Content vs. Form

[unpopular]

Artwork that doesn't speak to you is a failure, art that doesn't speak to me is a failure. But that doesn't mean it's a failure to the next guy who views it, or to the artist who created it. You cannot objectively conclude art is not successful because it happens to convey an idea in a way which is within your world view. The artist shouldn't be confined to the audience. Art in galleries simply speaks to a wider audience, concluding that this makes it more valid is argumentum ad populum, likewise concluding that gallery artists are more valid is an appeal to authority.

 

[skieur]

Artwork that doesn't speak to you is a failure, art that doesn't speak to me is a failure. But that doesn't mean it's a failure to the next guy who views it, or to the artist who created it. You cannot objectively conclude art is not successful because it happens to convey an idea in a way which is within your world view. The artist shouldn't be confined to the audience. Art in galleries simply speaks to a wider audience, concluding that this makes it more valid is argumentum ad populum, likewise concluding that gallery artists are more valid is an appeal to authority.

False logic. One university professor indicated that art was self-expression. A student pointed out that kicking a garbage can was self-expression but no one would consider it to be art. I certainly can "objectively conclude that art is not successful" if it does NOT convey anything at all. An artist does not create his work in a vacuum so of course he is confined by the audience.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

So then, a painting that is destroyed before it is exhibited by definition cannot be art (while it existed) because it was never seen? That aside, you can only objectively conclude what something conveys based on your own experiences, not mine nor the artist's.

And why can't kicking trash cans be art, anyway?

 

[skieur]

So then, a painting that is destroyed before it is exhibited by definition cannot be art (while it existed) because it was never seen? That aside, you can only objectively conclude what something conveys based on your own experiences, not mine nor the artist's.

And why can't kicking trash cans be art, anyway?

Your philosophy indicates that you are lacking in experience. A painting that is destroyed before it is exhibited by definition could be art if it was done by a recognized artist with a history of conveying feelings, emotions, ideas, etc. through his work to his audience. Moreover true art often combines top creative and technical skills and unique style with an ability to communicate to viewers.

You tend to paint everyone as individualists when looking at and appreciating artistic quality. If you have been on juried panels evaluating art or photography for exhibition you would find that with more expertise and experience among the panel members there is more CONSENSUS on what qualifies as ART and what qualifies as garbage.

Oh and by the way that last comment: "And why can't kicking trash cans be art, anyway?" truly indicates your limited background with fine art/photography.



skieur

 

[unpopular]

LOL! You make it sound like I invented postmodernism.


... which is kind of ironic, don't you think, Mr. Rorty?

 

[skieur]

Is not visual appeal a form of meaning? Personally, I find terribly pretentious when people talk about "what the artist meant" or "what the artist is trying to say". They weren't there, they don't know what he or she intended. Personally, I think that most of the time photographers, painters, etc are just trying to produce work that they like.

"What the artist is trying to say" is irrelevant. It is a matter of what the work of art "says" to the viewer that is important.skieur

Why is the artists' opinion any less valuable than the audience; how can you objectively defend the sentiment that the individual audience member has a more valid opinion than that of the artist?Maybe a piece that is only valuable or valid to the artist might not sell well, but what does that have to do with artistic merit?

Artistic merit is decided by the viewer, not the artist.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

The viewer defines artistic merit within his or her own world view, just as the artist strives to create art with merit within his or her own world view. How is it that the artist's world view concerning artistic merit inferior to the audience?

You could argue that it does not matter what the artist thinks, but it certainly does matter to the artist - even if it does not matter to anyone else, or to the authors of history books or owners of galleries. But these are two different issues, social notability and monetary success are not synonymous worth artistic merit or value.

Keep in mind also, it could be argued that once a work of art is completed, the artist becomes the audience.

 

[Alpha]

The last time in history that "art' had objective criteria was before the invention of modernism. And yet you people persist in arguing about whether or not things meet all of these modernist/post-modernist criteria. Don't you get it? There are none!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Keep in mind also, it could be argued that once a work of art is completed, the artist becomes the audience.

An artists work is never finished. It is merely abandoned.

 

[unpopular]

The last time in history that "art' had objective criteria was before the invention of modernism. And yet you people persist in arguing about whether or not things meet all of these modernist/post-modernist criteria. Don't you get it? There are none!

I always thought that modernism insists on a universal aesthetic that cannot be defined objectively but can be obtained artistically - something that can be seen as artistically valid universally while postmodernists take a more relativist approach...

 

[skieur]

The viewer defines artistic merit within his or her own world view, just as the artist strives to create art with merit within his or her own world view. How is it that the artist's world view concerning artistic merit inferior to the audience?

You could argue that it does not matter what the artist thinks, but it certainly does matter to the artist - even if it does not matter to anyone else, or to the authors of history books or owners of galleries. But these are two different issues, social notability and monetary success are not synonymous worth artistic merit or value.

Keep in mind also, it could be argued that once a work of art is completed, the artist becomes the audience.

The world view of the artist is totally irrelevant, unless he can communicate that view through his work. Whether it matters to the artist is equally irrelevant. Artistic value or merit is not decided by the artist. The artist does NOT decide whether his work is going to be displayed in a gallery. It is a panel or art director who makes the decision and that is based on their perceived value of the work.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

Ok. Ok. Whatever. Go on and placate juries and art directors. We've all seen how far that's taken photography!

Sunset anyone?

 

[llenjete]

i will buy it if you sell it :thumbup: