That's like saying physics can be different things to different people.Im talking about what is art TO YOU.
It doesn't have to be the same to all people.
No; your question wasIm not suggesting you should. Im talking about what is art TO YOU.
It doesn't have to be the same to all people.
It’s clearly ART, whether I like it has no bearing on that objective fact.So do you think hes a great artist because others say so?
Hes obviously not great to you.
And art is anything an artist says is art.Ah, but when I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less (Lewis Carrol, paraphrase).
But if someone isn't an artist yet makes claims about their work, do those claims make it art after all?And art is anything an artist says is art.
That's like saying physics can be different things to different people.
I'd suggest that all art has an intellectual component - going back to the earliest rock art. There are ideas behind the art which makes it look the way it does. Of course conceptual art has put the idea to the forefront to the extent that it becomes the art. Which is difficult to exhibit and monetise so objects of some kind have to be made - objects which taken out of the context of the idea can easily appear nonsensical.
But if you don't study the history of art you might not think this, you might think that art is only about making things which are decorative. It's not. Although that is how a lot of amateur/hobbyist painters/photographers approach making their work. They may make paintings and photographs. They don't make art.
Is this an elitist attitude? Certainly not. Everyone can learn to appreciate (as in understand rather than like) art. But they need to approach it with an open mind, not with the thought that anything they can't immediately understand is pretentious crap.
And art is anything an artist says is art.
Which raises the other question: who decides who is and isn't an artist?But if someone isn't an artist yet makes claims about their work, do those claims make it art after all?
Semi-serious question.
I wasn't saying that. I said there is more to artworks than meets the eye. Whether what lies behind their creation is important or not doesn't matter. Great art can be appreciated on a number of levels. But the more you know the deeper your appreciation of something can be, and finding out more about art you don't like can help you see why it is still art. It might even change your mind about it.If you have to study or have what the artist intended explained to you, they have failed. ( In my view)
You also know people have been arguing about ”what is art" for ever, so I don't think we will bottom it out here.
(Looks shiftily both ways - coast is clear) Whispers "the art elite". (Slides back into a dark corner).Which raises the other question: who decides who is and isn't an artist?
If it's art you shouldn't have to study to understand it. In my view anyway.
But that doesn't make it "good" artAnd art is anything an artist says is art.
But that doesn't make it "good" art
Given the number of times I've seen on here people say they don't look at photographs from the past as only what's current is worth considering, or who claim to be unaware of some of the biggest names in photographic history, I imagine that you are in the minority.Fair enough. My view is different of course as I can't see how it's possible to "understand" anything without studying it.
true art had no other purpose but to serve itself
And art is anything an artist says is art
If it causes no emotion in me then no, it's not. Although it may be for you.
I have read books about art in which an opposing opinion is put forward that art can only be experienced; attempting to understand it negates the whole purpose of the piece.My view is different of course as I can't see how it's possible to "understand" anything without studying it.
Fair enough. My view is different of course as I can't see how it's possible to "understand" anything without studying it.
Nor is there a need to ‘like’ itArt is about creating a feeling or emotion. No study required for that.
I have read books about art in which an opposing opinion is put forward that art can only be experienced; attempting to understand it negates the whole purpose of the piece.
Art is about creating a feeling or emotion. No study required for that.
Nor is there a need to ‘like’ it
More seriously
If great literature is written in French, then I’d have to study French in order to understand that work. If that is a fact (it is) then if I have no understanding of art photography or abstract sculpture (or jazz) how can I judge the quality of it as art?
But we have been talking about whether something is, or is not, good art, an individual emotional response to a piece isn't sufficient to decide this, even if its sufficient for us to decide whether we like it or not.
When I was talking about "understanding" it was continuing the point made in my preceding posts, leading to the one you have responded to, about needing expertise in art history and theory to provide sufficient knowledge to assess a work of art in the context of the wider world of "art" before it can be labeled as good, bad or indifferent.
As I've said before I don't have the expertise to be able to decide this. I can decide what I like and don't like, but that's irrelevant to whether it’s a "good" work of art.
We are obviously miles apart with our views on this. :-(
It's pretty easy to differentiate a great painting from a daub by a Sunday painter. Or a great photograph from some Instafiltered tripe.I dont see how anybody can judge art or grade it in any way.
It's pretty easy to differentiate a great painting from a daub by a Sunday painter. Or a great photograph from some Instafiltered tripe.
Have we descended into everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's territory now?It is if you can see it through they eyes and minds of everybody who may view it.
NahIt is if you can see it through they eyes and minds of everybody who may view it.
Have we descended into everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's territory now?
Nah
Half of all people are below average intelligence
we all have to accept that millions of people watch Love island and read the Sun.
we just have to know that ‘we’ know a great painting. There’s nothing we can do about ‘everybody’.
Have we descended into everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's territory now?
I never said someone’s opinion was less valid than someone else’s.The idea of what is art to a 12 year old girl is less valid than somebody elses?
What will be considered as art in 100 years time?
Is rapping art? Only if a musical professor decides so?
I never said someone’s opinion was less valid than someone else’s.
But in answer to your ‘art in the mind of everyone’ I was trying to point out that ‘everyone’ won’t agree on anything.
Some people believe that dogs playing pool is ‘art’, I’ll defend their right to believe that, but you can’t make me respect their view
Have we descended into everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's territory now?
Art is a form of communication. In order to successfully communicate, both sides of the communication need to be speaking (and understand) the same language.Nor is there a need to ‘like’ it
More seriously
If great literature is written in French, then I’d have to study French in order to understand that work. If that is a fact (it is) then if I have no understanding of art photography or abstract sculpture (or jazz) how can I judge the quality of it as art?
I feel that's getting awfully close to Schoenberg's “If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art.”Thus us why it took a while for the Impressionists to be accepted - people had to learn a new dialect. Or jazz in the 1930s, or rock music, or Surrealism, or ...
Well I can't see anyones opinion being as valid as yours. Do you get called a snob a lot?
Not at all. I am saying that you need to learn the appropriate language, not that everyone cannot learn the language.I feel that's getting awfully close to Schoenberg's “If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art.”
Not something I can agree with at all.
I don't think were necessarily miles apart, more at cross purposes.
I'm talking about what I view as art and thats what moves me. As Phil rightly points out, I don't have to like it.
Take the picture of the baby in Hiroshima or the burning girl in Vietnam. I don't like them they're horrific, but do they move me? Yeah. Do I see them as art? Yeah.
I dont see how anybody can judge art or grade it in any way. Photographer of the year shows always have so called experts (who have studied it) disagreeing on the artistic merits of contributions.
Having said that I accept that studying Ballet may have increased my chance of enjoying it as an art form but it's not grabbed my attention enough to invest the effort.
It’s not drivel. Clearly all opinions aren’t equal.You didn't say your opinion was superior. I was just going by you liking this drivel below.
It’s not drivel. Clearly all opinions aren’t equal.
if I want a cancer treatment plan, an oncologist will do a better job than Dave down the pub.
I’ve met a guy who believes the earth is flat, he has a perfect right to that opinion, but I also have a perfect right to believe he’s an idiot who has limited evidence gathering skills.
there are some genuine wacko opinions shared nowadays, do you really expect me to believe David Ickes opinions are as valid as David Attenborough’s?
It’s not though.Cancer treatment is not a purely subjective field. Art is, entirely, thats the point. Daves opinion is as valid as the oncologist if they're discussing the colour of the hospital walls.
It’s not though.
that was my opening point that you disagreed with; and you’re still wrong objectively.
taste is subjective - but whether or not something is art is objective, whether or not something is successful is objective.
I don’t like Queen, but they’re objectively successful.
Most ‘photographers’ don’t like ‘Rhein II’ but it’s objectively a valuable work of art.
Most ‘photographers’ don’t like ‘Rhein II’ but it’s objectively a valuable work of art.