6 ms·

"Remove execution, keep intent: you get modern art, which is still art." I completely disagree with the lack of execution in modern art as a whole. There were

"Remove execution, keep intent: you get modern art, which is still art." I completely disagree with the lack of execution in modern art as a whole. There were plenty of modern artists for whom execution was critically important. Picasso wasn't throwing down completely random scribbles. John Cage scrupulously followed his randomly-generated compositions when he was performing them. Damien Hirst's crystal skull isn't anything if not amazingly executed. These are just a few examples off the top of my head, but there are countless others.

bambax 5y ago
Yeah, that's not my point, but it's my fault for not being clear enough. I added a line to the comment you're replying to, to try to make it more explicit.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  In your addition to that comment, you write: "The point is that there is still art when we remove execution. Some modern art has very elaborate execution, but sometimes modern art is pure idea, and then it is still art." You seem to be describing some people's broadened view of art rather than modern art itself. Modern art was made by many artists with many different views. Some of whom might have found execution more or less important than the concept behind their art -- if they even thought about it that way. Speaking of which, it'd be interesting to see some examples of artists for whom execution (in some sense) was not at all important.
  - bambax 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) > In April 1917, an ordinary piece of plumbing chosen by Duchamp was submitted for an exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, the inaugural exhibition by the Society to be staged at The Grand Central Palace in New York. When explaining the purpose of his Readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice." https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041492941/jens-haaning-kunsten-take-the-money-and-run-art-denmark-blank https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041492941/jens-haaning-kunst... > The money was supposed to be used to create modern art. And it was — but not in the way a Danish museum expected when it gave an artist the equivalent of $84,000. In return, it received two empty canvases. The artist, Jens Haaning, says the blank canvases make up a new work of art — titled "Take the Money and Run" — that he calls a commentary on poor wages. One thing it's not, he says, is a theft. "It is a breach of contract, and breach of contract is part of the work," he said, according to Danish public broadcaster DR. "The work is that I have taken their money," Haaning stated.
    - the_af 5y ago
      (I've been upvoting you because this is an interesting point of view). At this point, one must ask: what is not art with such a broad definition? And is a definition that excludes nothing useful? Is it enough for something to be art that some person, living or dead, at some point thought it was art? I know a lot of people think it is, but I really struggle with accepting this definition. Mainly because it's used to let things in that I -- subjectively, in my own opinion -- absolutely dislike as lazy crap. And no, I don't consider being lazy an art form.
      - soco 5y ago
        The only thing everybody agrees upon is that everybody wants their definition to be the one. There are definitions of art almost as many as there are critics of art and artists taken together, and each and every one will defend their definition to the bitter end. I know I'm not helping the discussion here but the debates go almost religiously and you simply can't debate faith (nor should you). Maybe some even have some beef in calling something particular "art". Anyway. Easier is: if they call something art I let them call it art, and just don't buy it or ignore the discussion if I don't like it. So basically my take is: art is if I enjoy it - mostly as a sensorial pleasure or even as a metaphorial challenge.
        the_af 5y ago
        > Easier is: if they call something art I let them call it art, and just don't buy it or ignore the discussion if I don't like it. So basically my take is: art is if I enjoy it - mostly as a sensorial pleasure or even as a metaphorial challenge. Sounds healthy. I can live with that rule of thumb.
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      In Duchamp's case the execution of the art would be Duchamp's choice of which object to dignify as art. He did make a choice, so execution would be involved. In Haaning's case maybe the execution is in the choice of blank canvas and coming up with the concept... would you buy that?

bambax 5y ago

Yeah, that's not my point, but it's my fault for not being clear enough. I added a line to the comment you're replying to, to try to make it more explicit.

pmoriarty 5y ago
In your addition to that comment, you write: "The point is that there is still art when we remove execution. Some modern art has very elaborate execution, but sometimes modern art is pure idea, and then it is still art." You seem to be describing some people's broadened view of art rather than modern art itself. Modern art was made by many artists with many different views. Some of whom might have found execution more or less important than the concept behind their art -- if they even thought about it that way. Speaking of which, it'd be interesting to see some examples of artists for whom execution (in some sense) was not at all important.
- bambax 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) > In April 1917, an ordinary piece of plumbing chosen by Duchamp was submitted for an exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, the inaugural exhibition by the Society to be staged at The Grand Central Palace in New York. When explaining the purpose of his Readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice." https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041492941/jens-haaning-kunsten-take-the-money-and-run-art-denmark-blank https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041492941/jens-haaning-kunst... > The money was supposed to be used to create modern art. And it was — but not in the way a Danish museum expected when it gave an artist the equivalent of $84,000. In return, it received two empty canvases. The artist, Jens Haaning, says the blank canvases make up a new work of art — titled "Take the Money and Run" — that he calls a commentary on poor wages. One thing it's not, he says, is a theft. "It is a breach of contract, and breach of contract is part of the work," he said, according to Danish public broadcaster DR. "The work is that I have taken their money," Haaning stated.
  - the_af 5y ago
    (I've been upvoting you because this is an interesting point of view). At this point, one must ask: what is not art with such a broad definition? And is a definition that excludes nothing useful? Is it enough for something to be art that some person, living or dead, at some point thought it was art? I know a lot of people think it is, but I really struggle with accepting this definition. Mainly because it's used to let things in that I -- subjectively, in my own opinion -- absolutely dislike as lazy crap. And no, I don't consider being lazy an art form.
    - soco 5y ago
      The only thing everybody agrees upon is that everybody wants their definition to be the one. There are definitions of art almost as many as there are critics of art and artists taken together, and each and every one will defend their definition to the bitter end. I know I'm not helping the discussion here but the debates go almost religiously and you simply can't debate faith (nor should you). Maybe some even have some beef in calling something particular "art". Anyway. Easier is: if they call something art I let them call it art, and just don't buy it or ignore the discussion if I don't like it. So basically my take is: art is if I enjoy it - mostly as a sensorial pleasure or even as a metaphorial challenge.
      - the_af 5y ago
        > Easier is: if they call something art I let them call it art, and just don't buy it or ignore the discussion if I don't like it. So basically my take is: art is if I enjoy it - mostly as a sensorial pleasure or even as a metaphorial challenge. Sounds healthy. I can live with that rule of thumb.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    In Duchamp's case the execution of the art would be Duchamp's choice of which object to dignify as art. He did make a choice, so execution would be involved. In Haaning's case maybe the execution is in the choice of blank canvas and coming up with the concept... would you buy that?