Jenna Garret Photos...Art or Not.

[limr]

I don't consider them art. I believe they are not simply aided or enhanced by the subtitles, but are completely dependent on them for meaning and value, and I feel that something that gets to be called 'art' should have more of an intrinsic value.

Minor issue for this particular example, but why are the subtitles of the piece not an "intrinsic" part of the piece????
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg
^
If you paint the words onto the canvas, they get to be counted but if you type them below or on a plaque next to it (and KNOW ahead of time that that will always be there) it doesn't count? Come on, that's a trivial and inconsequential distinction.

Everyone is going to have a different line that separates what is considered 'art' and what isn't 'art.' If there is no line, then is EVERYTHING art? And doesn't that render the term useless, effectively making NOTHING art?

More generally and importantly than the above section, These are two very different and non-equal claims.
"Everyone has a different line" and
"There has to be some line"

The latter could be true without the former being true, which would be the most useful scenario. I.e. an agreed upon line, that is the same for everybody. Indeed, the degree to which we approach a universally agreed line is the degree to which the term is useful, and the degree to which everybody disagrees is the degree to which the term is pointless.

Which is why the line I'm suggesting is actually not actually particularly subjective, if people were to use it it would be pretty easy to agree (assuming some tiny knowledge of the photographer): were they attempting ANY expression of ANY meaning? Or was it 100% purely technical testing or accident? Pretty easy to objectively answer with any knowledge or comment from the creator at all, and often just from decisions made in how it is distributed, etc. even if you don't have a comment. And it doesn't include all images, so it has some utility still.

There are lots of other possible criteria that are objective, and some may be more useful. You might even want more than one (Art type 1, art type 2, etc.) for more than a binary distinction, while still being objective.

There's no definitive answer; it's not something that is logically and quantitatively determined

Why not? That seems like precisely the point of such threads, yes? Trying to agree on a line to draw together so as to make the term useful. Not talking about it just because one doesn't exist fully universally yet is merely a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I said I was tired of the art threads HERE because the discussions HERE descend too quickly into people trying to convince others that their opinion is the correct one and others are wrong. I enjoy the discussion in general because it helps me to define where my line is, and that helps me further clarify my own position. But once things turn into a shouting match, then it's a useless endeavor and I tire of it very quickly.

Sure, an objective line of what is art and what isn't would be handy, wouldn't it? I think it's a myth. Would the pipe painting be art without the subtitles? I would argue that the text on that painting is not a subtitle and instead part of the painting itself. It's not extra explanation that needs to be added next to it to help someone 'get it.'

And let's say that it IS a subtitle, and I say that it's not art because of the subtitles that explain the picture. Why is my criteria inconsequential? What difference does it make to anyone else's experience of the piece? What makes yours better? You suggest the line is, "Did the person intend to evoke or convey or express something?"

If someone pees on the ground with the intention of expressing a dislike for the tile choice of the floor, does that make the puddle of urine art? Or is your criteria overly broad?

I don't see why we have to agree on a line for that line to exist. Can't there be as many lines as there are people? Or at least for people who give this a thought?

 

[limr]

Also, like the above post, and runnah's that it is quoting, whether something is good art is not necessarily the same question as whether it is art.

They COULD be defined together, but why? That's just clumsy IMO. Opinions seem like the absolute worst place to begin if you want to agree upon a definition of art, because they're the hardest to quantift. So if you want to get somewhere, you do probably want to separate out goodness of the art from whether it is art at all, so that at least one half of it we have a chance of nailing down in agreement.

I.e. define it so that at least everybody can say "yes art" or "no art" together, and then disagree over quality of it. So we have a 23% useful term or whatever, instead of a 0% useful term.

Why does everyone have to agree on a definition?

 

[robbins.photo]

Also, like the above post, and runnah's that it is quoting, whether something is good art is not necessarily the same question as whether it is art.

They COULD be defined together, but why? That's just clumsy IMO. Opinions seem like the absolute worst place to begin if you want to agree upon a definition of art, because they're the hardest to quantift. So if you want to get somewhere, you do probably want to separate out goodness of the art from whether it is art at all, so that at least one half of it we have a chance of nailing down in agreement.

I.e. define it so that at least everybody can say "yes art" or "no art" together, and then disagree over quality of it. So we have a 23% useful term or whatever, instead of a 0% useful term.

Why does everyone have to agree on a definition?

Well so we can all conform to the exact same standard of course. Downside being that would pretty much make "art" a moot point.. lol.

 

[ratssass]

....please,lord(without bringing religion into this),put me back to work tomorrow,so I may argue in real time,rather than argue via 1 finger typing.
"I'm countin' on you Lord,Please don't let me down....."

 

[baturn]

I was going to vote "yes", but decided to read the thread through first. And now, unequivocally, its Don't Care!

 

[Derrel]

Campbell's Soup Cans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some people here still seem stuck in the dogma of abstract expressionism as the only way art can be manifested. Seems like a 50+ year time warp...

..I thought we'd settled this issue about definingn "art" as being ONLY part of a narrow range of "acceptable forms" way back in the early 1960's...

 

[Gavjenks]

Why does everyone have to agree on a definition?

Words in general without agreed upon definitions have no purpose.

It's not all or nothing. But the CLOSER everybody is to agreeing, the more useful the word is. It's just an inherent property of words, since the whole point of words is communicating concepts to other people, thus necessitating common ground and agreement.


...unless the only time you ever plan on using the term "art" is in private diaries to yourself...

Why is my criteria inconsequential?

It's not, but i would argue that a definition based on what's "inherent" or not with no clear explanation of how you determine inherent-ness is not a good start if you want everyone to agree on a line to draw. it's too vague.

I don't think mine's great, either, in terms of being a line people would find super satisfying, but it's at least aimed at trying to get everyone to be able to apply it equally. Yours, for instance, would also be this if you added a short tutorial on how to decide what is inherent or not, that other people could follow and end up with the same conclusions as you if they did.

Again, I'm not saying mine is right at all, but whatever people end up agreeing on, it at the very least has to be able to be reliably replicated and applied by other people for the same outcome. Then amongst definitions that meet that criterion, a group can discuss which one yields the line that divides into the most useful groups (useful as in you would actually get some value out of dividing pieces that way - for instance one that could be used as a museum cutoff or something practical)

 

[limr]

Also, like the above post, and runnah's that it is quoting, whether something is good art is not necessarily the same question as whether it is art.

They COULD be defined together, but why? That's just clumsy IMO. Opinions seem like the absolute worst place to begin if you want to agree upon a definition of art, because they're the hardest to quantift. So if you want to get somewhere, you do probably want to separate out goodness of the art from whether it is art at all, so that at least one half of it we have a chance of nailing down in agreement.

I.e. define it so that at least everybody can say "yes art" or "no art" together, and then disagree over quality of it. So we have a 23% useful term or whatever, instead of a 0% useful term.

Why does everyone have to agree on a definition?

Well so we can all conform to the exact same standard of course. Downside being that would pretty much make "art" a moot point.. lol.

So resistance is futile, eh? I should just change my name to Four of Seventeen?

 

[Gavjenks]

Well so we can all conform to the exact same standard of course. Downside being that would pretty much make "art" a moot point.. lol.

This is again conflating the two issues of "whether it is art" versus "how good of art".

You CAN conflate those two, but why would we want to? the goodness question is unlikely to ever be objective, but at least the art/notart question stands a good chance of being objective alone, if separated out.

 

[robbins.photo]

Why does everyone have to agree on a definition?

Well so we can all conform to the exact same standard of course. Downside being that would pretty much make "art" a moot point.. lol.

So resistance is futile, eh? I should just change my name to Four of Seventeen?

Ok, sure, that's the downside. The upside? The outfits make you look Hawt! Lol

 

[limr]

Why does everyone have to agree on a definition?

Words in general without agreed upon definitions have no purpose.

It's not all or nothing. But the CLOSER everybody is to agreeing, the more useful the word is. It's just an inherent property of words, since the whole point of words is communicating concepts to other people, thus necessitating common ground and agreement.


...unless the only time you ever plan on using the term "art" is in private diaries to yourself...

Words gain meaning through communal acceptance, yes. But word meanings are also constantly in flux. Words also have different meanings and uses in different communities. The term 'art' can have a core meaning but provoke debate about items that lie on the fringe of that core. The debate doesn't lie in what everyone agrees upon; it lies in the fringe.

Why is my criteria inconsequential?

it's not, but i would argue that a definition based on what's "inherent" or not with no clear explanation of how you determine inherent-ness is not a good start if you want everyone to agree on a line to draw.

That's my whole point! I was never trying to get everyone to agree on a line! I was simply explaining where mine was.

I don't think mine's great, either, but it's at least aimed at trying to get everyone to be able to apply it equally. Yours, for instance, would also be this if you added a short tutorial on how to decide what is inherent or not, that other people could follow and end up with the same conclusions as you if they did.

In my original post:

As for whether or not the pictures are 'artful' - in the sense that they show something visually stimulating (either positively or negatively) either through technical or emotional merit? Meh. As someone said, they don't really display a lot of technical merit. They're not so horribly done that I'm appalled at the lack of skill, but none of them stand out as being particularly well done either. Neither are any of them shocking in the image they portray - not even the one with the dildos - so they don't stimulate any strongly negative reactions like some art tries to do.

So I do expect some level of skill to create an image that is visually stimulating enough on its own to provoke thought or emotion in the viewer.

Let's say we decide on a specific test to determine if something is art. Just for argument's sake, let's say that test is some amalgamation of yours and mine (or proto-mine, since it's still not quite formed): "Does the person intend to evoke or express a message through a visually-stimulating image which is created through effort and skill and which then creates a thought or emotion in the viewer."

Aren't people still going to disagree? Because people will answer that question differently. Does everyone have to agree or just a majority? If 90 people have an emotional reaction to something and 10 people just feel, "Meh," then is it art, or does it have to be unanimous? And if it doesn't have to be unanimous, how is that any different than people just deciding based on their gut reaction rather than on an objective standard?

For the record, I'm not using questions as a way to obliquely disagree or argue. These thoughts are phrased as questions partly to help me sort through it myself, and partly as actual questions that can be answered for the sake of clarifying the ideas.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well so we can all conform to the exact same standard of course. Downside being that would pretty much make "art" a moot point.. lol.

This is again conflating the two issues of "whether it is art" versus "how good of art".

You CAN conflate those two, but why would we want to? the goodness question is unlikely to ever be objective, but at least the art/notart question stands a good chance of being objective alone, if separated out.

Ok, well for the record I don't conflate. Not on the first date at any rate. At the very least you have to buy me dinner first.. lol.

That and you might want to take a glance back in the thread, I've already stated that for me if someone wants to define something as "art" then I'm ok with that, we can call it art. I may not get it or appreciate it but I'm not the grand high inquisitor of what is or isn't considered art. Though I bet the robes would look cool, and I've always wanted one of those spiky hats, frankly I've already got a day job and I just don't look that good in sandals.

So nope, don't really care if someone else wants to call something art or not, if it's art to them then it's fine with me that they call it art. Doesn't mean that it's something I might consider artistic. But yup, already stated that.

 

[Gavjenks]

To step back for a moment.... Why do we care if something is art? Why does it matter if we agree? That would be the first step to agree on if you want to get anywhere. Maybe actually start with that?

Some possible reasons to throw out on the table:

1) Pricing of pieces for sale
2) Award criteria
3) Inclusion in museums or shows or whatnot (not nec. same as awards)
4) Any relevant laws that have a reason to specify art (for instance special taxes or some such)

These (and many others) are hard decisions that must be made at some point. Decide which ones matter the most, and you have the beginnings of a basis for deciding the most useful method for art, non?

 

[Gavjenks]

Words also have different meanings and uses in different communities.

This happens to be the case, yes, but it is an inefficiency to be avoided if possible. Again the DEGREE to which there is universal agreement, is the degree to which it is useful. Community-wide agreement only is higher than zero agreement, but less than universal. So some usefulness. But less than if everybody nationwide agreed. Because if it's universal you don't have to memorize as many different meanings and identify where somebody is from and translate the meanings, etc. You can just hit the ground running with a known instant interpretation. More efficient.

In my original post:

I saw that part. But it turned out to not be a full explanation of the process you were using. I was referring to the second implied criterion you added later, that an aspect has to be "inherent to the art" to contribute to it being art or not -- wrt the subtitles "counting" or not. If that's to be part of the decision process, then it needs to also be elaborated in as much detail as the other part you wrote, and in a way that is as easy to replicate by somebody else.

(For the record, my answer to this part would be "whatever media / content the alleged artist consistently presents together whenever they display their work" So if in between different showings, the light changes each time, then the light probably isn't part of the piece. if it's always identical, then it is. If the same caption is always added below, then it's probably part of the piece. if sometimes it is sometimes it isn't, then probably not. Seems pretty objective, but maybe one can do better. "Within the edges of the canvas" seems a pretty slippery slope by comparison to me, and also more narrowly applicaple to only paintings/drawings/photographs, but *shrug*)

 

[limr]

To step back for a moment.... Why do we care if something is art? Why does it matter if we agree? That would be the first step to agree on if you want to get anywhere. Maybe actually start with that?

Ignoring the rest of your post for a moment, what does that mean, "if you want to get anywhere"? If I want to get to an objective standard?