Sorry, I Just Don't Get It.

[cosmicfolklore]

The idea that we can discuss nothing because everything is in question becomes its own type of circular logic if allowed.

True, true.

I remember a professor that told us that art is a term that you just cannot turn to the back of a book or look up in a dictionary and make it true for everyone. Some aspects of life have to be lived, not looked up.
That said, I used to make the argument about whether a pipe was worth as much if you removed the brand or name of the maker. If that pipe was unnamed and found in a junk drawer, it probably wouldn't have any value, IMO. Neither would a Dunhill or Becker. However, as attached to a maker... maybe, maybe not. Whether it would bring the same joy, is purely in the heart of the individual. No matter what objectivity/subjectivity that is placed on the pipe, the joy and value lies somewhere between the tobacco and the smoker.

 

[seacaptain]

Well if it's culturally based then it can't be objective.

Sure it can. What constitutes Impressionism in art does have an objective definition even though it may be a product of Western culture. The same could be said of Art Deco, Pre-Raphaelite, etc. They all have objective definitions. It doesn't matter that they're culturally based. Art Deco may have been a product of Western Culture, but because it has an objective definition, it's still recognized as Art Deco in Japan, Syria, etc.

Perhaps I have a different definition of objectivity than other folks, but objectivity implies factual information to me.

Objectivity can be fact based but it can also be standards based, which would be the definition of certain kinds of art. As long as the standard is defined outside yourself, then it's objective. Using the Art Deco example above, Art Deco has certain standards. Each individual doesn't get to decide for himself what Art Deco means.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Ugg, that is confusing the labeling of a style with the defining of art. And, at the time Art Deco and Nouveau was not a formal art, and today many see it as a pure craft. Nouveau was originally a manufacturing style. Impressionism was not accepted as art either, especially by the Germans, who labeled them as degenerates. So... And, during the Renaissance, many portraits and landscapes were seen as being mere representation, recording what an individual or place looked like. It was not a "true" art. It wasn't until many decades afterwards that people labelled them art. During the Egyptian times many of the sculptures were more like tokens or flags for political posturing... Many religious works were merely seen as communicating doctrine to the illiterate masses... like we see illustrations being outside the realm of art.
So, can you see how it has never been a clear cut task in defining this crazy little thing called art?

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Every art "movement" or style was founded in a fight. A fight for recognition among a governing body or academia of some sort. Never did someone make something and a whole culture just accept it as art from the first example. If Picasso had made his work 100 years earlier or later, the world would not have reacted as it did. If Rembrandt was alive today, he would have to work a day job.

Even in china, every educated man was a painter, but these works were not seen the same way Europeans saw art, as being something to be put on a pedestal, museum, or treasured for value. Time and culture clashes gave these works value. All of art history has been a battle against those who try to define art for everyone else. And, today, with academic art having no real control over a salon system, we are all left with our own experiences to define what we each value as an art. Personally, I like it better this way. It is more in line with our Capitalistic and pioneering nature.
Most artists and craftsmen pay no head to being told what is art. They make things and just let the free system decide.

God bless the arts and the individuals. This is what we as people treasure about this new freedom. No one can tell us what should move us, speak to us, or convey a message that affects us. We are free to come to our own terms with the world around us.

 

[warren]

It's akin to defining truth or fact. If one believes something, it is a fact or, a truth. Another may see that truth as a myth or simply a belief. There are some certain facts in life, many beliefs accepted as fact to some, some truth in most myths. Interestingly when we are challenged as to a belief we hold as truth or fact, we write the challenger off as being stupid, uninformed, weak thinking or uneducated. Few of us enjoy having our beliefs challenged and are quick to take offense rather than approach the debate with an open mind.
One of the saving graces of this forum is that most of us enjoy a bit of debate. Some even encourage it through a facetious response or two on a thread. I have a rather rigid idea of what is right or wrong. I still enjoy a spirited debate of right and wrong.
One of my favorite ploys with a friend who is a "Vette" fan is: "The last good looking Vette was the '57." Never fails!

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Facetious? I didnt see any insults on this thread, unless there is something that I said that could be construed as an insult or facetious. I never intended any. If I did, I apologize and thank you guys for not being insulted.
I coach a high school debate team and make a living making things, so I live for this type of discussion. Ha ha!

 

[seacaptain]

Ugg, that is confusing the labeling of a style with the defining of art. And, at the time Art Deco and Nouveau was not a formal art, and today many see it as a pure craft. Nouveau was originally a manufacturing style. Impressionism was not accepted as art either, especially by the Germans, who labeled them as degenerates. So... And, during the Renaissance, many portraits and landscapes were seen as being mere representation, recording what an individual or place looked like. It was not a "true" art. It wasn't until many decades afterwards that people labelled them art. During the Egyptian times many of the sculptures were more like tokens or flags for political posturing... Many religious works were merely seen as communicating doctrine to the illiterate masses... like we see illustrations being outside the realm of art.
So, can you see how it has never been a clear cut task in defining this crazy little thing called art?

The original point was whether or not objective standards exist to define art. They do. Whether everyone agrees or not wasn't the point. It doesn't matter if the Germans didn't think impressionism was "art", Impressionism was an objective standard.
Let me try to use a pipe illustration as a point of reference. Pipes have distinctive shapes with objective definitions. There's variation, sure, and there may even be some disagreement about a pipe that's on the fringe of that particular shape, but we all agree there are objective standards. Each person doesn't get to decide for himself what Dublin means.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

But, being a painting in the style of cubism does not objectively make that item a work of art. It could be an illustration for a story in a magazine, or an advertisement, or something to hide a hole in the wall. But, definitively, fitting into a style does not give the thing an inherent value as a work of art.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I can make a thing into the shape of a dublin or billiard and make it to hold flowers or the daily newspaper or it could be the spigot for my sink. Does fitting into the category of a classic pipe shape make the object a pipe?

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Well, ha ha, i guess the spigot is a pipe of sorts.

 

[seacaptain]

But, being a painting in the style of cubism does not objectively make that item a work of art. It could be an illustration for a story in a magazine, or an advertisement, or something to hide a hole in the wall. But, definitively, fitting into a style does not give the thing an inherent value as a work of art.

I don't disagree with you on that point. I'm merely arguing that objective standards for art exist.
If someone is going to tell me that a urinal is "art", it's incumbent on him to give me something objective to measure it by. It's not good enough to say "well it's art to me". If we accept that, then we're full circle back to everything being art or nothing being art.

 

[seacaptain]

I can make a thing into the shape of a dublin or billiard and make it to hold flowers or the daily newspaper or it could be the spigot for my sink. Does fitting into the category of a classic pipe shape make the object a pipe?

No, but an objective definition for "pipe" does exist. Each person doesn't get to decide for himself what "pipe" means.
Without objective meaning for things, we lose our ability to communicate. Then we're left with trying to argue what the meaning is "is" is.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Look up Dadaism. The Urinal is in the style of dadaism and the found object art movement. But, just because it falls within an objective measurable style would make it art to you? Me? While I value his work, i am not as easily moved to accept things into my personal aesthetic. While I love the fact that he was giving "The Man" the finger by doing that piece, I don't want it in my house.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I don't see the definition of "pipe" as being the same as the intangible term "art."

One might not believe in art, or love, or beauty. But, if someone doesn't believe in pipes, they may have a mental issue.

 

[seacaptain]

Look up Dadaism. The Urinal is in the style of dadaism and the found object art movement. But, just because it falls within an objective measurable style would make it art to you? Me? While I value his work, i am not as easily moved to accept things into my personal aesthetic. While I love the fact that he was giving "The Man" the finger by doing that piece, I don't want it in my house.

Right, the very definition is "anti-art". It was radical leftist political expressionism billed as art. Even the people doing it knew it wasn't art.

 

[seacaptain]

I don't see the definition of "pipe" as being the same as the intangible term "art."

One might not believe in art, or love, or beauty. But, if someone doesn't believe in pipes, they may have a mental issue.

The argument isn't whether or not something is tangible. The argument is whether or not something can be objectively defined.

 

[daimyo]

Duchamp cannot be denied because he started a debate we are still having all these years later. He did have a huge impact on both the art world and artists who have come since, whether they know it or not. People had feelings, thoughts, differing perspectives on the piece, they considered is from the aesthetic angle, the social commentary angle, the questioning the establishment angle, they even question whether or not he created it or if it was a stock model. The piece itself is gone for good and in some ways irrelevant. The debate he and other dadaists started was both needed and is important in our evolving understanding of the urge of humans to create representations of their thoughts, experiences or feelings. While one can take a firm stance on their take of art, they cannot simply declare themselves the winner with any validity. Oversimplifying the issue does neither side any good.

 

[johnnyreb]

One of my favorite ploys with a friend who is a "Vette" fan is: "The last good looking Vette was the '57." Never fails!

Warren,
While I love the 1956-1957 & owned a 56, you are about 10 yrs too early! The 1963-1967 were the best & it would be a toss-up between those two to name #1.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Agreed Daimyo.

The argument isn't whether or not something is tangible. The argument is whether or not something can be objectively defined.

The tangibility is a part of whether it can be objectively defined. It is easy to define something that can be held and identified easily as a pipe. It is much harder to define something that is a label of quality. Otherwise, it would be easy to dispel this whole thread, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, not all paintings are art, some have functions outside the realm of that quality. Some are illustrations, diagrams, markings, protection from the elements, coloring, etc... And clearly just because its in a museum or on a pedestal it's not art to everyone. So, it is intangible and that is important to the definition. What you say about Duchamp supports this perspective. You do not think the urinal is art, while thousands of textbooks may say (or suggest) that it is, and you use your own aesthetic to weigh this, and deem it "not art." I support that. You may feel that way. You may even see the OP pipe as not art, and while I do not agree, I am not going to tell you that you are wrong. You support my whole argument.

 

[edgreen]

Oversimplifying the issue does neither side any good.

Thank You! I would just like to say that, objectively, although millions of people consider him "high" art, I'm extremely glad Thomas Kinkade did not paint any pipes into his work, nor did he smoke one.

I'm going back to searching through the museums, galleries, and auction houses of the world. I change my idea of art on a constant, and I hope evolving, basis. I'll let you know how I feel tomorrow.