What is art?

BillyJoe · 29th October 2010, 04:26 AM

This painting probably needs no introduction:

In 2006 it sold for $140 million.
It is the most expensive painting ever sold.

But is it art?

What makes it art?
What makes if not art?
In general, what distinguishes art from non art?

Could you be fooled by an art hoax?
For example, is this an art hoax:

Monketey Ghost · 29th October 2010, 04:35 AM

Is it art? Yes. And I like it, it stirs something in me. I can see past the initial business and begin to feel things off it.

What makes it art is: "Does It Move You?" ...are you still looking at it, do your eyes want to return to it, even just to figure out if it's making a statement, and if so, what could it be?

What distinguishes art from non-art is a sole person's subjective opinion.

I could easily be fooled by an art hoax, being that I've never had access to "great" art with the leisure and proximity to study detail and nuance; things like cracks in paint or potter's marks. Looking at art images on the internet is the palest comparison to the actual thing...

Brainache · 29th October 2010, 04:38 AM

The Pollock is upside down.

bluesjnr · 29th October 2010, 04:44 AM

Art? It's a load of Pollocks if you ask me.

Monketey Ghost · 29th October 2010, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

The Pollock is upside down.

I was noticing that but I can't get past that obvious streak mistake in the upper right which exposes it as a fakeroo.

ChrisC · 29th October 2010, 05:47 AM

I like both. The hoax appears to be hastily thrown together sponge or roller blotches on a wall but I still enjoy looking at it. I don't care about the art/not art dichotomy, though, so what do I know?

Bikewer · 29th October 2010, 05:50 AM

Debate has been going on for a long time... Likely prior to DuChamp's "Ready-Mades"....

I recall the 60 Minutes interview with the couple who collected modern art in NY. Among the pieces in their collection was a short piece of rope nailed to the wall. The interviewer asked if that, too was art. "Oh, yes." was the reply. "Why?"
"Because the artist said it was."

In the loosest possible definition, I suppose we might call art anything that conveys something to the viewer. Some emotion or feeling. This might not (and often is not) the feeling that the artist intended.
I'm of the opinion that art should also require some degree of skill or process or planning as well...
But obviously much of modern art does not require that addition.

aggle-rithm · 29th October 2010, 05:52 AM

Part of the problem is that only people with certain brain structures can appreciate abstract art like this. It depends on how you process visual information.

It's like those "hidden spaceship" pictures like the one in the Seinfeld episode. Some people just don't have the neural apparatus to see the hidden image. In a similar manner, some people can't appreciate abstract art. Those people often assume that others see the same thing they do, and so they think those people are posers or phonies for talking about how great the painting is.

I'm one of those that don't get it. But I'm willing to bet that whoever paid $140 million for that painting does get it.

SumDood · 29th October 2010, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Part of the problem is that only people with certain brain structures can appreciate abstract art like this. It depends on how you process visual information.

It's like those "hidden spaceship" pictures like the one in the Seinfeld episode. Some people just don't have the neural apparatus to see the hidden image. In a similar manner, some people can't appreciate abstract art. Those people often assume that others see the same thing they do, and so they think those people are posers or phonies for talking about how great the painting is.

I'm one of those that don't get it. But I'm willing to bet that whoever paid $140 million for that painting does get it.

You may be right, but I doubt it has anything to do with the way our brains are wired. I like some modern art and if anything, I may be too shallow to appreciate more of it 'properly'. (I also feel the same way about poetry). I think its all BS. Pollack lived a tortured life and was the starving artist (actually i don't know, i'm just assuming) so he poured his soul into his work. At least that's what his fans would say. If Joe blow in the mid-west was an accountant and produced the exact same paintings in his spare time, no one in the art world would have cared. The criteria used by critics or dealers or whoever to determine the price of a piece of art is crap.

I do like the idea that its all personal and each piece should be considered for its impact it has on us individually.

jiggeryqua · 29th October 2010, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Part of the problem is that only people with certain brain structures can appreciate abstract art like this. It depends on how you process visual information.

It's like those "hidden spaceship" pictures like the one in the Seinfeld episode. Some people just don't have the neural apparatus to see the hidden image. In a similar manner, some people can't appreciate abstract art. Those people often assume that others see the same thing they do, and so they think those people are posers or phonies for talking about how great the painting is.

I'm one of those that don't get it. But I'm willing to bet that whoever paid $140 million for that painting does get it.

So when the Emperor appears naked, it's just that I lack the necessary special brain cells to truly appreciate how richly attired the Emperor is? After all, he paid a lot of money for that invisible suit. And when you can't show me those special brain cells, will it be because I lack...well, you get it. It's brain cells all the way down...

Nichiro · 29th October 2010, 06:27 AM

Art is ......Acquired Reproductive Trait

Aepervius · 29th October 2010, 06:48 AM

Billy Joe, I have seen a very very very similar "piece of art" at the local paint shop (virtually indistinguishable except by color, but if you don't know about the color you would not be able to recognize one from the other).

Can I retrieve that thin slice of ground and sell it 140 M$ ? I doubt it. That should tell it all the story. Because the other one was declared to be art by some "artist" it suddenly has a bigger value, and because "some" ""expert"" (eleventy scary quote) declared its value to be so high, it suddenly is.

IMHO a piece of art that joe-average can make with a few can of different color, within a few minutes of spare time, by splashing color at random, is not art. Something you could CONFUSE with TRASH if you are not warned in advance is *NOT* art. You would never confuse a Monet with trash. That above ? trash.

But hey, then again i think the whole "modern" art movement is ******** and will not live time with maybe a few exception.

BadBoy · 29th October 2010, 07:03 AM

Im not sure I really get it either, most of the time. I know if I like it. I think theres alot of intellectual masturbation surounding art. The Pollok does nothing for me and I wouldnt be surprised if it was purchased as a business opportunity rather than for the art.

My brother went to the Royal College in London studying fine art and I asked him this question once. He gave me a rather unsatisfactory answer that, if the art makes people talk about it, then its good art.

Like dance and music, I believe art is just another form of human expression. The same as Religion and all its paraphernalia. Im (probably) an athiest, but I can still see the amazing profound human expression in the building of a cathedral or Handel's Messiah (or stone henge come to that).

Probably trying to determine whats good art and whats bad is pointless if the art was created honestly. Art created to make money, comercialy probably has its limits and is arguably not art at all (e.g Pop Idol).

How much the art is worth? its worth as much as anyone is prepared to pay for it. I think the price label neither adds nor removes from the art itself. It is what it is, and the price somone is willing to pay is a completely seperate issue to if the art is good or bad. Putting a price on art is perhaps another (bad) form of human expression (greed) and is more about economics than art.

I think there is art in fashion design, but the whole Paris catwlk show thing makes my skin crawl and again arguably has nothing to do with art. I think thats more about greed and vanity than art.

bluesjnr · 29th October 2010, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I recall the 60 Minutes interview with the couple who collected modern art in NY. Among the pieces in their collection was a short piece of rope nailed to the wall. The interviewer asked if that, too was art. "Oh, yes." was the reply. "Why?"
"Because the artist said it was."

On a similar note I recall watching some arty show presented by Muriel Grey (always fancied her) who is a Scottish TV presenter and writer. She was talking with the director of some art exhibition which featured a number of abstract pieces. The type that seem to invoke public outrage of the,

"That's not worth £2.4 million" Type.

Reaching into her pocket she scrunched up a paper hanky and placed it on a nearby plinth and asked the director what he thought of her "artwork". His reply was along the lines of,

"It is rubbish, it is not at all artistic because you had no intent behind the piece, you had no real motivation to make it and cannot describe what emotion you would like to invoke with your piece. Most of all, it is rubbish because you, my dear, are not an artist."

Obviously that is not word for word but it is close enough. It always stuck with me because it allowed me to see through my art ignorant eyes just how some of the more abstract pieces and installations do have merit and worth and even on one or two occasions I have "got" what the artist was going for.

Jono · 29th October 2010, 07:36 AM

Art is whatever an artist creates or constructs and calls 'art', or what others would call art when the artist would not.

SumDood · 29th October 2010, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

"It is rubbish, it is not at all artistic because you had no intent behind the piece, you had no real motivation to make it and cannot describe what emotion you would like to invoke with your piece. Most of all, it is rubbish because you, my dear, are not an artist."

Sorry, but that's nonsense. A piece should stand on its own. When you look at a piece, you should be able to tell if its art or not. You shouldn't have to read the description or title or artist bio to know if its art. You don't hear a song and say, "I'm not sure if that is good or not. First let me read the CD liner and do some research on the performers. Only then will I be able to determine if its a good song."

aggle-rithm · 29th October 2010, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by SumDood

If Joe blow in the mid-west was an accountant and produced the exact same paintings in his spare time, no one in the art world would have cared. The criteria used by critics or dealers or whoever to determine the price of a piece of art is crap.

My mother is a semi-professional painter (she sells a few works at art shows every year). When she asked a more experienced artist how she could sell more paintings, he told her she wasn't charging enough. Paradoxically, if the price is low, the demand goes down because the buyer thinks it's intrinsic worth is tied to the price tag.

So apparently some weird economics comes into play where art is concerned.

aggle-rithm · 29th October 2010, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by SumDood

Sorry, but that's nonsense. A piece should stand on its own. When you look at a piece, you should be able to tell if its art or not. You shouldn't have to read the description or title or artist bio to know if its art. You don't hear a song and say, "I'm not sure if that is good or not. First let me read the CD liner and do some research on the performers. Only then will I be able to determine if its a good song."

One of the most puzzleing aspects of the Fine Arts is that it's value is determined, in part, by its historical context.

If a high-quality painting by an unknown contemporary of Leonardo da Vinci were discovered in a basement somewhere, it would fetch a pretty good price. However, if a modern artist produced the same painting, it would be dismissed as a pastiche. Revisiting the same style and technique of past artists is strictly forbidden.

Why can't the work stand on it's own merits, you ask? That's a good question.

AvalonXQ · 29th October 2010, 10:23 AM

Similar to what others have said, I define art as:

Quote:

Something created and/or presented for the purpose of conveying an emotion or other visceral sensation to those that observe it.

I don't think the reaction of the observer matters. We should classify something as art or not based on the intent of the artist.
I consider art to be "good art" it if is successful in conveying what the artist intends to convey. This may be somewhat independent of whether or not I like it, which will be based what it actually conveys to me (independent of what was intended).

DallasDad · 29th October 2010, 11:45 AM

This reminds me of an experiment I did when one of my nephews was five. I'd recently made a friend who was into modern art, and I couldn't see any difference between throwing paint at a board and what he called art. So, after many fruitless discussions with my friend, I had my five-year-old nephew fingerpaint a mess. I let it dry and put it in an expensive frame. My friend oohed and aahed over the "art," and spent a good 15 minutes trying to identify the artist, talking about its intention, etc. I ended up leaving it hanging on the wall for several years, and got lots of compliments on it from various visitors, all of whom thought it was interesting, expressive, evocative, etc. It was a smear of green surrounded by a blotch of blue, with a streak of red.

'Twas more than enough for me to conclude that all of the "art" was in the eye of the beholder, and none of it in the artwork itself.

Of course, since then I've come to believe that perhaps it really was art, because there was intention. After all, I directed the five-year-old, then I selected a portion of the page for framing, selected the frame to go with it, and chose where to hang it for the best effect. So if there was any art, I was the artist. The difference between this kind of art and interior design escapes me, though.

I like a nice abstract on subway walls, or even in my own house. However, I usually use the word "decoration" instead of "art." I normally reserve the word "art" for representational pieces, and also for pieces that take experience and skills to create.

Anyone may attempt to replicate my results. Get a five year old, a bunch of fingerpaints, one "real" piece of art, and two frames. Frame them identically, hang them side by side, and invite your friends to tell you their reactions to the paintings.

Part of my cynicism, no doubt, comes from my experience as an editor and writer. I've seen the most risible analyses of fiction from readers and serious lit students, seeing all sorts of things I know were not intended by the authors. But even this doesn't mean that authors don't sometimes create something greater than intended. Perhaps the same thing happens with five-year-old fingerpainters, or professional modern artists. Yet a part of me remains unwilling to use the word "art" to refer to an interestingly-shaped lump of clay, a collection of garbage can lids, or a pile of stacked lumber. If while painting my house, I accidentally back into a wet wall and then sit on the couch, the resulting blotch is not art. If an artist produces my blotch intentionally, it's still not art.

But that's just me.

Halfcentaur · 29th October 2010, 11:54 AM

I am an artist and painter, but I find art to be a completely subjective term. There are levels of craftsmanship and subtlety in technique that are tangible and have merit. I myself love drawing and capturing form with marks and lines. When one can reproduce the sense of form as well as capture the behavior of light well, I consider that a truly gifted artist. The examples shown of modern abstract art for the most part I do not have much respect for. I do appreciate good composition however, and much of the abstract art that is making an effort to balance composition I can appreciate.
I would not call subtle technique and craftsmanship with form and light and composition arbitrary, and I would also posit that there are degrees of subtlety it's impossible to appreciate without sharing a propensity for the trade one's self. I am absolutely fascinated by the the way a mind can recreate a three dimensional scene using representations on a two dimensional canvas.

JJM 777 · 29th October 2010, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

It is the most expensive painting ever sold.
But is it art?
What makes it art?

The artist doesn't manifest (my guess: he doesn't have) an above average ability to imagine and illustrate forms and shapes. What the ancient masters (Michelangelo, Ilya Repin etc.) did is something that only a minimal fraction of people are capable of doing, no matter how much time you give them to practice the skill and then perform the task.

Average humans, even below average humans (my guess: the painter might be one of them) are capable of creating something a bit similar to this painting. But it is not quite so easy as one might think, I actually once bought paints and canvases with the intention of making some modern / abstract art to sell in some gallery. Everything what I created looked so silly and uninteresting that I threw them all to the trashbin without showing them to anyone else than my wife, who laughed enough at my creations. So there evidently is a skill involved in making also this style of abstract art.

Brainache · 29th October 2010, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

The artist doesn't manifest (my guess: he doesn't have) an above average ability to imagine and illustrate forms and shapes. What the ancient masters (Michelangelo, Ilya Repin etc.) did is something that only a minimal fraction of people are capable of doing, no matter how much time you give them to practice the skill and then perform the task.

Average humans, even below average humans (my guess: the painter might be one of them) are capable of creating something a bit similar to this painting. But it is not quite so easy as one might think, I actually once bought paints and canvases with the intention of making some modern / abstract art to sell in some gallery. Everything what I created looked so silly and uninteresting that I threw them all to the trashbin without showing them to anyone else than my wife, who laughed enough at my creations. So there evidently is a skill involved in making also this style of abstract art.

I was going to say how Jackson Pollock's work was better than random splashes of paint because it was fractal. I remembered an old news item about some academic who analysed Pollock's work and found lots of similar repeating patterns at different scales and how he used this technique to authenticate disputed paintings.

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_9_20_99.html

Then I saw this: http://www.physorg.com/news84452049.html

So now I don't know any more.

**** art! Let's dance.

rustypouch · 29th October 2010, 05:20 PM

To me, it's about the expression, creativity, and originality of the artist. It's about technical expertise, knowing how to use the tools. It's about shape, form, and colour, and making the best use out of them. It's the intent of wanting to be able to express things which cannot be expressed in words.

It's combining all these aspects to create a piece which provokes a reaction in the viewer. It could be emotional, or visceral, or somehow telling a story. In the case of Pollock's work, it's hard to state the impact of seeing one in real life. Much different than viewing a low-res copy on a computer monitor.

I just don't get why some people who are so insulting about things they don't understand. I have often heard comments like 'anybody could do that.'

The point is that anybody didn't do it. These works are the result of one person thinking in ways no one else did. Artists like Pollock, or the deceptively simple Mondrian were the first to do what they did. They had original ways of expression that spawned all sorts of imitators, and were hugely influential to those who followed.

Yes, it's easy to look back at such pieces now and think 'I could do that.' Maybe you could, but it wouldn't be the same. You would just be imitating, not innovating.

BillyJoe · 29th October 2010, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisC

The hoax appears to be hastily thrown together sponge or roller blotches on a wall but I still enjoy looking at it.

Congratulations!
You were the only one brave enough to offer an opinion.

I also enjoyed the painting, which is why I chose it.

Of course, I would agree with you that it has nothing on the Jackson Pollock.

I chose this painting from a site that contains a collection of 105 paintings from a similar source. From memory, they range in price from $300 to $4000 and, from memory, this one has a $300 price tag. In my opinion, it was closest to what I thought might appeal to an above average intelligent person as genuine art. I suppose it could regard it as "accidental art". Unless we accept that elephants can produce genuine art.

Yes, it's an example of elephant art.
But not so fast...

There is a human element at two levels:
There are 27 elephants producing an average of 4 paintings each. Their owners have no doubt selected the most artistic looking of who knows how many paintings those elephants have produced in total. Out of those 105 paintings, I have selected what I consider to be the single most artistic looking painting.

Therefore I think it qualifies as art.
And, hey, perhaps elephants do have a rudimentary aptitude for art expression.

BillyJoe · 29th October 2010, 11:45 PM

As a test of the above hypothesis, I would invite everyone who is interested in this question to peruse all the examples at that site and see if you agree with me that this one best fits both of my criteria of being abstract like the Pollock and the most artistic.

If you do, that itself would suggest that this particular painting has some artistic merit. Otherwise why would we select it over and above the others? If you choose a different picture the same conclusion applies.

If you think they are all trash, then I would invite you to compare my selected painting with the Jackson Pollock. And I would defy you to say that the Jackson Pollock is, similarly, trash and has no merit above and beyond my selected example of elephant art.

BillyJoe · 29th October 2010, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

...I suppose we might call art anything that conveys something to the viewer. Some emotion or feeling.

But, of course, then there is art that has more of an intellectual appeal than an emotional appeal.
Maybe this is an example:

("The guitarist" by Picasso)

Quote:

I'm of the opinion that art should also require some degree of skill or process or planning as well...
But obviously much of modern art does not require that addition.

What about the above example?
What about the Jackson Pollock?

BillyJoe · 29th October 2010, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

So when the Emperor appears naked, it's just that I lack the necessary special brain cells to truly appreciate how richly attired the Emperor is?

Or maybe you're just an modern art cynic.

BillyJoe · 30th October 2010, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Billy Joe, I have seen a very very very similar "piece of art" at the local paint shop...

I doubt it.
But I'm willing to be shown a photo for comparison.

Quote:

Can I retrieve that thin slice of ground and sell it 140 M$ ? I doubt it. That should tell it all the story.

Even accepting your assessment of that painting, as someone else has pointed out, it is not original but a mere reproduction of someone else's original idea.

Quote:

Because the other one was declared to be art by some "artist" it suddenly has a bigger value, and because "some" ""expert"" (eleventy scary quote) declared its value to be so high, it suddenly is.

Well, most of the time, it doesn't quite work that way.
I mean there would need to be a conspiracy of many "experts" from many diverse backgrounds and countries over many decades.
That Jackson Pollock dates back to the 60s.

Quote:

IMHO a piece of art that joe-average can make with a few can of different color, within a few minutes of spare time, by splashing color at random, is not art.

Whatever you may think of the Jackson Pollock, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered random splashes of paint. There is a symmetry in that painting that defies randomness. Throw a coin a hundred times and see if you get symmetry.

Quote:

Something you could CONFUSE with TRASH if you are not warned in advance is *NOT* art.

It depends on who threw it out
A garbage collector is likely to see garbage everywhere.
I've pulled my wife's specially selected plants out of her garden whilst weeding. It just means I have no clue, not that her precious plant is bv||$#!+.

Quote:

You would never confuse a Monet with trash. That above ? trash.

A Monet is obviously beautiful.
But some types of art require more from the viewer - which is not to belittle the Monet.
They are just different types of paintings, that's all.

Ron_Tomkins · 30th October 2010, 12:38 AM

This post, for example..... this post is art

BillyJoe · 30th October 2010, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by SumDood

A piece should stand on its own. When you look at a piece, you should be able to tell if its art or not.

When I first heard some Kate Bush songs many years ago, I thought they were all crap (except perhaps for "Wuthering Heights"). It was decades later when I happened to hear her rendition of the Welsh song "Mna Na H-Eireann" that I suddenly realised that she had something special. I have since listened to all her songs and, in my opinion, the album entitled "The Dreaming" is a work of pure genius. Yet I would not have recognised that a couple of decades ago. One particular song on that album "Night of the Swallow" fairly filled my eyes with tears. But it was not untill I'd listened to it about the third time that it affected me that way. It was incredible to me that someone could produce something so beautiful.

But why not straight away?
Why did it take so long for me to appreciate Kate Bush's art?
Why did it take three listens for me to appreciate that particular song which I now regard as her most impressive?

Some forms of art are just not as immediately accessible as others.
Monet is easy to appreciate - again, not to belittle it.
Pollock and Picasso demand more of the viewer.

BillyJoe · 30th October 2010, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

I actually once bought paints and canvases with the intention of making some modern / abstract art to sell in some gallery. Everything what I created looked so silly and uninteresting that I threw them all to the trashbin without showing them to anyone else than my wife, who laughed enough at my creations. So there evidently is a skill involved in making also this style of abstract art.

I would invite all the art cynics to do this simple test.
It will surprise you how difficult it is to produce a piece of abstract art that appeals even to yourself, let alone the "experts".
If you think it's just a matter of random splashes, you're in for quite a surprise.

bluesjnr · 30th October 2010, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by SumDood

Sorry, but that's nonsense. A piece should stand on its own. When you look at a piece, you should be able to tell if its art or not. You shouldn't have to read the description or title or artist bio to know if its art. You don't hear a song and say, "I'm not sure if that is good or not. First let me read the CD liner and do some research on the performers. Only then will I be able to determine if its a good song."

To you it's nonsense. Much like the question "what is art", we don't have to agree and I say you are wrong. Find the programme in question then identify the individual who made the remark and take it up with him as I can't speak for him.

There is no mention of a requirement to read a description or title or artist bio in the story I told, so why mention them in support of your assertion that "that's nonsense"?

If I had to be critical of the statement I refer to in my story I would say it smacks of elitism but otherwise I think it is sound.

BillyJoe · 30th October 2010, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by rustypouch

To me, it's about the expression, creativity, and originality of the artist. It's about technical expertise, knowing how to use the tools. It's about shape, form, and colour, and making the best use out of them. It's the intent of wanting to be able to express things which cannot be expressed in words.

It's combining all these aspects to create a piece which provokes a reaction in the viewer. It could be emotional, or visceral, or somehow telling a story.

Quote:

In the case of Pollock's work, it's hard to state the impact of seeing one in real life. Much different than viewing a low-res copy on a computer monitor.

Yes, good point.
Fortunately we have Pollocks "Blue Poles" right here in Melbourne.

Quote:

I just don't get why some people who are so insulting about things they don't understand.

Yes, it's annoying.
It's like someone not understanding Quantum Physics but, instead of admitting their ignorance, they call it crap.

Quote:

I have often heard comments like 'anybody could do that.'

The point is that anybody didn't do it. These works are the result of one person thinking in ways no one else did. Artists like Pollock, or the deceptively simple Mondrian were the first to do what they did. They had original ways of expression that spawned all sorts of imitators, and were hugely influential to those who followed.

A typical example:

But he has some interesting semi-abstract pieces as well.
Here is a series of increasingly abstract pieces on a similar theme:

And is anyone not moved by these pieces:

Quote:

Yes, it's easy to look back at such pieces now and think 'I could do that.' Maybe you could, but it wouldn't be the same. You would just be imitating, not innovating.

Except that most who shrug it off with an 'I could do that" are just bv||$#!++!^g themselves.

quadraginta · 30th October 2010, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

<snip>

Whatever you may think of the Jackson Pollock, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered random splashes of paint. There is a symmetry in that painting that defies randomness. Throw a coin a hundred times and see if you get symmetry.

<snip>

This is a little bit thought provoking in a sense that you may not have intended.

The more times you flip an unbiased coin, the more closely the results will approach 50/50. Is that randomness in pursuit of symmetry?

There is something of a dichotomy here that may be false. Humans often find pleasing symmetry in randomness. It is said that our brains are hardwired to seek out pattern even when it doesn't exist. This does not affect the pleasure derived from that seeking even the least bit.

Art (or not-art) is all about perception as well as intent. The weight given to either or both of those elements is purely a matter of opinion, which I think is why efforts to quantify or define "art" are doomed to discord as well as failure. The closest anyone ever seems to come is to say "This person agrees with me, and that person doesn't, so I'm going drinking with this person instead."

As has been pointed out already in this thread, and the many others like it, the question of the dollar value attached to any particular piece of art is generally irrelevant to an intrinsic value, and arguably unrelated to anything but the worth attributable to whatever the current wave of social approbation provides. Much of the time the price tag itself is the sole and sought after measure, i.e.; someone's ability to show that they have that much money to spend on something which neither feeds nor shelters them.

My personal definition of art has to include "art to me" with the emphasis on "to me". I either like it or I don't, and whether one other person or many others agree or not is completely unimportant, although occasionally interesting. There's lots of music out there I don't care for either, but I don't consider someone else wrong just because they like it.

If a framed five year old's fingerpainting on the wall gives pleasure to the resident and their visitors then it is serving its function as art. If someone is willing to pay $140M for it that is a valuation of a different sort.

rjh01 · 30th October 2010, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

Fortunately we have Pollocks "Blue Poles" right here in Melbourne.

If anyone goes to see it, the painting is 3D. Look at it edge ways and you will see what I mean. This is something reproductions do not have. Nor do most other paintings. This painting has several layers of thick paint.

BillyJoe · 30th October 2010, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

The more times you flip an unbiased coin, the more closely the results will approach 50/50. Is that randomness in pursuit of symmetry?

No. I meant the actual sequence of coin tosses.
Here is a random sequence of 200 ones and zeros:

11001000001111111010100100100110101011101101101110 100111111
00100000000010100011011000000100101100011111000101 011000111
10001011101000100011111111111010000010010101010111 001000010
100101100001101011101101

There is no pattern whatsoever in a random sequence.

On the other hand, if you ask someone to fake a sequence of 200 coin tosses you will tend to get a sequence that contains greater patternicity and (therefore) less randonmness. Because, as you say, humans are pattern seeking (and making) creatures.

The Pollock painting is not a random spattering of paint - precisely because it has pattern. That was my point to the cynics: you cannot produce a Pollock painting by a random spattering of paint. The Pollock painting only looks like what would result if you were to produce a random spattering of paint. That's why the cynics think they could (though they never actually do so) produce a Pollock painting by randomly spattering paint.

Quote:

...the question of the dollar value attached to any particular piece of art is generally irrelevant to an intrinsic value, and arguably unrelated to anything but the worth attributable to whatever the current wave of social approbation provides.

No argument.

Quote:

There's lots of music out there I don't care for either, but I don't consider someone else wrong just because they like it.

The idea is to try to put yourself in the other persons shoes and try to understand why they like it. Surely you are not so different from them that you are incapable of appreciating their music.

Quote:

If a framed five year old's fingerpainting on the wall gives pleasure to the resident and their visitors then it is serving its function as art.

Same for the example of elephant art?
Are you comfortable calling that art as well?

SumDood · 30th October 2010, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

There is no mention of a requirement to read a description or title or artist bio in the story I told, so why mention them in support of your assertion that "that's nonsense"?

Quote you posted mentioned the "intent", the "motivation" and whether or not the creator is an "artist". I gave some examples on how one would find out these things about a musician.

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

But why not straight away?
Why did it take so long for me to appreciate Kate Bush's art?
Why did it take three listens for me to appreciate that particular song which I now regard as her most impressive?

Upon further listening of the song, you formed a different opinion. It didn't take you finding out what sort of life she had or what her intentions were when she wrote her songs or what kind of child hood she had. You experienced the art in the medium in which it was created and changed your mind based on the art itself, not external factors.

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

...There is a symmetry in that painting that defies randomness...

I apparently don't have an eye for that sort of thing, or I am just too shallow, but I definitely don't see any symmetry in that piece. Can you explain to me where it is?

Cavemonster · 30th October 2010, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

You would never confuse a Monet with trash. That above ? trash.

Really?
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/monet2.jpg
http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/L/L01/L01903_9.jpg

brenn · 30th October 2010, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

"It is rubbish, it is not at all artistic because you had no intent behind the piece, you had no real motivation to make it and cannot describe what emotion you would like to invoke with your piece. Most of all, it is rubbish because you, my dear, are not an artist."

Obviously that is not word for word but it is close enough. It always stuck with me because it allowed me to see through my art ignorant eyes just how some of the more abstract pieces and installations do have merit and worth and even on one or two occasions I have "got" what the artist was going for.

I think it would have caused me to see that even the experts don't see any objective merit in some of this stuff and it would have made me thing the critic was ignorant. (And, by the way, I like art and prefer the abstract - I just think some of it is paint thrown on canvas for money).

29th October 2010, 04:26 AM	#1
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	What is art? This painting probably needs no introduction: In 2006 it sold for $140 million. It is the most expensive painting ever sold. But is it art? What makes it art? What makes if not art? In general, what distinguishes art from non art? Could you be fooled by an art hoax? For example, is this an art hoax:
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

29th October 2010, 04:35 AM	#2
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,807	Is it art? Yes. And I like it, it stirs something in me. I can see past the initial business and begin to feel things off it. What makes it art is: "Does It Move You?" ...are you still looking at it, do your eyes want to return to it, even just to figure out if it's making a statement, and if so, what could it be? What distinguishes art from non-art is a sole person's subjective opinion. I could easily be fooled by an art hoax, being that I've never had access to "great" art with the leisure and proximity to study detail and nuance; things like cracks in paint or potter's marks. Looking at art images on the internet is the palest comparison to the actual thing...
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

29th October 2010, 04:38 AM	#3
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	The Pollock is upside down.
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

29th October 2010, 04:44 AM	#4
bluesjnr Professional Nemesis for Hire Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Not where I should be. Posts: 2,167	Art? It's a load of Pollocks if you ask me.
	__________________ A baby smoking? That's child abuse - UncaYimmy Your avatar really cracked me up the first hundred or so times I saw it...Now, it gets on my nerves.. - Skeptical Greg

29th October 2010, 04:44 AM	#5
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,807	Originally Posted by Brainache The Pollock is upside down. I was noticing that but I can't get past that obvious streak mistake in the upper right which exposes it as a fakeroo.
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

29th October 2010, 05:47 AM	#6
ChrisC Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: BC, Canada Posts: 467	I like both. The hoax appears to be hastily thrown together sponge or roller blotches on a wall but I still enjoy looking at it. I don't care about the art/not art dichotomy, though, so what do I know?
	__________________ Take stuff from work. It's the best way to feel better about your job. Never buy pens or pencils or paper.

29th October 2010, 05:50 AM	#7
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,522	Debate has been going on for a long time... Likely prior to DuChamp's "Ready-Mades".... I recall the 60 Minutes interview with the couple who collected modern art in NY. Among the pieces in their collection was a short piece of rope nailed to the wall. The interviewer asked if that, too was art. "Oh, yes." was the reply. "Why?" "Because the artist said it was." In the loosest possible definition, I suppose we might call art anything that conveys something to the viewer. Some emotion or feeling. This might not (and often is not) the feeling that the artist intended. I'm of the opinion that art should also require some degree of skill or process or planning as well... But obviously much of modern art does not require that addition.

29th October 2010, 05:52 AM	#8
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,149	Part of the problem is that only people with certain brain structures can appreciate abstract art like this. It depends on how you process visual information. It's like those "hidden spaceship" pictures like the one in the Seinfeld episode. Some people just don't have the neural apparatus to see the hidden image. In a similar manner, some people can't appreciate abstract art. Those people often assume that others see the same thing they do, and so they think those people are posers or phonies for talking about how great the painting is. I'm one of those that don't get it. But I'm willing to bet that whoever paid $140 million for that painting does get it.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

29th October 2010, 06:11 AM	#9
SumDood Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Alabama Posts: 706	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm Part of the problem is that only people with certain brain structures can appreciate abstract art like this. It depends on how you process visual information. It's like those "hidden spaceship" pictures like the one in the Seinfeld episode. Some people just don't have the neural apparatus to see the hidden image. In a similar manner, some people can't appreciate abstract art. Those people often assume that others see the same thing they do, and so they think those people are posers or phonies for talking about how great the painting is. I'm one of those that don't get it. But I'm willing to bet that whoever paid $140 million for that painting does get it. You may be right, but I doubt it has anything to do with the way our brains are wired. I like some modern art and if anything, I may be too shallow to appreciate more of it 'properly'. (I also feel the same way about poetry). I think its all BS. Pollack lived a tortured life and was the starving artist (actually i don't know, i'm just assuming) so he poured his soul into his work. At least that's what his fans would say. If Joe blow in the mid-west was an accountant and produced the exact same paintings in his spare time, no one in the art world would have cared. The criteria used by critics or dealers or whoever to determine the price of a piece of art is crap. I do like the idea that its all personal and each piece should be considered for its impact it has on us individually.

29th October 2010, 06:13 AM	#10
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,896	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm Part of the problem is that only people with certain brain structures can appreciate abstract art like this. It depends on how you process visual information. It's like those "hidden spaceship" pictures like the one in the Seinfeld episode. Some people just don't have the neural apparatus to see the hidden image. In a similar manner, some people can't appreciate abstract art. Those people often assume that others see the same thing they do, and so they think those people are posers or phonies for talking about how great the painting is. I'm one of those that don't get it. But I'm willing to bet that whoever paid $140 million for that painting does get it. So when the Emperor appears naked, it's just that I lack the necessary special brain cells to truly appreciate how richly attired the Emperor is? After all, he paid a lot of money for that invisible suit. And when you can't show me those special brain cells, will it be because I lack...well, you get it. It's brain cells all the way down...

29th October 2010, 06:27 AM	#11
Nichiro Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 271	Art is ......Acquired Reproductive Trait
Nichiro Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 271	__________________ We should remember that we are neither the smartest nor the last generation to live on earth.

29th October 2010, 06:48 AM	#12
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,741	Billy Joe, I have seen a very very very similar "piece of art" at the local paint shop (virtually indistinguishable except by color, but if you don't know about the color you would not be able to recognize one from the other). Can I retrieve that thin slice of ground and sell it 140 M$ ? I doubt it. That should tell it all the story. Because the other one was declared to be art by some "artist" it suddenly has a bigger value, and because "some" ""expert"" (eleventy scary quote) declared its value to be so high, it suddenly is. IMHO a piece of art that joe-average can make with a few can of different color, within a few minutes of spare time, by splashing color at random, is not art. Something you could CONFUSE with TRASH if you are not warned in advance is NOT art. You would never confuse a Monet with trash. That above ? trash. But hey, then again i think the whole "modern" art movement is ******** and will not live time with maybe a few exception.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life. Last edited by Aepervius; 29th October 2010 at 06:50 AM.

29th October 2010, 07:03 AM	#13
BadBoy Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 729	Im not sure I really get it either, most of the time. I know if I like it. I think theres alot of intellectual masturbation surounding art. The Pollok does nothing for me and I wouldnt be surprised if it was purchased as a business opportunity rather than for the art. My brother went to the Royal College in London studying fine art and I asked him this question once. He gave me a rather unsatisfactory answer that, if the art makes people talk about it, then its good art. Like dance and music, I believe art is just another form of human expression. The same as Religion and all its paraphernalia. Im (probably) an athiest, but I can still see the amazing profound human expression in the building of a cathedral or Handel's Messiah (or stone henge come to that). Probably trying to determine whats good art and whats bad is pointless if the art was created honestly. Art created to make money, comercialy probably has its limits and is arguably not art at all (e.g Pop Idol). How much the art is worth? its worth as much as anyone is prepared to pay for it. I think the price label neither adds nor removes from the art itself. It is what it is, and the price somone is willing to pay is a completely seperate issue to if the art is good or bad. Putting a price on art is perhaps another (bad) form of human expression (greed) and is more about economics than art. I think there is art in fashion design, but the whole Paris catwlk show thing makes my skin crawl and again arguably has nothing to do with art. I think thats more about greed and vanity than art.
BadBoy Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 729	Last edited by BadBoy; 29th October 2010 at 07:14 AM.

29th October 2010, 07:34 AM	#14
bluesjnr Professional Nemesis for Hire Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Not where I should be. Posts: 2,167	Originally Posted by Bikewer I recall the 60 Minutes interview with the couple who collected modern art in NY. Among the pieces in their collection was a short piece of rope nailed to the wall. The interviewer asked if that, too was art. "Oh, yes." was the reply. "Why?" "Because the artist said it was." On a similar note I recall watching some arty show presented by Muriel Grey (always fancied her) who is a Scottish TV presenter and writer. She was talking with the director of some art exhibition which featured a number of abstract pieces. The type that seem to invoke public outrage of the, "That's not worth £2.4 million" Type. Reaching into her pocket she scrunched up a paper hanky and placed it on a nearby plinth and asked the director what he thought of her "artwork". His reply was along the lines of, "It is rubbish, it is not at all artistic because you had no intent behind the piece, you had no real motivation to make it and cannot describe what emotion you would like to invoke with your piece. Most of all, it is rubbish because you, my dear, are not an artist." Obviously that is not word for word but it is close enough. It always stuck with me because it allowed me to see through my art ignorant eyes just how some of the more abstract pieces and installations do have merit and worth and even on one or two occasions I have "got" what the artist was going for.
	__________________ A baby smoking? That's child abuse - UncaYimmy Your avatar really cracked me up the first hundred or so times I saw it...Now, it gets on my nerves.. - Skeptical Greg Last edited by bluesjnr; 29th October 2010 at 07:52 AM.

29th October 2010, 07:36 AM	#15
Jono Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,536	Art is whatever an artist creates or constructs and calls 'art', or what others would call art when the artist would not.
	__________________ "I don't believe I ever saw an Oklahoman who wouldn't fight at the drop of a hat -- and frequently drop the hat himself." - Robert E. Howard

29th October 2010, 08:04 AM	#16
SumDood Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Alabama Posts: 706	Originally Posted by bluesjnr "It is rubbish, it is not at all artistic because you had no intent behind the piece, you had no real motivation to make it and cannot describe what emotion you would like to invoke with your piece. Most of all, it is rubbish because you, my dear, are not an artist." Sorry, but that's nonsense. A piece should stand on its own. When you look at a piece, you should be able to tell if its art or not. You shouldn't have to read the description or title or artist bio to know if its art. You don't hear a song and say, "I'm not sure if that is good or not. First let me read the CD liner and do some research on the performers. Only then will I be able to determine if its a good song."

29th October 2010, 09:38 AM	#17
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,149	Originally Posted by SumDood If Joe blow in the mid-west was an accountant and produced the exact same paintings in his spare time, no one in the art world would have cared. The criteria used by critics or dealers or whoever to determine the price of a piece of art is crap. My mother is a semi-professional painter (she sells a few works at art shows every year). When she asked a more experienced artist how she could sell more paintings, he told her she wasn't charging enough. Paradoxically, if the price is low, the demand goes down because the buyer thinks it's intrinsic worth is tied to the price tag. So apparently some weird economics comes into play where art is concerned.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

29th October 2010, 09:43 AM	#18
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,149	Originally Posted by SumDood Sorry, but that's nonsense. A piece should stand on its own. When you look at a piece, you should be able to tell if its art or not. You shouldn't have to read the description or title or artist bio to know if its art. You don't hear a song and say, "I'm not sure if that is good or not. First let me read the CD liner and do some research on the performers. Only then will I be able to determine if its a good song." One of the most puzzleing aspects of the Fine Arts is that it's value is determined, in part, by its historical context. If a high-quality painting by an unknown contemporary of Leonardo da Vinci were discovered in a basement somewhere, it would fetch a pretty good price. However, if a modern artist produced the same painting, it would be dismissed as a pastiche. Revisiting the same style and technique of past artists is strictly forbidden. Why can't the work stand on it's own merits, you ask? That's a good question.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

29th October 2010, 10:23 AM	#19
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Similar to what others have said, I define art as: Quote: Something created and/or presented for the purpose of conveying an emotion or other visceral sensation to those that observe it. I don't think the reaction of the observer matters. We should classify something as art or not based on the intent of the artist. I consider art to be "good art" it if is successful in conveying what the artist intends to convey. This may be somewhat independent of whether or not I like it, which will be based what it actually conveys to me (independent of what was intended).
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

29th October 2010, 11:45 AM	#20
DallasDad Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 688	This reminds me of an experiment I did when one of my nephews was five. I'd recently made a friend who was into modern art, and I couldn't see any difference between throwing paint at a board and what he called art. So, after many fruitless discussions with my friend, I had my five-year-old nephew fingerpaint a mess. I let it dry and put it in an expensive frame. My friend oohed and aahed over the "art," and spent a good 15 minutes trying to identify the artist, talking about its intention, etc. I ended up leaving it hanging on the wall for several years, and got lots of compliments on it from various visitors, all of whom thought it was interesting, expressive, evocative, etc. It was a smear of green surrounded by a blotch of blue, with a streak of red. 'Twas more than enough for me to conclude that all of the "art" was in the eye of the beholder, and none of it in the artwork itself. Of course, since then I've come to believe that perhaps it really was art, because there was intention. After all, I directed the five-year-old, then I selected a portion of the page for framing, selected the frame to go with it, and chose where to hang it for the best effect. So if there was any art, I was the artist. The difference between this kind of art and interior design escapes me, though. I like a nice abstract on subway walls, or even in my own house. However, I usually use the word "decoration" instead of "art." I normally reserve the word "art" for representational pieces, and also for pieces that take experience and skills to create. Anyone may attempt to replicate my results. Get a five year old, a bunch of fingerpaints, one "real" piece of art, and two frames. Frame them identically, hang them side by side, and invite your friends to tell you their reactions to the paintings. Part of my cynicism, no doubt, comes from my experience as an editor and writer. I've seen the most risible analyses of fiction from readers and serious lit students, seeing all sorts of things I know were not intended by the authors. But even this doesn't mean that authors don't sometimes create something greater than intended. Perhaps the same thing happens with five-year-old fingerpainters, or professional modern artists. Yet a part of me remains unwilling to use the word "art" to refer to an interestingly-shaped lump of clay, a collection of garbage can lids, or a pile of stacked lumber. If while painting my house, I accidentally back into a wet wall and then sit on the couch, the resulting blotch is not art. If an artist produces my blotch intentionally, it's still not art. But that's just me.
DallasDad Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 688

29th October 2010, 11:54 AM	#21
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,944	I am an artist and painter, but I find art to be a completely subjective term. There are levels of craftsmanship and subtlety in technique that are tangible and have merit. I myself love drawing and capturing form with marks and lines. When one can reproduce the sense of form as well as capture the behavior of light well, I consider that a truly gifted artist. The examples shown of modern abstract art for the most part I do not have much respect for. I do appreciate good composition however, and much of the abstract art that is making an effort to balance composition I can appreciate. I would not call subtle technique and craftsmanship with form and light and composition arbitrary, and I would also posit that there are degrees of subtlety it's impossible to appreciate without sharing a propensity for the trade one's self. I am absolutely fascinated by the the way a mind can recreate a three dimensional scene using representations on a two dimensional canvas.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,944

29th October 2010, 12:00 PM	#22
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by BillyJoe It is the most expensive painting ever sold. But is it art? What makes it art? The artist doesn't manifest (my guess: he doesn't have) an above average ability to imagine and illustrate forms and shapes. What the ancient masters (Michelangelo, Ilya Repin etc.) did is something that only a minimal fraction of people are capable of doing, no matter how much time you give them to practice the skill and then perform the task. Average humans, even below average humans (my guess: the painter might be one of them) are capable of creating something a bit similar to this painting. But it is not quite so easy as one might think, I actually once bought paints and canvases with the intention of making some modern / abstract art to sell in some gallery. Everything what I created looked so silly and uninteresting that I threw them all to the trashbin without showing them to anyone else than my wife, who laughed enough at my creations. So there evidently is a skill involved in making also this style of abstract art.

29th October 2010, 12:42 PM	#23
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	Originally Posted by JJM 777 The artist doesn't manifest (my guess: he doesn't have) an above average ability to imagine and illustrate forms and shapes. What the ancient masters (Michelangelo, Ilya Repin etc.) did is something that only a minimal fraction of people are capable of doing, no matter how much time you give them to practice the skill and then perform the task. Average humans, even below average humans (my guess: the painter might be one of them) are capable of creating something a bit similar to this painting. But it is not quite so easy as one might think, I actually once bought paints and canvases with the intention of making some modern / abstract art to sell in some gallery. Everything what I created looked so silly and uninteresting that I threw them all to the trashbin without showing them to anyone else than my wife, who laughed enough at my creations. So there evidently is a skill involved in making also this style of abstract art. I was going to say how Jackson Pollock's work was better than random splashes of paint because it was fractal. I remembered an old news item about some academic who analysed Pollock's work and found lots of similar repeating patterns at different scales and how he used this technique to authenticate disputed paintings. http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_9_20_99.html Then I saw this: http://www.physorg.com/news84452049.html So now I don't know any more. **** art! Let's dance.
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

29th October 2010, 05:20 PM	#24
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Belfort Posts: 5,122	To me, it's about the expression, creativity, and originality of the artist. It's about technical expertise, knowing how to use the tools. It's about shape, form, and colour, and making the best use out of them. It's the intent of wanting to be able to express things which cannot be expressed in words. It's combining all these aspects to create a piece which provokes a reaction in the viewer. It could be emotional, or visceral, or somehow telling a story. In the case of Pollock's work, it's hard to state the impact of seeing one in real life. Much different than viewing a low-res copy on a computer monitor. I just don't get why some people who are so insulting about things they don't understand. I have often heard comments like 'anybody could do that.' The point is that anybody didn't do it. These works are the result of one person thinking in ways no one else did. Artists like Pollock, or the deceptively simple Mondrian were the first to do what they did. They had original ways of expression that spawned all sorts of imitators, and were hugely influential to those who followed. Yes, it's easy to look back at such pieces now and think 'I could do that.' Maybe you could, but it wouldn't be the same. You would just be imitating, not innovating.

29th October 2010, 11:28 PM	#25
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by ChrisC The hoax appears to be hastily thrown together sponge or roller blotches on a wall but I still enjoy looking at it. Congratulations! You were the only one brave enough to offer an opinion. I also enjoyed the painting, which is why I chose it. Of course, I would agree with you that it has nothing on the Jackson Pollock. I chose this painting from a site that contains a collection of 105 paintings from a similar source. From memory, they range in price from $300 to $4000 and, from memory, this one has a $300 price tag. In my opinion, it was closest to what I thought might appeal to an above average intelligent person as genuine art. I suppose it could regard it as "accidental art". Unless we accept that elephants can produce genuine art. Yes, it's an example of elephant art. But not so fast... There is a human element at two levels: There are 27 elephants producing an average of 4 paintings each. Their owners have no doubt selected the most artistic looking of who knows how many paintings those elephants have produced in total. Out of those 105 paintings, I have selected what I consider to be the single most artistic looking painting. Therefore I think it qualifies as art. And, hey, perhaps elephants do have a rudimentary aptitude for art expression.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it. Last edited by BillyJoe; 29th October 2010 at 11:31 PM.

29th October 2010, 11:45 PM	#26
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	As a test of the above hypothesis, I would invite everyone who is interested in this question to peruse all the examples at that site and see if you agree with me that this one best fits both of my criteria of being abstract like the Pollock and the most artistic. If you do, that itself would suggest that this particular painting has some artistic merit. Otherwise why would we select it over and above the others? If you choose a different picture the same conclusion applies. If you think they are all trash, then I would invite you to compare my selected painting with the Jackson Pollock. And I would defy you to say that the Jackson Pollock is, similarly, trash and has no merit above and beyond my selected example of elephant art.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

29th October 2010, 11:52 PM	#27
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Bikewer ...I suppose we might call art anything that conveys something to the viewer. Some emotion or feeling. But, of course, then there is art that has more of an intellectual appeal than an emotional appeal. Maybe this is an example: ("The guitarist" by Picasso) Quote: I'm of the opinion that art should also require some degree of skill or process or planning as well... But obviously much of modern art does not require that addition. What about the above example? What about the Jackson Pollock?
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

29th October 2010, 11:57 PM	#28
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua So when the Emperor appears naked, it's just that I lack the necessary special brain cells to truly appreciate how richly attired the Emperor is? Or maybe you're just an modern art cynic.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

30th October 2010, 12:18 AM	#29
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Aepervius Billy Joe, I have seen a very very very similar "piece of art" at the local paint shop... I doubt it. But I'm willing to be shown a photo for comparison. Quote: Can I retrieve that thin slice of ground and sell it 140 M$ ? I doubt it. That should tell it all the story. Even accepting your assessment of that painting, as someone else has pointed out, it is not original but a mere reproduction of someone else's original idea. Quote: Because the other one was declared to be art by some "artist" it suddenly has a bigger value, and because "some" ""expert"" (eleventy scary quote) declared its value to be so high, it suddenly is. Well, most of the time, it doesn't quite work that way. I mean there would need to be a conspiracy of many "experts" from many diverse backgrounds and countries over many decades. That Jackson Pollock dates back to the 60s. Quote: IMHO a piece of art that joe-average can make with a few can of different color, within a few minutes of spare time, by splashing color at random, is not art. Whatever you may think of the Jackson Pollock, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered random splashes of paint. There is a symmetry in that painting that defies randomness. Throw a coin a hundred times and see if you get symmetry. Quote: Something you could CONFUSE with TRASH if you are not warned in advance is NOT art. It depends on who threw it out A garbage collector is likely to see garbage everywhere. I've pulled my wife's specially selected plants out of her garden whilst weeding. It just means I have no clue, not that her precious plant is bv\|\|$#!+. Quote: You would never confuse a Monet with trash. That above ? trash. A Monet is obviously beautiful. But some types of art require more from the viewer - which is not to belittle the Monet. They are just different types of paintings, that's all.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

30th October 2010, 12:38 AM	#30
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,003	This post, for example..... this post is art
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

30th October 2010, 12:58 AM	#31
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by SumDood A piece should stand on its own. When you look at a piece, you should be able to tell if its art or not. When I first heard some Kate Bush songs many years ago, I thought they were all crap (except perhaps for "Wuthering Heights"). It was decades later when I happened to hear her rendition of the Welsh song "Mna Na H-Eireann" that I suddenly realised that she had something special. I have since listened to all her songs and, in my opinion, the album entitled "The Dreaming" is a work of pure genius. Yet I would not have recognised that a couple of decades ago. One particular song on that album "Night of the Swallow" fairly filled my eyes with tears. But it was not untill I'd listened to it about the third time that it affected me that way. It was incredible to me that someone could produce something so beautiful. But why not straight away? Why did it take so long for me to appreciate Kate Bush's art? Why did it take three listens for me to appreciate that particular song which I now regard as her most impressive? Some forms of art are just not as immediately accessible as others. Monet is easy to appreciate - again, not to belittle it. Pollock and Picasso demand more of the viewer.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

30th October 2010, 01:33 AM	#32
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by JJM 777 I actually once bought paints and canvases with the intention of making some modern / abstract art to sell in some gallery. Everything what I created looked so silly and uninteresting that I threw them all to the trashbin without showing them to anyone else than my wife, who laughed enough at my creations. So there evidently is a skill involved in making also this style of abstract art. I would invite all the art cynics to do this simple test. It will surprise you how difficult it is to produce a piece of abstract art that appeals even to yourself, let alone the "experts". If you think it's just a matter of random splashes, you're in for quite a surprise.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

30th October 2010, 01:55 AM	#33
bluesjnr Professional Nemesis for Hire Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Not where I should be. Posts: 2,167	Originally Posted by SumDood Sorry, but that's nonsense. A piece should stand on its own. When you look at a piece, you should be able to tell if its art or not. You shouldn't have to read the description or title or artist bio to know if its art. You don't hear a song and say, "I'm not sure if that is good or not. First let me read the CD liner and do some research on the performers. Only then will I be able to determine if its a good song." To you it's nonsense. Much like the question "what is art", we don't have to agree and I say you are wrong. Find the programme in question then identify the individual who made the remark and take it up with him as I can't speak for him. There is no mention of a requirement to read a description or title or artist bio in the story I told, so why mention them in support of your assertion that "that's nonsense"? If I had to be critical of the statement I refer to in my story I would say it smacks of elitism but otherwise I think it is sound.
	__________________ A baby smoking? That's child abuse - UncaYimmy Your avatar really cracked me up the first hundred or so times I saw it...Now, it gets on my nerves.. - Skeptical Greg

30th October 2010, 02:08 AM	#34
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by rustypouch To me, it's about the expression, creativity, and originality of the artist. It's about technical expertise, knowing how to use the tools. It's about shape, form, and colour, and making the best use out of them. It's the intent of wanting to be able to express things which cannot be expressed in words. It's combining all these aspects to create a piece which provokes a reaction in the viewer. It could be emotional, or visceral, or somehow telling a story. Quote: In the case of Pollock's work, it's hard to state the impact of seeing one in real life. Much different than viewing a low-res copy on a computer monitor. Yes, good point. Fortunately we have Pollocks "Blue Poles" right here in Melbourne. Quote: I just don't get why some people who are so insulting about things they don't understand. Yes, it's annoying. It's like someone not understanding Quantum Physics but, instead of admitting their ignorance, they call it crap. Quote: I have often heard comments like 'anybody could do that.' The point is that anybody didn't do it. These works are the result of one person thinking in ways no one else did. Artists like Pollock, or the deceptively simple Mondrian were the first to do what they did. They had original ways of expression that spawned all sorts of imitators, and were hugely influential to those who followed. A typical example: But he has some interesting semi-abstract pieces as well. Here is a series of increasingly abstract pieces on a similar theme: And is anyone not moved by these pieces: Quote: Yes, it's easy to look back at such pieces now and think 'I could do that.' Maybe you could, but it wouldn't be the same. You would just be imitating, not innovating. Except that most who shrug it off with an 'I could do that" are just bv\|\|$#!++!^g themselves.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

30th October 2010, 02:23 AM	#35
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,906	Originally Posted by BillyJoe <snip> Whatever you may think of the Jackson Pollock, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered random splashes of paint. There is a symmetry in that painting that defies randomness. Throw a coin a hundred times and see if you get symmetry. <snip> This is a little bit thought provoking in a sense that you may not have intended. The more times you flip an unbiased coin, the more closely the results will approach 50/50. Is that randomness in pursuit of symmetry? There is something of a dichotomy here that may be false. Humans often find pleasing symmetry in randomness. It is said that our brains are hardwired to seek out pattern even when it doesn't exist. This does not affect the pleasure derived from that seeking even the least bit. Art (or not-art) is all about perception as well as intent. The weight given to either or both of those elements is purely a matter of opinion, which I think is why efforts to quantify or define "art" are doomed to discord as well as failure. The closest anyone ever seems to come is to say "This person agrees with me, and that person doesn't, so I'm going drinking with this person instead." As has been pointed out already in this thread, and the many others like it, the question of the dollar value attached to any particular piece of art is generally irrelevant to an intrinsic value, and arguably unrelated to anything but the worth attributable to whatever the current wave of social approbation provides. Much of the time the price tag itself is the sole and sought after measure, i.e.; someone's ability to show that they have that much money to spend on something which neither feeds nor shelters them. My personal definition of art has to include "art to me" with the emphasis on "to me". I either like it or I don't, and whether one other person or many others agree or not is completely unimportant, although occasionally interesting. There's lots of music out there I don't care for either, but I don't consider someone else wrong just because they like it. If a framed five year old's fingerpainting on the wall gives pleasure to the resident and their visitors then it is serving its function as art. If someone is willing to pay $140M for it that is a valuation of a different sort.
	__________________ "It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."