claus? Isn't that your bitching from before - people are limiting your definition?

I'm not. I'm trying to get him to say what he thinks is art. That's not limiting his definition, that's simply asking what it is.

Goalpost chift - why are you generalising this from 'do you think this black square is art?' to 'do you think a black square on a wall is art?'

You just can't be honest in any of your posts.

You miss the point. Not surprisingly, since you are so keen on making me appear bad.

Oh, well.




So: What is it selling? Itself? If you want to make the case that it is, I'd probably even agree with you. But you'd need to make the case.

I already did.

[volatile]

I already did.

No you didn't. Because that would have involved you saying "Mark Rothko's square is selling...", and "I define "sell" as...", which you manifestly haven't done.

You also haven't explained what Zereissprobe, Life Sharing, Biennale.py and Breakdown are selling. I've asked you a few times, and I'm interested to see how your thesis applies to these cases.

I teach art history and mark essays for a living. You just failed my class, frankly.

[Tricky]

You are still evading the question: Is it art to you?
You want me to judge the "art" of something I haven't seen?
You know, Claus, I don't have a checklist for what is and isn't art, other than the two things I mentioned. Do you? Do you look at a person's creation and decide what it is selling before you will call it art?

You may think that. But it doesn't make me wrong. I just have a different opinion of what art is and what it does.
Yes, we have gone through this. You can have an opinion. What you cannot do is redefine words, or more correctly, you cannot redefine words without being demonstrably wrong in your opinion. You have redefined "practice" as a synonym for "selling", and that is simply wrong.


When someone creates something, does it not have value - of some kind?
Value of some kind? That is just another evasive derail. If I type the letter "d" on my keyboard, does that have value of some kind? Well, I can't spell the word "dishonest" without it. I may find I need to use that word.

[CFLarsen]

No you didn't. Because that would have involved you saying "Mark Rothko's square is selling...", and "I define "sell" as...", which you manifestly haven't done.

Demonstrably not correct.

You also haven't explained what Zereissprobe, Life Sharing, Biennale.py and Breakdown are selling. I've asked you a few times, and I'm interested to see how your thesis applies to these cases.

You clearly aren't interested in what I say. You sure aren't listening.

I teach art history and mark essays for a living. You just failed my class, frankly.

You flunk students if they disagree with you what art is and what it does?

You want me to judge the "art" of something I haven't seen?

It's a black square on a wall. There's nothing more. Is it art? To you?

Do you need to see something in order to judge whether it is art or not - to you? I'm sure there's a Caravaggio you haven't seen yet - but would you call it art even if you hadn't seen it?

You know, Claus, I don't have a checklist for what is and isn't art, other than the two things I mentioned. Do you? Do you look at a person's creation and decide what it is selling before you will call it art?

If you don't have a checklist for what is and isn't art, then you shouldn't go around telling people that they are wrong about art.

Yes, we have gone through this. You can have an opinion. What you cannot do is redefine words, or more correctly, you cannot redefine words without being demonstrably wrong in your opinion. You have redefined "practice" as a synonym for "selling"

No, I haven't.

Value of some kind? That is just another evasive derail. If I type the letter "d" on my keyboard, does that have value of some kind? Well, I can't spell the word "dishonest" without it. I may find I need to use that word.

*sigh* Whenever I try to explain, it is merely dismissed as "evasions" and "derails". Go with what I say, not what you want me to say.

Yes, it has value. If you use a "d" to spell "dishonest", then you have added value to what you are writing. When you throw paint on a canvas, it has value. Whatever that value is, is up to the person experiencing the work. It can be monetary, it can be an emotional experience, or whatever you like.

[Tricky]

It's a black square on a wall. There's nothing more. Is it art? To you?

Do you need to see something in order to judge whether it is art or not - to you?
Actually, yes I do, assuming I have no information on if anyone else calls it art. A description won't cut it. There's a picture of woman with her hands crossed. Is it art to you?

I'm sure there's a Caravaggio you haven't seen yet - but would you call it art even if you hadn't seen it?
As I've said (repeatedly) if someone else thinks it's art, then I'm happy to call it art. I'm not real picky about what gets called art. I reject statements about what "all art" must do.

If you don't have a checklist for what is and isn't art, then you shouldn't go around telling people that they are wrong about art.
I haven't told you a single thing was "not art". I am happy to accept your contention that any piece of creation is "art". What I am not willing to do is accept your arbitrary definition of what all art must do. I don't place any such restrictions. You are the one doing this.

Can we see your checklist?

No, I haven't.
Yes you have. You told me that your usage was your definition. You used them as synonyms. If you were telling the truth when you said your usage was your definition, then you defined "practice" and "selling" as synonyms. Now if you were lying you've changed your mind and now don't want me interpreting your usage as your definition, then you could give us your specific definition of "selling" as used in the sentence "All art is selling something".

Yes, it has value. If you use a "d" to spell "dishonest", then you have added value to what you are writing. When you throw paint on a canvas, it has value. Whatever that value is, is up to the person experiencing the work. It can be monetary, it can be an emotional experience, or whatever you like.
So if I type the letter "d" then I am adding value. According to your earlier usage, "adding value" is also a synonym for "selling". Ergo, typing the letter "d" is selling something. For someone who has such a restrictive definition of art, you certainly have a very open definition of "selling".

[volatile]

Demonstrably not correct.

If it's demonstrably correct, please demonstrate where you have defined what Mark Rothko is selling, and what you mean by selling.

You clearly aren't interested in what I say. You sure aren't listening.I am listening. I'd like you to tell me what those pieces are selling. What are Breakdown, Life Sharing, Biennale.py and Zereissprobe selling? Simple questions, if, indeed, all art sells something.


You flunk students if they disagree with you what art is and what it does?No - I flunk students who make outrageous statements like "All art sells something" without explaining either their terms or their argument, and who don't answer questions when asked. That's kinda rule one of academia - answer the question.

[CFLarsen]

Actually, yes I do, assuming I have no information on if anyone else calls it art. A description won't cut it. There's a picture of woman with her hands crossed. Is it art to you?

Do you even know what you are arguing?

On one hand, you say that something is art, if other people think it is art. So you don't have to see it for yourself.

On the other, you can't say if something is art, because you haven't seen it yourself.

Which is it?

As I've said (repeatedly) if someone else thinks it's art, then I'm happy to call it art. I'm not real picky about what gets called art. I reject statements about what "all art" must do.

In which case, you should be able to tell whether a black square on a wall is art. If someone else says it is, is it art?

I haven't told you a single thing was "not art". I am happy to accept your contention that any piece of creation is "art". What I am not willing to do is accept your arbitrary definition of what all art must do. I don't place any such restrictions. You are the one doing this.

I'm not placing any restrictions on what all art is and does, quite contrary. I am saying that all art sells something - be it whatever it is to people.

Gee, first I define art and what it does to be so broad that it is meaningless. But at the same time, I am restricting what art is and what it does?

Make up your mind. Which is it? Am I restricting art, or am I being too broad to make sense?

Yes you have.

Don't tell me what I have done.

So if I type the letter "d" then I am adding value. According to your earlier usage, "adding value" is also a synonym for "selling".

No, it isn't.

If it's demonstrably correct, please demonstrate where you have defined what Mark Rothko is selling, and what you mean by selling.

See post #247.

You may disagree with what I am saying. And obviously you do. But if you disagree, then you admit that I have, in fact, explained what I mean.

I am listening.

Clearly, you are not.

No - I flunk students who make outrageous statements like "All art sells something" without explaining either their terms or their argument, and who don't answer questions when asked. That's kinda rule one of academia - answer the question.

I have explained in extenso and answered plenty of questions. That you don't agree with what I think art is and what it does is an entirely different matter.

[volatile]

I like you, Claus. I'm sure I like you more than the average poster round these parts. But it's such a shame when an obviously intelligent, vaguely eloquent and often interesting person has to resort to such weird obfuscation and borderline silliness just to avoid having a sensible discussion of their views.

Claus. Honestly. You haven't answered questions or given explanations. Else we wouldn't be still asking them. To make your case, you urgently need to post your definition of selling.

I've also provided you with some art-works that, in my opinion, don't sell anything at all. I'd like you to explain how you would claim that these pieces sell, and what they are selling. It's the same question I'd ask any of my students.

Take Breakdown, for example. During this performance, Mark Landy pulped all of his possessions, including some art-works he owned. As the work resulted in total absence, it cannot be bought or sold. As the work was about taking, destruction and removal, it seems that saying it was "selling" something is extremely problematic, given that the word sell usually entails precisely the opposite of these terms.

You might like to argue that the work "sold" Landy as an artist - but if this is a sale, what did he get in return? No doubt the material and personal value of all of his possessions, including several very, very valuable paintings, was greater than he might hope to receive for future sales of more traditional pieces (if, indeed, he does choose to produce material works). Is this a sale in any real sense? Was the work itself "selling" Landy (who's buying?) or it it contribute to his status as an artist in a way that is rather different to that which might normally be understood by the term "sell"? I think terming this work as "selling" something is something that would require some very rigorous defence. Such a defence might be possible, you'd just have to define "sell" convincingly.

You might well have a case - as I said, if you are arguing that art is always already commodified (and is therefore selling itself) in some way, then that's an argument worth having. I don't think it quite holds up, but it would be a more tenable position (and one more conducive to interesting discussion) than the one you're currently taking.

So, if you are interested in honest debate (and I believe that at some level you actually are), please explain what you mean by "sell", preferably in reference to those pieces I've already asked you about. That'd help me understand where you're coming from, and what you're trying to say.

[volatile]

Sorry: where in post 247 do you explain what Rothko is selling, and what you mean by selling?

Let's just have two sentences:

"Mark Rothko is selling..."

and

"By 'selling', I mean..."


It's that easy. After that, we can move on.

[CFLarsen]

I like you, Claus. I'm sure I like you more than the average poster round these parts. But it's such a shame when an obviously intelligent, vaguely eloquent and often interesting person has to resort to such weird obfuscation and borderline silliness just to avoid having a sensible discussion of their views.

Claus. Honestly. You haven't answered questions or given explanations. Else we wouldn't be still asking them. To make your case, you urgently need to post your definition of selling.

I've also provided you with some art-works that, in my opinion, don't sell anything at all. I'd like you to explain how you would claim that these pieces sell, and what they are selling. It's the same question I'd ask any of my students.

Take Breakdown, for example. During this performance, Mark Landy pulped all of his possessions, including some art-works he owned. As the work resulted in total absence, it cannot be bought or sold. As the work was about taking, destruction and removal, it seems that saying it was "selling" something is extremely problematic, given that the word sell usually entails precisely the opposite of these terms.

You might like to argue that the work "sold" Landy as an artist - but if this is a sale, what did he get in return? No doubt the material and personal value of all of his possessions, including several very, very valuable paintings, was greater than he might hope to receive for future sales of more traditional pieces (if, indeed, he does choose to produce material works). Is this a sale in any real sense? Was the work itself "selling" Landy (who's buying?) or it it contribute to his status as an artist in a way that is rather different to that which might normally be understood by the term "sell"? I think terming this work as "selling" something is something that would require some very rigorous defence. Such a defence might be possible, you'd just have to define "sell" convincingly.

You might well have a case - as I said, if you are arguing that art is always already commodified (and is therefore selling itself) in some way, then that's an argument worth having. I don't think it quite holds up, but it would be a more tenable position (and one more conducive to interesting discussion) than the one you're currently taking.

So, if you are interested in honest debate (and I believe that at some level you actually are), please explain what you mean by "sell", preferably in reference to those pieces I've already asked you about. That'd help me understand where you're coming from, and what you're trying to say.

Clearly, I am not avoiding having a discussion on my views. And I have made it very clear what I mean, in post after post after post.

What it comes down to is disagreement over what art is and what art does.

Sorry, but it can never be anything else than disagreement. We are not talking about verifiable facts here. We are not talking about falsifiable theories and hypotheses.

We are talking about opinions. Opinions about what is probably the most incomprehensible of all human endeavours: Art. What the heck is it? What's it for? Why is it here?

Look back on the responses in this thread. There are people who want to dictate how I should see art. How I should think what it does. And if I didn't do what I was told, I was a baaaad skeptic!

Get a friggin' grip. We are talking about art. Whatever it is to you is inherently different to me. May be that is the end purpose of art: To provoke us, to think new thoughts?

What art isn't is to bang each other over the head with our own opinion, insisting that we are right - and others are wrong.

Debates about what art is and what it does should make us think. Not be used as a weapon, to force people to think a certain way. And that's what you, Tricky and Athon are doing: I have to see things your way when it comes to art. And if I don't....woe unto me! If I am not convincing you that Art Is X, then bad me! You will flunk me!

Gee, are you convinced that cubism better than mannerism?

Do you really tell your students that there is but one way of looking at what art is and what it does? Your way - or they flunk?

It's art!

[volatile]

Oh my.

I asked you some questions, not about what is and what isn't art, but what you mean by "selling", and how you would apply the world "selling" to some specific works that I think fall outside of this term. I was asking for a conversation.

What you gave, above (and maybe you should re-read it, noting exactly where it doesn't answer any of my sensible, polite and pertinent questions) was ridiculous. You don't engage with any of my arguments. You don't attempt to justify your position. You fail to take notice of any of the problems in your argument which need clarification.

In essence, your response has nothing to do with my post. It's just a rant. I didn't ask for a discussion on what is and what isn't art. I was asking about this notion of selling, what you mean by it, and how you think it can be sustained when applied to wok like Lundy's, or Brus', or works by anonymous activist artists, for example.

Please, let's have a discussion. It's really hard talking to myself. In my last post I even gave you some possible tacks to approach which might even result in your argument being credible. But it feels like I'm doing all the work - you haven't so much as offered a case, let alone a counter-argument.


If my students make statements without qualification, they fail. If my students fail to answer the question posed, they fail. If my students do not engage in productive dialogue with their source material, then they fail. It's not about right or wrong, it's about mode of argument.

As I said earlier, I think I probably even agree with you for the most part - but I'm not sure, as you haven't properly explained either what you mean by sell, or how the term applies to specific pieces. I think that there are definitely pieces that don;t work as "selling" anything, but I'm willing to be convinced should you want to actually make an argument.

If I set an essay question "Is all art selling something?" and the answer was essentially "Yes, in my opinion. It's a matter of opinion, so there", with no further exegesis, then I'd fail them. I'd do the same if they said "No, in my opinion. It's a matter of opinion, so there". The conclusion isn't as important and the demonstration of a coherent thought process. In order to pass, you'd need to engage with what "selling" meant, consider how the definition you've provided works in esoteric cases, and then extrapolate to universality, or, of you disagreed, discuss pieces that didn't seem to sell anything, and explain why. You've done none of these things.

[volatile]

As for forcing opinions, no-one's forcing anything. We disagree with your blanket assertion that all art is selling something, mainly because we don't really understand what you mean by "selling".

If you want to say "All art is selling something", then you need to define what you mean by "sell", and how this term functions. It is not sufficient just to assert it as true with no further thought.

Please, it'd be really useful to get this back on track if you would just define your terms. What's stopping you?

[CFLarsen]

Oh my.

I asked you some questions, not about what is and what isn't art, but what you mean by "selling", and how you would apply the world "selling" to some specific works that I think fall outside of this term. I was asking for a conversation.

What you gave, above (and maybe you should re-read it, noting exactly where it doesn't answer any of my sensible, polite and pertinent questions) was ridiculous. You don't engage with any of my arguments. You don't attempt to justify your position. You fail to take notice of any of the problems in your argument which need clarification.

In essence, your response has nothing to do with my post. It's just a rant. I didn't ask for a discussion on what is and what isn't art. I was asking about this notion of selling, what you mean by it, and how you think it can be sustained when applied to wok like Lundy's, or Brus', or works by anonymous activist artists, for example.

Please, let's have a discussion. It's really hard talking to myself. In my last post I even gave you some possible tacks to approach which might even result in your argument being credible. But it feels like I'm doing all the work - you haven't so much as offered a case, let alone a counter-argument.


If my students make statements without qualification, they fail. If my students fail to answer the question posed, they fail. If my students do not engage in productive dialogue with their source material, then they fail. It's not about right or wrong, it's about mode of argument.

As I said earlier, I think I probably even agree with you for the most part - but I'm not sure, as you haven't properly explained either what you mean by sell, or how the term applies to specific pieces. I think that there are definitely pieces that don;t work as "selling" anything, but I'm willing to be convinced should you want to actually make an argument.

How do you separate what art is, and what art does?

If you can, can you do it objectively? Or is it a matter of opinion?

If I set an essay question "Is all art selling something?" and the answer was essentially "Yes, in my opinion. It's a matter of opinion, so there", with no further exegesis, then I'd fail them. I'd do the same if they said "No, in my opinion. It's a matter of opinion, so there". The conclusion isn't as important and the demonstration of a coherent thought process. In order to pass, you'd need to engage with what "selling" meant, consider how the definition you've provided works in esoteric cases, and then extrapolate to universality

Whoa. Why do I have to extrapolate to universality, if art is inherently a matter of personal taste and opinion?

Are you saying that art isn't? You'd have to - wouldn't you?

[volatile]

Whoa. Why do I have to extrapolate to universality, if art is inherently a matter of personal taste and opinion?



Because the statement is "ALL art is selling something".

Sheesh.

Whether or not "all art is selling something" might well be a matter of opinion, but it's an opinion that needs to be supported against the weight of counter argument.

Thus: When I explain, in detail, why I think Lundy's Breakdown, for example, does not sell anything, you need to explain what it's selling.

And as for what art is and what it does, I think those are separable (as per the philosophy of Deleuze, for example), but all art does do something - known in the business as it's "affect".

That is not the same as saying all art sells something, and I'm sure you realise that.

So, please. I'm tried of asking. I'm tired of maintaining a calm and level set of arguments in the face of your obstinate inability to have a discussion. What do you mean by "sell"?

[volatile]

Can I just add to this:

I have said numerous times that I think I broadly agree with you, and that there are some interesting and potentially quite nuanced arguments to be made in favour of your position. I already stated one - that is art might be said to be selling itself in some respects. But you refuse to make them. You refuse to present any coherent, clear or forthright statement of the process that has gone into forming your opinion.

As such, this is not a matter of differing opinions. It's simply that you are unwilling to justify your opinion with anything more than rhetoric, and as such we don't really know if we agree or not. That's why we keep asking you to define "sell", and to be clear when stating that specific pieces "sell". I'd like to know what you mean. I can't agree or disagree with you as it is, because you simply haven't made a case. I don't know what you mean. None of us do.

I don't think I agree with you, but seeing as you haven't actually explained what you mean (by giving your definition of the word "sell", and stating explicitly what the examples you have been presented with are "selling"), I don't know. If you want to argue that all art is always already commercial, or that all art exhibits (thus "sells" in the sense as the word might be used in the phrase "sell yourself short") something of the artist to the World, then let's hear the argument.

Please.

[Tricky]

In which case, you should be able to tell whether a black square on a wall is art. If someone else says it is, is it art?
In my opinion, yes. I've told you this several times. In the situation where nobody has told me anything about it, then I'd have to see it. But if I said it "wasn't art" and then found that someone else said it was, then I'd accept that it was art. Art only has to be art to one person.

I'm not placing any restrictions on what all art is and does, quite contrary. I am saying that all art sells something - be it whatever it is to people.
And that is where you are using the word "sells" incorrectly. Now if you said art "means" something to people, I'd have no problem with that. But there is quite a bit of art that does not "sell" anything, using any definition of "sell" I have ever seen that has been set by a lexicographer. Of course, you could give us your definition. I'm not completely sure why you won't. Is it a pride thing?

Gee, first I define art and what it does to be so broad that it is meaningless. But at the same time, I am restricting what art is and what it does?
Well then why won't you give us your checklist for "what art must be", just as I've given you mine? Why don't you do at least one thing that is a direct, non-evasive answer? Why don't you demonstrate that, at least under certain clearly described situations, you can be honest.

Don't tell me what I have done.
I don't have to tell you. I can show you if you like. Everyone here who has the patience to read this thread knows that you said that your usage was your definition.

And for the record, I'll tell you anything I like here, as long as I stay within forum guidelines. And I'll be honest.

No, it isn't.
Adding value isn't selling? Then were you mistaken earlier when you said it was, or were you lying?

[Prometheus]

Demonstrably not correct.

Evidence?

:D (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Actually, I really have been trying hard to figure out what Claus is saying despite his insistence on being anything but helpful. The best I can figure is, if we combine Tricky's idea that it's art if someone says so, take Claus at his word that he doesn't want to limit anyone else's opinion of what is art, and then look at definition #8:

....
8. to cause or persuade to accept; convince: to sell the voters on a candidate.....


If someone thinks a given piece is art, then that piece has successfully persuaded the person in question to accept it as art, and it is therefore selling the idea of itself as art.

How about it, Claus? Is this what you mean?

[CFLarsen]

[B]Because the statement is "ALL art is selling something".

Where do I speak for other people?

Sheesh.

In my opinion, yes. I've told you this several times. In the situation where nobody has told me anything about it, then I'd have to see it. But if I said it "wasn't art" and then found that someone else said it was, then I'd accept that it was art. Art only has to be art to one person.

No.

If you want to criticize me for something, you have to make up your mind about what it is you are criticizing me for.

On one hand, you say that something is art, if other people think it is art. So you don't have to see it for yourself.

On the other, you can't say if something is art, because you haven't seen it yourself.

Which is it? Do you think something is art because other people say it is - or do you not think so?

Well then why won't you give us your checklist for "what art must be", just as I've given you mine? Why don't you do at least one thing that is a direct, non-evasive answer? Why don't you demonstrate that, at least under certain clearly described situations, you can be honest.

Likewise, you criticize me for having a definition of art and what it does to be so broad that it is meaningless. But at the same time, you criticize me for restricting what art is and what it does.

Which is it? Am I restricting art, or am I being too broad to make sense?

[Tricky]

Which is it? Do you think something is art because other people say it is - or do you not think so?
As I have said numerous times, I think a person's creation is art if any person thinks it is. The unusual scenario you have presented is one in which there is no information on whether or not anyone elses thinks it is art. In that situation, I'd judge based only on my own opinion, but willing to alter my judgment if another opinion were given.

I have answered your question directly and honestly.

Likewise, you criticize me for having a definition of art and what it does to be so broad that it is meaningless.
No I have not. I have asked you to give us your "checklist" for what is art, but I have never said that you define art too broadly. I doubt that anyone could define art more broadly than I do.

Which is it? Am I restricting art, or am I being too broad to make sense?
You are restricting art because you set a condition for what all art must do, i.e. "sell something".

I have answered another question for you directly and honestly.

Why is it that you cannot seem to do this?

[Morrigan]

Thanks for ignoring my post #329, Claus.

[CFLarsen]

As I have said numerous times, I think a person's creation is art if any person thinks it is. The unusual scenario you have presented is one in which there is no information on whether or not anyone elses thinks it is art. In that situation, I'd judge based only on my own opinion, but willing to alter my judgment if another opinion were given.

No, no, no. You also said:

I am happy to accept your contention that any piece of creation is "art".

A black square on a wall is a piece that was created. Therefore, you think it is art. You do not need anyone else to call it art.

You clearly can't make heads or tails of your own argument.

I have answered your question directly and honestly.

No you have not.

No I have not. I have asked you to give us your "checklist" for what is art, but I have never said that you define art too broadly. I doubt that anyone could define art more broadly than I do.

Nice evasion. You "forgot" the part about what art does.

Not only are you unable to follow your own argument, you cherry-pick from mine.

You are restricting art because you set a condition for what all art must do, i.e. "sell something".

I am doing the opposite: I am broadening what art is and what it does.

I have answered another question for you directly and honestly.

No you have not.

[athon]

Thanks for ignoring my post #329, Claus.

Don't be too upset. You just went about it all wrong and presented something which if he responded to, it would show he's being dishonest and evasive.

Watch: Claus, please finish this sentence: 'By sell I mean...'

There's no way he will do it. He can't provide a clear definition. He'll say he's already done it (which, when I showed he had not, he avoided my response), or he'll focus on some other part of your post which has less relevance.

If you want Claus to respond, give him something he can use to obfuscate or misrepresent. Make sure the straw you give Claus for his strawman is fresh, though. The old, mouldy sort gives me headache.

Athon

[Tricky]

You clearly can't make heads or tails of your own argument.
Well, ONE of us can't.

No you have not.
That is a lie. I have answered the question you asked and done it directly. You may not care for the answer, but you cannot honestly deny that I have answered it.

Nice evasion. You "forgot" the part about what art does.
I have never claimed that art "does" anything. That would be you who makes this claim. In fact, why don't you look at my opening post in this thread.
Art needs no purpose.
I notice, though, you still haven't given us your checklist. What is that word for someone who asks you to do something he won't do? Starts with an "H".

I am doing the opposite: I am broadening what art is and what it does.
You think that limiting art to only things which sell something is "broadening" what art is and what it does? You're a funny guy.


I have answered another question for you directly and honestly.

No you have not.
You gave me a question with two options. I picked one of them and explained my reasoning. This is one of your more blatant lies.

[Michelle Lyon]

IMO, Advertising is art. To stick with the visual arts, I am thinking of billboards, magazine ads, signage. Advertising of this sort is primarily made up of photography; costuming, lighting, makeup, digital graphics, special effects, printing. This is why a lot of fashion ads don't have much at all to do with the actual product; it's all about the model or the colors or hairless teen boys or something. Do you really look at the Gucci bag in the photo? No, you look at the model's face or boobs or whatever she's showing. You don't look at the jeans, you look at the butt inside those jeans. You look at the dress twirling around a model that seems to be having a lot of fun, not the actual dress. Sometimes there are color contrasts or details or something in the background that are eyecatching, no matter what the product is. And then, if you compare ads to each other you can see the competiton that takes place, not between the products, but between the artists. And the photos that result from the competition are beautiful.

Advertising is competitive photography, and photography is art. Therefore advertising is art. It's also collaborative; one single person doesn't make the entire ad. Someone does the makeup, someone else shoots, someone else lights, another team does the graphics, etc.

[Hokulele]

Advertising is competitive photography, and photography is art. Therefore advertising is art. It's also collaborative; one single person doesn't make the entire ad. Someone does the makeup, someone else shoots, someone else lights, another team does the graphics, etc.


Minor quibble, although most ads are collaborative, they do not have to be. My husband owns a lovely Peter Max poster advertising the Laconia Shoe Company (Cloud Walking Shoes). Other than the reprographics, I believe the entire composition and execution was his alone.

[Tricky]

IMO, Advertising is art. To stick with the visual arts, I am thinking of billboards, magazine ads, signage. Advertising of this sort is primarily made up of photography; costuming, lighting, makeup, digital graphics, special effects, printing. This is why a lot of fashion ads don't have much at all to do with the actual product; it's all about the model or the colors or hairless teen boys or something. Do you really look at the Gucci bag in the photo? No, you look at the model's face or boobs or whatever she's showing. You don't look at the jeans, you look at the butt inside those jeans. You look at the dress twirling around a model that seems to be having a lot of fun, not the actual dress. Sometimes there are color contrasts or details or something in the background that are eyecatching, no matter what the product is. And then, if you compare ads to each other you can see the competiton that takes place, not between the products, but between the artists. And the photos that result from the competition are beautiful.

Advertising is competitive photography, and photography is art. Therefore advertising is art. It's also collaborative; one single person doesn't make the entire ad. Someone does the makeup, someone else shoots, someone else lights, another team does the graphics, etc.
What about the Classified Ads? I've written a number of them with no collaboration. If you want to call one "art", well, I won't say you're wrong.

[SirPhilip]

I am doing the opposite: I am broadening what art is and what it does. No you aren't. You are artlessly failing to make any coherent sense whatsoever. Allow me to advertise it:

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6198/dowewi6.jpg

[Tricky]

Nice art, Sir P!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Nice art, Sir P!

What is it selling?

:duck:

[NoZed Avenger]

10 pages. Halfway to 20.

[Kotatsu]

What is it selling?

You don't think he improved his skills while making that picture?

[SirPhilip]

What is it selling? :duck: A more refined public image through incontestable acts of charity.

[leonAzul]

Why are we still derailed by considering "sell", when the OP mentioned "advertising" and "art"?

Advertising is that which attempts to draw attention to something, often with the intention of inducing a purchase.
Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=advertising)
Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advertising)

Art is a bit more slippery :

(Perhaps I'm impaired, yet neither of the above otherwise trustworthy references for English language consensus could yield a direct link to a definition for the word "art", as it was used by the OP.)

In this context, I believe the OP means "art" to be the aesthetically graphical representation of an idea.

The formal expression of a conceived image or imagined conception in terms of a given medium.
Link1 (http://www.khsd.k12.ca.us/bhs/Perry/art%20vocabulary.htm)

Right, then, carry on!

(Oh no! Now we'll need to define "aesthetic"! What have I done?)

[leonAzul]

No you aren't. You are artlessly failing to make any coherent sense whatsoever. Allow me to advertise it:

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6198/dowewi6.jpg

It's 7\/\/00!
:D

[Tricky]

Why are we still derailed by considering "sell", when the OP mentioned "advertising" and "art"?

Advertising is that which attempts to draw attention to something, often with the intention of inducing a purchase.
Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=advertising)
Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advertising)

Art is a bit more slippery :

(Perhaps I'm impaired, yet neither of the above otherwise trustworthy references for English language consensus could yield a direct link to a definition for the word "art", as it was used by the OP.)

In this context, I believe the OP means "art" to be the aesthetically graphical representation of an idea.


Link1 (http://www.khsd.k12.ca.us/bhs/Perry/art%20vocabulary.htm)

Right, then, carry on!

(Oh no! Now we'll need to define "aesthetic"! What have I done?)
You've distilled the basic problem. "Selling" and "Advertising" have fairly strict definitions, but "art" is so broad as to be nearly all-encompassing. That's why I don't even try to restrict it, but say, "If you think it's are, then it's art". That's also why it is so ludicrous to pick anything and say , "all art does this". All you have to do is find one example of art that doesn't do that, and the statement is disproved. In the case of either advertising or selling, examples are abundant.

[athon]

You've distilled the basic problem. "Selling" and "Advertising" have fairly strict definitions, but "art" is so broad as to be nearly all-encompassing. That's why I don't even try to restrict it, but say, "If you think it's are, then it's art". That's also why it is so ludicrous to pick anything and say , "all art does this". All you have to do is find one example of art that doesn't do that, and the statement is disproved. In the case of either advertising or selling, examples are abundant.

Which is why Claus is so desperate to evade our questions and try to represent our arguments as attacking his view of 'art' rather than pin down his defining of 'sell'. It's also why he's fled this thread just as he fled the 'drumsticks' fiasco. He finds he's mistaken in his misunderstanding of a word, tries to twist the argument away from the blatant error he's made, all the while pulling the same tricks woos do when they've obviously misused a word or a term.

I wonder if he'll one day get tired of only ever being ignored or laughed at.

Athon

[Tricky]

I wonder if he'll one day get tired of only ever being ignored or laughed at.

I'm guessing "no". 40,000 posts and he's still at it. You almost have to respect the guy's tenacity in defending his obvious errors.

Still, we never really have tried "ignoring". Even if an ever-growing percentage of the people here begin to disregard everything he says, there are always a few suckers, like me, who cannot help but call him on his ludicrous statements.

But I don't begrudge him his spotlight. Though he has done little himself to advance skepticism, he has inspired great creativity in those who craft responses to his irrevocable pronouncements, and we learn a lot from each other. Such is the proper and valid function of trolls.

[Piscivore]

I wonder if he'll one day get tired of only ever being ignored or laughed at.

[Old black Southern Baptist woman]
"The Devil don't mind what you laugh at him, long as you pay attention!"
[/Old black Southern Baptist woman]

[fitzgibbon]

Biggest difference between advertising and art?

Steak vs. Kraft Dinner©

[Darth Rotor]

When I was in the 11th grade, I had a major crush on my English teacher, a just-out-of-college bouncy little blonde named Rita. Since I really didn't need much help learning English literature (I'd read the whole textbook in the first month) I spent the whole class for over a week making a picture of her. I'd study her intently and add a line or two, erase and do it again. I sat in the back of the class so nobody would see me. I never showed the picture to anybody. I have no idea what happened to it.

That was art. Maybe not good art, but it was art. It was not for selling. It was not for propaganda. It was not for any purpose but my own personal satisfaction.

Okay, I have done as you asked (without having to be asked twice) and given you an example.

Now, asking for the third time, will you give us the definition you use for "selling" when you say "all art is selling something"?
*Truman Capote voice*

That's not art, that's drawing. :cool:

[Darth Rotor]

Me, Volatile, Athon, several others.

Want another example? Without looking at the information on this painting (which of course, is not part of the art), tell me what this art is selling?

http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/a000151brd.jpg
To me, nothing, as I ain't buyin' it.

If I may indulge in a bit of Clausian logic:

If I don't want to buy it
You can't sell it (sell meaning something I will want to buy)
So it ain't art
Since all art sells something

Am I close? :confused: Or did I screw up by providing a definition of sell?
Yes, you really want to portray me as dishonest and a liar.
No one is better at that than you. The petard is going to break if you keep hoisting yourself on it that way.

@ Nozed Avenger:

I'll bet the under on 24 pages, Claus seems to have found a new topic.

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

To me, nothing, as I ain't buyin' it.

If I may indulge in a bit of Clausian logic:

If I don't want to buy it
You can't sell it (sell meaning something I will want to buy)
So it ain't art
Since all art sells something

Am I close? :confused: Or did I screw up by providing a definition of sell?

No one is better at that than you. The petard is going to break if you keep hoisting yourself on it that way.

@ Nozed Avenger:

I'll bet the under on 24 pages, Claus seems to have found a new topic.

DR

That's the problem - Claus refused to define his non-traditional use of the term "sell". So we were never sure what his argument was.

He seems to have abandonded this thread and his argument.

[Tricky]

*Truman Capote voice*

That's not art, that's drawing. :cool:
You didn't know Miss Atkinson. Anything with her in it was art. Had she actually been selling, I would have definitely been buying.
To me, nothing, as I ain't buyin' it.

If I may indulge in a bit of Clausian logic:

If I don't want to buy it
You can't sell it (sell meaning something I will want to buy)
So it ain't art
Since all art sells something

Am I close? :confused: Or did I screw up by providing a definition of sell?
Actually, you're on the right track, but you're not there yet. The final step is to have someone use your definition in a response to you and for you to deny that is how you defined it. But you're close, Grasshopper.


I'll bet the under on 24 pages, Claus seems to have found a new topic.

That's a bet you'd almost certainly win. We're running out of gas here. Twice I have said I was abandoning the thread, and twice I have made a liar out of myself. (That's right Claus. I'm a liar. Unlike you, I admit it.) But when you guys come back with funny stuff, it just seems wrong to let it pass without at least a response letting you know it was appreciated.

Now I'm really done with this thread. Unless I'm not.

[NoZed Avenger]

@ Nozed Avenger:

I'll bet the under on 24 pages, Claus seems to have found a new topic.



It looks like I was overly optimistic on everyone's stamina.

[Michelle Lyon]

Advertising is art, but not all art is advertising. The line is very blury between the two.

Consider still ads, such as those found in magazines. There's the setting or backdrop, lighting, models, makeup, costumes (or lack thereof), props, posing. After that there's digital graphics and publishing. That's all art, in the formal sense. It's photography. Often you have to consider where the art will be located; billboard ads, for example, are created very differently than a magazine ad. (There's one near a freeway in my city for a mortuary that reads "Slow down! We can wait!" If that were printed in a magazine it wouldn't make much sense.) If you consider something like TV commercials then it's much of the same, but more like performance art, rather than visual art, because it involves acting and film making. Instead of considering the location of the art, you have to consider the audience. Who is watching that station or that show, and at what time of day or night, and would that group be interested in the product? It's a lot to think about.

Advertising ceases to become art and instead becomes a parasite, due to the intentions of the advertisers. In America, we are all trained from babies that we have to buy stuff. Advertisers often create false needs in order to sell their product. For example. People need clothes to protect themselves against the elements. But do they have to be designer clothes, and is a person really "nobody" if they don't have that designer in their closet? Do people really "need" bleached white teeth? Do they really "need" to commute in an SUV when a Focus will get them there just as quickly? Do people really "need" Viagra to survive, or wear an iPod to be noticed? No. But advertising often makes it seems like we need this stuff, and has us trained to believe that we face social rejection, isolation, practically even death, if we don't have it. There's an entire research industry where people go and measure social and psychological trends, and then advertisers adjust according to those trends, using them against the population in order to sell stuff that people don't really need to be buying. Parasites.

[Hooloovoo]

I look at it this way:
Art is the object, advertising is what the object is doing. They aren't the same thing, but they go hand in hand. There is art that advertises. Art is a product, advertising a service.

Advertising art is very collectible nowadays. Watch Antiques Roadshow, and you'll see lots of it. The people collecting these objects collect them because they like the objects themselves, whether or not they love what the object is promoting.

But then again...
Art is an undefinable term. It's so subjective, what it is differs with each person. Any discussion I've been involved in that requires a concrete definition of art gets messy pretty fast. It's gotten to the point where I don't particularly care to use the word art much. I like to be more specific, and say "painting" or "novel" or "symphony", since those things do have specific definitions. Then the merit of these things can be discussed with a little more objectivity.
I came across this thread on my work break, and haven't had time to read through every post. If my point has been made here already, sorry for being redundant. Just wanted to toss my hat into the ring.

[Hooloovoo]

Wow. I just had a chance to read over this thread. Dang. The train derailed and spilled toxic sludge into the local water supply. Looks like all these posts are pretty old, and everybody's moved on to other things. Darn. This could have been interesting.

[Tricky]

Wow. I just had a chance to read over this thread. Dang. The train derailed and spilled toxic sludge into the local water supply. Looks like all these posts are pretty old, and everybody's moved on to other things. Darn. This could have been interesting.
You're new here. We do get toxic from time to time. Still, we always welcome a fresh perspective... unless it disagrees with ours.:D

[Hooloovoo]

Toxic sludge can lead to good things, like mutant superheroes.

[Tricky]

Toxic sludge can lead to good things, like mutant superheroes.

Will everybody just shut up about those damn turtles? I'm the biggest, blooest superhero.

[kittynh]

TIME

only difference.

And I'm a professional.

[kittynh]

for instance....

since I was asked for further details.

Maxfield Parrish

Advertising paid the bills. A lot of his most beloved works are simply what was refered to as "Calendar art" and the "art" part was with a small "a" for a reason.

Time passes and a lot of the other stuff falls by the wayside, and Maxfield Parrish emerges as an artist. A lot of people thought "true" artists that worked near him in Vermont and New Hampshire have images barely known today and certainly barely respected and considered dated and well forgotten.

in a way, our generation can never define what is "art" or "good art" or "lasting art of value" for the contemporary art of our generation. That's up to the next.

And talk about advertising art. Warhol was a PRO. He advertised and sold himself along with his art, even more than Picasso. But he was good. And standing the test of time so far, though it's early days yet. When I read the title I was "well ofcourse artist advertise and sell their art and who they are..." It didn't occur to me it was about anything else. You just don't paint something and wait for your genius to be discovered. You have to go out and let people know about it! REmbrant was not just a "master" when it came to painting. He had a lot of the angles figured out. Time has shown him to hold up over his other fellow painters that we find as footnotes in textbooks.

[NoZed Avenger]

TIME

only difference.

And I'm a professional.



But surely you admit that Beauty is Truth and Truth, Beauty?

And Art can be described as either showing Truth (through whichever artistic medium you like), or alternatively showing Beauty.

Therefore, Art must be True (either way).

But we know that Advertising is sometimes "false advertising" (see, e.g., the "Wonderbra," etc.)

Therefore, Advertising CANNOT BE Art.


QED

[Spung]

How about when artists redeploy standard advertising vocabulary? Like Barbara (http://caraphillips.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/04189-bk.jpg) Kruger (http://kaganof.com/kagablog/2007/04/06/barbara-kruger-says-10/) . That's fun. Or Jasper Johns' Ballantine ale cans, or Warhol's soup? The Kruger, say, is formally identical to advertising. What happens?


Reading the last couple of pages a bit more. . . the word 'sell' is so loaded. Avertir. Advertere. . . to turn someone towards. . .
Volatile, would you agree that art, if it does not 'sell' something, 'argues' for something, implicitly or not? Does the work of Rothko argue for abstract expressionism? Does it argue against old school representation? Does it argue for spirituality?

[Spung]

Actually. . . unpopular opinion. Re-reading the thread, I think with some semantic differences (I would not use the word 'sell'--a can of worms-- but rather the term 'advertise' in the OP) I think I kind of agree with Claus on a couple of general points. I would not have any qualms about explaining that any art (whether it is aware of it or not) "sells" ideas. Among other things, a work of art makes claims for what art encompasses (which changes very frequently) or what art is "for".


I look at it this way:
Art is the object, advertising is what the object is doing. They aren't the same thing, but they go hand in hand. There is art that advertises. Art is a product, advertising a service.


(I like this. I like the idea of the definition of art as a fluid thing, but the functions of art varying widely. "Art" as a verb, in some ways)

[volatile]

Volatile, would you agree that art, if it does not 'sell' something, 'argues' for something, implicitly or not? Does the work of Rothko argue for abstract expressionism? Does it argue against old school representation? Does it argue for spirituality?

I wouldn't say it "argues", in that sense. All art works. All art actively affects. I don't think it makes sense to say that all art argues though - because you end up with the same problems as you do if you use the word sell.

[Spung]

But, say. . . You bright up Manet's Zola, which surprised me because . . . well, I *can* think of worse examples, but talk about an agenda in a painting! The painting style itself (I just did Greenberg again so that essay's in my head) screams "new and improved and nothing like your dad's portraiture." And all the little bits of very hip Japonisme and the Olympia in the corner (sort of mutual pimping--"see, this successful and ultra-modern writer, who I am painting and who is having me paint him, likes *my* work") and the little Velasquez ("see, I'm down with the old masters, too. . . let me show my Raimondi quotations!"). It's like a manifesto poster for the new France.

[volatile]

It has an agenda, but that agenda does not represent a sale by any conventional definition of the word "sale" (or even "argument", to use your later turn of phrase).

Of course the painting has an agenda - that's why I brought it up - but in what way does it make sense to call the work that painting is so obviously doing "selling"? That's the crux of our disagreement with Claus - he failed in any coherent way to explain in what way the word "selling" was appropriate.

Can you?

[volatile]

Oh - and while I remember. You mentioned Warhol's work. Warhol's appropriation of the visual tools of advertising was entirely to produce something that formally resembled advertising but wasn't selling anything at all. In fact, Warhol's Brillo boxes might be the very best example of why not all art is advertising, or indeed selling something.

[Spung]

Ok, so it's been generally agreed in this thread that things that do not attempt to sell something are not advertisement? So, for example, a government-sponsored pro-condom poster, or a placard for a lecture at the local public library? Not advertisement.

Didn't Warhol in a way show that advertising could be art? And I think to exempt Warhol from market pressure is a bit weird. Of COURSE he was selling something. Art in the modern market is its own advertisement(art on the market, that is, not private studies and such), while (maybe this is the crux of a distinction) 'advertising' is art that sells something outside itself, perhaps. (Maybe that's something I missed arriving late to the thread: can any advertising be art? Or is some art advertising? Or are they mutually exclusive? If I've read correctly the claim under attack is that All Art is advertising, right? What does the Venn diagram look like at this point in the thread? )

(sorry, I haven't been in the thread long enough to be exasperated and I'm just enjoying talking about art. IMHO the topic isn't exhausted yet, but I'm not ardent enough to really get passionate about this discussion if everyone else feels it's flogged to death)

What would the Frankfurt School say? :)

[volatile]

Ok, so it's been generally agreed in this thread that things that do not attempt to sell something are not advertisement? So, for example, a government-sponsored pro-condom poster, or a placard for a lecture at the local public library? Not advertisement.

A placard for a lecture is selling the lecture. Pro-condom posters aren't really "selling" anything at all, are they? If you'll accept that not even all advertising sells something (and I agree with that), then you can easily accept that not all art sells something.

Didn't Warhol in a way show that advertising could be art? And I think to exempt Warhol from market pressure is a bit weird. Of COURSE he was selling something. Art in the modern market is its own advertisement

What were Warhol's Brillo boxes selling?

The whole point of pop art was to abstract the visual syntax of advertising from the process of selling. Pop art wasn't selling anything - that was the whole point.

If you want to make a counter-argument you (as Claus failed to) need to define what you mean by "sell", and in what way it is appropriate to describe the work of all art works in these terms. Over to you. Be precise.

(art on the market, that is, not private studies and such)

Back to Manet's portrait of Zola. This was not intended to be produced for the market. It was a gift to Zola himself, though it subsequently was sold, of course. So is it your argument that at some point after the piece was produced, it became an advert for itself, because it was marketised? By that definition, anything that is ever exchanged for money is advertising or selling itself, which renders any use of those terms practically meaningless. Which is precisely what Tricky had been trying to explain earlier in the thread. Does that make sense?

[JohnG]

Hi Everyone,

I joined the forum yesterday and despite years of lurking I'm still finding my way around. I saw this thread and it was the final impetus I needed to stop lurking and join the party.

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any reference to Joseph Campbell's (inspired by James Joyce) view on the difference between Art and Advertising. Have you already discussed this? Here's the thumbnail version:

There are two kinds of Art; proper and improper. Improper Art can be further divided into two categories; Didacticism (loathing the object being represented) and Pornography (desiring the object being represented).

Campbell claimed that all Advertising is pornography (and therefore 'improper' art) in that it moves the viewer to want to possess whatever is being advertised.

'Proper' art, on the other hand holds the viewer in 'aesthetic arrest' where they neither desire (to possess) the object nor loathe/reject (didactic art) the subject of the work.

There's more to it, but that's what I can recall off the top of my head. Please let me know if you're interested in hearing more and I'll see if I can dig up the lecture in question.

In the meantime I'll read through all the posts in detail to get up to speed with the rest of you.

JohnG

[beeksc1]

Art... has essence, is creative expression, is aesthetically beautiful, is created for the sake for creating, often times has intrinsic meaning and purpose, etc.

Advertising... has a specific goal: to motivate the consumer to buy, buy, buy; really does not have an essence, is a creative outlet, but it is not created for the sheer sake of creativity, etc.

There is much overlap between advertising and art; but, the core of them distinguishes them. Advertising is basically design to cleverly catch the eye of the observer and is meant to convey the message within one or two seconds. Art is essentially created to fulfill an intrinsic aspiration that resonates within all of us and often is meant to be pondered upon.

It is like comparing grass to astroturf.

[Hooloovoo]

Will everybody just shut up about those damn turtles? I'm the biggest, blooest superhero.
Dude, I didn't mention any turtles! I'll take large blue arachnids over pizza eating, sewer dwelling turtles any day of the week.

[Hooloovoo]

Not one of the advertising art/illustration/design instructors I've known have said that advertising is art. They pretty much said the opposite. Since advertising has a narrow agenda to change minds in a specific direction (not necessarily to sell, sell sell) and pure art doesn't have to do that, they're not the same. Advertising can take art and use it toward its goals, but it isn't art. That doesn't make it any less creative or valid than pure art. Advertising must be specific; art can be ambiguous.

Being highly creative within limitations is tough work that requires an especially nimble brain. Great advertising can be downright brilliant and worthy of more far more respect than a trendy painting. I generally hold more admiration for those working in commercial art than I do those working in fine art. I look up to plenty of fine artists, but the amount of work that goes into good advertising is enormous, and very stressful. Many fine artists couldn't cook up an effective ad to save their lives.

So I'll repeat myself. I think art is the stuff artists make, and advertising is a service whose goal is to change minds. Each can take advantage of the other, but they're not one in the same.

[Aitch]

Isn't one of the differences that advertising is, generally, fairly ephemeral* whereas art tends to last?

* try saying that three times after a couple of beers :)

[volatile]

Not one of the advertising art/illustration/design instructors I've known have said that advertising is art. They pretty much said the opposite. Since advertising has a narrow agenda to change minds in a specific direction (not necessarily to sell, sell sell) and pure art doesn't have to do that, they're not the same. Advertising can take art and use it toward its goals, but it isn't art. That doesn't make it any less creative or valid than pure art. Advertising must be specific; art can be ambiguous.

Being highly creative within limitations is tough work that requires an especially nimble brain. Great advertising can be downright brilliant and worthy of more far more respect than a trendy painting. I generally hold more admiration for those working in commercial art than I do those working in fine art. I look up to plenty of fine artists, but the amount of work that goes into good advertising is enormous, and very stressful. Many fine artists couldn't cook up an effective ad to save their lives.

So I'll repeat myself. I think art is the stuff artists make, and advertising is a service whose goal is to change minds. Each can take advantage of the other, but they're not one in the same.

I'm an art history lecturer, and I am firmly of the opinion (as, I can assure you, are most of my colleagues) that some art resolutely does have as its purpose the desire to change minds. Advertising is a sub-set of art. It is a type of art. It uses the formal and conceptual tropes of other art disciplines. Advertising and other visual culture ephemera are studied in great detail by art historians, and I think you'd actually have a hard time finding an art historian who'd say that advertising wasn't art.

Not all art is advertising. All advertising is art.

[Hooloovoo]

Yes, plenty of art is made with the intended purpose of changing minds. It might advertise. It is conducting the service of advertising. Advertising isn't what that art is. People can utilize a piece of art to advertise. My mouth can shout. Shouting isn't what my mouth is, it's what my mouth does.