Originally Posted by Hip Priest

Funnily enough, I wrote and deleted a long response too, before settling on the thing you agree with.

Splendid.

Originally Posted by akprodr

art = intent + execution

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Art is a nebulous term.
If everything is art then nothing is art.
a hose is not art. putting a hose on the ground and labeling it as an art piece does not make it art. it makes it a joke. the joke is on anyone who would consider such a stupid thing to be art.

if a hose on the ground speaks to you then you gots some issues.

Originally Posted by gualbert

Art is money.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

art must be differentiated.

the idea that something is quantifiable is not all consuming,. in science only the things that are quantifiable are experimented on. anything that is not is relegated to the realms of philosophy or theology, until we come up with new technology or theory o allow us to quantify those things. (one cannot quantify the love felt by people towards a pet, nor the willpower needed to avoid chocolate sweets if one is dieting, for example)

as far as art goes, I tend to agree with the above statement that what constitutes art is not important, but what makes GOOD art is. and as such, what makes art "good" is a subjective thing for the most part.

"beauty" is the most primal and personal criteria for what makes art. iS IT BEAUTIFUL?

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I half agree with you on that. I agree that within art education the question 'what is art?' has been largely abandoned. I'm not sure if that's such a good thing though. Someone applies to study art at an art school so it obviously means something. If that same person were to turn up at an art school and then have to write essays about quantum physics for three years they'd be justified in saying that what they're studying "isn't art". They should therefore be encouraged to look at what art actually is. The fact that there's no single answer to that question shouldn't mean that it's avoided as a question altogether. When Duchamp created R. Mutt he had a clear enough understanding of what art was meant to be on an establishment level at that time in order to oppose it. My fear is that many contemporary artists have little awareness of the various discourses surrounding 'what art is' now and, as such, are prevented from making conscious moves either to reinforce those ideas or oppose them.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I majored in art and art history...

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

is this because Art is a field of human endeavor where the results are supposedly up for judging by anyone, regardless of their knowledge of art history, art movements, artists, symbolism, etc.?

only an idiot presumes to know how to judge scientific research without deep knowledge of the subject. In art, a purely personal judgement of "I like it," or "I don't like it," is given weight regardless of who says it.

Originally Posted by ploesj

we once discussed how a lot of art is a language deed thing, it's art once you place it in an art context. duchamp took his urinal and put it on a pedestal in a museum and it was art. take the hose out of the garden and put the sign next to it and bam! i'm not saing i agree on this though.

according to kant there are two ways people judge things: they can judge out of their own taste on a particular moment, but also there are things that are above these individual tastes and will appeal to a large number of people. for example mozart's music might not be everyone's taste, but most people will agree that it is beautiful in a way they can't just describe. it's about a beauty that is within the piece itself.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

duchamp turned the urnial upside down. GENIUS! ;)

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

I thought people who don't like modern art enjoyed looking at art that looks like stuff.
This piece does look like stuff. It looks like a hose.

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

Pseuds toss the word "art" like confetti to describe all kinds of everyday shit. Going to the shop. Art! Picking your nose. Art! Uisng the toilet. Art! No wonder modern art is treated with such ridicule and disdain by the general public.

Originally Posted by Skuj

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

It's all down to effort and originality. The more effort and originality an artist puts into his/her creation, the more respect they'll receive from the general public. How can anyone respect someone who creates what they deem a piece of art something the public can easily do themselves or have done in their everyday lives?

Originally Posted by looking glass spectacle

fix'd

Originally Posted by ploesj

people often look at early abstract or expressionist work saying 'oh my kid could have done that' and it's quite wrong, maybe your kid could do that, but at the time those pieces were made AND EXHIBITED AS ART, it was a revelation. we are now used to seeing stuff that is not necessarily about craftmanship, but you need some kind of drive to be the first one to put a canvas flat on the ground and drip over it, like pollock did (he completely turned the normal way of painting: vertical, with control over the brugh strokes)

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

You go inside anyone's house where you live, ploesj, and you'll discover they own nothing by Pollock, or any abstract or expressionist work. It'll be more the art that appeals, is familiar, and is the least pretentious. The average person has never fallen for all that pseud hyperbole that only ever convinces imbecilic poseurs with more money than sense.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

^ploesj

I agree, and I suppose that point where art began to concentrate on itself was the point when it really began to alienate a more general audience.

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

You go inside anyone's house where you live, ploesj, and you'll discover they own nothing by Pollock, or any abstract or expressionist work. It'll be more the art that appeals, is familiar, and is the least pretentious. The average person has never fallen for all that pseud hyperbole that only ever convinces imbecilic poseurs with more money than sense.

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Elitism is not bad, especially in the modern sense of setting yourself outside of the mass/homogenized experience.
"My kid could do that" is to art what "it's just a bunch of noise" is to "out" music. The rubes can have their experience, and they can look at me with the same disdain I have for them.
Being secure in your tastes and being careful who your friends are is not bad. Dumbing down your life in an effort to be part of an increasingly idiotic and anti-intellectual culture is far worse than behaving in a way that some slack-jawed moron would call "elitist."

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

beauty comes from effort.

Originally Posted by Skuj

Some Art can/must! be abhorrent and sickening.

Originally Posted by Skuj

But why the FUCK must I be deemed elitist by the masses just because I love Merzbow, Godard and Dada?

Originally Posted by Skuj

Oh Man......

I buy used Art books and cut Pollock out to frame. (He'd probably kill me for that.)

Originally Posted by Skuj

LOL, sorry about last night. I got a bit excited. I'm not really angry.