8 ms·

If you took the time to rent a place filled it with something and then hung a sign that said “Art Gallery”, I would argue that for sure is art. It may or may no

If you took the time to rent a place filled it with something and then hung a sign that said “Art Gallery”, I would argue that for sure is art. It may or may not be good art but it is art

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
Submitted for your approval. MOBA: https://museumofbadart.org https://museumofbadart.org Used to be in someone's basement, but I think they now set it up in various semi-public places.
- superb_dev 2y ago
  Yup, art!
airstrike 2y ago
I know you and others would "for sure" argue it's art. That's precisely my point. I'm not convinced art is in the intent. Personally, it feels like Marcel Duchamp and others have conned everyone into believing that, though again I'm sure you'd disagree. But it's definitely not "for sure" anything, as in it's not obviously, axiomatically, intrinsically, self-evidently the case. Even if the art scene today has collectively agreed on that view for the most part. I subscribe to a more formalist or conservative view of art, particularly Roger Scruton's. Art is based on its intrinsic aesthetic properties and the kind of contemplative experience it elicits. Meaning the artwork’s formal or aesthetic aspects are central. It's those things that make it art and give it value, rather than whatever the artist intended to say or do. If you subscribe to this view—which to me is what the average person would subscribe to, or the "common sense" view—then the photos in the article have very little aesthetic value and elicit no contemplative experience. At best, they promote discussion about state surveillance, which is a political but not an artistic endeavor. It's not just "bad art", but rather "conflating political statements with art", as I said at the top.
- gen220 2y ago
  I understand the semantic argument you're trying to make. I think you have more to gain from loosening your grip on the boundaries of the word "art", for purely selfish reasons. It makes the world more nuanced and interesting. For similar reasons, I'd recommending widening your lens of what is considered political. All art is political, even if it's not the artist's "intention" or within their awareness. Because it's the production of a political context. There's no such thing as an apolitical life or human act. You can argue against it for semantic reasons, but again I'd challenge what value you gain from leaning on those semantics, beyond sorting a gloriously continuous and analog universe into artificially-exclusive categories.
  - airstrike 2y ago
    I should first note that I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful reply and how honestly you've engaged in this conversation. It's why I love coming to HN, so thank you. I used to have very loose grips on the boundaries of the word "art". I've been there and done that. Then I realized that humanity has more to gain from holding art to higher standards than it does from the "anything goes" approach. I did note that art can be political. By all means it should be political in those situations where the artist has a certain objective in mind and believe art can be a meaningful way to make politics. I have nothing against that and I appreciate the historical and current relevance of art as as means of being and acting political. If you're keen to understand my position as explained by someone much more knowledgeable than me and much more studied in art and philosophy, I encourage you to watch this remarkably interesting video essay by Roger Scruton: https://vimeo.com/groups/832551/videos/549715999 https://vimeo.com/groups/832551/videos/549715999
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it's definitely not "for sure" anything, as in it's not obviously, axiomatically, intrinsically, self-evidently the case It’s self evidently art if someone goes three comments deep to argue it isn’t.
  - airstrike 2y ago

If you took the time to rent a place filled it with something and then hung a sign that said “Art Gallery”, I would argue that for sure is art. It may or may not be good art but it is art

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

Submitted for your approval. MOBA: https://museumofbadart.org https://museumofbadart.org Used to be in someone's basement, but I think they now set it up in various semi-public places.

superb_dev 2y ago
Yup, art!

airstrike 2y ago

I know you and others would "for sure" argue it's art. That's precisely my point. I'm not convinced art is in the intent. Personally, it feels like Marcel Duchamp and others have conned everyone into believing that, though again I'm sure you'd disagree. But it's definitely not "for sure" anything, as in it's not obviously, axiomatically, intrinsically, self-evidently the case. Even if the art scene today has collectively agreed on that view for the most part. I subscribe to a more formalist or conservative view of art, particularly Roger Scruton's. Art is based on its intrinsic aesthetic properties and the kind of contemplative experience it elicits. Meaning the artwork’s formal or aesthetic aspects are central. It's those things that make it art and give it value, rather than whatever the artist intended to say or do. If you subscribe to this view—which to me is what the average person would subscribe to, or the "common sense" view—then the photos in the article have very little aesthetic value and elicit no contemplative experience. At best, they promote discussion about state surveillance, which is a political but not an artistic endeavor. It's not just "bad art", but rather "conflating political statements with art", as I said at the top.

gen220 2y ago
I understand the semantic argument you're trying to make. I think you have more to gain from loosening your grip on the boundaries of the word "art", for purely selfish reasons. It makes the world more nuanced and interesting. For similar reasons, I'd recommending widening your lens of what is considered political. All art is political, even if it's not the artist's "intention" or within their awareness. Because it's the production of a political context. There's no such thing as an apolitical life or human act. You can argue against it for semantic reasons, but again I'd challenge what value you gain from leaning on those semantics, beyond sorting a gloriously continuous and analog universe into artificially-exclusive categories.
- airstrike 2y ago
  I should first note that I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful reply and how honestly you've engaged in this conversation. It's why I love coming to HN, so thank you. I used to have very loose grips on the boundaries of the word "art". I've been there and done that. Then I realized that humanity has more to gain from holding art to higher standards than it does from the "anything goes" approach. I did note that art can be political. By all means it should be political in those situations where the artist has a certain objective in mind and believe art can be a meaningful way to make politics. I have nothing against that and I appreciate the historical and current relevance of art as as means of being and acting political. If you're keen to understand my position as explained by someone much more knowledgeable than me and much more studied in art and philosophy, I encourage you to watch this remarkably interesting video essay by Roger Scruton: https://vimeo.com/groups/832551/videos/549715999 https://vimeo.com/groups/832551/videos/549715999
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it's definitely not "for sure" anything, as in it's not obviously, axiomatically, intrinsically, self-evidently the case It’s self evidently art if someone goes three comments deep to argue it isn’t.
- airstrike 2y ago