Philosophy Forums


Modern Art

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3

Modern Art
Zimboki
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2009
Location: Hartsdale, NY/Ann Arbor, MI

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11
Posted 05/07/09 - 01:29 AM:
quote post
#11
I have trouble with Modern Art myself and I think that a lot of it is entrepreneurship. Someone is selling something to someone else, saying "Hey this has value". And once someone is willing to pay for it, it has value. The rest is filled in by art critiques and the entrepreneur spouting whatever large words fit the bill. Which is very interesting, because value one would say is subjective in terms of art. Something is only worth 25 million dollars because people believe its worth 25 million dollars. It may not actually be worth that much but once someone is willing to pay that vast some of money. It is worth that amount of money.

I'm very confused on the whole topic.

'StaticAge'
You said 'most people think art is about pictures, but its not.' which seems odd to me, because Art is something that human beings have created conceptually. So wouldn't the definition of Art be defined by the majority of people? In which case art would have a definition and a basis for which artist must begin when they want to communicate something. If most people who go into a museum look at that giant blue canvas. (Which I have..I love the Met) and say "Well that doesn't make any sense" then I would say its failed in communicating the message as the OP has described. So if the art is created to communicate the message and it does not do so, then is it art at all?

If I was you then I wouldn't be me so what ever I say now doesn't matter because I'd be acting like you.
5kroner
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 41
Posted 05/07/09 - 06:20 AM:
quote post
#12
StaticAge wrote:


The fact is that what makes art have artistic value is not because there is some Platonic form of beauty or anything like that. Because people made pictures in caves and carved statuettes for themselves long before there was this forum that was eventually invented called "art" and the possible varieties of meaning a work can imbued with is infinite. An institution like the artworld cannot exist without a culture that permeates and supports the artworld as having a legitimate sort of aesthetic authority in promoting kinds of creative expressions as art.

A work created cannot escape its circumstances. It is a product of its time. If Yves Klein was an unknown and did a blue painting today, it might be dismissed entirely. If nuclear war happened and years later a survivor does not recognize a piece of canvas to be the Mona Lisa and uses it as part of a make shift shelter, it is not an artwork anymore. But in his time period, where representative painting was seriously called into question as to how valuable it was due to the invention and growing popularity of photography, it seemed like an interesting development of what you could do with painting. When people were questioning the social authority artwork rests on, Duchamp's urinal was (and still is imo) an incredibly provocative piece. Its a perfect example of how something that throws the total tradition into question is valuable for that very reason. Its a bit like the logical positivists realizing that denying metaphysics was itself a metaphysical movement.

Anselm Kiefer does not need to be "better" than Tony Bennett. It isnt like one of them is more "art" than the other, what you are talking about there is a matter of taste. We all have our individual tastes and values when it comes to aesthetics, but by and large those tastes reflect aspects of the culture we live in, and art is a larger collective reflection of that same culture. Sometimes it highlights a part of culture we identify or agree with, and sometimes its a reflection of a part of our society that is more foreign or worthless to us.


I don't subscribe to the notion that a work is merely some psycho-cultural representation of the artist and his audience, and in such is completely bound to the culture it was created in. " This points to a purely socio-scientific hermeneutic I find insufficient. It is exactly what is seen in the case of "My Kid Could..." and the big Oprah book club fiasco. The question of authenticity itself becomes more important than a true question as to the quality of the work. We find ourselves saying, "yes, yes, it was a horribly crafted tale, but it was based on a true story, so it is somehow better than that good one over there." As if the fact that a monkey created it makes it any better or worse. While "Candide" is a fine debasement of Leibniz, it is also a very humorous read with or without such knowledge.

Yes, it could be said that a Thomas Mann novel could be used to keep warm, and a painting could provide shelter, but this hypothetical function of the work does nothing to alter how we define or judge the work as we understand it now. While Duchamp and Klein made important statements with their work, I wouldn't call the works themselves to be good or great, but accordingly this would all be a matter of taste. If I pissed in the fountain would it alter its claim to quality, or would it simply make the work more important, as now it has a rich history? I'd suggest that such temporal dependent works of art are what we should call a fad, as in the progress of history (mentioned earlier), the context will be largely forgotten. If we live in such a hypothetical world, could we not imagine "Daddy Daycare" to be a revolt against high art in general. In making such a profound statement, does "Daddy Daycare" become a much more important, a much better work?

As for a work not needing to be better, that could be said of anything, and comes off as a great cop-out. We once again surrender greatness to tastes and the masses. From this you suggest that the masses support the artworld, therefore the masses affirm the authority of such critics. So these critics, who do not ascribe greatness to a work as such, as the notion itself is not necessary, only serve as arbitrators of a democratically backed taste. So it isn't the case that these critics have any truly developed aesthetic judgment, but a position which is supported by the people. That's a fine assertion to me, so long as it is recognized by the immortal rights of 89 that such taste is for the most part bad taste. However, I doubt how connected the artworld is to the "people," as I see it to be more of a deluded circle of old hacks, who incestuously reaffirm their positions in the name of a taste they can hardly begin to define.

From this jumbled aporia we find ourselves back where the original poster started. To the answer of is that art, we could simply state that art is a matter of tastes, of sensibility, so if you think it is not, it is not. If by the act of the populus your tastes are outnumbered, you might have to deal with others calling it art.
StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298
Posted 05/07/09 - 06:22 AM:
quote post
#13
Zimboki wrote:
'StaticAge'
You said 'most people think art is about pictures, but its not.' which seems odd to me, because Art is something that human beings have created conceptually. So wouldn't the definition of Art be defined by the majority of people? In which case art would have a definition and a basis for which artist must begin when they want to communicate something. If most people who go into a museum look at that giant blue canvas. (Which I have..I love the Met) and say "Well that doesn't make any sense" then I would say its failed in communicating the message as the OP has described. So if the art is created to communicate the message and it does not do so, then is it art at all?

Do you feel that other fields are that democratic? Is science, for example, best defined by people who are not themselves scientists? I touched on this when I noted that there are a wide variety of non-innovative areas that cater to what the people expect.

"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10

"Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags
5kroner
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 41
Posted 05/07/09 - 06:46 AM:
quote post
#14
StaticAge wrote:

Do you feel that other fields are that democratic? Is science, for example, best defined by people who are not themselves scientists? I touched on this when I noted that there are a wide variety of non-innovative areas that cater to what the people expect.


Is art best defined by artists and not art critics or historians?
Zimboki
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2009
Location: Hartsdale, NY/Ann Arbor, MI

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11
Posted 05/07/09 - 10:16 AM:
quote post
#15
StaticAge wrote:

Do you feel that other fields are that democratic? Is science, for example, best defined by people who are not themselves scientists? I touched on this when I noted that there are a wide variety of non-innovative areas that cater to what the people expect.


I honestly don't know, I have always assumed that when one creates a piece of art they have to take into the account how other people would interpret their piece of art. Now that would require them to take note of the same definition of art that most people would take unless they have already a preset audience for their work. Modern Art tends to cater to the "Art Scene" or basically Art Critics and Collectors, who are notorious for over-thinking the mean behind a lot of work (At least in my experience). So in that sense Critics and Collectors are the ones who define what art, or more specifically Good Art would be. However if you take away Critics and Collectors there's still a definition of art that would exist in the minds of the majority of people who see the piece. So if in Artist says screw critics I'm going to bypass their whole system of defining art and make it for regular people. In other words, makes his work 'about the pictures' then I think its still art for everyone else. It's so loosely defined by most people I think that almost anything can fall under the category, but that creates a problem for me because if anything can be art what is the basis for evaluating art? And my answer for that is that people just decide what they like better.

The issue at hand for me is that it tends to be more about the artist and the figure behind the work, than the actual work itself. Its not about creating a brilliant piece of work. Its about painting a red dot on a white canvas, and then speaking about how it relates to how the artist was abused as a young child.

If I was you then I wouldn't be me so what ever I say now doesn't matter because I'd be acting like you.
Roundhere2112
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2
Posted 05/07/09 - 12:01 PM:
quote post
#16
Thanks for the responses guys its really interesting to hear others views, but I guess the big problem is how to have define art. You really cannot, in my opinion art should exist and have value all by itself, yet that is only my opinion. I just like to enjoy art through my own senses not through anyone eases, it should be my interpretation. And if I cannot understand the art through my interpretation, i may either be unintelligent or the artist did not convey a feeling very well
StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298
Posted 05/07/09 - 12:06 PM:
quote post
#17
5kroner wrote:


Is art best defined by artists and not art critics or historians?

Why not in conjunction with them? Perhaps I should have said "people working in the field of science" instead of "scientist," but I did not mean it to be an analogy limited to just the artists themselves.

"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10

"Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags
StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298
Posted 05/07/09 - 12:46 PM:
quote post
#18
5kroner wrote:
I don't subscribe to the notion that a work is merely some psycho-cultural representation of the artist and his audience, and in such is completely bound to the culture it was created in.

Regardless of your opinion, it is a valid theory of art. You speak of "quality"- what quality? Do you really believe there is some shared "quality" present in Monet, but not Klein? But according to his time, Monet was accused of being sloppy and lacking the "quality" of work from previous generations! I often encounter claims about "quality" when dealing with people who do not like abstract art, so let me ask- do you feel that abstract art is by its very nature, lacking in "quality?" Or can a modern abstract art theoretically contain just as much as a work by a classical master, like Titian? If so, by what means are you comparing the two?

This points to a purely socio-scientific hermeneutic I find insufficient. It is exactly what is seen in the case of "My Kid Could..." and the big Oprah book club fiasco. The question of authenticity itself becomes more important than a true question as to the quality of the work. We find ourselves saying, "yes, yes, it was a horribly crafted tale, but it was based on a true story, so it is somehow better than that good one over there."

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Like I said, the story behind the artwork is not what makes it interesting, but what the art is attempting to express, certainly is. If the only way you "get" that is by means of a story, then fine, but the artwork is its own expression.

As if the fact that a monkey created it makes it any better or worse. While "Candide" is a fine debasement of Leibniz, it is also a very humorous read with or without such knowledge.

Again, I do not see what your aim is here. What is it that you want art to do for you? It seems you are saying a book should tell a good story. What is it that you feel art is supposed to be doing? Telling a story? Looking nice? Just say exactly what it IS you think art is supposed to do.

Yes, it could be said that a Thomas Mann novel could be used to keep warm, and a painting could provide shelter, but this hypothetical function of the work does nothing to alter how we define or judge the work as we understand it now.

My point was that it has no universal meaning, no trans-cultural "essence" that can exist outside of its cultural circumstances. Right now, it currently serves as art, obviously. I didn't think that needed explaining.

While Duchamp and Klein made important statements with their work, I wouldn't call the works themselves to be good or great, but accordingly this would all be a matter of taste

Personal taste, yes. You will always have that. You can have your own political opinions too, but that doesn't mean that the politicians serving you and working in politics reflect your own views, and yet, that doesn't mean that they have no legitimacy to their political power. You can think Microsoft makes awful products and is worthless, but that doesn't mean the economy has to reflect your own view either. It isn't that much different in the world of art.

If I pissed in the fountain would it alter its claim to quality, or would it simply make the work more important, as now it has a rich history? I'd suggest that such temporal dependent works of art are what we should call a fad, as in the progress of history (mentioned earlier), the context will be largely forgotten. If we live in such a hypothetical world, could we not imagine "Daddy Daycare" to be a revolt against high art in general. In making such a profound statement, does "Daddy Daycare" become a much more important, a much better work?

Since we are talking about taste, I suppose one could imagine that in some other culture, it could be popular or a sort of delicacy to drink urinated water. Its not a "fad," but you are on the right track in a sense- if you think fashionable, then you know it directly deals with the cultural circumstances the work exists in. It can either exist in the higher tiers of culture or one of the more mundane. I think it would have been interesting in "Daddy Day Care" had been an anti-art revolt, but alas, it simply wasn't. It could have been possible to have been created as one though, I don't see why that could not be so- BUT that would also mean that not only "Daddy Day Care" has a different orientation, but it also means that the entire culture it came from and existed in would need to be the kind of culture that would have accepted "Daddy Day Care" as a revolt, that there would have been a good deal of people who it would have spoken to in that very way. That would be a very different culture than the one in which it actually was released into.

Think about it like money- there is nothing intrinsic about the pieces of paper we carry around that makes them worth trading for goods and services. If you lived 200 years ago, they would be worthless. Can you imagine a world where they would be worth a whole lot more? Sure. But, it would not be the world WE live in, because here a dollar is just a dollar and is worth however much the current economy says a dollar is worth according to this world.

As for a work not needing to be better, that could be said of anything, and comes off as a great cop-out. We once again surrender greatness to tastes and the masses. From this you suggest that the masses support the artworld, therefore the masses affirm the authority of such critics. So these critics, who do not ascribe greatness to a work as such, as the notion itself is not necessary, only serve as arbitrators of a democratically backed taste. So it isn't the case that these critics have any truly developed aesthetic judgment, but a position which is supported by the people. That's a fine assertion to me, so long as it is recognized by the immortal rights of 89 that such taste is for the most part bad taste. However, I doubt how connected the artworld is to the "people," as I see it to be more of a deluded circle of old hacks, who incestuously reaffirm their positions in the name of a taste they can hardly begin to define.

You miss the point. Ask yourself "who creates the culture I live in?" Its not just one group- nothing exists or can exist in a vacuum. Culture is holistic, not atomic. Certainly not platonic or universal, but rather flowing and contingent and relative. Law gets interpreted and reinterpreted. Economy fluctuates. Art and fashion develop and constantly change.

And instead of offering your definition of what taste is supposed to be, or what this ethereal "quality" an artwork is supposed to have, I see it as YOU who are insisting on a specific form of taste, and an irritation that the artworld does not work that way, that it has no inherent criteria.

"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10

"Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags
Zimboki
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2009
Location: Hartsdale, NY/Ann Arbor, MI

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11
Posted 05/07/09 - 01:02 PM:
quote post
#19
If there's no inherent definition of art, and anything can be considered art, then the value of art is given by the people viewing it and in order for that value to have any meaning it would have to be a consensus at some point and there has to be some overall definition other than "Art can be anything" because you can't assign value without a basis of comparison. A dollar is a dollar, but its value can only be judged when placed against say the euro. If there was no other currency then the value of it wouldn't need to change.

If 'Art' works like this currency that exists with no other currency, all art is the same and of equal value. and If that is true, then no art holds any value really.

If I was you then I wouldn't be me so what ever I say now doesn't matter because I'd be acting like you.
StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298
Posted 05/07/09 - 01:07 PM:
quote post
#20
Zimboki wrote:
If there's no inherent definition of art, and anything can be considered art, then the value of art is given by the people viewing it and in order for that value to have any meaning it would have to be a consensus at some point and there has to be some overall definition other than "Art can be anything" because you can't assign value without a basis of comparison. A dollar is a dollar, but its value can only be judged when placed against say the euro. If there was no other currency then the value of it wouldn't need to change.

If 'Art' works like this currency that exists with no other currency, all art is the same and of equal value. and If that is true, then no art holds any value really.

It holds the value we currently assign it. If tomorrow, we are overcome by some spell and we think the Mona Lisa is at best a tablecloth, and we all more or less agree on it, guess what? Thats what it is. If we then, under the same spell, decide that a checkered table cloth belongs in the museum, again, same thing. Individuals will always have their own opinions, but power is given and shared, and that includes the power to assign aesthetic value. You are absolutely right. Without us, art is nothing. It has nothing of its own.

"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10

"Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.