3 ms·

> That in and of itself is the art. I'm pretty sure we could argue for the rest of our lives about what art is. Suffice to say, I disagree. > they could have

> That in and of itself is the art. I'm pretty sure we could argue for the rest of our lives about what art is. Suffice to say, I disagree. > they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive I honestly doubt that. At one point, most avant-garde artists were also very capable craftsmen, but that's a long time ago. > there is also immense beauty in the same exercise While there is truth to the old adage of the eye of the beholder, I happen to believe there is also universal, objective beauty. I sincerely disagree that any of the two need to be constructed by some contrived abstraction and over-interpretation of the act of exhibiting three blank canvases. > I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished" I think they considered their mission accomplished by the sheer increase in worth their work will have from being displayed at the Guggenheim.

jmcqk6 6y ago
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I thought I would jump in. Just the fact that there is a disagreement about what is and isn't art points to the reality that there isn't an objective standard for judging art. Art by it's nature is personal. If there was truly an objective standard of beauty, then you could measure it, and there wouldn't be a debate. Unless you're claiming that there is an objective standard, but it's secret knowledge only known to you. Then I would be the one calling you full of shit. You can call this or that "full of shit" and that's your opinion, not some objective fact in reality.
- arexxbifs 6y ago
  Jump right in! I seem to be in rant mode anyway. :) Defining art and defining beauty must not be confused. I don't think art _must_ be beautiful, I was commenting on whether three blank canvases could convey some kind of beauty. Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. Beauty is a very profound concept. We know if it's there. Objective beauty is measurable. There's for example a definable, codifiable way of determining what we consider to be a beautiful face (it's about symmetry and averages). Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours). There can be art without beauty and there can be beauty without art, but the art I find most lasting, enjoyable and interesting is the one that manages to convey beauty above all else.
  - askafriend 6y ago
    > Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. But it's precisely the context that makes this art in my view. I don't think someone displaying 3 blank canvases in their garage would be the same. It's different when a highly respected artist chooses to do that in the Guggenheim. It adds an element of theater that produces an emotional response. This is quite a messy conversation since the bounds are effectively "what is art?". But it's always a fun one to have.
  - abathur 6y ago
    I don't think you've found bedrock. Don't confuse being able to measure something with attempts to explain what the measurement means. Even if everyone agrees the mathematically-perfect face or landscape is beautiful, "we" are what was actually measured. If there isn't absolute agreement that the mathematically-perfect face is beautiful, be very suspicious of the interpretation. Beauty is an experience, not a thing. It is inherently relational, not absolute or objective. If all things were equally "beautiful", the concept would vanish. If we all had mathematically-perfect faces, that particular spell would be broken. Art--like beauty, boredom, and curiosity--is a relative, relational experience. Don't get confused by the art-object; it is not the art. It is, at best, a call to have an art-experience, which you may or may not respond to. Don't get confused by the art-museum; it is not where art lives. It is, at best, a physical space where it is socially acceptable to have art-experiences and leave art-objects laying around.
    - askafriend 6y ago
      You expressed the idea I wanted to far better than I did. Great framing around the personal and experiential nature that drives (what I consider) art.
  - jmcqk6 6y ago
    >Objective beauty is measurable. There's for example a definable, codifiable way of determining what we consider to be a beautiful face (it's about symmetry and averages). >Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours). These are opinions. I can find things that are symmetrical that are not beautiful. I can find things from nature that are definitely not beautiful. Many times it's the exceptions to things that are beautiful - the out of place line in something that's otherwise symmetrical. But there are very few things in life that I think people will universally say is beautiful. There are always exceptions, people who do not like this thing or that. You really seem to be suffering from an inability to differentiate opinion from fact.
disagree0 6y ago
Knowing artists that have done the blank canvas thing when invited to show work, they are often on board with your interpretation that it’s contrived and absurdly priced. That our culture rewards such non-effort so generously is the set up. “The mission” isn’t to make a statement. But to get a doofus with more money than brains to pay rent for no effort whatsoever so they can make art for themselves. You haven’t even seen it and you had an emotional reaction enough to keep posting about it. There’s no contrived setup required. You replied with a contrived setup about art the way you did. Others replied with a contrived setup about art the way they did. Please explain how that amount of subjectivity in this story alone create a framework for objectively beautiful art? Too many ways in which chemical loops in billions of brains can flow to suggest such a thing. Whether you can based upon some theory of pure science doesn’t matter since it’ll end up a cognitively subjective answer.
- arexxbifs 6y ago
  That's precisely what angries up my blood: If the doofus is going to pay for it, The Right People has to acknowledge it as art first. And if they do that, it's suddenly awarded significance it doesn't deserve, because, hey, it's art!

jmcqk6 6y ago

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I thought I would jump in. Just the fact that there is a disagreement about what is and isn't art points to the reality that there isn't an objective standard for judging art. Art by it's nature is personal. If there was truly an objective standard of beauty, then you could measure it, and there wouldn't be a debate. Unless you're claiming that there is an objective standard, but it's secret knowledge only known to you. Then I would be the one calling you full of shit. You can call this or that "full of shit" and that's your opinion, not some objective fact in reality.

arexxbifs 6y ago
Jump right in! I seem to be in rant mode anyway. :) Defining art and defining beauty must not be confused. I don't think art _must_ be beautiful, I was commenting on whether three blank canvases could convey some kind of beauty. Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. Beauty is a very profound concept. We know if it's there. Objective beauty is measurable. There's for example a definable, codifiable way of determining what we consider to be a beautiful face (it's about symmetry and averages). Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours). There can be art without beauty and there can be beauty without art, but the art I find most lasting, enjoyable and interesting is the one that manages to convey beauty above all else.
- askafriend 6y ago
  > Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. But it's precisely the context that makes this art in my view. I don't think someone displaying 3 blank canvases in their garage would be the same. It's different when a highly respected artist chooses to do that in the Guggenheim. It adds an element of theater that produces an emotional response. This is quite a messy conversation since the bounds are effectively "what is art?". But it's always a fun one to have.
- abathur 6y ago
  I don't think you've found bedrock. Don't confuse being able to measure something with attempts to explain what the measurement means. Even if everyone agrees the mathematically-perfect face or landscape is beautiful, "we" are what was actually measured. If there isn't absolute agreement that the mathematically-perfect face is beautiful, be very suspicious of the interpretation. Beauty is an experience, not a thing. It is inherently relational, not absolute or objective. If all things were equally "beautiful", the concept would vanish. If we all had mathematically-perfect faces, that particular spell would be broken. Art--like beauty, boredom, and curiosity--is a relative, relational experience. Don't get confused by the art-object; it is not the art. It is, at best, a call to have an art-experience, which you may or may not respond to. Don't get confused by the art-museum; it is not where art lives. It is, at best, a physical space where it is socially acceptable to have art-experiences and leave art-objects laying around.
  - askafriend 6y ago
    You expressed the idea I wanted to far better than I did. Great framing around the personal and experiential nature that drives (what I consider) art.
- jmcqk6 6y ago
  >Objective beauty is measurable. There's for example a definable, codifiable way of determining what we consider to be a beautiful face (it's about symmetry and averages). >Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours). These are opinions. I can find things that are symmetrical that are not beautiful. I can find things from nature that are definitely not beautiful. Many times it's the exceptions to things that are beautiful - the out of place line in something that's otherwise symmetrical. But there are very few things in life that I think people will universally say is beautiful. There are always exceptions, people who do not like this thing or that. You really seem to be suffering from an inability to differentiate opinion from fact.

disagree0 6y ago

Knowing artists that have done the blank canvas thing when invited to show work, they are often on board with your interpretation that it’s contrived and absurdly priced. That our culture rewards such non-effort so generously is the set up. “The mission” isn’t to make a statement. But to get a doofus with more money than brains to pay rent for no effort whatsoever so they can make art for themselves. You haven’t even seen it and you had an emotional reaction enough to keep posting about it. There’s no contrived setup required. You replied with a contrived setup about art the way you did. Others replied with a contrived setup about art the way they did. Please explain how that amount of subjectivity in this story alone create a framework for objectively beautiful art? Too many ways in which chemical loops in billions of brains can flow to suggest such a thing. Whether you can based upon some theory of pure science doesn’t matter since it’ll end up a cognitively subjective answer.

arexxbifs 6y ago
That's precisely what angries up my blood: If the doofus is going to pay for it, The Right People has to acknowledge it as art first. And if they do that, it's suddenly awarded significance it doesn't deserve, because, hey, it's art!