Correcting some misconceptions about art, especially modern

[Frank Hipper]

You could say that modern and postmodern art is what happens when the artists place the too much focus upon the message and the ideals at the expense of the craftsmanship and the actual execution of the ideals in question, thusly making the end result vague.

Snob appeal, again.

One of my favorite lunatic artists of the twentieth century, Stanislav Szukalski, harped on the Snob and his origins in his, err, highly original book Behold! The Protong; ever since reading that (one of the few rational points he makes in the book), it's stuck in my craw, and I've had it out for the artificially elevated, elitist gallery art crowd ever since.

That there are enormously skilled, insightful, talented artists struggling out there when collections of found objects arranged en tableau get high-dollar exhibitions merely for a self congrulatory circle jerk of like minded socialites to coo over, and appreciate the "deep" meanings generated for them, outrages and infuriates me.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

And that's the kind of shit that I blame Andy Warhol for.

[Gil Hamilton]

Art should convey an explicit message which is instantly recognizeable to all human beings, traversing cultural and societal grounds. A large variety of art from many cultures--Japanese, Chinese, Indochinan, Hindu, Persian, Turkish, European, etc, does this, not just the traditional European art movements. All of this art seeks to convey a transcendental message, and is an embodiment of the Greek ideal of a form of knowledge which is given as a whole, something which, when looked upon, is conveyed immediately, whereas what we think of as logical, scientific knowledge is conveyed in a linear fashion. In short, True Art, as we shall call it, conveys an holistic form of knowledge.

Modern "art" does not do this. Period. The form and philosophy of modern "art" has proven itself incapable of conveying transcendental ideas, has no holistic context, and in fact prides itself in being open to "interpretation", a claim which in fact renders it not art at all, as art is something which should be understood, in a sublime and primal (or if you will, holistic) fashion. One grants that art must be evaluated piece-by-piece for legitimacy, but the simple fact of the matter is that there been effectively no art recognized by the world "art" literati as-such produced since Gorbachev ended the institutional dominance of Socialist Realism (which was one of the truly good things to come out of Communism) in the USSR in the mid-1980s, and virtually none outside of the Socialist Realist school since the effective end of the Impressionist movement.

Under this definition, there is a whole hell of alot of Rennaisance art from some of the Masters that doesn't qualify as "art". For instance, Michelangelo's David. After all, how many people look at the David and instantly on a deep and personal level go "Wow, this depiction of David's triumph over Goliath and righteous fury clearly represents the Republican Ideals and strength of the city-state of Florence!"? It certainly did when the statue was unveiled in Florence (largely due to its political connoctations in relation to the Medici), but it doesn't have an instantly recognizable message to all human beings, aside from aspiring snide commentary about his penis size from several members of my Art History class. Therefore, it's not art, according to you.

[Peregrin Toker]

And that's the kind of shit that I blame Andy Warhol for.

I thought that Dadaism was the actual instigator of this? (and perhaps also Duchamp with his Fountain, even though that could actually have been a misunderstood parody of Dadaism)

Maybe, as long as you're just making up definitions and reasons out of thin air...

I thought that Hegel predicted that art would eventually evolve from a synthesis of philosophy and craftsmanship into pure philosophy. (meaning that if I am not making stuff up out of thin air as much as Hegel was)

Seriously, Simon, maybe you should try actually learning about art history and theory (and in an academic environment, not just reading stuff online or in kook books) before trying to construct reasons and disect theories to fit into your pre-determined conclusions and half-assed analysis...

Actually, I have picked Visual Arts as an optional class for my sophomore year of high school, which means that I will start learning about art in an academic environment in about a month or two.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

And that's the kind of shit that I blame Andy Warhol for.

I thought that Dadaism was the actual instigator of this? (and perhaps also Duchamp with his Fountain, even though that could actually have been a misunderstood parody of Dadaism)

I'm refering to Warhol basically introducing the notion of celebrity and star factor to modern art. Warhol was the epitome of the pompus self-absorbed modern artist.

Also, when I meant learning about art history and theory in an academic enviroment, I meant by taking REAL art courses...

[Peregrin Toker]

I'm refering to Warhol basically introducing the notion of celebrity and star factor to modern art. Warhol was the epitome of the pompus self-absorbed modern artist.

I thought Salvador Dalí did that before Warhol?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

If he did, it was nowhere to the degree and damage that Warhol was. There's a difference to being a famous artists and being a celebrity artist with star status. A flamboyant eccentric is not the same thing as a whore.

[Darth Wong]

Art should convey an explicit message which is instantly recognizeable to all human beings, traversing cultural and societal grounds. A large variety of art from many cultures--Japanese, Chinese, Indochinan, Hindu, Persian, Turkish, European, etc, does this, not just the traditional European art movements. All of this art seeks to convey a transcendental message, and is an embodiment of the Greek ideal of a form of knowledge which is given as a whole, something which, when looked upon, is conveyed immediately, whereas what we think of as logical, scientific knowledge is conveyed in a linear fashion. In short, True Art, as we shall call it, conveys an holistic form of knowledge.

Modern "art" does not do this. Period. The form and philosophy of modern "art" has proven itself incapable of conveying transcendental ideas, has no holistic context, and in fact prides itself in being open to "interpretation", a claim which in fact renders it not art at all, as art is something which should be understood, in a sublime and primal (or if you will, holistic) fashion. One grants that art must be evaluated piece-by-piece for legitimacy, but the simple fact of the matter is that there been effectively no art recognized by the world "art" literati as-such produced since Gorbachev ended the institutional dominance of Socialist Realism (which was one of the truly good things to come out of Communism) in the USSR in the mid-1980s, and virtually none outside of the Socialist Realist school since the effective end of the Impressionist movement.

Under this definition, there is a whole hell of alot of Rennaisance art from some of the Masters that doesn't qualify as "art". For instance, Michelangelo's David. After all, how many people look at the David and instantly on a deep and personal level go "Wow, this depiction of David's triumph over Goliath and righteous fury clearly represents the Republican Ideals and strength of the city-state of Florence!"? It certainly did when the statue was unveiled in Florence (largely due to its political connoctations in relation to the Medici), but it doesn't have an instantly recognizable message to all human beings, aside from aspiring snide commentary about his penis size from several members of my Art History class. Therefore, it's not art, according to you.

The fact that a piece of art has more meaning to one cultural group than another is irrelevant to the claim that it has easily discernible meaning. Somebody who doesn't care about the David vs Goliath mythology might simply look at the statue as a celebration of the beauty of the human body (which it was meant in part to be) and in fact, I would guess that the majority of people who look at that statue see precisely that. A lot of modern art, on the other hand, has no discernible intrinsic meaning at all, thus forcing the viewer to invent meaning out of thin air and his own prejudices.

By your expanded definition of art, the shit I just dumped in my toilet bowl is art. I would submit that your definition is so broad that it defeats the purpose of even having a definition.

[Gil Hamilton]

The fact that a piece of art has more meaning to one cultural group than another is irrelevant to the claim that it has easily discernible meaning. Somebody who doesn't care about the David vs Goliath mythology might simply look at the statue as a celebration of the beauty of the human body (which it was meant in part to be) and in fact, I would guess that the majority of people who look at that statue see precisely that. A lot of modern art, on the other hand, has no discernible intrinsic meaning at all, thus forcing the viewer to invent meaning out of thin air and his own prejudices.

By your expanded definition of art, the shit I just dumped in my toilet bowl is art. I would submit that your definition is so broad that it defeats the purpose of even having a definition.

Mike, when exactly in my post did I even attempt to define "art"? Point to where I did so, please. I'm general very careful not to even try to attempt to define "art", since it's much too hard to do. My point is that Marina's definition eliminates vast swaths of art because you'd be very hard pressed to find any art piece in history outside an Ikea instruction manual where it gives an instantly recognizable transcendental message to all people. However, I'm not one of those people who think that Duchamp was right and I don't think anything is "art" by virtue of it being declared so. Seriously, please go over my single paragraph post and emphasize any part of it that even tries to define "art".

Secondly, the David was not meant to be a "celebration of the beauty of the human body". There were Rennaisance statues that did that, but that wasn't what Michelangelo was getting at. You'd have a case if it was Donatello's David, in which he purposely made the figure beautiful and effeminate as opposed to the heavily armored and ugly Goliath head he was poised over, for religious reasons. However, the beauty of figure of David was actually irrelevant to the point; pretty much all his statues looked like that (check out La Pietá, which features the buffest Jesus on the planet and the world's biggest Mary). In fact, it wasn't even truly proportional because Michelangelo intended it to be put on a high pedastel, not up close where people could study it (hardly something one does when making something celebrating human form). What was important about Michelangelo's David was his expression, his defiance, tenseness, and anger when he decided to step to the fore and engage Goliath. That is where all the intrinsic meaning of the David comes from and why it was pretty controversial at the time of its unveiling (Michelangelo made it as a pointed political message).

At best you could use it as an excellent study of counter poise or disegno, but then again, how many even are aware of such things? Merely being a really nice statue of a good looking naked dude doesn't convey intrinsic meaning, because it means... what exactly? It doesn't mean anything, it is what it is. You could say the same thing about a Jackson Pollock painting, saying that its intrinsic meaning is that it's a really pretty canvas of random paint drippings. However, that's far from transcendental or intrinsic in meaning. If a majority of the people who look at the David and think it's a celebration of the human body, then it proves my point precisely. By Marina's definition it fails at art because it utterly fails to "convey an explicit message which is instantly recognizeable to all human beings, traversing cultural and societal grounds". Its meaning failed to transmit to even a fraction of human beings, much less all of them.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that a piece of art has more meaning to one cultural group than another is irrelevant to the claim that it has easily discernible meaning. Somebody who doesn't care about the David vs Goliath mythology might simply look at the statue as a celebration of the beauty of the human body (which it was meant in part to be) and in fact, I would guess that the majority of people who look at that statue see precisely that. A lot of modern art, on the other hand, has no discernible intrinsic meaning at all, thus forcing the viewer to invent meaning out of thin air and his own prejudices.

By your expanded definition of art, the shit I just dumped in my toilet bowl is art. I would submit that your definition is so broad that it defeats the purpose of even having a definition.

Mike, when exactly in my post did I even attempt to define "art"? Point to where I did so, please. I'm general very careful not to even try to attempt to define "art", since it's much too hard to do. My point is that Marina's definition eliminates vast swaths of art because you'd be very hard pressed to find any art piece in history outside an Ikea instruction manual where it gives an instantly recognizable transcendental message to all people. However, I'm not one of those people who think that Duchamp was right and I don't think anything is "art" by virtue of it being declared so. Seriously, please go over my single paragraph post and emphasize any part of it that even tries to define "art".

The part where you denied Marina's claim that a piece of art must have obvious meaning or symbolism in order to qualify. This obviously means that you think something can be art without any obvious meaning or symbolism. Don't play the weasely chickenshit "I never admitted to a position" game with me.

Secondly, the David was not meant to be a "celebration of the beauty of the human body".

"Not meant to be?" Prove it. Your entire diatribe relies upon art history, which is an entirely different thing than universal meaning. Universally, everyone will look at the statue and say "oh, it's a depiction of a nude man." Any meaning above and beyond that is beside the point that we have already established the artwork to have some obvious universal meaning.

In short, you're completely missing the point, which is that the artwork itself has an obviously and instantly recognizable meaning to any man, woman, or child on Earth. The fact that you think its creator meant us to see more than that is irrelevant.

[Peregrin Toker]

BTW, Spanky, I have finally checked the Surrealist manifesto by André Breton, and it actually says "only the marvellous is beautiful" rather than "only the supernatural is beautiful" (which is what I remembered it as).

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Breton also defines Surrealism in that document as:

Psychic automatism in its pure state, by which one proposes to express -- verbally, by means of the written word, or in any other manner -- the actual functioning of thought. Dictated by the thought, in the absence of any control exercised by reason, exempt from any aesthetic or moral concern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealist_Manifesto

[Greymalkin]

The fact that a piece of art has more meaning to one cultural group than another is irrelevant to the claim that it has easily discernible meaning. Somebody who doesn't care about the David vs Goliath mythology might simply look at the statue as a celebration of the beauty of the human body (which it was meant in part to be) and in fact, I would guess that the majority of people who look at that statue see precisely that. A lot of modern art, on the other hand, has no discernible intrinsic meaning at all, thus forcing the viewer to invent meaning out of thin air and his own prejudices.

By your expanded definition of art, the shit I just dumped in my toilet bowl is art. I would submit that your definition is so broad that it defeats the purpose of even having a definition.

Mike, when exactly in my post did I even attempt to define "art"? Point to where I did so, please. I'm general very careful not to even try to attempt to define "art", since it's much too hard to do. My point is that Marina's definition eliminates vast swaths of art because you'd be very hard pressed to find any art piece in history outside an Ikea instruction manual where it gives an instantly recognizable transcendental message to all people. However, I'm not one of those people who think that Duchamp was right and I don't think anything is "art" by virtue of it being declared so. Seriously, please go over my single paragraph post and emphasize any part of it that even tries to define "art".

The part where you denied Marina's claim that a piece of art must have obvious meaning or symbolism in order to qualify. This obviously means that you think something can be art without any obvious meaning or symbolism. Don't play the weasely chickenshit "I never admitted to a position" game with me.

Secondly, the David was not meant to be a "celebration of the beauty of the human body".

"Not meant to be?" Prove it. Your entire diatribe relies upon art history, which is an entirely different thing than universal meaning. Universally, everyone will look at the statue and say "oh, it's a depiction of a nude man." Any meaning above and beyond that is beside the point that we have already established the artwork to have some obvious universal meaning.

In short, you're completely missing the point, which is that the artwork itself has an obviously and instantly recognizable meaning to any man, woman, or child on Earth. The fact that you think its creator meant us to see more than that is irrelevant.

No Mike, I think you’re missing the point. Gil’s objection to Marina’s definition of art is well founded. Let’s look at this again:

Art should convey an explicit message which is instantly recognizeable to all human beings, traversing cultural and societal grounds

Gil rightly points out that under this definition there is a great deal of art, including art that is considered exceptional and worthy of the history books that ceases to be art, because it has a meaning that is understandable either to only a few or only in a certain context.

And speaking of David, not Michelangelo's David, but the work of the French Neo Classical painter, David, his work, like most Neo Classicism was designed to portray a certain moral or lesson or idea through depictions of classical literature. Now if you know the story behind these paintings, the meaning is clear, if you don’t, well, you’re fucked. This means that here are more paintings and another artistic movement invalidated by Marina’s definition.

Now arguing that a work can have a public meaning and a meaning to the artist is fine (not to mention frequently correct), however, Marina’s definition requires an “explicit message”, that is I assume (I’ll accept that I could be wrong here), to say a singular message. As such, a piece of art would have to have a singular clarion message that is understandable to both artist and those who view the work in order to be “art”.

That is an exceptionally high standard, one that is out of the reach of much of the world’s art and that denies the fine arts but architecture and music a play in art as well.

As for the rest of her first paragraph, I would just like how these art forms are have universally understood message?

Modern "art" does not do this. Period. The form and philosophy of modern "art" has proven itself incapable of conveying transcendental ideas, has no holistic context, and in fact prides itself in being open to "interpretation", a claim which in fact renders it not art at all, as art is something which should be understood, in a sublime and primal (or if you will, holistic) fashion.

This is just wrong. If any art can meet her requirements, it is expressionism and abstract expressionism, both of which are considered “modern art” just might (also Romanticism might as well), as they are designed to elicit an emotional response from a viewer. Such methods are closest thing to a universally understandable message.

By your expanded definition of art, the shit I just dumped in my toilet bowl is art. I would submit that your definition is so broad that it defeats the purpose of even having a definition.

I think that is a bit of hyperbole, but I understand your concern. Unfortunately art has become an anything goes type of thing and while good has come of this, the acceptance of pop art, graphic design and the like, it has also allowed people to sandwich there own blood and ejaculate in between to piece of plexi-glass (yes, someone did this, it is actually the cover of Metallica’s Load album] to call that crap “art”

Personally, all I’m trying to say is that art does not need some message; art can be made for the lone purpose of art alone.

As an interesting note, Duchamp felt that art has two pillars, the artist and the viewer. And while the artist may say what he wishes, it is the viewer that ultimately decides value of and gives their own meaning to the work.

On art and entertainment…
Nietzsche’s opinion aside, art and entertainment are inexplicitly tied, some may see a difference here, but is only a cosmetic one.

As was stated in a thread a few months back, art is an inherently inferior method of communicating an actual idea. It's overly complex when compared to a logical explanation. There's a reason why ideas are exchanged in journals and not art pieces. It's like jigging down a sidewalk: It's a more entertaining, but less useful way of doing something.

I would disagree, and recommend you check out some of the propaganda art from the second world war, also much of David’s art was also propaganda in nature, first for Louise XVI, then for the Revolution and lastly for Napoleon.

Lastly, to the original question…
I would say that “modern art” is not art in the traditional sense; rather it is a redefining of the rules and traditions of art. I said above that modern art is an anything goes type of atmosphere, this encourage a lot of useful and interesting experimentation and breaks down old (even more elitist and wrong headed) rules on what is and what is not art. The down side of this is that as art has become less substantive and becomes more abstract in theme and subject matter, more philosophical and more theoretical; it also becomes less viable and less relevant to most people. Thus leading the majority of the populace to dislike the whole of modern art, and the art world, which is seen as elitist, arrogant, irrelevant and out of touch with most people. This also explains why many people look at the work of Duchamp, Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothko and wonder what the fuck and why those same people would buy a painting by Thomas Kincaid.

Well that’s my two bits, sorry for the long windedness.