What is objectively good art?

[Revoltingest]

Hey, don't argue with Wiki. I realise what the common term is, I use it myself. It just conjures up ancient white men in curly wigs.

Don't knock ancient white men.
(I'm working on becoming one.)

 

[Secret Chief]

Don't knock ancient white men.
(I'm working on becoming one.)

Me too.

 

[oldbadger]

In his lifetime Van Gogh sold only one more piece of art than me.

Yeah. True.
Oh dear...... yours really must be rubbish!

....Err....Ummm....sorry about that. I have dreadful manners on Tuesdays.

I wouldn't buy a Van Gogh, not at half the price. (Only 200 million!)
There is a point at which investors will plunge their money in to anything that will hold value or increase value, and celebrated paintings are one sure way to do that. I watch an auction program and love to see art 'gurus' expounding upon some washed background with slashes of paint across it, or whatever. This reminds me of psychiatrists who tell us how a convicted criminal was thinking as s/he committed some heinous act....... it's all so obvious to them, in 20/20. What bulldust!

But in a World where intangible value such as IT currency can be worth so much per unit, to bid millions on a celebrated painting is as good as any investment. I can see how some artists might be volcanic angry about how the world sees art, but they don't need an art course, they need a therapist, because art which pleases in some way is art, no matter what it is. imo.

 

[PureX]

Stop you there!
Now tell me, tell us all, preferably in a sentence, what the specific function and purpose of art is.

You act like this is some giant mystery, but it's not. Art is the endeavor to provide an experience of the world through the artist's eyes, heart, and mind. Achieving that goal can often appear, and sometimes be a bit mysterious, but the goal, itself, is not. Vincent van Gogh didn't paint this field because he thought you'd want or like to see it. He painted it to try and capture, for you, the way HE was seeing it. Not just with his eyes, but with his mind and his heart, too.

 

[PureX]

Oh, PX, this is so messed up!
Of course it is my right to tell a doctor what I think about medicine! At the instant that any doctor tells me that s/he is right because s/he is a doctor we are immediately presented with a perfect example of 'ad hominem'.
Of course I would tell a lawyer about some law, have often done so, and have often been correct. Lawyers argue against lawyers as well, as do doctors against doctors.

You have no rights to be correct about anything unless you can show a case, a situation. To argue that you are right because you are an artist is not only 'ad hominem', but


I am waiting for your definition of 'what art is'.


Trust me in this one thing....... if your work did not satisfy our emotions together (I'm married) then your work would not be seen in our home.
All the world might trample a path to your door for your work, but if we didn't like it we wouldn't want it.


This reminds me of an artist colleague of mine who would have very heated moments about a public that didn't know anything, were not bright enough to see the value in what he did. Nobody wanted his work.

Now please give us your definition of 'what art is'.

I find this whole perspective very odd and intriguing. That you don't believe a professional should be allowed to define his/her profession. Or that an expert that has long studied a field of information and experience it's practice should not be allowed to claim any advanced or special knowledge of that field of information, or it's practice, as a result. And instead, YOU should always be the one to determine for yourself what that professional is doing, and what that expert actually knows. Because, as the 'consumer' of the professional's profession, and expert's knowledge, you get to be the judge of it's integrity, and it's value, according to how it effects you.

Am I getting this right?

 

[PureX]

Duh.

Duh.

Duh.

Duh.

Duh.

Duh.

Well, that was easy.

Sure ... why craft is not art. It's a no-brainer ... that you apparently were having difficulty grasping.

You never even addressed my definition of art
as being about the manner of communication.

Because I have no idea what that even means.

The means of communication in a work of art is the thousands of individual and personal decisions involved in it's rendering. The recipient then recognizes those individual decision and uses reason and empathy to surmise their intent. Art is a language of intent, and design, and empathy, used for the purpose of conveying an experience of being from one human to another.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure ... why craft is not art. It's a no-brainer ... that you apparently were having difficulty grasping.

I think that I'm not the one who's brain challenged here.
But what do I know....my brain told me that.

 

[PureX]

The "business" side I find ridiculous. I'm sure many people will have seen (on programmes such as Fake or Fortune, or Antiques Roadshow) examples where a piece of art which has yet to be ascribed to a particular artist has a potential value of X or Y, depending on who the artist turns out to be. And yet the piece of work remains the same. On the programme I watched last night a small sculpture was investigated to discover whether or not it was by Henry Moore. The art expert confidently declared that if it turned out to be by Moore it would be "worth" 1 million pounds. If it turned out not to be by him, then it would only be worth 1 thousand pounds. Cobblers.

Art is not a marketable commodity. It's value cannot be quantified by it's sales potential, or it's profitability. So the "art market" is basically insane. And has next to nothing to do with the actual value of art individually or collectively.

And to make matters even more confusing for a culture that is obsessed with monetary valuation, many artworks, and non-artworks, can be bought and sold based on tangential factors, like their 'entertainment value', or their 'educational value', or their 'titillation value', or their 'prestige value', and so on. Causing massive confusion among nearly everyone as to what art even is, and how to place a value on it.

As evidenced plainly by most of the comments on this thread.

 

[Secret Chief]

Or that an expert that has long studied a field of information and experience it's practice should not be allowed to claim any advanced or special knowledge of that field

Art is not a marketable commodity. It's value cannot be quantified by it's sales potential, or it's profitability. So the "art market" is basically insane. And has next to nothing to do with the actual value of art individually or collectively.

So should art experts (such as the one discussing the sculpture I mentioned) be riding these two horses? One horse is about specialised knowledge of a field of study (above and beyond the "layman") and the other horse simply equates names with monetary values. The two do not seem to sit well together. It's like Michelangelo and a car sales person in one suit. I totally accept the former, totally reject the latter, yet these experts combine both it seems (and the latter can detract from the former in the eyes of people outside the art world)

 

[PureX]

So should art experts (such as the one discussing the sculpture I mentioned) be riding these two horses? One horse is about specialised knowledge of a field of study (above and beyond the "layman") and the other horse simply equates names with monetary values. The two do not seem to sit well together. It's like Michelangelo and a car sales person in one suit. I totally accept the former, totally reject the latter, yet these experts combine both it seems (and the latter can detract from the former in the eyes of people outside the art world)

It's a constant problem for both artists and our society as a whole. To function in this culture, we must produce a commodity to be sold for a profit. Yet art is not such a commodity unless it can include or be married to some other commodity like entertainment, education, titillation, prestige, and so on. But in doing that, we thoroughly confuse our fellow humans about what art is, how it works, and why it's important. All they see is the commodity for sale, and that they either like it or they don't. And that's all they know. Commodification as a standard of value makes the art endeavor invisible to the vast majority of people. So that the endeavor has no protection and no support. Any fool with an opinion is free to crap all over it as they please.

 

[oldbadger]

You act like this is some giant mystery, but it's not. Art is the endeavor to provide an experience of the world through the artist's eyes, heart, and mind. Achieving that goal can often appear, and sometimes be a bit mysterious, but the goal, itself, is not. Vincent van Gogh didn't paint this field because he thought you'd want or like to see it. He painted it to try and capture, for you, the way HE was seeing it. Not just with his eyes, but with his mind and his heart, too.

So he did do it for us, after all.
Thought so.

 

[oldbadger]

I find this whole perspective very odd and intriguing. That you don't believe a professional should be allowed to define his/her profession. Or that an expert that has long studied a field of information and experience it's practice should not be allowed to claim any advanced or special knowledge of that field of information, or it's practice, as a result. And instead, YOU should always be the one to determine for yourself what that professional is doing, and what that expert actually knows. Because, as the 'consumer' of the professional's profession, and expert's knowledge, you get to be the judge of it's integrity, and it's value, according to how it effects you.

Am I getting this right?

There NO experts, PX. Put ten experts on the same room and they will argue. Which one is right?

A pro can define anything they like, just as I asked you to define art.

And yes, I do have the right to determine for myself what I want, and which person I would like to work or act for me.

You have tried and failed to make us see art the way that you see it. I don't think I'll be the only person to stick to my own opinions about what art is, or is not.

 

[oldbadger]

It's a constant problem for both artists and our society as a whole. To function in this culture, we must produce a commodity to be sold for a profit.

Next time you buy a loaf of baked bread, I hope the baker rants at you that you are obviously some simpleton who will stuff that food in your mouth without ever realising what baking is really all about.
And then you might treat the world differently over art.
Can you see that?

 

[England my lionheart]

I think this is:

And this:

But really art doesn’t have to be anything IMO,its a freedom

 

[PureX]

So he did do it for us, after all.
Thought so.

For you, yes. But not for your pleasure or approval. Or for your money.

 

[PureX]

There NO experts, PX. Put ten experts on the same room and they will argue. Which one is right?

A pro can define anything they like, just as I asked you to define art.

And yes, I do have the right to determine for myself what I want, and which person I would like to work or act for me.

You have tried and failed to make us see art the way that you see it. I don't think I'll be the only person to stick to my own opinions about what art is, or is not.

Man! You're SO American!

'Trust no one.'
'Afford no one a position of authority.'
'Always assume you're right no matter how little you know.'
'Wining an argument is far more important that resolving it.'
'Annihilating the opposition is a far better result than compromising with them.'
'Freedom means no one ever gets to tell me what to do!'

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Next time you buy a loaf of baked bread, I hope the baker rants at you that you are obviously some simpleton who will stuff that food in your mouth without ever realising what baking is really all about.

 

[PureX]

Next time you buy a loaf of baked bread, I hope the baker rants at you that you are obviously some simpleton who will stuff that food in your mouth without ever realising what baking is really all about.

He can rant all he wants. When it comes to bread, I AM a simpleton who will simply stuff it into my mouth without a thought about who or how it was made.

And then you might treat the world differently over art.
Can you see that?

I see no reason why I would. The baker knows his profession, and I know mine.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

For you, yes. But not for your pleasure or approval. Or for your money.

Then it could be argued very much so that he did not in fact do that painting for any one person but himself. To paint it simply for the act of painting and expressing.

Frankly I think you lost this debate when you put forward the qualifier of "As an Artist," trying too hard to set your standard as The Standard. This "Art Endeavor" that you try to define as sharing an experience, rather than the broader sense of expression. In trying to assign a goal, you've lost the spirit of art.

 

[PureX]

Then it could be argued very much so that he did not in fact do that painting for any one person but himself. To paint it simply for the act of painting and expressing.

It could be argued, but that argument would fail when we consider that he did not paint his paintings and then hide them in his closet. He obviously intended that his artworks be seen (experienced) by others. An intention shared by nearly every artist that has ever lived; working in any and every medium.

Frankly I think you lost this debate when you put forward the qualifier of "As an Artist," trying too hard to set your standard as The Standard. This "Art Endeavor" that you try to define as sharing an experience, rather than the broader sense of expression. In trying to assign a goal, you've lost the spirit of art.

"Self-expression", alone, is a selfish motive, as I've pointed out above. Making art is not a selfish endeavor. In fact, it's a very, very difficult endeavor precisely because the expression is pointless unless it can be communicated/transmitted to others.

FOR ALL OF YOU ...

I will lose the argument when one of you manages to actually pose an intelligent, reasonable rebuttal to my assertions about what the art endeavor is. So far all I'm seeing is a bunch of injured egos whining because I dared to tell them that they don't know what they're talking about, and that their opinions are childish and wholly unconsidered. I realize that once the ego has been pricked, the majority of people here will fly into "auto-defense" mode and so learn nothing at all from whatever conversation results. But that's not my issue to deal with. It's theirs. My job is to tell the truth about what I know about a human endeavor that I do actually know a lot about. And if that pokes a hole in someone's blind, ego-driven opinions about art being whatever they say it is, whatever they think it is, or whatever they like, then too bad for them. They can run home and wallow in their ignorance, or they can buck up, ask questions, and learn something. I'm here. I am an artist. A real one. With a lifetime of study and experience. Now's your chance to learn something about it.

Or not.