5 ms·

As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. Like, there are plenty of musical pieces I can pl

As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. Like, there are plenty of musical pieces I can play; that doesn't make them not art. I enjoy drawing though I am not great at it; that doesn't make my drawing not art... that just makes my drawings mediocre art. So, at the very least, I don't think that's a sustainable definition of art. For what it's worth, if you can accept that argument, then you might want to go a step further and question what does qualify as "Great art", and I feel like it's not just way out in left field to say that in addition to execution, the difference is in how it treats ideas. Hypothesizing that people are responding to formal ideas would give at least an account that avoids a redunctionist and cynical "the emperor has no clothes" account of why people who seem to know a whole lot about their respective art forms like things like free jazz, abstract paintings, and strange performance art.

will4274 9y ago
> As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. I think you've misunderstood, on two fronts. First, the definition given was "what Rush Limbaugh can't do." More generally, it's what laypeople, those untrained in art, can't do. If you're a "semi-professional musician," then your ability to perform a work of music is a non-factor. Second, I read Limbaugh as focused on creation rather than performance. Sure, you can play those pieces. But could you have composed them, or pieces of similar quality, from scratch? Could Limbaugh have?
- bllguo 9y ago
  1. that shouldn't matter. you don't need to be "trained" to produce art. Where even is the threshold? Is it only art if you're a professional, i.e. getting paid? If you took classes? There are so many problems with this definition. Art is creative expression; unskilled creators tend to create bad art. that should cover all the bases. 2. performances are art though.. so that distinction is meaningless.
- scarecrowbob 9y ago
  Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star... It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best. And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like.
jackhack 9y ago
But you're making the argument. You have skills and training and surely thousands of hours of practice, of course you can play plenty of pieces. Limbaugh's point was that he is utterly without art and music talent/training yet can re-create some of these highly praised "works of art." Of course it was hyperbolic, and it's not a rock-solid scientific definition of art -- perhaps no such thing can ever exist -- but it's a great practical working definition. Perhaps it would be better stated "if everyone can do it, it's not art." Luciano Pavarotti once called singing "shouting, but on pitch." I think he was understating his gift.
- apocolyps6 9y ago
  So Limbaugh measures art for how hard it is to make. Peeling potatoes is hard (I've been told). I would not claim that peeling potatoes is an art. Same with painting a house, or mining coal. I disagree that the only thing we get from experiencing art is "oh wow, that look hard". IMO the appeal of art is that it either makes you feel or think in a certain way. This "definition" feel closer to the reasons one would want to experience the creations of others, it also gives some explanation for why one would enjoy the oft ridiculed avant-garde stuff. Plus every designer I've listened to has told me that the "weird stuff" eventually feeds into and enhances the "normal stuff".
- clappski 9y ago
  I think muddying the definition of art and the mechanics with which art is created doesn't do either justice. Art is simply creative expression - that Limbaugh quote could be seen as a form of art (although it's a very contrived example for me to make). Really (in my opinion) everything we do to express ourselves is some form of art, and the works that we consider 'great art' is that something that represents a combination of something humans can do (draw, write, sing, design, ...) and something that contains a meaning found within the content of the physical application that draws a reaction from either the artist or audience. The real beauty of art is that everything can be art to someone, no matter how bad technically or lacking in content it can be. My favourite example of a great piece of art that has no content (and is fully participatory!) is Cage's 4'33" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAbXwr3qkg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAbXwr3qkg). To people who aren't interested in experimental music or musique concréte, a pre-warning, there's 0 technique or musical skills required to play the piece.
YaxelPerez 9y ago
I guess "what Rush Limbaugh can't do" is a better baseline in your case.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dwc 9y ago
My reading of that definition is that it depends on not being or claiming to have any skill at art whatsoever. Limbaugh can't see the distinction that makes those things art and suspects that nobody else can either; that it's only art because it was produced by an artist. Of course this is a facile take on art, but there's a nugget of a question in there... if exhibits were anonymous and selected by lottery, how many famous artists who got the space would be recognized as genius vs. unknown artists vs. cranks out to show that art appreciation is a joke?
- scarecrowbob 9y ago
  Well, I posted this down thread, but I have the same response: Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star... It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best. And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like. -=-=-=-= But here's a response to the question you ask: So the question begged by your question: given the importance of context, why does the provenance of a piece of art matter outside of that context? For instance, s there a difference between the mona lisa "original" and a copy you hang on your wall? If there is a difference, then the who produced it and the context does matter regardless of who can tell a "fake". If there is no difference, why would your hypothetical lottery be relavent to the status of art as art... wouldn't the art be in the eye of whoever is trying to judge the work?
  - dwc 9y ago
    I find your response interesting. Thank you. I think that the nature of the context can vary a lot. Some art speaks to people on a primal level, and the context is shared human experience. Other art needs more shared cultural context. Then there's art that requires the context of the artist's life to really move you. In short, I concede your point that context matters. I think it can and does vary quite a bit. I still don't want to conflate works requiring the context of knowing and understanding the artist with thinking a work is deep because the artist is well regarded.

will4274 9y ago

> As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. I think you've misunderstood, on two fronts. First, the definition given was "what Rush Limbaugh can't do." More generally, it's what laypeople, those untrained in art, can't do. If you're a "semi-professional musician," then your ability to perform a work of music is a non-factor. Second, I read Limbaugh as focused on creation rather than performance. Sure, you can play those pieces. But could you have composed them, or pieces of similar quality, from scratch? Could Limbaugh have?

bllguo 9y ago
1. that shouldn't matter. you don't need to be "trained" to produce art. Where even is the threshold? Is it only art if you're a professional, i.e. getting paid? If you took classes? There are so many problems with this definition. Art is creative expression; unskilled creators tend to create bad art. that should cover all the bases. 2. performances are art though.. so that distinction is meaningless.
scarecrowbob 9y ago
Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star... It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best. And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like.

jackhack 9y ago

But you're making the argument. You have skills and training and surely thousands of hours of practice, of course you can play plenty of pieces. Limbaugh's point was that he is utterly without art and music talent/training yet can re-create some of these highly praised "works of art." Of course it was hyperbolic, and it's not a rock-solid scientific definition of art -- perhaps no such thing can ever exist -- but it's a great practical working definition. Perhaps it would be better stated "if everyone can do it, it's not art." Luciano Pavarotti once called singing "shouting, but on pitch." I think he was understating his gift.

apocolyps6 9y ago
So Limbaugh measures art for how hard it is to make. Peeling potatoes is hard (I've been told). I would not claim that peeling potatoes is an art. Same with painting a house, or mining coal. I disagree that the only thing we get from experiencing art is "oh wow, that look hard". IMO the appeal of art is that it either makes you feel or think in a certain way. This "definition" feel closer to the reasons one would want to experience the creations of others, it also gives some explanation for why one would enjoy the oft ridiculed avant-garde stuff. Plus every designer I've listened to has told me that the "weird stuff" eventually feeds into and enhances the "normal stuff".
clappski 9y ago
I think muddying the definition of art and the mechanics with which art is created doesn't do either justice. Art is simply creative expression - that Limbaugh quote could be seen as a form of art (although it's a very contrived example for me to make). Really (in my opinion) everything we do to express ourselves is some form of art, and the works that we consider 'great art' is that something that represents a combination of something humans can do (draw, write, sing, design, ...) and something that contains a meaning found within the content of the physical application that draws a reaction from either the artist or audience. The real beauty of art is that everything can be art to someone, no matter how bad technically or lacking in content it can be. My favourite example of a great piece of art that has no content (and is fully participatory!) is Cage's 4'33" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAbXwr3qkg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAbXwr3qkg). To people who aren't interested in experimental music or musique concréte, a pre-warning, there's 0 technique or musical skills required to play the piece.

YaxelPerez 9y ago

I guess "what Rush Limbaugh can't do" is a better baseline in your case.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dwc 9y ago

My reading of that definition is that it depends on not being or claiming to have any skill at art whatsoever. Limbaugh can't see the distinction that makes those things art and suspects that nobody else can either; that it's only art because it was produced by an artist. Of course this is a facile take on art, but there's a nugget of a question in there... if exhibits were anonymous and selected by lottery, how many famous artists who got the space would be recognized as genius vs. unknown artists vs. cranks out to show that art appreciation is a joke?

scarecrowbob 9y ago
Well, I posted this down thread, but I have the same response: Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star... It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best. And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like. -=-=-=-= But here's a response to the question you ask: So the question begged by your question: given the importance of context, why does the provenance of a piece of art matter outside of that context? For instance, s there a difference between the mona lisa "original" and a copy you hang on your wall? If there is a difference, then the who produced it and the context does matter regardless of who can tell a "fake". If there is no difference, why would your hypothetical lottery be relavent to the status of art as art... wouldn't the art be in the eye of whoever is trying to judge the work?
- dwc 9y ago
  I find your response interesting. Thank you. I think that the nature of the context can vary a lot. Some art speaks to people on a primal level, and the context is shared human experience. Other art needs more shared cultural context. Then there's art that requires the context of the artist's life to really move you. In short, I concede your point that context matters. I think it can and does vary quite a bit. I still don't want to conflate works requiring the context of knowing and understanding the artist with thinking a work is deep because the artist is well regarded.