Jenna Garret Photos...Art or Not.

[limr]

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.

Language is not about maximum efficiency. Incredible redundancies are built into linguistic systems. As for nationwide agreement on word meanings for maximum efficiency? Never going to happen. People don't work that way, and people don't use language that way. This approach completely negates the uses of language that go beyond simple communicative purposes, such as defining and maintaining group boundaries for one.

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.

Okay, the image itself should be able to convey a message or evoke an emotion without completely depending on a separate explanation.

 

[Gavjenks]

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?

Yes. I know you're balking at that, but what other reason is there for participating in a discussion like this in the first place.

 

[limr]

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?

Yes. I know you're balking at that, but what other reason is there for participating in a discussion like this in the first place.

I thought it was to explain my position and to hear yours and explore differences. The reason I balk at 'getting anywhere' is that it is starting to feel like 'anywhere' = agreeing with you, and I don't believe that agreement needs to be the goal of a discussion.

 

[Gavjenks]

Language is not about maximum efficiency. Incredible redundancies are built into linguistic systems.

These are not mutually exclusive. Redundancies can increase efficiency...

To be clear, by efficiency, I am referring to the least overall effort expended for the most positive impact on our lives, as facilitated by that language. NOT just maximum word efficiency.

For example, if the thing you want to communicate is "oh hey there's a lion behind you," then the consequences of miscommunication are DEATH. Avoiding death is well worth learning 1 or 2 extra redundant methods of communicating that type of information, in overall effort vs. positive life impact efficiency.

Whereas if the thing you want to communicate is "pass the salt, please," then lots of redundant communication methods are more wasteful.




So redundancy is not necessarily inefficiency. In BOTH cases though, disagreeing on word meanings does lower efficiency, because it does absolutely nothing to help your life or even really save you any effort, and does hurt your ability to function as smoothly.

If you don't like the term efficiency, just replace with something more like philosophers' meaning of "utility" for society.






Edit: and in terms of art... if nobody ever cared or had reason to agree on whether something was art, then having agreement on a definition would be unnecessary. Having a word at all would be unnecessary. But there clearly ARE practical reasons why we need to agree. Like when selling a piece, or including in a museum, or possibly enforcing a tax, or giving awards or grading people in art class, etc. etc. etc.

 

[limr]

Language is not about maximum efficiency. Incredible redundancies are built into linguistic systems.

These are not mutually exclusive. Redundancies can increase efficiency...

To be clear, by efficiency, I am referring to the least overall effort expended for the most positive impact on our lives, as facilitated by that language. NOT just maximum word efficiency.

For example, if the thing you want to communicate is "oh hey there's a lion behind you," then the consequences of miscommunication are DEATH. Avoiding death is well worth learning 1 or 2 extra redundant methods of communicating that type of information, in overall effort vs. positive life impact efficiency.

Whereas if the thing you want to communicate is "pass the salt, please," then lots of redundant communication methods are more wasteful.

So redundancy is not necessarily inefficiency. In BOTH cases though, disagreeing on word meanings does lower efficiency, because it does absolutely nothing to help your life or even really save you any effort, and does hurt your ability to function as smoothly.

Yes, it does. But it will continue to happen this way. There will always be debates on word meanings, connotations, and proper uses. I've been in English department meetings during which people debated endlessly over using 'writing' vs 'composing'. Legal issues can hang on the interpretation of one word. Would it be easier if the meanings were absolute and agreed upon by everyone? Absolutely! Ever going to happen? Nope. It's why I think it's ultimately futile to try to pin down an absolute definition of the word 'art.'

 

[robbins.photo]

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?

Ok, pricing stuff to sell - well stuff is worth whatever you can convince someone to pay for it. Art or not makes no difference.

Awards - hmm.. well, considering that's going to be entirely up to the people giving out the award, again sort of a moot point if we agree with their choice or not. Granted if they choose badly enough often enough their award becomes pretty laughable. See the Nobel prize as an example.

Inclusion in museums or art shows - well again we have a small group of people making those decisions. The Josyln art museum has never once called me for a consultation. Which is odd because my number is all over their bathroom wall for just such an emergency.. lol

As to relevant laws - well they still haven't come up with a proper legal definition and frankly they never will. There are plenty of concepts that are almost impossible to define in the fashion you would suggest. Pornography is another example. Just ask Justice Stewart on that one.

 

[Gavjenks]

I thought it was to explain my position and to hear yours and explore differences.

What's the point of exploring differences if not to get closer to some "truth" or if not absolute truth then at least the relative truth of agreement?

Think about it this way: if all you care about is just hearing variety of definitions of art purely for the sake of hearing a variety, then you should be super happy about the following list:
1) It's art if it shows a picture of a kangaroo or not.
2) It's art if it has sold for more than $7 and depicts something.
3) It's art if the person who made it didn't have to make it to survive.
4) It's art if it involves paint on pieces of woven linen thread in a topless and bottomless wooden box.
5) It's art if it takes more than 15 minutes to absorb.
(and so on ad infinitum).

I can give you all the variety you want! But I'm guessing you don't care about those, because what you actually care about is hearing from a lot of different people in terms of what they actually believe and apply. Which implies that you care about the degree of agreement amongst people, and that you have a practical aim in mind to some degree, not just exploring differences between various hypothetical answers...

 

[Gavjenks]

Robbins, they DO consult you. Not by a phone call, but by the fact of whether you buy a ticket to their museum exhibit or not. If they decide a bunch of stuff is art (and good art), and then nobody buys tickets (and/or the art if it's on sale), then that's gonna be the #1 most influential thing in changing their future decisions. Even if they ONLY care about purchasers and ONLY super rich people can afford it, your opinion still matters insofar as the rich people are more likely to have heard about the artist if the populace is buzzing about them or if other people have written books on them or teach them in school. And rich people gain more prestige (for those who care about that) for owning art that more people agree on as art than not. And rich people still grow up in a community and their tastes are formed by people around them in part. Etc.

Or for awards, you are indirectly consulted by seeing whether you are more likely to buy copies of or pay to go see or whatever "art" which has awards versus not. If the award has no impact, then nobody is gonna care about getting it, and the awarders are going to adjust their methods or go out of business.

Same for any laws that exist or might eventually. Voters + lobbyists both have varying degrees of influence insofar as putting money in a politicians pocket or getting him/her re-elected, etc.



General population agreement is important to some degree for all of this. Maybe not AS important as agreement in high level art schools or companies, for example, but still. Universal agreement is incrementally more powerful than partial agreement, even if it's a difference of 85% of what matters vs. 100%.

 

[limr]

I thought it was to explain my position and to hear yours and explore differences.

What's the point of exploring differences if not to get closer to some "truth" or if not absolute truth then at least the relative truth of agreement?

I can still get closer to my own truth without agreeing with yours. Disagreement can help me clarify for myself WHY I disagree, so I HAVE gained something out of the discussion even though it doesn't end in agreement with the other participants.

Think about it this way: if all you care about is just hearing variety of definitions of art purely for the sake of hearing a variety, then you should be super happy about the following list:
1) It's art if it shows a picture of a kangaroo or not.
2) It's art if it has sold for more than $7 and depicts something.
3) It's art if the person who made it didn't have to make it to survive.
4) It's art if it involves paint on pieces of woven linen thread in a topless and bottomless wooden box.
5) It's art if it takes more than 15 minutes to absorb.
(and so on ad infinitum).

Those would be pretty funny and I'd laugh.

I can give you all the variety you want! But I'm guessing you don't care about those, because what you actually care about is hearing from a lot of different people in terms of what they actually believe and apply. Which implies that you care about the degree of agreement amongst people, and that you have a practical aim in mind to some degree, not just exploring differences between various hypothetical answers...

That's where you lose me. I am not particularly interested in a discussion in which everyone is in perfect agreement. Boring! I AM interested in exploring differences. I enjoy the challenge of expanding my own views on something by hearing others' opinions. That doesn't mean I am going to agree with everyone, or give equal weight to everyone's opinion. But I have no practical aim in mind other than the simple act of thinking about the subject and gathering new ideas to think about. When I enter the conversation, it's often to simply include my ideas in the mix, or to gain clarification on some ideas that I'm curious about.

I don't enter a conversation with the aim of getting people to agree with me.

 

[Gavjenks]

I can still get closer to my own truth without agreeing with yours.

If "your truth" is neither anchored in some measurable absolute fact of the universe NOR in general agreement of people around you, then what is it? How do you know if you've gotten there, or if you're getting closer versus further?

Without any anchor, how do you know if your future conclusions are any more truthful than whatever you happened to believe yesterday? You need some reference frame.

I think the most likely reference frame here is the consensus of a community, which is why I'm pushing that. I would also totally buy into an absolute reference frame (and would in fact prefer that!) if somebody could give a good one. But I haven't been emphasizing it because it sounds pretty implausible for "art"

Or if you have a third reference...

 

[limr]

Oh god, now we're on to epistemology?

Sorry, but that's my cue. I've got a 12-hour day tomorrow and should have been in bed an hour ago. There was a time I would have continued this further into the wee hours, but that time ain't now.

To answer quickly, it's a third reference. I don't believe absolute demonstrable scientific facts are the only source of each person's moral or philosophical 'truth', and neither does a person's own 'truth' need to conform to the community's. What that third reference is? Well, we're just going to have to leave that one alone.

As for art? I have been ready and willing to agree to disagree from the start, and I'm invoking my right to do so now.

 

[weepete]

So to the question "is it art?" is for me a pretty simple one and it's a yes.

I think we're getting bogged down to much in trying to find a spesific definition when the definition needs to be a broad. I also think that people tend to equate their likes and dislikes qto a piece is art or not. There is also a question of technical execution and how important this acually is to the piece. People also tend to value things they don't think they could do as better, I often here the comment "I could have done that!" when these types of discussions arise.

Work like this are interesting, because the concept is an interesting one, and the execution while not technically great does it's job in communicating the message. That you need some kind of context for it to make sense is no different than for a lot of art, both old and new. Though it is a wee bit gimmicky.

 

[Steve5D]

This could have been really good - there are some pretty strange laws on the books that could have been used to produce some really striking images that would have really made this a very artistic endeavor. Instead they pretty much phoned this one in - so is it art? Ok, sure - is it artistic? Nope, not by a long shot.

Interesting perspective.

How would you have approached the "illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket" photo?

 

[robbins.photo]

This could have been really good - there are some pretty strange laws on the books that could have been used to produce some really striking images that would have really made this a very artistic endeavor. Instead they pretty much phoned this one in - so is it art? Ok, sure - is it artistic? Nope, not by a long shot.

Interesting perspective.

How would you have approached the "illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket" photo?

Well not sure if that's one I would have chosen for the subject matter, but if it were me I'd probably take a pair of cutoff shorts with the ice cream cone in the back pocket, put it in a large plastic bag marked with red "Evidence" tape, put that on a metal table with a manila file folder also marked evidence and filled with papers with one of those big rubber bands around it. I'd had given it some stark lighting. Make it look like it's sitting on the table of in and interrogation room, kind of go for that film noir sort of feel. To me that would have drawn the observer in a little bit more with the photograph, making them a lot more interested to find out what was going on as opposed to the approach that was taken.

Just my 2 cents worth of course.. lol.

 

[jenko]

It is art.

I think it is a very clever concept. A simple one, yet it makes you think about the ridiculousness of some laws, and question a law's logic.