5 ms·

I'm not much of an artist, but I dislike people defining what is and is not art. I feel like it often takes on a level of snobbery or elitism. "My child could h

I'm not much of an artist, but I dislike people defining what is and is not art. I feel like it often takes on a level of snobbery or elitism. "My child could have painted that!" in regards to a painting that sold for $1.5m. Sure, but they didn't, and some artist did. I like the definition of art as being: It's art if anyone has ever called it such.

aninhumer 10y ago
Indeed. When people talk about whether something "is art", they're usually using that phrasing as a proxy for discussing whether they think something has artistic merit. But as a result, more often than not people end up in pointless semantic arguments about the definition of art instead of discussing their opinions of the artistic merit itself. One may think a piece of art is worthless, but saying it's "not art" is rarely a useful way to express that.
- cLeEOGPw 10y ago
  For me something is art if I would find it put near a dumpster and would think "Wow, who would throw this out? That's an amazing piece of work!". And by this definition, I can assure you, a large part of the modern "art" wouldn't qualify - when put in a dumpster, it would be indistinguishable from trash.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    See this is what I mean. Why not say "For me a piece of art is worthwhile if..." instead of "For me something is art if..."? The latter leads to responses like "Oh no, it's still art because art means..." instead of "Oh but I really like X which doesn't fit your criteria, what do you think?"
    - kiba 10y ago
      There's art that's absolutely garbage to look at, and then there's art that's basically indistinguishable from trash. At that point, it's just stuff.
      - heartsucker 10y ago
        > there's art that's basically indistinguishable from trash. Indistinguishable from trash to you maybe. This [0] was an piece at Ai Weiwei exhibit I saw in Berlin last year (I don't much care for his work, but that's beside the point). This is mostly indistinguishable from this [1]. One is a pile of crabs intentionally placed in in order to make a pun in Chinese (if I remember right). One is a pile of crabs. One is art. The other is not. I'm saying the Ai Weiwei piece is art because 1) he did it on purpose, 2a) he calls it art, and 2b) other people call it art. If I sculpted an exact replica of a trash can in the house I grew up with to symbolize {the passage of time, childhood, whatever, no symbolism at all}, then that's art even if it is literally made of trash and nobody but me ever called it art. At the risk of sounding like a children's show with a shallow message: anything can be art if you want it to be. [0] - https://d1lfxha3ugu3d4.cloudfront.net/exhibitions/images/2014_Ai_Weiwei_02-He_Xie_5760x3380.jpg https://d1lfxha3ugu3d4.cloudfront.net/exhibitions/images/201... [1] - http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/a-pile-of-crabs-evan-peller.jpg http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/a-pil...
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Sure you can change words to suit meaning, no problem. I saw an exhibit in SF that consisted of canvases with taxidermied dog parts stapled to them (briefly; I fled). The artist called it art; but it was junk. Defend it all you like; but there was absolutely nothing redeeming about it. You have to draw a line, even if its fuzzy.
        heartsucker 10y ago
        > You have to draw a line But do you? I mean really, what gives anyone any authority to say that? Quoting wikipedia[0]: > Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. Maybe it was the artists intention to horrify and disgust, in which case stapling body parts on canvas certainly seemed to have that effect. Certainly that qualifies it as art. I really think it's exclusionary and elitist to tell anyone their creative works aren't art. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
- heartsucker 10y ago
  I feel like when people say "that's not art" as a criticism, they really mean "this work and works like it are no art, and therefore I don't like it because it's not art." I don't get the impression most people who say that mean "this technically qualifies as art but I merely dislike it."
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    I misphrased the last line slightly. I don't mean to imply that people think something is art, but say it isn't because they don't like it. I'm saying they think it's not art because they don't like it. And in terms of conveying that, saying that they don't like it might lead to a discussion of aesthetics. Whereas, saying they think it's "not art" almost invariably leads to a semantic argument, in which people state their own personal definition of "art" and then getting annoyed when people don't agree. Which is no where near as interesting or satisfying.

aninhumer 10y ago

Indeed. When people talk about whether something "is art", they're usually using that phrasing as a proxy for discussing whether they think something has artistic merit. But as a result, more often than not people end up in pointless semantic arguments about the definition of art instead of discussing their opinions of the artistic merit itself. One may think a piece of art is worthless, but saying it's "not art" is rarely a useful way to express that.

cLeEOGPw 10y ago
For me something is art if I would find it put near a dumpster and would think "Wow, who would throw this out? That's an amazing piece of work!". And by this definition, I can assure you, a large part of the modern "art" wouldn't qualify - when put in a dumpster, it would be indistinguishable from trash.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  See this is what I mean. Why not say "For me a piece of art is worthwhile if..." instead of "For me something is art if..."? The latter leads to responses like "Oh no, it's still art because art means..." instead of "Oh but I really like X which doesn't fit your criteria, what do you think?"
  - kiba 10y ago
    There's art that's absolutely garbage to look at, and then there's art that's basically indistinguishable from trash. At that point, it's just stuff.
    - heartsucker 10y ago
      > there's art that's basically indistinguishable from trash. Indistinguishable from trash to you maybe. This [0] was an piece at Ai Weiwei exhibit I saw in Berlin last year (I don't much care for his work, but that's beside the point). This is mostly indistinguishable from this [1]. One is a pile of crabs intentionally placed in in order to make a pun in Chinese (if I remember right). One is a pile of crabs. One is art. The other is not. I'm saying the Ai Weiwei piece is art because 1) he did it on purpose, 2a) he calls it art, and 2b) other people call it art. If I sculpted an exact replica of a trash can in the house I grew up with to symbolize {the passage of time, childhood, whatever, no symbolism at all}, then that's art even if it is literally made of trash and nobody but me ever called it art. At the risk of sounding like a children's show with a shallow message: anything can be art if you want it to be. [0] - https://d1lfxha3ugu3d4.cloudfront.net/exhibitions/images/2014_Ai_Weiwei_02-He_Xie_5760x3380.jpg https://d1lfxha3ugu3d4.cloudfront.net/exhibitions/images/201... [1] - http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/a-pile-of-crabs-evan-peller.jpg http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/a-pil...
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Sure you can change words to suit meaning, no problem. I saw an exhibit in SF that consisted of canvases with taxidermied dog parts stapled to them (briefly; I fled). The artist called it art; but it was junk. Defend it all you like; but there was absolutely nothing redeeming about it. You have to draw a line, even if its fuzzy.
        heartsucker 10y ago
        > You have to draw a line But do you? I mean really, what gives anyone any authority to say that? Quoting wikipedia[0]: > Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. Maybe it was the artists intention to horrify and disgust, in which case stapling body parts on canvas certainly seemed to have that effect. Certainly that qualifies it as art. I really think it's exclusionary and elitist to tell anyone their creative works aren't art. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
heartsucker 10y ago
I feel like when people say "that's not art" as a criticism, they really mean "this work and works like it are no art, and therefore I don't like it because it's not art." I don't get the impression most people who say that mean "this technically qualifies as art but I merely dislike it."
- aninhumer 10y ago
  I misphrased the last line slightly. I don't mean to imply that people think something is art, but say it isn't because they don't like it. I'm saying they think it's not art because they don't like it. And in terms of conveying that, saying that they don't like it might lead to a discussion of aesthetics. Whereas, saying they think it's "not art" almost invariably leads to a semantic argument, in which people state their own personal definition of "art" and then getting annoyed when people don't agree. Which is no where near as interesting or satisfying.