Is this art or abuse?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-10-20 04:48pm

General Zod wrote: Good art should require talent (Ie - something most people can't do or have a hard time doing) to make.

Why?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-20 04:52pm

salm wrote:
General Zod wrote: Good art should require talent (Ie - something most people can't do or have a hard time doing) to make.
Why?

If anyone can do it then what makes it valuable or distinguishes it from the next idiot's work?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-10-20 04:54pm

General Zod wrote:
salm wrote:
General Zod wrote: Good art should require talent (Ie - something most people can't do or have a hard time doing) to make.
Why?
If anyone can do it then what makes it valuable or distinguishes it from the next idiot's work?

That´s right. But you have to show why this makes it not art.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-20 04:58pm

salm wrote: That´s right. But you have to show why this makes it not art.

Methinks you need to read my post again. I wasn't commenting on whether it was art. I was commenting no whether it was good art.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-20 04:59pm

General Zod wrote:
salm wrote: That´s right. But you have to show why this makes it not art.
Methinks you need to read my post again. I wasn't commenting on whether it was art. I was commenting no whether it was good art.

Ghetto edit: Better still, why don't you show how sticking a suffering animal on display should be considered art at all instead of having me prove a negative?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-10-20 05:02pm

General Zod wrote:
salm wrote: That´s right. But you have to show why this makes it not art.
Methinks you need to read my post again. I wasn't commenting on whether it was art. I was commenting no whether it was good art.

Oh, well, then you have to show why this makes it bad art.

We could probably do this bullshit all night long and won´t come to a solution. There is, as far as i know no real accepted definition for art. Perhaps you can prove me wrong and show me a good and widely accepted definition. If it shows that this particular deceased dog falls under bad art, even better.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-10-20 05:03pm

General Zod wrote:
General Zod wrote:
salm wrote: That´s right. But you have to show why this makes it not art.
Methinks you need to read my post again. I wasn't commenting on whether it was art. I was commenting no whether it was good art.
Ghetto edit: Better still, why don't you show how sticking a suffering animal on display should be considered art at all instead of having me prove a negative?

Why should i? I allready stated that i think that the term art is meaningless and that anything can be considered art.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-10-20 05:08pm

It's really not all that hard to define art. It's tricky, but it's not hard. It's not an elusive concept afterall, we just need to find a way to define it. People shouldn't get trapped up in the bullshit philosophy of it, and just look for what the word defines.

A lot of the muddling of the term came when a lot of people wanted to redefine it based on content. People who did wierd shit or abstract shit and said "This is art" and were right, and old people say "It isn't art" and they were right too--since although it was art, it wasn't the kind of art they were used to, and I'd say they were just using an un-researched version of the term. That was really based on a European concept of Art as 'beauty' and literally representative of the subject--that didn't hold for all cultures, so really, what about art makes it different than something that's just beautiful, like a rainforest?

I suppose you could argue nothing, but that's just silly. If you call an entire forest 'art' then you're just abusing the word. Then it means nothing and you've ceded your brain. If the forest is not art, then how is a picture of it art? This is a philosophy discussion, but I think I could win a debate on this.

I would agree that the artist or the viewer is placing meaning in the object--I think that's the whole point. I don't know how you can escape that conclusion. There's no meaning to a piece of limestone. The artist needs to give it meaning by hacking it into the shape of something. It is different than someone else giving it meaning though, but that's not the important part--it's not art just because the artist says it is.

If a random person looks at it and sees a meaning in it, then that's good! You've constructed something in such a way that you've made them think, and not just look and walk on. If half the people think it's just junk, that's bad art, since it's become indistinguishable from trash. If everyone sees a meaning in it, even if it's not the 'right' meaning, then that would be a successful art piece. Ideally you can make them feel what you wanted them to feel, but sometimes it's interesting to wonder. It's the difference between a medical diagram or a map, which is just conveying information and not a message, and a drawing that elicts a feeling.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-20 05:09pm

salm wrote: Oh, well, then you have to show why this makes it bad art.

I already did. But I can't help it if you're not going to bother paying attention.

We could probably do this bullshit all night long and won´t come to a solution. There is, as far as i know no real accepted definition for art. Perhaps you can prove me wrong and show me a good and widely accepted definition. If it shows that this particular deceased dog falls under bad art, even better.

Merriam Webster wrote: Main Entry:
2art Listen to the pronunciation of 2art
Pronunciation:
\ˈärt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
Date:
13th century

1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>2 a: a branch of learning: (1): one of the humanities (2)plural : liberal arts barchaic : learning, scholarship3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art5 aarchaic : a skillful plan b: the quality or state of being artful6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

Where again is the skill in making a dog suffer and putting it in display? Oh yeah, there is none. Any moron can do it.

Why should i? I allready stated that i think that the term art is meaningless and that anything can be considered art.

Then this whole argument is pointless. Congratulations.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-10-20 05:13pm

Zod, while I agree it's not art, I don't think you were using the correct part of the definition. Plus, he's not saying that the dictionary doesn't say it requires skill, he's saying that the dictionary is wrong. I think he's wrong, but I have an art-based reason why. The definition that more closely fits your idea is in there, but not bolded:

The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced

You'd want to say it showed no skill or creative imagination, or that it wasn't even willfully art. If he just chained a dog to the wall without some kind of intention then all he was doing was chaining a dog to a wall.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-10-20 05:14pm

Ghetto Edit: Not that my definition IS the bolded part, mine is ABOVE his post. I was just clarifying for Zod what part of that definition is probably more pertinent to his definition.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-10-20 05:36pm

I know, it really feels silly to consider a forest art and personally i wouldn´t but i wouldn´t know how to make a rational argument if someone came up and claimed otherwise. Personally i wouldn´t consider anything art that has not experienced a sufficient amount of interaction with an artist.
But i get the feeling that many people think that if they don´t like it personally it´s not art for them. I see that differently. I think art is a neutral term and doesn´t necessarily need to be good (neither morally nor skill wise) to be art. However, i don´t think i could defend all of that with a rational argument.

If i understand the last part of your post right then you´re saying that art is a big appeal to popularity. That´s pretty much what i meant in my last post to you when i said that getting people to accept things as art is the closest you´ll get to what defines art. So if enough people think that the blank canvas is art, so that some idiot will shell out 25000 bucks then by this definition the blank canvas is art.

This would also be supported by the abstract shit. When the abstract shit came up it wasn´t considered art by most but as soon as it was established it was. Nowadays there are very few people who wouldn´t consider abstract art art at all.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-10-20 05:54pm

General Zod wrote:
salm wrote: Oh, well, then you have to show why this makes it bad art.
I already did. But I can't help it if you're not going to bother paying attention.

No you didn´t. You just pointed out that good art should be distinguishable form other peoples art. You never explained why.

Merriam Webster wrote:
1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>2 a: a branch of learning: (1): one of the humanities (2)plural : liberal arts barchaic : learning, scholarship3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art5 aarchaic : a skillful plan b: the quality or state of being artful6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

Where again is the skill in making a dog suffer and putting it in display? Oh yeah, there is none. Any moron can do it.

Umm... The example given with this definition "art of making friends" implies that this is not the meaning of the word we´re looking for here. It´s a figure of speech.

Covenants bolding seems more useful:
"The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced"
However i think this definition went out of the window when abstract art came up.
So now we either have to say that this definition has been overcome or deny that abstract art is art at all. But if abstract art isn´t art what is it then? It´s definitely something...

Then this whole argument is pointless. Congratulations.

Not at all. I´ve been looking for a good definition for art for a while now but have not been able to come up with one nor have i found anyone who could give me a good one.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-10-20 05:59pm

salm wrote:I know, it really feels silly to consider a forest art and personally i wouldn´t but i wouldn´t know how to make a rational argument if someone came up and claimed otherwise. Personally i wouldn´t consider anything art that has not experienced a sufficient amount of interaction with an artist.

Which is why I say my definition holds more water than most. A forest is a forest. A forest isn't abstracted and isn't symbolic. It is a forest. Nobody planted the forest in order to make you feel something. It just is there. The meaning of a forest is "I am a forest." That's not art.

If you take a forest and cut it up into wood, and arranged the planks into the shapes of trees, that could be art. If you turned it into a woodcarving of a tree, that could be art. Or if you took a picture of the forest, that could be art. But that's the abstracted forest. You gotta be able to 'put a frame' around it first--and go through the process, then, of giving it a meaning.

salm wrote:But i get the feeling that many people think that if they don´t like it personally it´s not art for them. I see that differently. I think art is a neutral term and doesn´t necessarily need to be good (neither morally nor skill wise) to be art. However, i don´t think i could defend all of that with a rational argument.

Well, if you don't have a rational response, you should try to think it through more. People have said "I don't think this" and "I don't believe that" about a lot of stuff, and it doesn't mean it's right. Just like Mengsk doesn't believe in Morals, and the rest of us believe in science that tells us those are signs of a diseased brain, someone's personal view on the world is not always the final authority. Man's urge to make art is so old I bet there's a quantifiable biological component, just like our idea of a 'feminine' form being based on biological cues.

salm wrote:If i understand the last part of your post right then you´re saying that art is a big appeal to popularity. That´s pretty much what i meant in my last post to you when i said that getting people to accept things as art is the closest you´ll get to what defines art. So if enough people think that the blank canvas is art, so that some idiot will shell out 25000 bucks then by this definition the blank canvas is art.

Art isn't an appeal to authority. Art, as a term, shouldn't be democratic. I would say that artfulness is something different than expression or beauty and is a quality held by things that interact with the audience. If people only like the canvas because they don't want to be seen as morons, then that's a social experiment and not art.

Penn and Teller did a nice Bullshit! episode about this, where they fed people awful food in a fancy resturant and had them saying how much they loved it, and how they could taste the quality. You can objectively rate the qualities of food and say "This is better prepared than this, this is bland, and this is not a good wine." People might be tricked into convincing themselves otherwise, but there is still an objective interaction. What happens too much is a person buying art because of the artist's name, not because of what's on it. That's just business. People like to sell art. Do you think a baseball is worth anything? People buy them though, knowing someone else will buy it for more.

I'm not saying that art is better if people like it. I'm saying that artfulness is a quality in the thing that makes people go "Hey, I like that" or "That reminds me of..." or something, rather than pass by. If I gave you five large stones, and told you to arrange them in such a way as to garner the most interest, reflection, and debate about the meaning then we could gauge what's more artful. We shouldn't base someone being good or bad 'art' based on how people like it or want to buy it. That's a job for Aesthetics debate, not the defining of art as a broad term.

salm wrote:This would also be supported by the abstract shit. When the abstract shit came up it wasn´t considered art by most but as soon as it was established it was. Nowadays there are very few people who wouldn´t consider abstract art art at all.

I love abstract art, and consider it one of the most pure forms of art! It's a little dense, but you just need to understand the visual 'language,' essentially. Once you do you're able to enjoy it quite a bit.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2007-10-20 06:01pm

There is realy no depth to which "art" can sink that can surprise me. As long as normal laws doesn't apply to artists shit like this will happen.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-10-20 06:05pm

CJvR wrote:There is realy no depth to which "art" can sink that can surprise me. As long as normal laws doesn't apply to artists shit like this will happen.

Don't be stupid--symbolic speech is protected in the US, but hurting a dog wouldn't qualify. The only one who thinks this is art is Megnsk. Some fucking nutjob who kills an animal and calls it "art" isn't an artist. It's a slander to say the rest of the art community would accept him.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-20 06:34pm

salm wrote: No you didn´t. You just pointed out that good art should be distinguishable form other peoples art. You never explained why.

Read my post again. If their particular artwork takes enough skill that the majority of performers or artists can't successfully imitate it, then it's of good quality. Any idiot can put a suffering dog on display.

Umm... The example given with this definition "art of making friends" implies that this is not the meaning of the word we´re looking for here. It´s a figure of speech.

So you're just cherry picking the entire entry? Everything in it infers that some degree of skill is required to create it. Using a shitty example doesn't make the definition itself invalid.

However i think this definition went out of the window when abstract art came up.
So now we either have to say that this definition has been overcome or deny that abstract art is art at all. But if abstract art isn´t art what is it then? It´s definitely something...

Some abstract art is actually good because it requires a degree of talent to make, but the vast majority of it is really worthless.

Not at all. I´ve been looking for a good definition for art for a while now but have not been able to come up with one nor have i found anyone who could give me a good one.

If you don't have a definition of what makes something art, then why should I listen to you proclaiming something as such, or bother to disprove it as art if you can't explain why it is in the first place?

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-10-20 06:50pm

General Zod wrote:Some abstract art is actually good because it requires a degree of talent to make, but the vast majority of it is really worthless.

The vast majority of abstract art is more like stuff on my icon, which may not be a picture of a person but is highly based in composition and the technical use of specific media, and has a high degree of skill required. The 'worthless' stuff, like the white canvas or Pollock-esque randomly flung paint is just a vocal minority of abstract art. I'd say a vocal French minority, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2007-10-20 08:27pm

Is there some kind of disconnect between 'art' and 'wrong' now? I think that the scumbag's installation could qualify as art, but that in no way detracts from how grotesque and unacceptable it is. Torturing people can be an art; murderers have made art out of pieces of their victims. That something is somehow artistic in no way automatically makes it good or positive.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-20 09:02pm

Seggybop wrote:Is there some kind of disconnect between 'art' and 'wrong' now? I think that the scumbag's installation could qualify as art, but that in no way detracts from how grotesque and unacceptable it is. Torturing people can be an art; murderers have made art out of pieces of their victims. That something is somehow artistic in no way automatically makes it good or positive.

That sort of boils down to the original point of whether or not "skill" is a valid part of defining art. If something still requires a degree of talent to perform then it can be considered art, albeit highly repugnant and repulsive. What the fuckass in the OP did was nothing that required any form of talent whatsoever.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-10-20 09:06pm

If some sick fuck did this to a human, there would be no question of whether its "art" or abuse. It would be cold-blooded murder.

Vampiress_Miyu · Post by **Vampiress_Miyu** » 2007-10-20 09:41pm

Absolutely horrible. That's just..... awful. Really and truly, it is.

I can't believe that anyone would call this art. If the artist wants to send a message, find an already dead dog at least..... That's just.... evil.

fusion · Post by **fusion** » 2007-10-20 10:05pm

Sure this is disturbing but it is still an art in one way or another. However, it could be worst...

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-10-20 10:17pm

If we can look at the bigger picture here, you basically have a guy who is putting his cruelty and sadism on display. I don't approve of this, and it seems that 99% of the people here don't either. Art or not, this is a man who is acting out his sick and disgusting impulses.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-20 10:26pm

fusion wrote:Sure this is disturbing but it is still an art in one way or another.

Prove it. Or take your worthless one-liner and kindly shove it up your ass, please.