Art - a word with no meaning

[Overread]

So I was thinking, Art. It's a rather small word, but that people seem to spend endless hours debating and arguing over. Constantly reclassifying and defining the concept of it whilst also coming up with new criteria and new meanings.

However its my view that all that is for naught in the modern world. In the past things like art and music were quite strictly controlled, if your concept didn't fit with the firmly defined definitions then it was cast out. Even many major works that we consider as great art today were, back in time, considered not art (or at least not "art enough" to be displayed in places of importance for art like galleries).

But its my view that in the race to broaden the acceptable formats for what counts as art we have in turn destroyed all meaning in the word itself. We have ground it down to a term that means something only in a very generalist sense and any attempt to impose a more strict definition simply meets with flack from other groups who suddenly find that their art isn't art under that definition.

There is the line that art is something that makes you think; that prompts some kind of emotional reaction. However in itself these are also extremely generalist definitions. A person with a naturally creative mind might well find that anything can set their mind to thinking - as a result the definition loses all structure because it almost means "anything."


And yet there are some boundaries; there are some rough boarders where the majority say "this, this isn't art". However those boundaries are always changing and shifting and indeed sometimes can be based upon the creator not the art itself (a mundane creation by a no-name person is a wonder by a master artist - because the mater artists is 'showing you something within the mundane').




Indeed many arguments I see over what is and isn't art often boil down to a desire for the individual to define what they like as art whilst at the same time removing forms that they don't consider art. Leading to long complex arguments where in they define a set of rules so contrived that it ends up falling over its own wording. OR they make big generalist sweeps that cut out whole swathes (often because its a method commonly used to create "bad art").



So there is my argument - Art in itself means nothing in the modern world. We've broadened the horizons so far that they are almost no longer bound. Only within context of a specific situation can art itself have a meaning and that meaning only works within that context. A gallery can define the art they wish to display; but their definition applies only as far as the walls of their building. Beyond that in the wide wild world Art is a term without bounds.

In some ways that is good; it leaves the door open to all to explore their own creativity in their own way; in others its bad as it means a lack of any respect for even minor formal structuring means many can aspire to a very low level of ambition and never truly seek out (nor easily find) the instruction and aid to progress further.

 

[grafxman]

That's very thoughtful Overread. I go by what a great American once said:

"As President Eisenhower supposedly once said, after visiting the Louvre, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

This link tells me all I need to know about art:

Art gallery loses its head, displays plinth [Archive] - NewTek Discussions

 

[Derrel]

That's very thoughtful Overread. I go by what a great American once said:

"As President Eisenhower supposedly once said, after visiting the Louvre, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

I had a university art and photography professor who used the above quote, and a modification of it, to teach his 101,102,103 art history classes.

He said that basically the above quote means, "I have no training in the arts whatsoever, and I do not know much about art, but I like what I know, which is usually kitsch."

Here is the favorite painting of the typical, "I don't know much about art," type of person. dogs playing poker - Google Search

Art still exists. But the ignorant and unwashed masses...you know, the ones who call long comic books "graphic novels", typically have never studied art. Art has been cut from most schools, and is not valued in the USA. I mean, really...we have videogames to play, and graphic novels to study and appreciate, and series TV shows to watch, to get our entertainment, literature, and drama needs satisfied.

 

[robbins.photo]

I guess my thinking is if one person out there wants to classify it as art, ok fine. It's art. That doesn't mean I like it, get it, or would be willing to pay real money for it. But if it's art in someone's eyes then that's good enough for me. I think a big portion of the problem here is that by calling something "art" there are more than a few folks that think this means that it is somehow giving it an elevated status. With that I disagree.

Just because something can be classified as "art" doesn't defacto mean that it doesn't suck. The dozens of malformed hideously mishapen lumps of fired clay that were glazed with the most garish colors imaginable given to me by the kids when they were still in grade school? Well, ya, they are art. They aren't good art, but their art. All the crap I have in boxes now that once hung on the refrigerator? Yup - art. Again, nothing that will ever hang in a museum but still, art.

So honestly I think haggling over the definition of what should or shouldn't be considered art is fairly silly and just doesn't serve much of a constructive purpose. Could just be me of course, so often in life I find that it is.. lol

 

[Gavjenks]

"Means NOTHING" is certainly over dramatic. But yes, I'd say it means less than it used to, and also not very much compared to other more concrete words. And as I suggested in the other thread, I also think it would aid society to agree on words at least somewhat more than we agree on "art." If the situation has become more complex, too much for one word, well then fine, use half a dozen words for it now instead, but we could still agree on them more than we do now on "art."

An example of a word that actually does mean absolutely nothing is "Gax." Not even really very clear whether it sounds like a noun or a verb or plural or singular, and has no assigned meaning yet by any of us (probably). When you say it, it is unlikely to evoke any particular set of thoughts or images in another person any more than any other set of thoughts or images, so it effectively communicates nothing.

"Art" is definitely more useful than that. Even if it's not exactly what you mean, you're still evoking images of paintings and theater and sculpture and music maybe, possibly a museum, blah blah. Or you may even evoke thoughts of discussions like this one. All of these things probably get your listener closer to what you wanted to talk about than you were before. Thus, it has successfully communicated some part of your thoughts, and thus has some meaning (the fact that you used it in your thread title is a good example of you relying on the portion of meaning that it has). It's just not enough to get you as far as you WANT to get in communicating with high precision.

 

[Designer]

In the past things like art and music were quite strictly controlled, if your concept didn't fit with the firmly defined definitions then it was cast out.

In the early days of photography, the fine art painters railed on it and decried anybody who claimed photography was a form of "art".

And now there is Instagram, and some of us rail on it.

 

[Gavjenks]

^ I like the comparison of instagram to the invention of photography

 

[Derrel]

Somebody ought to get a few people together and demonstrate some initiative and contact all of the art museums on this list and tell them they need to shutter their doors and cease operation...

List of art museums - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bonus points for anybody willing to tackle the large list of art museums in Germany, Italy, and most especially, the huge,long list of United States art museums.

 

[grafxman]

Derrel, your post just triggered something in my brain that has been dormant for about 20 years. After I retired from the Navy I did volunteer work for 6 years. I took care of all the computer requirements, installation, training, etc. for 3 dozen non profit agencies in NE Florida. As such I was often called on whenever some complicated non computer issue arose. As you likely know there is now and for many decades has been an effort to get kids to do better in school. One of the many cockamamie ideas was to teach elementary students about art. These were all minority kids. Anyway they decided to institute art programs in 3 elementary schools. I don't recall the grade levels now. As a control I used 3 other elementary schools that didn't have an art program. I was simply the statician. IIRC I think I used some form of regression analysis I learned about in my statistical analysis class when I was in the MBA program at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University. Anyway there was absolutely no improvement when comparing the schools with art studies to the schools without art studies. I then got the grades from previous years before art was taught. Again there were no statistical differences at all. I created some charts so I could show the folks what I had discovered. Art in elementary schools does absolutely nothing to cause students to learn better. When I presented the information to the concerned parties everyone was quite polite however they gave me some fishy eyed looks. FWIW, I was the only white person in the room. BTW, I'm not just white, I'm extremely white (blond hair, blue eyes). Anyhow a few days later I was reading in the Florida Times Union newspaper about how it was "proven" that art studies in elementary schools improved learning. I made my feelings politely known to the lying SOBs and never spoke to any of them again.

 

[rexbobcat]

That's very thoughtful Overread. I go by what a great American once said:

"As President Eisenhower supposedly once said, after visiting the Louvre, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

I had a university art and photography professor who used the above quote, and a modification of it, to teach his 101,102,103 art history classes.

He said that basically the above quote means, "I have no training in the arts whatsoever, and I do not know much about art, but I like what I know, which is usually kitsch."

Here is the favorite painting of the typical, "I don't know much about art," type of person. dogs playing poker - Google Search

Art still exists. But the ignorant and unwashed masses...you know, the ones who call long comic books "graphic novels", typically have never studied art. Art has been cut from most schools, and is not valued in the USA. I mean, really...we have videogames to play, and graphic novels to study and appreciate, and series TV shows to watch, to get our entertainment, literature, and drama needs satisfied.

Video games can't be art?

*world shatters into pieces*

 

[MSnowy]

I know Art. Nice guy, hangs out on the wall.

 

[Designer]

Anyway there was absolutely no improvement when comparing the schools with art studies to the schools without art studies.

I'm not surprised. The education establishment has already decided what is best, even though you can prove that it is not. Thanks for the effort anyway though.

 

[Gavjenks]

Somebody ought to get a few people together and demonstrate some initiative and contact all of the art museums on this list and tell them they need to shutter their doors and cease operation...
List of art museums - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bonus points for anybody willing to tackle the large list of art museums in Germany, Italy, and most especially, the huge,long list of United States art museums.

The mere fact that somebody uses a word in a title of a place doesn't give the word instant deep, useful meaning. How many of those art museums bother or deign to provide a definition or even really any explanation of that word at all? And how many would flat out disagree that it should be used in the titles of some of the other museums? This is no guarantee of anything by itself. They're merely examples, and not even examples from any centralized authority, at that.

Just like if I take a toddler and point to a fox and say "fox" it's just an example. It doesn't tell him much about "fox" and its deeper meaning. It doesn't tell him that they have to be warm blooded and that they have live young and are related to dogs and that they bark/growl (no offense to the opinions of these fine musicians: )

 

[Overread]

grafxman - interesting story though I suspect 1 years worth of study isn't enough for any proof for or against (though that does not diminish their manipulation of the results to say otherwise a bad move). I also suspect that the way a subject is taught is critical to if it causes an improvement or not and that after 1 year most students were only just getting a grounding (at best with good teachers). I suspect like many things it would take a few years for the effect to have a gain for students. Sadly many art teachers oft fawn over the best "natural talent" students and leave the rest to flounder (with the hope they never elect art for advanced studies in their last years of school).


Of course there we are shifting from art as a concept and into art as a technical exercise - or rather into sketching, painting, pottery, photography etc.. as technical methods and skills.


It's my own feeling that a solid foundation in technical method can help in other subjects - but that also art presents a subject that is not academic in its focus and thus whilst it may not make students get higher grades in maths or english it might well improve their chances because its broadened their horizons and gives more hands on creative students the option to develop a skill and take that into the working world

 

[Derrel]

"Gax, Gav! Gax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"