Sorry, I Just Don't Get It.

[seacaptain]

No, art is what appeals to your sense of quality, something that is above ordinary. You cannot make up what you want art to be, no more than you can decide what is beautiful or ugly. It just appeals to your senses and you respond.

I agree that I think this is where we're at as a society in defining art. As with almost everything, we take a post modern view and each individual gets to decide for himself what is "art". And that consequently does lead to beefeater's conclusion - Either everything is "art", or nothing is. Or more specifically - Everything could be "art", as long as someone says it is.
I reject all of that however. A post modern view of anything is ultimately self defeating and always without exception becomes meaningless.
No, I think art can be objectively defined, and of course that will be culturally based. But nevertheless, still an objective definition, not a subjective one.
We have no doubt lost this definition of art in our multicultural post modern society and because of that, we have people paying 44 million dollars for a canvas painted blue and congratulating themselves for doing so.
Francis Schaeffer was right, the 1913 New York Armory show changed the way we view the world, and not for the better.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

...women with mountains?
Bringing it back to the OP. So, some don't like the pipe, some do. Same goes for any other genre of pipes. I can't stand pokers (as mentioned) nor volcanos, nor blowfish. To me a blowfish could be deemed just as outrageous as the OP. Others can love them, seek them out specifically with a fervent passion. I won't lose any sleep over it regardless.

...not enough to create a post on it specifically pointing out how repulsed I am by them. Maybe, that is what separates the level of art in that first pipe, because it creates a strong negative reaction?

Food for thought.
over and out ::

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Ugg, society does not define art. I just did, earlier in this thread, ha ha.
The media can try to define it. Schools can try. Ivory towers can try. But, no longer is that a "school of thought" for art, or a select academia as we had pre-WW1. Now a days, the power is with the individual. Unless you are willing to give up your control over your own aesthetic?

No, I think art can be objectively defined, and of course that will be culturally based. But nevertheless, still an objective definition, not a subjective one.

Go ahead, try to "objectively define it. You're definition will mean diddly squat to the vast majority of the world. So, why waste the breathe?

lost the definition

No, we've gained a new one, one that has actually always applied underlying the suppressive attempts of governing and academic bodies. Why in heck would anyone even want to attempt this? Even during the Renaissance, real people on the street may have accepted the academia definitions of art, but the realities of their hearts were not affected. No, only today can we all be true to our own aesthetics, maybe only today do we have the awareness for such endeavors.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Just like women blaming fashion magazines for defining beauty. I think that is the silliest, stupidest, moronic thing I've ever heard. How many men rely on Vogue magazine as a reference for what women we find attractive. Hogwash!!!

 

[mortonbriar]

Just like women blaming fashion magazines for defining beauty. I think that is the silliest, stupidest, moronic thing I've ever heard. How many men rely on Vogue magazine as a reference for what women we find attractive. Hogwash!!!

I think its probably hogwash concerning men's opinions, sure, but I would say the fashion magazines/industry defines a lot of what WOMEN think is attractive or not about themselves and other women...
Isaac.
p.s My idea of attractive... Hilda

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Yeh, but I always wonder about women and that issue. Why do they care what other women think? Even with perfumes. When I select a cologne, I ask my girl or wife what appeals to her. And, when she picks out some flowery swill to wear, she seems to care more about brand or what other women would like. Doesn't make sense. Same goes with fashion for me. I wear what my other thinks makes me look good in her eyes, and she wears things for some other unknown reason.

As far as women's perfumes, I cannot think of a single one that I think makes me attracted to them. If they wanted to attract me, they'd smell like freshly mowed grass, new car scent, or bar-bq. I drive with the window open when a woman gets in my car with her flowery swilly perfume. Blech!!
That all said, they enslave themselves with fashion. Why blame the magazines. Just don;t buy them. I like a tad bit of chunk on my girl... in the right places.
But, still I think that these outside sources has little or insignificant affect on the masses. What governing body dictates what art is these days? In that case, name one famous artist working in a traditional medium today that can be said to be the icon of art today. Picasso was known by the masses of his day, just as Renoir, and Rembrandt were of their day. Whether he liked Picasso or not, even a gas station attendant back in the 20-30's would recognize the name.
Today we have Banksy, who has the same aesthetic that I have defined, and he makes art a form of street entertainment for a select audience. But, how many people would recognize that name? And, he even plays with the idea that not everyone will see his work as art, within his art. He even enjoys the idea that many will not see his work as art.
The times are not a changing. They've changed. You are free to like and appreciate what you moves you. And, no one can take that away from you.

 

[seacaptain]

Go ahead, try to "objectively define it. You're definition will mean diddly squat to the vast majority of the world. So, why waste the breathe?

Right. I said I agree that we've moved beyond objective definitions of art and into a post modern view that everyone gets to define "art" themselves. Just like everyone gets to define their own "truth". We live in a post modern world now, I get that.
What I'm saying is, I disagree with the presupposition that everything is subjective. I believe objective truth exists and I believe there are objective definitions of art that exist. Just because 99% of people may disagree, doesn't change the fact that objectivity exists.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Read the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It is an exploration into defining the word "quality." It is also a great story about a man and his son traveling by motorcycle, and the discussions are based on the Phadrus dialogs written by Plato. Even Plato has said that their is absolutely no such thing as an objective notion of quality. However, societies have tried to define one. It is great book, great story, and it will definitely stimulate some thought.
And, how can there be one objective "truth" when all anyone can ever experience is the shadows of the world on a cave wall? That would be Plato also.
Hey, none of this is my idea. I am only referring to those who can think much deeper than I.

 

[edgreen]

I mentioned this in the Pipes in art thread but it bears repeating. Following artists' conception of feminine beauty since 1600 I've seen every size, shape, color of woman imaginable in female nudes. The male nudes however have been extremely consistent since that time, Adonis muscled and trim. Over the last 400 years, in other words, men have had to live up to an impossible standard while women pretty much just needed to be women. Every time I hear the whole women's magazine argument I cringe. In a capitalist economy people need to feel inadequate in some way, either in belongings or self, in order for buying to extend beyond basic needs and this fills so much media; tv, magazines, internet, signs you pass everyday. Why has there been so much attention over a woman's appearance and a man's perfectly muscled body? Darwin. For most of our history a woman's survival depended on being partnered with a man, thus making man's idea of beauty a survival trait. A man's survival, and thus the partnered woman as well, depended on the strength, stamina, and health of the male. We think of ourselves as so advanced when we are just echoes of eons of imprintation.
Beautiful creations to me: South Louisiana and its lush greens and winding, dark waterways. Beethoven's Choral Fantasy.

Halle Berry, still. I would say probably millions of things I've experienced in my life I see as beautiful and most of it I would not consider art. We don't need another word for beautiful. I don't even see why we have to have a discussion about 'what is art?'

 

[cosmicfolklore]

We don't need another word for beautiful. I don't even see why we have to have a discussion about 'what is art?'

I don't think art is beauty. It is "like" beauty in the way we all have our own ideas and beliefs.
We don't have to discuss it. But, it came up, and it works with why some may hate the OP's pipe that was posted, and some may love it, and some may appreciate it as art. If one does not want to talk about art, no one is making them. Personally, I enjoy this sort of thing, as I make things for a living, and most of us who do this like to think about what people will want, appreciate, and most importantly "buy." So, it has it's place. IMO

 

[warren]

edgreen: Because not everyone agrees as to what is art. Disagreement equals discussion, debate and sometimes even war.
More to the point: A thread like this is "kick in the pants entertainment" for many of us.

 

[johnnyreb]

Looks like one of Werner Mummert's pieces. He does do some pretty out there stuff, though he does make a reverse calabash barrel that I would love to have.

CE,
Didn't know if you saw this or not...wanted to bring it to your attention in case you didn't:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Werner-Mummert-Sandblasted-Reverse-Calabash-Barrel-Unsmoked-/291528098258?hash=item43e06dc1d2

 

[cobguy]

Read the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Great read ... it's been a long time and I should pull that one back out.

More to the point: A thread like this is "kick in the pants entertainment" for many of us.

Indeed! ::

 

[jpmcwjr]

In a capitalist economy people need to feel inadequate in some way, either in belongings or self, in order for buying to extend beyond basic needs and this fills so much media; tv, magazines, internet, signs you pass everyday.

Ed-
Surely some people are motivated to buy stuff out of a feeling of inadequacy, but I don't think that's a necessary condition to buy stuff beyond basic needs. Unless collector pipes and bales of tobacco fall within your definition of "necessary"!
I'd also add in my HD TV as a necessary life item.....

 

[edgreen]

Bansky:

 

[daimyo]

Art becomes more than the creator, it has the potential to eclipse its maker infinitely, your pizza for lunch does not. People still enjoy Beethoven but never met the man, have no idea how he would play his own compositions, do not know the world he came from, completely removed from any context of his life. To claim there is nothing to that seems shorty sighted in my opinion. As I stated before I believe art exists on a self correcting art. Musings from any one era hardly affect the coarse as those musings will be judged and some discarded like individual works themselves.

 

[troutface]

No, I think art can be objectively defined, and of course that will be culturally based.

Well if it's culturally based then it can't be objective. Perhaps I have a different definition of objectivity than other folks, but objectivity implies factual information to me. One can measure that this piece of steak has 20% more fat than that piece of steak. Which one you think tastes better is purely subjective. If everyone on the planet preferred the steak with 20% more fat it still wouldn't make it objectively better. It would merely make it what everyone preferred. That was the whole point of my little beer exercise above. I wanted to watch daimyo try to explain something that can't exist, namely that one beer could be objectively better than another. Objectively two beers can be different, after that we assign subjective values to those differences. Maybe I'm just a stickler for definitions, but I think it's important.

 

[okiescout]

And, how can there be one objective "truth" when all anyone can ever experience is the shadows of the world on a cave wall? That would be Plato also.
Just goes to show you even Plato can be wrong

 

[daimyo]

I wanted to watch daimyo try to explain something that can't exist, namely that one beer could be objectively better than another. Objectively two beers can be different, after that we assign subjective values to those differences. Maybe I'm just a stickler for definitions, but I think it's important.

I still disagree in terms of food service. It is irrelevant to the discussion of whether a putrid piece of meat is lower quality than a fresh piece of meat, that a small faction of humans may like the taste of putrid meat. The simple fact that one may kill you will satisfy the argument for most. Plainly put, taste is not a metric that exists in a vacuum. That said, I generally agree that taste in and of itself is subjective. I do not however consider art to be only a matter of taste, although that is certainly a massive facet. The existential discussion of whether or not truth exists outside our perception is a never ending intellectual exercise that has been playing out for the last several thousand years. While fascinating and valuable for philosophical reasons it must be limited when drug into the actual world less we all get backed into a corner in every regard due to the uncertainty of consciousness and its resulting realizations. The idea that we can discuss nothing because everything is in question becomes its own type of circular logic if allowed.

 

[pipesdownunder]

I really love Mummerts work.
Think of his Lego piece as the piece on the catwalk. The clothing on the fashion runway doesn't make it to the street (hopefully!) but it exaggerates the designers style and concept. It accents their personality. Then the product made for the interested party is generally not as aggressive.
Mummert probably doesn't sell hundreds of Lego Pipes. He does sell hundreds of pipes though. And lots of pipes that are very out there.
(any publicity is good publicity??)