What is art?

[Belz...]

What's irrelevant and useless is using our personal beliefs when trying to objectively discuss the social meme in question.

First, I think you're taking this a bit far. The OP asked if the piece in question was art, not to provide a thesis for why people consider this or that art.

My personal question was designed to understand why people like pieces of art such as this. I guess people being opaque as they are in this thread, I can't expect to understand it here.

So stop saying it can't be objectively discussed because it has already been. In fact, the Marquis wrote a very good objective analysis of the subject in hand. You should read it, as it provides a classic example of how one can analyze a cultural phenomena without involving their personal biases.

Again, I don't remember the topic being about analysing the cultural phenomena. It was a question of opinion right from the start.

[BillyJoe]

Saying that I find a piece of art ugly is abuse ? Give me a break.

You described the Jackson Pollock as something a three year old could accomplish throwing buckets of paint on canvas and then we're expected to believe you really honestly want to understand?

Except that you can appreciate music that you don't like the sound of. How does that fit into your little scheme? It doesn't. I can't.

Fair enough.
Do you understand calculus? :cool:

[live830]

Abstract art contains essential information ???

Yes, essential to the message or the figure. Not, like, essential to life.

I believe I said that.

No, you just said it should "represent something." Abstract art, by definition, does "represent" something. I was wondering if you meant that art should depict recognizable objects (which isn't necessarily non-abstract... objects can be recognizable even after abstraction). That would be called "representational."

Because I don't like it otherwise. Just like music "should" be melodious in order for me to appreciate it. It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact concerning my tastes.

I understand. Some people can't be bothered to apply their own imagination. If you can't make out a clearly defined figure, you don't like it.

I didn't say anything was wrong with it. I said I didn't like it. Seriously, guys, take some time to read properly.

One of your reasons why you don't like abstract art was that it is too "make up as go along." I'm asking you now, what does it matter? Of course, I disagree that it is any more "make up as you go along" than representational art is. It isn't just "made up as you go along" just because you don't understand it.

[Ron_Tomkins]

First, I think you're taking this a bit far. The OP asked if the piece in question was art, not to provide a thesis for why people consider this or that art.

OK but you do realize that the OP title is "what is art?" Also, the OP uses the Pollock example only as a starting point to ask more general questions about what art is, and what criteria society uses to qualify something art. I quote from the OP:

In general, what distinguishes art from non art?

This is a general question that, if it is to be taken seriously, requires objective analysis of the cultural phenomena understood as "art". And for that, our personal tastes and biases are not only irrelevant but an obstacle to forming a serious objective analysis that we can all agree on.

My personal question was designed to understand why people like pieces of art such as this.

Ok, and I answered your question already though I'm not sure you're satisfied with it: The reason people like pieces of art such as this is because different people have different tastes. What we call "art" ranges from an infinite spectrum of possible tastes which can satisfy an infinite variety of people.

Again, I don't remember the topic being about analysing the cultural phenomena. It was a question of opinion right from the start.

I think it's fair to say it was about both. This thread does give leeway for us to present our personal opinions. But the OP did address the universal question os what art is. And that's the question I'm addressing.

Regardless, even if you present your personal opinions but you present them in a way that suggests that your personal opinions and personal tastes are the last call on what art is, then I will engage in a discussion with you. Because I think anyone who claims their personal list of what something needs to be to qualify to be called art, is being intellectually dishonest. Art is been proven to be whatever people want it to be. Which means, art is no different from any meme. It's a made up concept. It's whatever the society in question wants it to be. No one is right and no one has the last call on what it is.

[Belz...]

You described the Jackson Pollock as something a three year old could accomplish throwing buckets of paint on canvas and then we're expected to believe you really honestly want to understand?

A slight exaggeration. However, it's important to note that since I can't make heads or tails of the piece, I can't tell if there's any form of competence or talent involved.

Do you understand calculus? :cool:

Unfortunately no. Why ?

[Belz...]

Yes, essential to the message or the figure. Not, like, essential to life.

How can it be essential to the message if it's abstract ?

I understand. Some people can't be bothered to apply their own imagination.

You'll be hard-pressed to find someone with more imagination than me. But a seemingly-random pattern of curves and colours doesn't exactly get it going for me.

If you can't make out a clearly defined figure, you don't like it.

That seems to be the case. Again, this applies to all forms of art, for me.

One of your reasons why you don't like abstract art was that it is too "make up as go along." I'm asking you now, what does it matter?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I mentioned that as one of the reasons I don't like it.

Of course, I disagree that it is any more "make up as you go along" than representational art is. It isn't just "made up as you go along" just because you don't understand it.

Why do people assume that one follows from the other ?

[Belz...]

OK but you do realize that the OP title is "what is art?" Also, the OP uses the Pollock example only as a starting point to ask more general questions about what art is, and what criteria society uses to qualify something art.

True. I don't think I'm qualified to discuss this subject objectively, assuming such a thing is possible. I simply provided my opinion in response to the OP, and attempted to get something going to answer some of my own interrogations.

Ok, and I answered your question already though I'm not sure you're satisfied with it: The reason people like pieces of art such as this is because different people have different tastes.

"Why do you like this particular movie ?" is a question I can definitely answer with something more than "because my tastes are different from yours." I'd think people can usually tell why they like something or not.

I've had at many points in the past the impression that some people appreciating abstract art did so out of elitism rather than actual taste (they like/understand it, unlike the dumb masses, etc.). If someone can actually explain why they like it it would go a long way towards dispelling that impression.

Regardless, even if you present your personal opinions but you present them in a way that suggests that your personal opinions and personal tastes are the last call on what art is, then I will engage in a discussion with you. Because I think anyone who claims their personal list of what something needs to be to qualify to be called art, is being intellectually dishonest. Art is been proven to be whatever people want it to be. Which means, art is no different from any meme. It's a made up concept. It's whatever the society in question wants it to be. No one is right and no one has the last call on what it is.

Two things:

1) For the fourth time, I explicitely answered that this was art, so I'm getting a bit tired of your implication that I said otherwise.

2) If no one is right and no one can claim that something is art and something else isn't, then I submit that, again, objectivity in this matter is impossible.

[Ron_Tomkins]

"Why do you like this particular movie ?" is a question I can definitely answer with something more than "because my tastes are different from yours." I'd think people can usually tell why they like something or not.

You can elaborate into the details of why you enjoyed a movie, but essentially the truth remains the same: You enjoyed the movie (as opposed to other people who didn't) because different people have different tastes.

I've had at many points in the past the impression that some people appreciating abstract art did so out of elitism rather than actual taste (they like/understand it, unlike the dumb masses, etc.). If someone can actually explain why they like it it would go a long way towards dispelling that impression.

I too get that impression from some people. I too think that there are branches of art and audiences for them that are extremely intellectual and analytical. But I think that we have to respect each person's way of appreciating art. Some people appreciate it more intuitively, others more intellectually and others are more in the middle of these two extremes.


Two things:

1) For the fourth time, I explicitely answered that this was art, so I'm getting a bit tired of your implication that I said otherwise.

No, I know you said it's art. But still, one could claim that there's such thing as an objective "good art" and an objective "bad art" basing their opinion on their personal tastes. And that's erroneous. There is no objective good art nor bad art. It would be as illogical as saying that something is not art, using nothing but our personal tastes.

2) If no one is right and no one can claim that something is art and something else isn't, then I submit that, again, objectivity in this matter is impossible.

Yes, objectivity is impossible because art is a made up thing, in the lines of religion or fashion. But objectivity is not impossible when it comes to defining such phenomena from a third person point of view (Such as the one used to define and study consciousness)

See, I think that the closest thing to an objective definition of art is basically seeing it as that: A social cultural meme that, as any other social cultural meme, has different points of view and thus there is no universal truth. This definition already accepts the premise that each one of us has different points of view, so that is ok. The fact that "no one is right" and that it's an entirely subjective matter doesn't get in the way of objectively defining art because our definition already accepts that premise: Art is a social cultural meme that's entirely subjective and arbitrary, and each individual perceives it and judges it differently.

[Belz...]

You can elaborate into the details of why you enjoyed a movie, but essentially the truth remains the same: You enjoyed the movie (as opposed to other people who didn't) because different people have different tastes.

Actually, I enjoyed the movie and you didn't because people have different tastes. The reason why I enjoyed it is NOT because there are different tastes, but because the movie itself corresponds to mine.

I too get that impression from some people. I too think that there are branches of art and audiences for them that are extremely intellectual and analytical. But I think that we have to respect each person's way of appreciating art. Some people appreciate it more intuitively, others more intellectually and others are more in the middle of these two extremes.

Fair enough. I just wish I could "get" abstract art. I just don't.

No, I know you said it's art. But still, one could claim that there's such thing as an objective "good art" and an objective "bad art" basing their opinion on their personal tastes. And that's erroneous. There is no objective good art nor bad art. It would be as illogical as saying that something is not art, using nothing but our personal tastes.

One could, but I didn't, so why mention it ?