When is a glass of water 'art'?

[catbasket]

'Never!' would always have been my reply, until today. Now I am aware of An Oak Tree by Michael Craig-Martin.

I like it. Lots. It makes me think ... about how I view the piece as an atheist, how believers would view the piece, the reality of the oak tree and glass of water ... etc, etc. Stunned at myself actually liking a piece of 'that modern art crap' I'd like to see more examples of Conceptual Art that'll get me thinking. Any suggestions?


The thread will be kept well stocked with cookies and chocolate as an incentive to encourage replies (NB - other bribes are available ;)).

[Marquis de Carabas]

This is not a post on an internet message board. Rather it is a giant raised middle finger to the entire world of conceptual art.

[Piscivore]

Does it seem to you that this is the result of a philosophical argument down at some pub some night? Because I've have forum discussions that could lead to something similar. :)

[HarryKeogh]

Sure, it's art.

It's also dumb.

[maddog]

Yeah, it's art. Just like 4'33" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%2733%22) is music. That is to say, not.

[JoeTheJuggler]

With the accompanying text, I'd say it's art. Without it, no.

ETA: Even bad poetry is poetry. Just because this is in a poorly-defined or new genre (some kind of literary genre, I would say), doesn't mean it's not art.

[alfaniner]

When is a glass of water 'art'?

When it's half-fumpty.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

When is a glass of water 'art'?

When the artist says it is.

Period.

[HarryKeogh]

When is a glass of water 'art'?

When the artist says it is.

Period.

I agree with this.

Don't know why some are so hesitant to call something art as if the word "art" has some sacred significance to it.

I think it's more worthwhile to debate whether something is good art or not as opposed to whether something is art or not.

OK, I'm going to run and hide now.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Don't know why some are so hesitant to call something art as if the word "art" has some sacred significance to it.
It has nothing to do with sacred significance, but with simple definition. If anything is art, so long as it is so called, then congratulations, you now have an utterly meaningless word.

But, really, I'm OK with that.

[HarryKeogh]

It has nothing to do with sacred significance, but with simple definition. If anything is art, so long as it is so called, then congratulations, you now have an utterly meaningless word.

Do you have a definition of art you work from or do you just "know it when you see it"? What meaning do you give the word "art"?

[maddog]

Just because somebody calls it "art" doesn't mean it doesn't suck.

I don't have to look at or appreciate this so-called "art", just as I don't have to listen to or appreciate the Beatles so-called "music". You call them whatever you want, but to my tastes, they just suck.

[CurtisP]

I believe this to be art only if one of the definitions of art is pseudo-philosophical ********.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Do you have a definition of art you work from or do you just "know it when you see it"? What meaning do you give the word "art"?
I don't have one, no. The word has been ass-raped for so long it's no longer recognizable. The only remaining purpose for defining art is to start arguments, and that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm just pointing out that it's meaningless now. And as I said, I'm OK with that.

[Piscivore]

I agree with this.

Don't know why some are so hesitant to call something art as if the word "art" has some sacred significance to it.

What seems to be the case to me is that the unspoken, functional definition of "art" a lot of people use- particularly the bulk of those complaining about something "not being art"- is "Art is an expression which I can understand easily in a format with which I am already familiar".

[HarryKeogh]

I don't have one, no. The word has been ass-raped for so long it's no longer recognizable. The only remaining purpose for defining art is to start arguments, and that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm just pointing out that it's meaningless now. And as I said, I'm OK with that.

Fine. But let me just say that people have been fighting over the definition of art for thousands of years. I truly believe that if we stuck it out over several pages of posts we could have come to a definitive resolution and solved this age-old riddle to the satisfaction of both us and all mankind.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Fine. But let me just say that people have been fighting over the definition of art for thousands of years. I truly believe that if we stuck it out over several pages of posts we could have come to a definitive resolution and solved this age-old riddle to the satisfaction of both us and all mankind.
Right, and why would we want to do anything that might conceivably be construed as a benefit to all mankind?

(By the way, everything I put in parentheses is art.)

[Ashles]

Could we say art is "Something intentionally done to create an emotional response?"



No, I just thought about it. That would mean honking your horn at a dick in the street would be art. Or telling someone they look nice in a shirt in which they don't.

So I have helped in crossing off one possibility. :)

[HarryKeogh]

Right, and why would we want to do anything that might conceivably be construed as a benefit to all mankind?

(http://www.geocities.com/kunstweb/mona-lisa.jpg)

Man, you're good.

[Marquis de Carabas]

(This isn't art.)

[HarryKeogh]

(This isn't art.)

I like it. It's your boldest piece yet.

[Marquis de Carabas]

(
(this isn't art.)i like it. It's your boldest piece yet.
)

[NobbyNobbs]

(This isn't art.)


Ooh...surrealism.


If someone came along and drank the glass of water without saying a word, would that make them an artist, or an art critic?

[maddog]

When I'm out with My Precious Wife and see something... unusual, it is typical for me to say "What is that?"

If we can identify that it is something functional, great. ("Oh, it's a place for the carriage drivers to tie up their horses", for example)

Otherwise, while she may or may not be appreciating the item, I'll conclude "Oh, it must be art", and I don't mean it in a nice way.

That's not to say that I consider all art bad -- if there is art that I can identify as art, and appreciate as such, "art" can be a nice word from me. Monet or Di Grazia, for example.

[maddog]

(

)

Oh, that must be "art"...

performance art?

[Marquis de Carabas]

If someone came along and drank the glass of water without saying a word, would that make them an artist, or an art critic?
Lumberjack.

[HarryKeogh]

((This isn't art.)

I like it. It's your boldest piece yet.


)

OMG, it's like I'm part of the art! I feel like I'm at Cirque du Soleil!

[Piscivore]

Could we say art is "Something intentionally done to create an emotional response?"

No, I just thought about it. That would mean honking your horn at a dick in the street would be art.
That's expressing an emotion, not trying to create one, really. You're telling the guy you are pissed off, irrepective to how he responds (or if he responds at all- which ofttimes is the hoped-for outcome. :))

Or telling someone they look nice in a shirt in which they don't.
Isn't that trying to avoid an emotional response? :)

The definition I am working from is a modified form of one from Scott McCloud:
"Art ... is any human activity that doesn't grow out of either of our species two basic instincts: survival and reproduction, and seeks to communicate or evoke an emotional reaction."

[Marquis de Carabas]

)
((this isn't art.)
i like it. It's your boldest piece yet.
)

omg, it's like i'm part of the art! I feel like i'm at cirque du soleil!
(

[maddog]

Recursion is NOT art.

[NobbyNobbs]

Recursion is NOT art.


Says who?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Recursion is NOT art.
That is actually the title of my above piece.

[maddog]

Says who?







ME!

Of course, "art" is a matter of taste...

[maddog]

That is actually the title of my above piece.

You're welcome. :p

[joobz]

barnacle framtample dump dump bang cock.

[ImaginalDisc]

C'est ne pas un parenthèse.)

(C'est ne pas un parenthèse.

[stilicho]

'Never!' would always have been my reply, until today. Now I am aware of An Oak Tree by Michael Craig-Martin.

I like it. Lots. It makes me think ... about how I view the piece as an atheist, how believers would view the piece, the reality of the oak tree and glass of water ... etc, etc. Stunned at myself actually liking a piece of 'that modern art crap' I'd like to see more examples of Conceptual Art that'll get me thinking. Any suggestions?


The thread will be kept well stocked with cookies and chocolate as an incentive to encourage replies (NB - other bribes are available ;)).

I had to think about this one for a while. I am pretty sure I'd run into that exact installation in a book somewhere.

Here's another idea that the installer might want to consider. In spite of the directions for the installation, place the plaque and a similar backdrop in the vicinity of an oak tree in the walkway leading up to the gallery. You may invite the artist to the opening but he has to agree upon anonymity prior to his attendance. (I am not sure if he's still alive; alternately you may invite someone from his estate management team).

[Alareth]

Back in the mid 80's I when to the High Museum of Art in Atlanta.

They had a piece called "A Study in White"

It was, a plain white canvas with one corner cut off so it wasn't a perfect rectangle.

At the time the little info cards next to each painting gave the price the museum paid for each piece.

A Study in White was over $10k

[jimtron]

From the Wikipedia article linked in the OP:
The impossible is deliberately asserted and the text examines the impossibility of the assertion, which uses the idea of transubstantiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation) in the same way as the Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic) religious belief that bread and wine, while maintaining an unchanged appearance, are changed into Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ)'s body and blood.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Oak_Tree#cite_note-manchester-2) Craig-Martin has a Catholic background,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Oak_Tree#cite_note-5) and was an altar boy.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Oak_Tree#cite_note-6) He sees belief of both artist and viewer as having a key place in art, and that in An Oak Tree he had "deconstructed the work of art in such a way as to reveal its single basic and essential element", namely this belief.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Oak_Tree#cite_note-manchester-2)

Craig-Martin said, "An Oak Tree has had a great life as an artwork. It is nearly always on view somewhere, and has been shown all over the world—the text has been translated into at least 20 languages. The only place its has never been shown is in the US."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Oak_Tree#cite_note-sherwin-4)
It was once barred by Australian officials from entering the country as "vegetation". Craig-Martin was forced to inform them that it was really a glass of water.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Oak_Tree#cite_note-9) He said, "It was of course a wonderfully funny incident, particularly because it extended into 'real life' the discussion about belief and doubt, and fact and fiction I was addressing in the work."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Oak_Tree#cite_note-sherwin-4)


In my view this is definitely thought provoking art. But art is subjective and impossible to strictly define. To me it succeeds as art because it's original, compelling, challenging, and thought-provoking. This artwork could cause some people to think twice before accepting what they're told at face value.

[Ron_Tomkins]

When is a glass of water 'art'?

When Andy Warhol pours it

[Foolmewunz]

While I can't say whether I like the piece or not, it's definitely art.



























I may not know what I like, but I know art!


:spjimlad::spjimlad::spjimlad:

[Oliver]

'Never!' would always have been my reply, until today. Now I am aware of An Oak Tree by Michael Craig-Martin.

I like it. Lots. It makes me think ... about how I view the piece as an atheist, how believers would view the piece, the reality of the oak tree and glass of water ... etc, etc. Stunned at myself actually liking a piece of 'that modern art crap' I'd like to see more examples of Conceptual Art that'll get me thinking. Any suggestions?


The thread will be kept well stocked with cookies and chocolate as an incentive to encourage replies (NB - other bribes are available ;)).


A glass of water is art once you got waterboarded with it's content. On the other hand, some Art-lovers seem to be outright stupid.

[catbasket]

Loved the diy conceptual art work, though I'd like to mention that I chickened out of including my own piece in the OP as I thought making crap art jokes would be silly ;)

Yeah, it's art. Just like 4'33" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%2733%22) is music. That is to say, not.
I've not heard 4'33" but I have heard a similar work - 'The Sound of Free Speech' by Crass which replaced their song 'Reality Asylum' on the EP 'Feeding of the 5,000' after they were accused of blasphemy. A political statement rather than art (especially as they totally ripped off John Cage, or was it REO Speedwagon?).

With the accompanying text, I'd say it's art. Without it, no.
Agree 100%. Without the text it would be pretentious junk, imo, ymmv. (Possibly the words 'even more' should be inserted before 'pretentious'?)

When is a glass of water 'art'?

When the artist says it is.

Period.
I see your point. Of course then we're into subjective 'how good is X example of art' territory. What if the artist insists his 'art' is a steaming pile of poo? Is it still art? I'm thinking my teenage poetry here, if that qualifies as art then the art world is in far worse shape than I ever thought.

Just because somebody calls it "art" doesn't mean it doesn't suck.
I could pm you some diy poetry if you'd like to see some major suckage :D

Back in the mid 80's I when to the High Museum of Art in Atlanta.

They had a piece called "A Study in White"

It was, a plain white canvas with one corner cut off so it wasn't a perfect rectangle.
No doubt there's some deeply meaningful significance to exactly where and what angle the cut is ... I dunno, memories of 'A pile of bricks' and 'A pile of used tyres' at The Tate spring to mind.

When Andy Warhol pours it
"Everybody get the hell out of here. There's a zombie on the loose!"?

While I can't say whether I like the piece or not, it's definitely art.

I may not know what I like, but I know art!
Reminds me of a Heinlein quote which goes (very) approximately - Art? There's loads of impostors around, but the real Art is a good friend of mine from Kentucky.

On the other hand, some Art-lovers seem to be outright stupid.
Rool 12! Rool 12! ;)

[Puppycow]

Philistines.

Everyone with any culture knows that pancake bunnies are the highest form of art. :bunpan
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=200&pictureid=1069

[moopet]

When is a glass of water 'a joke'?
When it's a jar.

[catbasket]

Philistines.

Everyone with any culture knows that pancake bunnies are the highest form of art. :bunpan
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=200&pictureid=1069
At last somebody points me in the direction of more Conceptual Art (the Capitals are Important) as I requested in the OP. Off now to eat study pancake bunnies.

[MG1962]

I did have to laugh at this from the wiki article

It was once barred by Australian officials from entering the country as "vegetation". Craig-Martin was forced to inform them that it was really a glass of water.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Oak_Tree#cite_note-9) He said, "It was of course a wonderfully funny incident, particularly because it extended into 'real life' the discussion about belief and doubt, and fact and fiction I was addressing in the work

So in other words the artist, is admitting he is full of hot air

[Puppycow]

At last somebody points me in the direction of more Conceptual Art (the Capitals are Important) as I requested in the OP. Off now to eat study pancake bunnies.

You can start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oolong_(rabbit)) :)

Oolong attracted attention because Akutagawa had trained the rabbit to balance objects on his head, an art called "Head Performance" by his owner.[2]

[Reeco]

Just because somebody calls it "art" doesn't mean it doesn't suck.

I don't have to look at or appreciate this so-called "art", just as I don't have to listen to or appreciate the Beatles so-called "music". You call them whatever you want, but to my tastes, they just suck.

Apples and oranges. Whilst defining art is undoubtedly a difficult thing to do, defining music is not. Saying that Beatles songs are not music just because you don't like them is wrong.

I'd say a glass of water is not art. In my own personal definition, "art" is something visual created out of raw materials, be it paint, cloth, marble, whatever. Just combining everyday items is not art.

[jimtron]

For those of you who don't believe the piece to be art (and anyone else); I'm curious to hear your definition of the term.

In my own personal definition, "art" is something visual created out of raw materials, be it paint, cloth, marble, whatever.
What's the difference then, if any, between art and decoration? Are house painters artists? A patterened dishrag is visual and created out of cloth--is it art?

Just combining everyday items is not art.
Why can't that be art? What if everyday objects are combined and displayed in a compelling, thought-provoking way that causes viewers to think about those objects differently? Do you disagree that Duchamp's Fountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29) is art?

[TjW]

Nevermind.

[blobru]

Other seminal works from the Michael Craig-Martin oeuvre:


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1085

A Glass of Water
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1086
An Elm Tree


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1087

A Christmas Tree



http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1088

Nude Descending a Staircase


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1089

The Last Supper


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1090

Charge of the Light Brigade


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1091

Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1092

They Call The Wind Mariah


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1093

the artist at work

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1094

Christoph Willibald Ritter von Gluck

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1095

Pope Pius XII

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1096

A Tree of Some Kind

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1097

the artist at lunch

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1097

...not as hungry as he thought...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1097

The Great Wall of China

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1097

(on second thought...)

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1098

The Great Wall of China


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=202&pictureid=1099

Dogs Playing Bridge

[ImaginalDisc]

I did have to laugh at this from the wiki article

It was once barred by Australian officials from entering the country as "vegetation". Craig-Martin was forced to inform them that it was really a glass of water.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Oak_Tree#cite_note-9) He said, "It was of course a wonderfully funny incident, particularly because it extended into 'real life' the discussion about belief and doubt, and fact and fiction I was addressing in the work

So in other words the artist, is admitting he is full of hot air

Hoist by his own petard.

[Reeco]

For those of you who don't believe the piece to be art (and anyone else); I'm curious to hear your definition of the term.


What's the difference then, if any, between art and decoration? Are house painters artists? A patterened dishrag is visual and created out of cloth--is it art?


Why can't that be art? What if everyday objects are combined and displayed in a compelling, thought-provoking way that causes viewers to think about those objects differently? Do you disagree that Duchamp's Fountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29) is art?

The difference between art and decoration is that a decorater is not attempting to do anything artistic with the paint. He is using it just to cover a surface. His priorities are very different to those of an artist.

As for Duchamp's Fountain, I don't regard that as art. I regard it as a fountain. Are all fountains art? Are all glasses of water art? Or do they just become art when they are displayed in a gallery? If they are latter, i.e. location dependant art, then I would argue that they are not art at all.

[jimtron]

The difference between art and decoration is that a decorater is not attempting to do anything artistic with the paint. He is using it just to cover a surface. His priorities are very different to those of an artist.

As for Duchamp's Fountain, I don't regard that as art. I regard it as a fountain. Are all fountains art? Are all glasses of water art? Or do they just become art when they are displayed in a gallery? If they are latter, i.e. location dependant art, then I would argue that they are not art at all.
No, not all fountains and glasses of water are art--of course not. I'm still curious to understand your definition of art though. Are you saying that everyday objects cannot be art? What if an artist is "attempting to do something artistic" with an everyday object? Regarding the difference between art and decoration: what if a house painter sincerely intends to "do something artistic with the paint." That makes it art?

Also: still waiting to hear from other folks regarding this question I asked a bit earlier: For those of you who don't believe the piece to be art (and anyone else); I'm curious to hear your definition of the term.

[AmandaM]

I don't have a definition, and as a dancer, I've heard a dozen arguments why some stuff is art and some stuff is not. I don't think I agree with most of them. The only credible definition I've heard is that "art communicates something." However, it's easy to say that interior house paint communicates a mood, so your living room color scheme is art. :/


Something that bothers me, and this is just a personal weirdness -- if you have to EXPLAIN your art, whether it's with an artist's statement, a director's commentary, or liner notes -- then isn't it failing the basic test of "art" -- which is that it communicates something?

I love to know more about the artist's process, so I love director's commentaries and liner notes. But if I have to rely on them to make sense of the "art," then I feel a little cheated. Maybe it's because I'm not Catholic, but I never would have seen a commentary on transubstantiation in this piece. If given enough time (and no artist's statement) I might have been able to convince myself the artist intended it to be interpreted as such: since everything is made up of atoms, then at the most basic, we're all the same stuff, so an oak tree is the same as a glass of water. Which wouldn't have been all that original or interesting, but that's what the image communicated to me at first sight.

[jimtron]

I don't have a definition, and as a dancer, I've heard a dozen arguments why some stuff is art and some stuff is not. I don't think I agree with most of them. The only credible definition I've heard is that "art communicates something." However, it's easy to say that interior house paint communicates a mood, so your living room color scheme is art. :/
Right--"art communicates something" doesn't seem very useful, as your above example points out. Other examples: traffic signs communicate something, as do restaurant menus, billboards, license plates, etc.

Something that bothers me, and this is just a personal weirdness -- if you have to EXPLAIN your art, whether it's with an artist's statement, a director's commentary, or liner notes -- then isn't it failing the basic test of "art" -- which is that it communicates something?I disagree. First of all, can we agree that "communicating something" is not a valid test for art? Secondly, a lot of great art is challenging and innovative. Instead of showing you something you've seen before, some artists try to push the boundaries of art, to challenge the viewer and her beliefs. In the example of the glass of water, without the text you would just have a glass of water. With the text you have a (IMHO) a thought-provoking piece. Why can't text be part of art? Of course an explanation is not going to make bad art good, but I see no reason not to include explanations if they expand and effectively contribute to art.

I love to know more about the artist's process, so I love director's commentaries and liner notes. But if I have to rely on them to make sense of the "art," then I feel a little cheated.I agree that movies should stand up on their own without director commentaries. But the commentaries aren't an integral part of the art--they are a separate entity. (I don't think many film directors would say that you must listen to their commentary to appreciate the film; in fact, I've heard some say the opposite). Same with liner notes. But I don't think liner notes and director's commentaries are analogous to the text in the "Oak Tree" piece. (I just checked, from the Wikipedia article "An Oak Tree:"
"Interviewed in May 2003, Craig-Martin said the work consists of two parts, text and object."

Maybe it's because I'm not Catholic, but I never would have seen a commentary on transubstantiation in this piece.I think most artists would agree that it's perfectly fine for different viewers to get different meanings from their artwork. That's part of the experience.

If given enough time (and no artist's statement) I might have been able to convince myself the artist intended it to be interpreted as such: since everything is made up of atoms, then at the most basic, we're all the same stuff, so an oak tree is the same as a glass of water. Which wouldn't have been all that original or interesting, but that's what the image communicated to me at first sight. It would have been an entirely different piece without the statement. The whole point, in my view, is that the artist is calling what's plainly a glass of water an oak tree. What I got out of it (from seeing it on the Web): this is a glass of water. Why should I believe it's an oak tree--clearly it's not. Should I believe my eyes? Should I believe what the artist is telling me? This piece could lead people to thinking more skeptically.

[fuelair]

Ooh...surrealism.


If someone came along and drank the glass of water without saying a word, would that make them an artist, or an art critic?
(both) *


I am not a Marquis. If true, is the above art? Do you care? Do I care? (NO!)


.:D


Now that's art!!

[fuelair]

Recursion is NOT art.



But incursion certainly is one of them!

[Reeco]

No, not all fountains and glasses of water are art--of course not. I'm still curious to understand your definition of art though. Are you saying that everyday objects cannot be art? What if an artist is "attempting to do something artistic" with an everyday object? Regarding the difference between art and decoration: what if a house painter sincerely intends to "do something artistic with the paint." That makes it art?

Also: still waiting to hear from other folks regarding this question I asked a bit earlier:

I'd say that everday objects cannot be art. I suppose my definition could be extended to say that art should have no practical use. So a fountain, a glass of water or an unmade bed, in my opinion, are not art. If a decorater attempted to do something artistic with his paint, and a wall of a house was his canvas, I'd say that was art. But then again, I wouldn't say he was a decorater in that case; because his intention was to achieve something artistic and not just change the colour of a wall.

[Whiplash]

This thread really calls out for Claus. He lead a strong and spirited debate on the matter of "What is art?" in a similar thread, a year or so ago as I remember.

[ImaginalDisc]

This thread really calls out for Claus. He lead a strong and spirited debate on the matter of "What is art?" in a similar thread, a year or so ago as I remember.

Plus, he can give us his professional insights as a performance artist.

[Piscivore]

Here's an opinion (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2005/abstract/ross1.asp) about "abstract art". A fallacious, incorrect, and apparently angry opinion in my book, but an opinion nonetheless.

[lionking]

The saddest thing about this "work of art" is that Australian taxpayers' money purchased it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Here's an opinion (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2005/abstract/ross1.asp) about "abstract art". A fallacious, incorrect, and apparently angry opinion in my book, but an opinion nonetheless.
I find it amusing that the rant beings with Just because something causes you to have a feeling of aesthetic beauty does not make it a work of art, since a pretty good definition of the common usage of the word art is, in fact, a creation whose primary characteristic is its aesthetic value.

It is this common perception of what the word art means that leads many, if not most, of the philistines1 of the world to say that pieces such as "An Oak Tree" are not art. Whatever else the work might be, it can hardly be said to have much in the way of pure aesthetic value. Indeed, quite a bit of what is called art by some is intentionally low on aesthetic value.

Now, as a descriptivist of some repute, I defer in most things to common usage and accept whatever it reveals as the "true" definition of the word in question. However, there are times when recourse to common usage is not appropriate, and those times are when a word is used in professional or technical circles, in which case one is better off relying on what the professionals have to say about it2.

That said, seldom are technical and common usages of a word so disparate as they are concerning the word art. Adding to the problem, the community of professional artists, art critics, gallery owners, etc. does not even seem to be able to agree what constitutes art. It is this confusion at all levels that leads me to declare the term essentially meaningless. Anyone can ascribe to the word whatever definition suits their fancy and nobody else really has any authority to call them on it (not that it stops anyone, of course).

The interesting question, to me, is how we got here. If I am right that art originally was intended to convey beauty, how did the art world end up with artists who specifically denounce art as beauty? What follows is an admittedly grossly over-simplified history of art, though I believe it overall to be about right.

Beauty creates emotional reactions in human beings. Anyone who can create beauty, then, is in high demand by anyone who wishes to manipulate the emotional states of their fellows. It is no surprise at all that art has, probably from times prehistoric, been co-opted by the powerful as propaganda. We take the beautiful, the sublime, and we use it in service of spreading our message. We have statues of our leaders and rousing anthems to bolster our national pride. We have frescoes of God finger-*********** Adam to enhance our feelings of religious awe. Politicians and priests, man. They **** up everything.

But all is not lost, for of course, propaganda can cut both ways. For every statue of Great Leader, there is a caricature to make him look a buffoon. For every anthem, there is a radical folk song. For every fresco, there is a crucifix in a jar of urine. Art becomes as important for conveying meaning to the counter-culture, to the revolutionaries, to the subversives as it is to state and church.

Once you wrap up art in meaning, and not merely aesthetics, you start to get people with subversive ideas about art itself. Questions start to be asked: should aesthetics be our primary goal, or should it be the message?3 If the message is primary, do we even need the aesthetics at all? Subversive art essentially ate itself, hardly surprising, for if art can challenge anything, it must be able to challenge art.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if this is a good thing or not.

1. I hope none take offense at the word philistines. I'm one, myself.
2. See also theory, evolution's just a.
3. This is the essential dichotomy that broke up Pink Floyd, with Gilmour more concerned about making good music, and Waters more focused on conveying his message.

[lionking]

Brilliant post Marquis.

As an unashamed philistine, can I ask if a turd (animal, human) has ever been presented as a work of art. If not, why not?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Brilliant post Marquis.

As an unashamed philistine, can I ask if a turd (animal, human) has ever been presented as a work of art. If not, why not?
Oh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_****), it (http://www.artnewsblog.com/2006/08/****-art-cloaca-machine.htm) most (http://blog.seattlepi.com/art/archives/149202.asp) certainly (http://www.goofball.com/news/990716_feces) has (http://www.artnewsblog.com/2009/01/cloaca-****-to-be-auctioned-at-sothebys.htm).

(The autocensor will kill a few of those links. Simply correct the '****' in the URLs with the context appropriate four letter word, and you're set.)

[Piscivore]

Brilliant post Marquis.

Seconded.

[Cavemonster]

Actually, the history of the label we now use as "Art" is a little weirder than that.

The Latin root is Ars, and it's greek predecessor was Techni, which referred to what a sculptor or painter did, but also to a carpenter, or yes, a house painter, these were all seen as primarily technical skills. Poetry and song were not a part of the arts in these cultures, ephemeral emotional expression belonged to the realm of spirits, not skills. In fact the word "Genius" as didn't originally describe a person, but a spirit that inhabited a place, or inspired a poet. You couln't be a genius, but you could have one.

It was somewhere in the Renaissance that we started to merge and warp these ideas, the craft, or "art" or skill on the one hand, and the inspiration, or genius on the other. Now we suddenly have an artist who is also a poet, an artist with ideas! Separate from the craftsmen.

Our idea of art as a crafted expression by a genius individual came from these two, originally separate notions, and I'd say that personal ideas about the balance of them is the basis for most disagreements about a definition of art. I'd say the majority still favor the oldest meaning, of technical skill, although they'll require at least a little expression and exclude those technical skills which don't involve what we consider creative decision making. The fine art world tends to favor that newer addition, great ideas, with the notion that crafting a good idea is a skill.

[Cavemonster]

Oh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_****), it (http://www.artnewsblog.com/2006/08/****-art-cloaca-machine.htm) most (http://blog.seattlepi.com/art/archives/149202.asp) certainly (http://www.goofball.com/news/990716_feces) has (http://www.artnewsblog.com/2009/01/cloaca-****-to-be-auctioned-at-sothebys.htm).

(The autocensor will kill a few of those links. Simply correct the '****' in the URLs with the context appropriate four letter word, and you're set.)

I'm surprised you skipped probably the most famous one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili#The_Holy_Virgin_Mary_and_Mayor_Giulian i).

[catbasket]

For those of you who don't believe the piece to be art (and anyone else); I'm curious to hear your definition of the term.
I'm coming round to what Scrut said, i.e "[something is art] When the artist says it is. Period.", while accepting that this implies that for some works there may be only one person who considers the piece to actually be a work of art.

Something that bothers me, and this is just a personal weirdness -- if you have to EXPLAIN your art, whether it's with an artist's statement, a director's commentary, or liner notes -- then isn't it failing the basic test of "art" -- which is that it communicates something?
This had bothered me too. Then I began to accept the explanation as an integral part of the piece.


If given enough time (and no artist's statement) I might have been able to convince myself the artist intended it to be interpreted as such: since everything is made up of atoms, then at the most basic, we're all the same stuff, so an oak tree is the same as a glass of water. Which wouldn't have been all that original or interesting, but that's what the image communicated to me at first sight.
It would have been an entirely different piece without the statement. The whole point, in my view, is that the artist is calling what's plainly a glass of water an oak tree. What I got out of it (from seeing it on the Web): this is a glass of water. Why should I believe it's an oak tree--clearly it's not. Should I believe my eyes? Should I believe what the artist is telling me? This piece could lead people to thinking more skeptically.
What jimtron said.

I was reading about communion in the Church of England and it was an article re Anglican views on transubstantiation which wiki'd me to 'An Oak Tree'. (@Pisci - not, this time, a philosophical argument down at some pub ;)). So as an atheist reading about transubstantiation the 'I like it!' part of my brain was primed to light up.

Add the fact that I'm fascinated by quantum electrodynamics (while not understanding it, of course) and that I can ponder the piece as a collection of sub-atomic particles and the 'I like it!' part is now glowing. I may have been stoned. I began to ponder the practicalities of displaying the piece in a vacuum, using some kind of sealed container, and the effects of weightlessness on the water if the sealed container had a capacity of twice the volume of the water it contained. The 'I like it!' part of my brain is now shining oh so very brightly, Roy.

Now, several days later, I re-read the Wiki article and find myself conceding that the artist has a point when he states that -
He sees belief of both artist and viewer as having a key place in art, and that in An Oak Tree he had "deconstructed the work of art in such a way as to reveal its single basic and essential element", namely this belief.[3]


So why do I still find myself agreeing with lionking? -
The saddest thing about this "work of art" is that Australian taxpayers' money purchased it.
I accept 'An Oak Tree' as a work of art. I like it, yet I wouldn't pay a penny for the original, let alone a copy. The 'original' may even be a 'copy' by now as "Craig-Martin has stressed that the components should maintain a pristine appearance and in the event of deterioration, the brackets should be resprayed and the glass and shelf even replaced."

Wiki states that Conceptual Art is art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic and material concerns. Wouldn't the logical thing be to go one step further and admit that the concept or idea is the art work and whatever physical stuff is used to represent it is completely irrelevant. Once you understand the concept (the explanatory text) is there any need for a physical representation of the concept? Maybe only because "Thanks for the concept, a very fine piece of art, would you mind taking that collection of random objects with you as you leave?" doesn't involve a cheque for the artist?

Plus of course, a moment's thought about that statement by the artist beginning -
He sees belief of both artist and viewer as having a key place in art, ...
... leaves me fining the artist minus five billion points for stating the bleedin' obvious plus another minus ten points for everything after the first comma being pretentious claptrap.

Slippery kind of guy, this Art fellow. Difficult to get a handle on.

[Cavemonster]

Wiki states that Conceptual Art is art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic and material concerns. Wouldn't the logical thing be to go one step further and admit that the concept or idea is the art work and whatever physical stuff is used to represent it is completely irrelevant. Once you understand the concept (the explanatory text) is there any need for a physical representation of the concept? Maybe only because "Thanks for the concept, a very fine piece of art, would you mind taking that collection of random objects with you as you leave?" doesn't involve a cheque for the artist?


Once the concept is understood, the artifact, and the purchase of the artifact serves these purposes.

1) As a historical object, through which this interesting concept was presented. Just like a uniform worn by Babe Ruth has a place in a museum, it isn't for the beautiful stitching, it's an artifact of past actions.

2) To transmit this experience to others. That's what the piece was built for, and not everyone in the world was at the original showing.

3) Support the artist in creating further work. It's patronage, if we like the experience of an artist's work, and we didn't pay up front, we give them money to continue eating food and making work. You do the same thing when you see a good street performer.

4) Prestige of ownership. Derives from #1. If a piece is really groundbreaking and resonates with the whole art world, the institution that owns it cashes in on the historical importance.

5) The concept taking precedence does not mean that the specifc object is not necessary for the specific experience or that no craft or beauty is involved. Many conceptual works are also interesting and well crafted visual works or feats of engineering. They just serve a higher conceptual purpose above that. For example the works of Christo (http://www.lostatsea.net/LAS/archives/features/media/christo/christo_img_island.gif) are both gorgeous and feats of engineering and labor.

Conceptual art does not mean there is no object of value left.

[maddog]

I wonder when the same "artist" will release "Another Oak Tree", consisting of a bag of ashes.

[slingblade]

I wonder when the same "artist" will release "Another Oak Tree", consisting of a bag of ashes.

Would that bag of ashes be part of the concept of Transubstantiation of the Host? You know: the subject of the original work? Or did you miss the guy trying to show us through his art that just as a piece of cracker can't be human flesh, a glass of water can't be an oak tree?





(and by the way: the Beatles don't need you to listen. They have me. :p)

[ZirconBlue]

Our idea of art as a crafted expression by a genius individual came from these two, originally separate notions, and I'd say that personal ideas about the balance of them is the basis for most disagreements about a definition of art.

I think you're right. I know that I usually appreciate art that appears to have required significant skill much more than art that seems "easy". Photorealism? Impressive. Jackson Pollack? Meh. This applies to music, as well. I guess I lean toward the "craftsman with some creativity" end of the spectrum.

[maddog]

Apples and oranges. Whilst defining art is undoubtedly a difficult thing to do, defining music is not. Saying that Beatles songs are not music just because you don't like them is wrong.
Oh? Is 4'33" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%2733%22) music? Cultural drumming is widely considered music, how about if I'm drumming on my desk? What if it's just tapping? What about the hammering of a carpenter?

Traffic sounds aren't music, are they? What about if they are part of a song, such as the beginning of The Pet Shop Boys West End Girls? Radio news broadcasts? Or radio broadcasts of a baseball game? How about if they are in a song, such as The Alan Parsons Project's Let's Talk About Me? How about an alarm clock? What if it's in a song, like Pink Floyd's Time or Spin Doctors' 4:30?

What about the whole genre of recorded music called "Ambient"?

Not so easy to define music after all, is it? :D

I don't choose "music" as the primary term by which I refer to what the Beatles did, but you are, obviously, free to do so as you wish. I merely think they suck. And I will freely admit that they were attempting to make music, without comment on their results.

Would that bag of ashes be part of the concept of Transubstantiation of the Host? You know: the subject of the original work? Or did you miss the guy trying to show us through his art that just as a piece of cracker can't be human flesh, a glass of water can't be an oak tree?

Dude, (or is it Dudette? :o) I must have missed that. I was more thinking that water, under the right circumstances, can become part of the tree. And that, under conditions of fire, some parts of the tree become ashes.

On a side note, if you burn an Ash Tree, you get ashes. What do you get when you burn an Oak Tree?

(I'm sure there's a joke there somewhere, but damn if I can come up with the punchline!)


(and by the way: the Beatles don't need you to listen. They have me. :p)
And we are all better off for the arrangement, I'm sure! ;)

[Myriad]

Fortunately there are artists out there who blend challenging concepts, impressive craftsmanship in execution, and uniquely appealing aesthetics.

Andy Goldsworthy (some examples here: http://degine.blogspot.com/2007/12/world-of-andy-goldsworthy.html)

Arthur Ganson (many examples here: http://www.arthurganson.com/pages/Sculptures.html)

Peter Callesen (many examples here: http://http://www.petercallesen.com/index.html)

... so I don't have to ponder too deeply which of those three qualities I'm willing to do without (let alone, which "should" be deliberately rejected in the name of some silly quest to "purify" art).

"Oak Tree" does make a point about doctrine and authority, in an unusual way. I could also complain, in a curmudgeonly way, that it makes a pretty damn obvious point in a not really all that interesting way. There's also, clearly, not much there in the way of execution or aesthetics. So, do I focus on what the work is, or what it isn't? Is that glass half empty or half full?

There's something of great value in "white room thinking," as I call it. That represents total focus on what merits a work has, in a vacuum-of-ideas that excludes all consideration of other art out there. No history, no comparisons, no context (at least not from the art world; of course for a commentary like "Oak Tree" the real-world context, in this case Catholic doctrine, is essential). You put the work, often literally, in a white room and see what it has to offer. Examine what's in the glass, and ignore what could be there but isn't.

I think the art world probably needed to go through that kind of collective exercise to move on, having violently collided with "How can it be art if it's not a painting of a bunch of naked Greeks?" and then "How can it be art if it doesn't reject every aspect of past art such as paintings of a bunch of naked Greeks?" in the last few centuries. The first led to a stifling game of artistic one-upmanship in narrow corridors (the very existence of definable "periods" being a symptom); the second, in rebellion against the first, led to art overly focused on what it wasn't. Avoiding the temptations of both extremes from the safe confines of the white room isn't such a bad idea. That's the half-full glass of the exaggerated austerity of works like "Oak Tree."

But in the end, the world isn't a white room. Far from it: it's filled with wondrous things including works of art of all kinds. Astride the vacuum flux of the white room exists the Darwinian jungle, which is no less a reality. Like everything else, art competes for my attention, not only against other art but against all the other things that life in the world also holds.

The glass-half-empty of "Oak Tree" is that in the end it doesn't compete in that world. It survives only in its white room. Unlike the vast majority of its conceptual minimalist counterparts, it has succeeded in attracting my attention insofar as I'm participating in this thread, writing this (and perhaps subsequent) posts. But I won't be revisiting it a month or five years from now. I won't be seeking out other works by the same artist, or buying his books. I won't be looking at exhibition schedules for a chance to see it in person. I have done and will do all those things for works by, for instance, Goldsworthy.

Now of course, that's just me. But I think I represent, in those respects, a much larger group of people -- not philistines, but people with some amount of real knowledge and interest in art -- who only visit the white room from time to time, as opposed to the smaller (though disproportionately influential) group who dwell there. In the final balance, from my point of view, I find the glass is mostly -- albeit not completely -- empty.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Myriad]

"It's worse than that, Jim. The thread's dead!"

"But Bones, all I did was post in it."

"There must be something about this alien environment. Normally posts that take a moderate position are good for threads. But here... they're deadly!

"Fascinating."

Respectfully,
Myriad

[technoextreme]

I don't have one, no. The word has been ass-raped for so long it's no longer recognizable. The only remaining purpose for defining art is to start arguments, and that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm just pointing out that it's meaningless now. And as I said, I'm OK with that.
I concur despite it being a bit circular.
Something that bothers me, and this is just a personal weirdness -- if you have to EXPLAIN your art, whether it's with an artist's statement, a director's commentary, or liner notes -- then isn't it failing the basic test of "art" -- which is that it communicates something?
I've seen gorgeous pieces of abstract work and I honestly have no idea what it communicates.

[Jiddu]

When Andy Warhol pours it

..or Damien Hirst plagiarizes and sells it

[KingMerv00]

When is a glass of water 'art'?
When it's half-fumpty.

I'd say when it is totally full of itself.

[dudalb]

I wonder when the same "artist" will release "Another Oak Tree", consisting of a bag of ashes.


When he thinks he has found sombody who will pay him for it.

[Ysidro]

Something that bothers me, and this is just a personal weirdness -- if you have to EXPLAIN your art, whether it's with an artist's statement, a director's commentary, or liner notes -- then isn't it failing the basic test of "art" -- which is that it communicates something?



This ignores the idea that the accompanying text, in the case of this particular work, is part of the artwork.

The artist did not write something that said "this is a glass of water that I'm calling an oak tree. I'm trying to blow your mind and make you think of how we perceive things." Oh no, instead he writes "this is an oak tree. I know it looks like a glass of water, but it's a tree. An oak. It just looks like a glass of water. But it's really a tree. Believe me."

That's not explaining the piece, that's continuing the mind****.

Edit: And somehow I skipped over jimtron saying the EXACT SAME THING IN THE NEXT POST. This has been a bad day. I'm calling timeout until August. *sigh*

[gnome]

How about this--people think of "Art" as a descriptive term for a work. What if we altered that a bit and defined "Art" as the appreciation of something on an aesthetic basis?

Imagine two people on a propeller plane. The propeller is making a modulating humming sound. The first person pays it little mind, the second starts hearing a tune in the sound. The second person is experiencing art.

That way, you could say that an artistic work is something intended to convey "art" as an experience.

Any holes in this idea?

[Aitch]

When is a glass of water 'art'?

When Hell freezes over?

[maddog]

When he thinks he has found sombody who will pay him for it.

Word.

[Horatius]

When is a glass of water 'art'?

When Hell freezes over?



No, that would make it a glass of ice.