Art and opinion?

[SamG]

Has it crossed your mind that 'art' is bullshit?

Apparently there are elements which constitute 'good' and 'bad' art but when one discusses music, there are only opinions.

For example; in music, one can not declare factually that Led Zeppelin are better than The Spice Girls, or that country music is superior to metal, and so forth...

But in the art world, there is hierarchy, there is art and there is crude art.

Furthermore, it is institutionalized and there are schools steeped in art culture.

Now I'm not suggesting that art does not exist but I do think that once art is crystallized; whether it is in institutions or locked up in galleries, it runs the risk of ceasing to be art.

Also, if art can be judged in its traditional sense, then we have been conditioned with political correctness and 'tolerance'; with opinion and 'subjectivity'.

We either accept that there is a criteria for judging everything or all art is a bogus invention by the cultural elite.

[Electrophile]

No.

[SamG]

No.

That was simply an astonishing response.

[minelle]

[Electrophile]

You asked a question, I answered it. I personally don't think art is bullshit. There, I said it again....this time with more words. Better now?

[Big Klu]

Has it crossed your mind that 'art' is bullshit?

Art the concept, Art as Consensus, or Art being of personal choice?

Anyways, defining art is like defining the meaning of life or any other philosophical whateverthehell.

[SamG]

Art the concept, Art as Consensus, or Art being of personal choice?

Anyways, defining art is like defining the meaning of life or any other philosophical whateverthehell.

Art should not be that nebulous.

It should have a connotation; a meaning.

It can't be whatever one wants it to be. This is why, in the day and age of 'awareness' and 'tolerance', 'art' is so watered down.

[SamG]

You asked a question, I answered it. I personally don't think art is bullshit. There, I said it again....this time with more words. Better now?

Care to extrapolate?

[Katuschka]

Has it crossed your mind that 'art' is bullshit?

No.

Apparently there are elements which constitute 'good' and 'bad' art but when one discusses music, there are only opinions.

For example; in music, one can not declare factually that Led Zeppelin are better than The Spice Girls, or that country music is superior to metal, and so forth...

But in the art world, there is hierarchy, there is art and there is crude art.

Although you can tell that Victoria Beckham is not a very good singer...

There's nothing such as good or bad art. Art critics try quite hard to avoid these two words. There has been a conservative idea of 'high' and 'low' art in the past, but that's passé. In the age of Clasicism, it's been factually declared that Raphael was the greatest Rennaissance artist, whose genius should be looked up to and whose style should be imitated. Several years later, Pre-Raphaelists declared that that was the worst thing that had happened to the art culture. If you look throughout the art history, you can see that those revolutionary artists who never treated any aesthetic opinion as a fact have been the most influential. The hierarchy you're talking about is less stable than the political situation in the Middle East.

Furthermore, it is institutionalized and there are schools steeped in art culture.

There are also music schools.

[SamG]

There's nothing such as good or bad art.

Rubbish!

There are good mathematicians, good carpenters and good cyclists. Artists shouldn’t get off that easy.

It's as if you are saying that art's purpose is to entertain. (which is true but shouldn't be)

[Katuschka]

Rubbish!

There are good mathematicians, good carpenters and good cyclists. Artists shouldn’t get off that easy.

It's as if you are saying that art's purpose is to entertain. (which is true but shouldn't be)

SamG, I really wonder what's your point. First you argue that it's bad because it's institutionalized, and then you claim that artists indeed should be categorized. If artists can't get off that easy, why musicians can? The only thing a cyclist has to do to become a good cyclist is to train to improve his skill. A guitar player can also practice to improve his skill, but what would be the point of it if he weren't able to compose a decent melody? Mathematicians work with the universal. One plus one will always equal two. A good physicist can identify a universal set of tones, he can also organize them into scales, and he can also measure their pitch, but it's not his job to compose them into a likable melody. Likewise, it's much easier to learn who to draw than to be able to design a likeable pattern. That's simply something you cannot learn, you can only work on and improve what you've already got. That's why it's subjective.

I haven't said that art's purpose is to entertain, because it's definitely not it's only purpose. I also cannot see why art should not entertain.

[kidmoon]

Apparently there are elements which constitute 'good' and 'bad' art but when one discusses music, there are only opinions.

For example; in music, one can not declare factually that Led Zeppelin are better than The Spice Girls, or that country music is superior to metal, and so forth...

But in the art world, there is hierarchy, there is art and there is crude art.

Perhaps you feel that Led Zeppelin and rock, pop, blues, etc. is fine art? It is "crude art". Or "folk art". This is my lay opinion. One can definitely say that Tchaikovsky is better than Jimmy Page as a musician and an artist. That is because Tchaikovsky is fine art; Page made folk art.

[SamG]

Perhaps you feel that Led Zeppelin and rock, pop, blues, etc. is fine art? It is "crude art". Or "folk art". This is my lay opinion. One can definitely say that Tchaikovsky is better than Jimmy Page as a musician and an artist. That is because Tchaikovsky is fine art; Page made folk art.

There are certainly differences between rock music and classical in the respect that you are speaking about. Classical is of course extensively more complex and crafty. It has earned itself a show of status in higher society.

But whatever art is and whatever it hopes to achieve emotionally, could it not be achieved by a variety of forms? It is also important to note that art is in servitude to contemporary society, i.e. Led Zeppelin could not exist 500 years ago.

[kidmoon]

But whatever art is and whatever it hopes to achieve emotionally, could it not be achieved by a variety of forms?

Yes, we've established that there is a hierarchy in art. Art tugs at emotions, be it folk art or fine art... maybe I'm missing your point.

Let me say this: in folk art there is only opinion--and popular music is folk art. However, fine art is the highest art because there must be something about it which makes it objectively good. So, even if you hear Beethoven's 5th symphony and don't like it, you have to still respect it, i.e., you have to know there's something worthwhile there even if it doesn't appeal to you.

[FuzzyMerkin]

So, even if you hear Beethoven's 5th symphony and don't like it, you have to still respect it, i.e., you have to know there's something worthwhile there even if it doesn't appeal to you.

Says who?

[Katuschka]

Perhaps you feel that Led Zeppelin and rock, pop, blues, etc. is fine art? It is "crude art". Or "folk art". This is my lay opinion. One can definitely say that Tchaikovsky is better than Jimmy Page as a musician and an artist. That is because Tchaikovsky is fine art; Page made folk art.

No, it's popular art. One cannot definitely say that Tchaikovsky is better than Page, because Page has never produced anything that could be called classical music. This division between popular and classical art way too much depends on social hierarchy, and that's not always somothing you can choose. Yes, folk art has always been more primitive in comparicon to the fine arts, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be any really talented people even among folk artists. Pomposity does not always equal quality. Today, the difference is that artists can (almost, and only somewhere) choose between these two ways, but that really doesn't tell you much about their talent. Warhol was very talented, yet he ended up doing pop art. Jon Lord willingly chose a career in a hard rock band. Unless you can highlight some specific qualities of Tchaikovsky's work that would make it more valued than what Page has done, using a rather meaningless and generalising word better can be very dangerous.

[Hotplant]

http://www.artbabyart.com

[lzfan715]

You can rate stuff to an extent, like the Mona Lisa is much better then my stick people. You can't really rate stuff though, there can be a majority though.

And I can rate Led Zeppelin and The Spice Girls.

Spice Girls: 55 million albums sold wordwide Led Zeppelin: more then 300 million albums sold world wide

Hm, I wonder who people like more. (In Raibia's abbreviation: src)

[Big Klu]

Art should not be that nebulous.

It should have a connotation; a meaning.

It can't be whatever one wants it to be. This is why, in the day and age of 'awareness' and 'tolerance', 'art' is so watered down.

'Should' and 'cant' imply a type of moral obligation. Art is and has forever been a matter of choice.

I'm still not clear as to what your ideal is...

Classical realism = art

performance art = not art

recognizable elements = art

abstract/emotional = not art

??

[DeepBlackZeppelin]

Has it crossed your mind that 'art' is bullshit?

Apparently there are elements which constitute 'good' and 'bad' art but when one discusses music, there are only opinions.

For example; in music, one can not declare factually that Led Zeppelin are better than The Spice Girls, or that country music is superior to metal, and so forth...

But in the art world, there is hierarchy, there is art and there is crude art.

Furthermore, it is institutionalized and there are schools steeped in art culture.

Now I'm not suggesting that art does not exist but I do think that once art is crystallized; whether it is in institutions or locked up in galleries, it runs the risk of ceasing to be art.

Also, if art can be judged in its traditional sense, then we have been conditioned with political correctness and 'tolerance'; with opinion and 'subjectivity'.

We either accept that there is a criteria for judging everything or all art is a bogus invention by the cultural elite.

I wonder why the artists always get criticized.

I mean like someone has mentioned before. Art is so vast and immense of a subject, it cannot be defined by one painting.

I mean, do you count graffiti as art? So many people count it as art, but other people say it's useless trash. What about photographers and their work?, you know the ones that shoot for magazines and newspapers.

Professional photography requires a skill beyond the convenience of a digital camera. And when you see ordinary magazines from the 1960's, the photographs of certain models and such were seemingly an accessory to the articles. However, years later, people are pulling out these specific photographs only and valuing them as art pieces.

Many of these mediums were never displayed in a gallery.

I mean, of course there will always be critics, and they don't necessarily constitute good and bad art. There are plenty of volatile critics in movies, literature and music.

And speaking of which, cannot anyone film a home movie, write something, or record a song in their garage? And haven't people already done so? But would you see Ebert and Roeper highly praise a home movie; do garage bands get better praise than more well known bands from Rolling Stones reviewers?

And when you speak of art being crystallized into galleries, what do you think of music being created only for pop sales? The difference between the Spice Girls and Led Zeppelin is that Led Zeppelin had creative control, Spice Girls were fodder for their record label. Same with Christina Aguilera when she began. Hell, people would even consider the Beatles as being pop industry puppets at first. But then, the Beatles were highly acclaimed for their musical talent later on, weren't they? And this was in a time when most music critics thought guitar music was on its way out.

See how music can be crystallized for the Top 40 charts. Yet, is Christina Aguilera considered music, pop music? And there will always be people who consider lesser known underground bands as composing real music, and not the likes of these pop stars.

Art truly can be looked beyond the schools and institutions. And there certainly are music institutions as well[as someone here has mentioned], and there are writings schools as well as film schools.

But, remember these institutions are only created to develop the skills a certain person wants to further improve. And if you criticize art institutions, then what's the whole entire purpose of higher education? Is college a scam as well? Are scientific and mathematical institutions?

[SamG]

Yes, we've established that there is a hierarchy in art. Art tugs at emotions, be it folk art or fine art... maybe I'm missing your point.

Let me say this: in folk art there is only opinion--and popular music is folk art. However, fine art is the highest art because there must be something about it which makes it objectively good. So, even if you hear Beethoven's 5th symphony and don't like it, you have to still respect it, i.e., you have to know there's something worthwhile there even if it doesn't appeal to you.

This is where art becomes convoluted.

You are speaking from some kind of social conditioning that has convinced you that this hierarchy exists.

The fact of the matter is, you aren't talking about art at all. You may be talking about complexity, status and intellectualism but art does not have to pertain to any of these orders.

[redrum]

Will the art snobs give in that it's an original Pollock?

[SamG]

'Should' and 'cant' imply a type of moral obligation. Art is and has forever been a matter of choice.

I'm still not clear as to what your ideal is...

Classical realism = art

performance art = not art

recognizable elements = art

abstract/emotional = not art

??

I have difficulty defining what 'art' is, or like you say, 'should' or 'can't' be. But let's not get caught up in words.

However, I am convinced that art in a real sense appeals to something common in us.

I also think that art can evolve and de-evolve.

Art can be a natural phenomenon and not a human manifestation.

Unless someone actually defines what art is, then it is just about anything you want it to be, which to me is too ambiguous and rather convenient.

So far art serves many functions in society, however these functions can not all constitute 'art'.

Even if you want to disuse the term 'art', then 'it' has a universal meaning beyond opinion.

[SamG]

You can rate stuff to an extent, like the Mona Lisa is much better then my stick people. You can't really rate stuff though, there can be a majority though.

And I can rate Led Zeppelin and The Spice Girls.

Spice Girls: 55 million albums sold wordwide Led Zeppelin: more then 300 million albums sold world wide

Hm, I wonder who people like more. (In Raibia's abbreviation: src)

Once again: Not a definition of 'art' but a sign of popularlty.

You know Hitler was popular in the 30's and 40's!

[SamG]

I wonder why the artists always get criticized.

I mean like someone has mentioned before. Art is so vast and immense of a subject, it cannot be defined by one painting.

I mean, do you count graffiti as art? So many people count it as art, but other people say it's useless trash. What about photographers and their work?, you know the ones that shoot for magazines and newspapers.

Why can't graffiti be art and vandalism simultaneously? Why can't graffiti (as the spray can movement in modern society) be an evolving/de-evolving symbolism?

Why can't art be unintentional? Can art be produced by the uninitiated or the corrupt? -You get the gist.

Professional photography requires a skill beyond the convenience of a digital camera. And when you see ordinary magazines from the 1960's, the photographs of certain models and such were seemingly an accessory to the articles. However, years later, people are pulling out these specific photographs only and valuing them as art pieces.

Well yes, an example of evolution/de-evolution. But perhaps not....perhaps it's fashion? Fashion repeats, doesn't necessarily constitute art though. Or maybe it is unintentional art, subversive art?

Many of these mediums were never displayed in a gallery.

I mean, of course there will always be critics, and they don't necessarily constitute good and bad art. There are plenty of volatile critics in movies, literature and music.

And sometimes things become citch because it was once cheesy. But I think that this is usually opportunism and reactionism.

And speaking of which, cannot anyone film a home movie, write something, or record a song in their garage? And haven't people already done so? But would you see Ebert and Roeper highly praise a home movie; do garage bands get better praise than more well known bands from Rolling Stones reviewers?

An example of institutionalization which tends to dismiss.

And when you speak of art being crystallized into galleries, what do you think of music being created only for pop sales? The difference between the Spice Girls and Led Zeppelin is that Led Zeppelin had creative control, Spice Girls were fodder for their record label. Same with Christina Aguilera when she began. Hell, people would even consider the Beatles as being pop industry puppets at first. But then, the Beatles were highly acclaimed for their musical talent later on, weren't they? And this was in a time when most music critics thought guitar music was on its way out.

You have made an error. It is possible for a band that you don't like to create a good song. But it is far more difficult for detractors to appreciate it.

We are all very much like this.

See how music can be crystallized for the Top 40 charts. Yet, is Christina Aguilera considered music, pop music? And there will always be people who consider lesser known underground bands as composing real music, and not the likes of these pop stars.

I don't agree with your logic. It is in the same category as independent vs. commercial. No validity at all. I think good music stems from another place altogether. Although that's my opinion of course.

Art truly can be looked beyond the schools and institutions. And there certainly are music institutions as well[as someone here has mentioned], and there are writings schools as well as film schools.

Yes. Schools are indeed important, in fact, if the country that I live in introduced far better music programs, diversity (hate that word) would be richer.

It's only 'bow tie' syndrome that stagnates institutions.

But, remember these institutions are only created to develop the skills a certain person wants to further improve. And if you criticize art institutions, then what's the whole entire purpose of higher education? Is college a scam as well? Are scientific and mathematical institutions?

Nothing wrong with schools of learning but they shouldn't pretend to be teaching more than they claim to be.