What is objectively good art?

[oldbadger]

You're assuming that because he painted and sold paintings he was an artist. Maybe he was, and maybe not. Neither of those conditions define him as an artist. And neither prelude him from being one.

Assuming? Me?
So many IT sites show that Tim was/is an extraordinary marine artist, PX.
An Artist.

Here are just a few of many:- Even his prints can sell for hundreds of pounds...... !!


Search Results
Web results

Tim Thompson Marine Art and Maritime Prints
https://www.timthompsonmarineart.com
About The Artist ... Tim is a regarded as one of the leading Maritime artists of his generation and has had exhibitions across the world. His work is very famous ...


Maritime Prints,Maritime Artist,Tim Thompson - Tim Thompson ...
https://www.timthompsonmarineart.com › about-tim-th...
Tim Thompson began his Marine Artist career at 27, establishing his reputation with paintings whose subjects ranged from fighting ships to racing yachts.


Tim Thompson - Art Marine
https://www.artmarine.co.uk › timthompson
Tim began his painting career when he was 27 and established his reputation with nautical paintings of subjects from the ships of Drake's era, through to modern ...

 

[PureX]

Nautical pornography.

Kitsch, nostalgia, decoration, these are all quite saleable commodities. They are not, however, art. They're just forms of artifice.

 

[Kooky]

Like nearly everyone here, you are confused about what art is.

What you are referring to as 'art' that is being marketed as you say, is actually entertainment, decoration, nostalgia, technical excellence, kitsch, titillation, fantasy, comedy, beauty, propaganda, and so one. Sometimes these attributes are part of a work of art, but most times they are not. In nearly every instance, however, what is being bought and sold is not the art, or art at all, but these other commodities. We will pay someone to make us feel things that we like feeling. That's how doing so become a marketable commodity. But making us feel things that we like to feel is not the purpose of art. It's not why artists make art. And it's not what defines art, as art, or as "good" art. Art may make us feel things we want to feel, or it may make us feel thinks we DON'T want to feel. And it often does. Or it may make us feel profoundly indifferent. Or it may confuse us and make us feel stupid, and frustrated. None of which we will willingly pay money for. And yet doing these things are as much a part of the art experience as any other.

It seems to me that you are judging whether something is art by the emotions of people who had nothing to do with its production.

Are pieces of art factually being bought and sold, or are they not? If yes, then why do you think it even matters what the people who buy or sell them think about them? Is the nature of art not intrinsic to the art itself, or are you actually trying to argue that people's thoughts and emotions are what determines whether a piece or performance is a work of art to begin with?

This is a genuine question - since in this ranty post above, you don't seem to ever commit to a point, which makes it hard for me to understand what it is that you are actually trying to argue here.

He was making art the only way he could make art in his culture. He was not doing it for the money, or the prestige, or the fame, or the sex, or the security, or for whatever else. He was an artist. He lived to make art. And in his time, the only possible way to do that was to get commissioned by the church, or by the wealthy families there about. It's sad to think how many other great artists who's talents died unknown and unfulfilled because there was not possible means through which they could resurrect them.

Sure, he was an artist - because that was his learned profession. He lived to make art, because doing art was literally how he made his living. As for why he did it - perhaps you are in possession of a power that allows you to conjure the minds of dead people and read them like books, but I do not, and so I couldn't make an argument either way; I'm glad that you're using your command of necromancy for good, though.

'Works of art' created for the purpose of making money (fame, prestige, propaganda, and so on) almost always suck so badly that they can't even legitimately be called works of art. Because mostly they aren't.

The Sixtine Chapel is literally a work of art created for money; if the Pope had not commissioned it, then it would have never existed.

Sure, so is profit. There are all kinds of reasons for people to make things. But people make art objects for a specific reason, and that reason is what defines what they make as art. And those other reasons are what defines what they make as something other than art.

You are assuming a whole lot about people who've never met and never talked to about their art; some of whom haven't talked about their motivations, ever.

I love seeing a funny comedian do his 'work'. But I don't call what he does, 'art', because it's not art. It's comedy. And there's nothing wrong with comedy, or with his doing comedy. I like it. But it's not art. And so I don't call it art. And I'll correct you if you foolishly call it art when it's not.

Now, there have been a few artists that worked in the field of comedy. Sometimes they were funny, and sometimes they were just inexplicably fascinating. That's because they were artists that used the practice and context of comedy as their medium for making art. Andy Kaufman, for example. And this is true in all kinds of "marketable" mediums. There are artists that make music, and many, many musicians that make music, but that are not artists. Same with plays, and films, and books, and you name it. All of these mediums can be and are commodified for a profit. And sometimes, occasionally, and artist will use one or more of these mediums to make their art. Most of the time, however, these are just commodities produced for fun and profit. There is no art in them.

All I can see here is you making unfounded statements based on personal taste. Now, Kant said that such a thing is in the very nature of taste, and I believe him; but at least let us be honest with what we are doing here, shall we?

You think art is stuff you like and can respect, and in the absence of coherent definitions, yours is as good as any - but that's just that: Your sense of art is as good as anybody else's, including the people who disagree with you, whose opinions you have so arrogantly dismissed as inadequate when your own is, in truth, no better founded in argument or understanding than theirs.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Kitsch,

Andy Warhol would have a word.

nostalgia,

All of Classical Art is "nostalgia"

decoration,

I'm sure the Graphic Artists that spend months on designs and forms would love hearing that. Oh, and they've got degrees to, so they're Educated and Real.

these are all quite saleable commodities. They are not, however, art. They're just forms of artifice.

They're clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others? Bruh, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. They're all art. Some Fine Art, some Pop Art, and some Graphic Design. Generously, you're trying to gatekeep Fine Art, ignoring a swathe of others and even picking apart Fine Art.

 

[PureX]

It seems to me that you are judging whether something is art by the emotions of people who had nothing to do with its production.

I'm doing just the opposite. I'm pointing out that art is not about "making you feel good". It's not necessarily abut making you feel anything. It may, or it may not. It being art does not depend on yours, or anyone's, feelings.

Are pieces of art factually being bought and sold, or are they not? If yes, then why do you think it even matters what the people who buy or sell them think about them?

It doesn't. What matters is that their ignorance about art harms us all. It makes art invisible, and a society without art is a very sick society.

Is the nature of art not intrinsic to the art itself, or are you actually trying to argue that people's thoughts and emotions are what determines whether a piece or performance is a work of art to begin with?

Art is a specific endeavor with a specific purpose. Just like medicine, or science, or religion, or law. That specific function and purpose is what defines art as art, and an artist as an artist. I really don't see why this is so difficult for anyone to understand.

This is a genuine question - since in this ranty post above, you don't seem to ever commit to a point, which makes it hard for me to understand what it is that you are actually trying to argue here.

I'm not trying to argue anything. I am simply pointing out what art is, and what it is not. And for some odd reason, this seems to greatly agitate those who think they should be the ones to decide this. Even though they don't seem to have any rational definition of art, themselves, except that it's whatever they think or say it is whenever they think or say it.

Sure, he was an artist - because that was his learned profession. He lived to make art, because doing art was literally how he made his living. As for why he did it - perhaps you are in possession of a power that allows you to conjure the minds of dead people and read them like books, but I do not, and so I couldn't make an argument either way; I'm glad that you're using your command of necromancy for good, though.

What I have is a master's degree in fine art from two of the best art schools in the country, that includes plenty of college level art history. But sure, your ignorance is far more important and righteous, here, than any of that college level "necromancy". Right?

The Sistine Chapel is literally a work of art created for money; if the Pope had not commissioned it, then it would have never existed.

You just made my point. If it had not been commissioned, it could not exist. The artist had no choice. If he wanted to make art, he had to do it through the only means available to him at the time. That's what happens in cultures that are controlled by money, power, and greed. It's also why art is all the more important to those societies, even as they tend to ignore it.

You are assuming a whole lot about people who've never met and never talked to about their art; some of whom haven't talked about their motivations, ever.

The truth is that people aren't all that unique, and I have interacted with lots and lots of people over the years regarding the subject of art. There are no great ideological outliers, here. I'm reading all the same foolish comments that I have been hearing about art all my life; from people who have no clue what art is, or why it's important. Yet for some odd reason they want to defend their ignorance to their last breath. I find it very puzzling.

All I can see here is you making unfounded statements based on personal taste.

Well, that's all your ego can see, for sure. Because it's been pricked to attention by my daring to contradict it's sense of unquestioned self-righteousness. But try considering my comments with some calm reasoning and common sense, and you might be pleasantly surprised.

Now, Kant said that such a thing is in the very nature of taste, and I believe him; but at least let us be honest with what we are doing here, shall we?

Kant was a philosopher, not an artist.

I once took a class on aesthetics in college that spent a whole semester investigating all the great philosophers and what they said or wrote about art. Specifically, what they thought art was, why it was, and what it was for. And not surprisingly, they all disagreed with each other. (It's what philosophers do, after all.) One said art was the pursuit of immortality. Another said art was the pursuit of beauty. Another said art what a quest for order and balance. Another said it was an ancillary method of communication. Another said it was a longing for "greater glory". And another claimed that no, it was a quest for a glimpse of perfection. And on and on they all went. Century after century. And everyone one of them was right, and every one of them was also all wrong. They each saw only the individual artist's motives, which were unique to themselves and their times. And they all missed the collective phenomenon, which is still extant, today.

You think art is stuff you like and can respect, and in the absence of coherent definitions, yours is as good as any - but that's just that: Your sense of art is as good as anybody else's, including the people who disagree with you, whose opinions you have so arrogantly dismissed as inadequate when your own is, in truth, no better founded in argument or understanding than theirs.

What I like or don't like in art is irrelevant to it being or not being art. Just as what you like or don't like in art is irrelevant to it being or not being art. And I really can't understand why you and others can't seem to understand this.

 

[PureX]

Andy Warhol would have a word.

All of Classical Art is "nostalgia"

I'm sure the Graphic Artists that spend months on designs and forms would love hearing that. Oh, and they've got degrees to, so they're Educated and Real.

They're clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others? Bruh, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. They're all art. Some Fine Art, some Pop Art, and some Graphic Design. Generously, you're trying to gatekeep Fine Art, ignoring a swathe of others and even picking apart Fine Art.

Artists often use these various forms of artifice to serve their own ends. Just as a medical practitioner might use scientific observation or logical deduction to serve his own ends. But that doesn't make science or logical deduction, medicine. The real question here is, WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING THIS? Is simply being wrong about this, or uninformed, that traumatic for you that they have to fight against it so vociferously?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yeah, none of what you quoted me with in #185 I said.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, none of what you quoted me with in #185 I said.

Sorry. Sometimes my paste button gets stuck on info from a previous post. I corrected the error, and thank you for pointing it out. I didn't see it.

 

[Kooky]

I'm doing just the opposite. I'm pointing out that art is not about "making you feel good". It's not necessarily abut making you feel anything. It may, or it may not. It being art does not depend on yours, or anyone's, feelings.

It doesn't. What matters is that their ignorance about art harms us all. It makes art invisible, and a society without art is a very sick society.

Quite to the contrary - I would say that the profitability in displaying art not only to one immediate circle of hanger-ons, but to the public at large, the indirect glorification by way of being seen as a patron of artists and their product, is a strong influence on why displays of art are still so widespread in our modern day and age, despite the politics of patronage having significantly changed since the Renaissance.

Art is a specific endeavor with a specific purpose.

I see no reason to believe that. People have created myriad different forms of art - dancing, singing, music performance, theatre, storytelling, poetry, display fights, opera, ballet, literature, sculpture, paintings, sketching, printing, collage, textiles, arrangement, immersive roleplaying, and wide varieties of interactive art - for a wide variety of reasons and purposes.

You are narrowing down one of the most diverse areas of human endeavor seemingly only so you can rant at people doing art wrongly, by a vague nonspecific definition that excludes the vast majority of human artistic endeavors and their reception by human civilization.

I'm not trying to argue anything.

That makes sense; if you were actually advancing a coherent argument, I would have surmised that you would have been doing a very poor job at that.

I am simply pointing out what art is, and what it is not.

Then you aren't doing a very good job of it, either; because so far, I have not been able to discern any coherent definition on your part as to what you personally believe art is, only a long and barely coherent rant about what you believe it is not.

And for some odd reason, this seems to greatly agitate those who think they should be the ones to decide this.

I have no idea whom you are talking about. I am mainly interested in seeing your disconnected thoughts coalesce into a coherent position at some point, but so far we aren't really making much progress it seems.

What I have is a master's degree in fine art from two of the best art schools in the country, that includes plenty of college level art history. But sure, your ignorance is far more important and righteous, here, than any of that college level "necromancy". Right?

So which position on art do you espouse? The Aristotelian one? The genius theory, of Enlightenment vintage? The Frankfurt School's? So far, you have not advanced a coherent position on this topic.

All you have done is make sweeping, unfounded, bombastic statements that are only so much hot air and assumed authority, but very little in terms of argumentative substance or philosophy.

You just made my point. If it had not been commissioned, it could not exist. The artist had no choice. If he wanted to make art, he had to do it through the only means available to him at the time. That's what happens in cultures that are controlled by money, power, and greed. It's also why art is all the more important to those societies, even as they tend to ignore it.

You just ranted long and hard how creating art for monetary purposes is impossible, so clearly, no art exists that has ever been created by somebody in a monetary relationship to a client. The Sixtine Chapel, then, is not art, because it was constructed for greed, money, and power, and not the sacrosanct essence of pure art, whatever that may be. Correct?

The truth is that people aren't all that unique, and I have interacted with lots and lots of people over the years regarding the subject of art.

You are right, people are not unique, and I've heard uninspired, incoherent rants of wannabe art philosophy so often that I have grown bored of them - not even the bombastic assumption of authority based on a fine arts degree is new (and is especially droll, seemingly based on the assumption that fine arts degrees aren't also a dime a dozen).

Kant was a philosopher, not an artist.

And you are clearly an artist, and not a philosopher, because a philosopher would perhaps been able to salvage a core of coherent argumentation from all those nonsense rants.

As it is, I understand your posts here to be a mostly incoherent expression of personal frustration.
Please correct me if I got the wrong impression there.

I once took a class on aesthetics in college that spent a whole semester investigating all the great philosophers and what they said or wrote about art. Specifically, what they thought art was, why it was, and what it was for. And not surprisingly, they all disagreed with each other. (It's what philosophers do, after all.) One said art was the pursuit of immortality. Another said art was the pursuit of beauty. Another said art what a quest for order and balance. Another said it was an ancillary method of communication. Another said it was a longing for "greater glory". And another claimed that no, it was a quest for a glimpse of perfection. And on and on they all went. Century after century. And everyone one of them was right, and every one of them was also all wrong. They each saw only the individual artist's motives, which were unique to themselves and their times.

And yet, sadly, this did not provoke any kind of introspection on your part as to whether your personal, unexamined position on the value of art and artistry, perhaps, might not be the absolute universal truth that only idiots couldn't comprehend; that, perhaps, the reasons why we produce art, and the art we produce, and the way our society receives the art we produce, is complex and manifold and subject to change both subtle and obvious, over time and place.

What I like or don't like in art is irrelevant to it being or not being art. Just as what you like or don't like in art is irrelevant to it being or not being art.

You are quite correct, but at least the way I read them, your posts don't seem to reflect that level of understanding. Or perhaps, you do have a spark of understanding here, but a limited one; here, let me expand it a little: What you like or don't like about the modern processes of art creation, their authorial intent, and their reception by society at large, is irrelevant as to their product being or not being art; art can be created for all sorts of reasons, including economic/monetary motivations, social climbing/status, or even something so basic/sublime as impressing one's object of desire.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Artists often use these various forms of artifice to serve their own ends.

You're still using that word absolutely incorrectly.

The real question here is, WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING THIS?

Because you are wrong, and it's amusing to point out. The only one being loud and forceful here is you.

 

[PureX]

Quite to the contrary - I would say that the profitability in displaying art not only to one immediate circle of hanger-ons, but to the public at large, the indirect glorification by way of being seen as a patron of artists and their product, is a strong influence on why displays of art are still so widespread in our modern day and age, despite the politics of patronage having significantly changed since the Renaissance.

Where are you seeing widespread displays of art? Where are you seeing all this diverse patronage? Well, unless you're calling every velvet Elvis poster, big-eyed girly anime, and granny kitty photo "art". But all that does is render the term meaningless.

I see no reason to believe that. People have created myriad different forms of art - dancing, singing, music performance, theatre, storytelling, poetry, display fights, opera, ballet, literature, sculpture, paintings, sketching, printing, collage, textiles, arrangement, immersive roleplaying, and wide varieties of interactive art - for a wide variety of reasons and purposes.

None of those means of expression are art. They are only a means through which the art endeavor may or may not be conveyed. Most (I mean a huge majority) of the time; not.

You are narrowing down one of the most diverse areas of human endeavor seemingly only so you can rant at people doing art wrongly, by a vague nonspecific definition that excludes the vast majority of human artistic endeavors and their reception by human civilization.

I am simply clarifying what is and is not art to help clear up your very profound confusion on the subject. And you are resisting my clarification because your ego doesn't want to accept your being wrong, or uninformed.

"I'm sorry, Madam, but your Velvet Elvis is not art, no matter how it makes you feel."

Then you aren't doing a very good job of it, either; because so far, I have not been able to discern any coherent definition on your part as to what you personally believe art is, only a long and barely coherent rant about what you believe it is not.

I have stated on this thread many times, now, exactly what art is. And I find it fascinating that you have somehow managed to either miss or be very confused by every instance. I'm detecting a learning disability, here. To which there is no external cure.

 

[PureX]

You're still using that word absolutely incorrectly.

Definition of artifice
1a : clever or artful skill : ingenuity … believing that characters had to be created from within rather than with artifice.— Garson Kanin
b : an ingenious device or expedient
2a : an artful stratagem : trick … revising the state's constitution through a series of legal stratagems and artifices …— W. Haywood Burns
b : false or insincere behavior social artifice

Humor, nostalgia, titillation, shock, repetition, fantasy, ... these are all forms of artifice an artist can use to facilitate their art endeavor. They are also forms of artifice that posers and hucksters use to try and pass themselves off as artists without ever actually producing any art.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

They are also forms of artifice that posers and hucksters use to try and pass themselves off as artists without ever actually producing any art.

Kind of like claiming to be a Real Educated Artist™?

What school did you go to? What was your focus? Still waiting to see some of this "Real Art ™"

 

[Kooky]

None of those means of expression are art.

Since you steadfastly refuse to give a meaningful definition of art that would allow us to find a common understanding of the term, that means we cannot meaningfully communicate on the alleged topic of our discussion;

Since communication is not possible, our discussion is done.
Please disregard anything I said, and stop responding to me; thank you.

 

[Kooky]

This is exactly the kind of bloviating nonsense I swore I would stop engaging with.
Sorry for wasting your time, everybody, I should have known better.