3 ms·

" If all I need to do to make a painting is press the "run" button, there's not much intention there." If all I need to do to kill another person is press the

" If all I need to do to make a painting is press the "run" button, there's not much intention there." If all I need to do to kill another person is press the "run" button, there's not much intention there. Sure, that'd be severe exaggeration in most cases, but we're talking about art, and that art has happened (See the works of yoko ono (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYJ3dPwa2tI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYJ3dPwa2tI), wafaa bilal (http://wafaabilal.com/html/shootAnIraqi.html http://wafaabilal.com/html/shootAnIraqi.html), etc.) Are you both psychic AND time traveling in order to be able to tell what someone was thinking when they hit that button? I realize this puts me in the place of defending art /I/ personally don't like, but that "valid art" term is just the worst. There are also types of art that are all about hitting the button. For instance, field recording. Wonderful article on it at http://www.factmag.com/2014/11/18/a-beginners-guide-to-field-recording/ http://www.factmag.com/2014/11/18/a-beginners-guide-to-field..., but the quote from Yan Jun I reference the most is: -- “There is no such thing as documenting a reality,” he tells me, “There is no divide between documenting and creating. The point is I don’t build dreams neither by field recording nor by playing my electronics instruments or computer. To choose equipments, choose position and push record button are acts of composing. Tiny meaningless noises can be a beautiful composition. To summarise I can use this equation – I push the record button = someone making a musique concréte piece = Bach.” -- Seriously. I'm happy you read a book about art, and that's not sarcastic. Most people won't ever put that much time into thinking about art, and it's cool you did. Just be careful about how much credit you give anything that ever uses the term "Valid Art".

jholman 12y ago
I think you're making the same category of error of which you accuse the_duck, albeit in the opposite direction, when you say "that art has happened" or claiming that field recording is art, or reverently quoting Yan Jun drawing an equivalence between pushing a record button and Bach. You dropped the word "valid", but you're still making assertions about what is and is not art. Collectively, humans don't always agree about what is art. One option is to simply always be agnostic about what is and is not art. Then there's no argument. Another option is to claim that there does exist some dividing line. And if you want to come to an agreement with anyone about that dividing line, it's hilariously delusional to miss the fact that there does not exist a broad consensus about when it is appropriate to use that word, and you need to construct that agreement. And if you want to do that, the idea of "valid art" is essential; blithely saying "that art has happened" is disingenuous at best. Me, I choose to be agnostic about what is art. I don't understand the value of agreeing about it (except, perhaps, for the purpose of bureaucratic allocation of grants and funding). But even having taken that position, Dutton's ideas about a 12-factor model seem pretty interesting, as a sociological investigation of what other criteria other humans seem to use.

jholman 12y ago

I think you're making the same category of error of which you accuse the_duck, albeit in the opposite direction, when you say "that art has happened" or claiming that field recording is art, or reverently quoting Yan Jun drawing an equivalence between pushing a record button and Bach. You dropped the word "valid", but you're still making assertions about what is and is not art. Collectively, humans don't always agree about what is art. One option is to simply always be agnostic about what is and is not art. Then there's no argument. Another option is to claim that there does exist some dividing line. And if you want to come to an agreement with anyone about that dividing line, it's hilariously delusional to miss the fact that there does not exist a broad consensus about when it is appropriate to use that word, and you need to construct that agreement. And if you want to do that, the idea of "valid art" is essential; blithely saying "that art has happened" is disingenuous at best. Me, I choose to be agnostic about what is art. I don't understand the value of agreeing about it (except, perhaps, for the purpose of bureaucratic allocation of grants and funding). But even having taken that position, Dutton's ideas about a 12-factor model seem pretty interesting, as a sociological investigation of what other criteria other humans seem to use.