Why are we so illiterate about Art?

[FS*]

An individual feels the creative impulse and is moved to create, inspired to make something out of nothing.

If he/she is part of some commercial venture, their work is marketed, in whatever media, given wide exposure, and as far as the ordinary person is concerned, this is art. Little or no consideration is given to it's originality or merit. It works, and the commercial artist knows why it works.

Another individual does the same thing, but is not part of a commercial venture, uses limited means to bring his/her work to into the public eye, where it may or may not be recieved, based on the fact that it may not be 'mainstream' or marketable.

And the third individual (such as Mapplethorpe, insert name) gets enough financial backing to market his/her work as "art", where it is sold to the elite no matter how subjective or inaccessible it may be. Which often results in the dismissal of 'art' by the average person as pretentious and irrrelevant.

So, in the long run, is it not money and popular opinion that determine what 'art' is?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by loinburger
I'm not going to torture myself with viewing (or "experiencing" or whatever) art that I don't like just so that I can pretend that I'm "refined" or some **** like that, any more than I'm going to torture myself with crap food just because it's trendy or gourmet or whatever.

Oh yeah, and roquefort tastes like ass, "refined" or otherwise.

[Oncle Boris]

Only to those who are illiterate?

EDIT: it was meant to answer FS, but it could very well apply to Sprayber.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why are the masses using the word in the false sense while the intellectuals use it in the real sense? Who decides what is the real and false sense?

Because art exists within a social context and aesthetic legacy. It is constantly redefining itself: it is proactively intellectual, and it requires constant reflexion. If you passively take X film and claim it is art- because it is, then you are using it in the false sense.

Can not a chair be a work of art?

Maybe. You have to ask: which are, and which aren't.

[monolith94]

" Can not a chair be a work of art?"

Of course it can. Here's a good example, by Alvar Aalto. Godfather of Finnish industrial design.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is constantly redefining itself: it is proactively intellectual, and it requires constant reflexion.

Let's double back. Aren't many intellectuals an elite of their own? Therefore are you not saying that art is for the elite no matter what, even though you talked about avant gardism earlier?

Maybe. You have to ask: which are, and which aren't.

So then the 'why' it was made is not important. You agree with me here?

[FS*]

Originally posted by monolith94


Of course it can. Here's a good example, by Alvar Aalto. Godfather of Finnish industrial design.

But is it art, or just an example of excellent design to fulfill a function?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And once again we come back to the question: "What is art?"

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Let's double back. Aren't many intellectuals an elite of their own? Therefore are you not saying that art is for the elite no matter what, even though you talked about avant gardism earlier?

Because of new communication means, the 19th century has created a clear distinction between the liberal-intellectual elite and the ruling elite. The liberal elite makes the avant-garde, and ceases to be when it joins the ruling one. OK, that's a gross simplification, but the basis of the answer is here.

So then the 'why' it was made is not important. You agree with me here?

The 'why' is likely to be part of the answer, but it can't be everything neither. So I don't agree.

[FS*]

I think that the 'literate' individual- without meaning to sound pretentious- can find something of artistic value in many things that may not immediately lend themselves to the term.

It's the pursuit of elitism that feeds the excessive and overt attempts by a minority to pass themselves off as having an artistic gift of creativity.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And once again we come back to the question: "What is art?"

And by coming back to this question, we start to find an answer. Art is ever moving and self-defining.

This is why the conventional cathartic structure, which manipulates emotion to end with a reassuring balance, can hardly be called art.

[Imran Siddiqui]

19th century has created a clear distinction between the liberal-intellectual elite and the ruling elite. The liberal elite makes the avant-garde, and ceases to be when it joins the ruling one.

But isn't it still serving an 'elite'? What does it matter if it is the ruling class or the 'liberal-intellectual elite'?

The 'why' is likely to be part of the answer

Why is it any part of the answer? Who cares why you made something?

[Asher]

Art is subjective, you are all wrong.

[FS*]

It's entirely subjective. And yet, you just paid money to see/hear/taste it.

So it's objective to someone.

[monolith94]

Good products fullfill both a utilitarian function and an aesthetic function. We often call the aesthetic function "art".

It is an excellent design because it works, and because it looks frïcken cool.

My favorite artists:
Dali
Lichtenstein
Dürer
Bosch
Michelangelo
Winslow Homer
Norman Rockwell
Basically all the major impressionists (Gaugin, Monet, Renoir, Van Gogh...)
They're all so damn good.

And many, many more. I just love art in general. I consider myself lucky to have visited the sistine chapel, and to have seen many of Dali's works in person. I've been to the MFA at least seven or so times.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is why the conventional cathartic structure, which manipulates emotion to end with a reassuring balance, can hardly be called art.

Why not? Can't this be art? Can't it define itself as art (ie, self-defining)?

I simply do not buy the basic premise of your argument: that art has to have a purpose to be art.,

[monolith94]

"Art is ever moving and self-defining."

This is a meaningless, confounding sentence.

[Asher]

This is a meaningless, confounding sentence.

Sounds like it was art, then.

[monolith94]

It's not art's fault that it confounds you. It doesn't have much to work with.

[FS*]

Art does not have to have a purpose.

If a beautiful woman is seen as a work of art, where is the purpose? She just is.

[Nubclear]

I haven't read this thread.

I don't care to learn much about art - the various styles or the various people. I look at art, and I appreciate it if it's good. If it's really horrible, then I don't.
For me personally, if I learn what techniques were used or whatnot then I believe I'll focus on that so much that I'll lose the meaning of the artwork itself.

[Asher]

Originally posted by FS*
Art does not have to have a purpose.

If a beautiful woman is seen as a work of art, where is the purpose? She just is.

Just ask Ben: the purpose of a beautiful woman is as a baby-breeder.

[FS*]

Which brings us back to the 'is art functional' thought. Rather preferable in this context.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But isn't it still serving an 'elite'? What does it matter if it is the ruling class or the 'liberal-intellectual elite'?

OK. We need to look at this through a class struggle perspective. In short, the ruling class wants to instill the belief in the 'end of history' to the lower classes. Through representation (aka 'text'), they create the small-bourgeoisie, a mirror of the greater bourgeoisie, who recognizes itself in the values of the greater. This way, the class struggle ends, history halts- temporarily, of course.

The liberal elite, while also subject to this, is the lesser victim. It has no choice but to be part of it (because it is part of society anyway).

The process by which history is scriptured to become an alleged natural balance is 'mythologification'. The liberal elite knows this, but it strives to reverse the mythologification- it wants it to lean to the left. In other words, the liberal elite is a mythologized revolution, which works within an already mythologized structure to change it. When it is successful, its work is gobbled up by the right, and it just invents a new avant garde that will be available for take in a 20-30 years timeframe.

From a marxist/materialist perspective, art should be the 'text' of the revolution. The liberal elite is the closest thing to this we can be.

Why is it any part of the answer? Who cares why you made something?

The dadaists held your position, that anything can be art. They are probably right. However, modern theory will say that analysis of something that was not intended to be art, falls under semiology, while analysis of what intends to be still falls under conventional analysis.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by monolith94
"Art is ever moving and self-defining."

This is a meaningless, confounding sentence.

Well, I like your contribution to the debate, but why do you insist on pissing me off?

I will start from Derrida to further explain this position.

Human culture has been made possible by scripture, i.e. the differentiation process by which mental concepts are associated with perceptions to form a common and descriptible reality.

Any concept or word exists if and only if it belongs to a system, a chain of concepts.

At this point, comes a huge problem: the word 'language', which we use to describe this differanciative system, is part of this same system.
I'm a bit tired, and don't feel like writing a 2,000 words essay, so I'll conclude quickly. Art is a meta-language, one that can only be mastered after language.

It is ever moving and self defining, in that it strives to use something different than language to describe the reality. But since any meaningful system is differanciative, the only way we can define art (in brief) is by saying it is not, everything language is. In other words, it is an attempt to touch parts of the differenciative system that language won't.

[monolith94]

I believe that art can be beyond language. Beyond language in the sense that if I draw a beautiful painting (which is not happening any time soon, trust me ) than a Chinese person, or a Turkish person, could appreciate it just as well.

I think I agree with you in a sense, in that I think we both agree that art touches areas that language does not. It's a weird subject.

If we look back in our history, we find that the earliest art (cave paintings, etc.) was naught but imitation, and I think that imitation is the simplest characteristic of art. But then, what of the modern, abstract art? Why, it is an imitation of art! As such, you could almost say it is meta-art. It's a funny thing. I like it, though. Pollock appeals to my senses and my brain.

[FS*]

But then, what of the modern, abstract art?

Indeed... you can see Mondrian everywhere.

[Imran Siddiqui]

From a marxist/materialist perspective, art should be the 'text' of the revolution.

But I am not a Marxist and reject that view and the view of 'class struggle' throughout history is the main struggle. Therefore your whole view of art is rejected by me and I have not be satisfied as to why art needs to be the 'text' of anything.

[Pax]

I consider art to be the formulation of a new concept or idea. Commercials, movies, books, songs, videogames all art. The person who came up with the idea for plastic would be an artist because it was not there before. The people who make and refine plastic would not be.

[monolith94]

So I guess you don't agree that "there are no new ideas" ?