We have had many discussions about art and I make no secret of my contempt for much modern art, be it poetry, painting or music.

There is a very interesting item in the week's "This is True" which I can't reprint here as Randy Cassingham rightly protects his copyright. However, it is free to subscribe and you can do so here http://www.thisistrue.com.

When you get the latest newsletter, dated 16 July, the item you want is entitled "ART FOR ART'S SAKE" and is the second one in the list.

It says more than even I could about the stupidity of some so-called art experts.

quote:

It says more than even I could about the stupidity of some so-called art experts.

Well, Richard, again as we've said many times here, the same could surely be said of limericks or any other form of the arts. Some, I expect, think that limericks are most frivolous and not real forms of verse or poetry. It is a matter of opinion and that's what makes life so interesting. Wouldn't it be boring if the only "good" art were the French impressionist paintings? Or the only "good" music was composed by Beethoven?

quote:

It is a matter of opinion and that's what makes life so interesting.

Of course, this is an undeniable response that invariably crops up sooner or later. But the point still remains - whose opinions matter most? What does the majority think? How many people are adversely affected by someone's "opinion"?

A collection of words that don't rhyme, don't scan, don't make sense and don't mean anything can't be a poem. "Ah well, that's a matter of opinion."

A piece of old junk stuck onto a board and called "the meaning of existence" - that's not art. "Ah well, that's a matter of opinion".

A piece of music that comprises nothing more than 4½ minutes of silence is not music."Ah well, that's a matter of opinion".

Opinions are probably the most dangerous things on this Earth.

The fermented garbage juice from rotting grain is not a fine beverage. "Ah, well, that's a matter of opinion."

Opinions are dangerous indeed.

quote:

The fermented garbage juice from rotting grain is not a fine beverage. "Ah, well, that's a matter of opinion."

I would entirely agree. Thank goodness there's no kind of beverage made from such ingredients, so far as I am aware.

quote:

But the point still remains - whose opinions matter most? What does the majority think?

Is the majority always right? I can think of many, many times when they are not.

quote:

The fermented garbage juice from rotting grain is not a fine beverage. "Ah, well, that's a matter of opinion."
Opinions are dangerous indeed.

Ah...but what would that opinion be?

I don't see that "opinions are dangerous" when it comes to the fine arts. That was the original subject of this thread..."art for art's sake."

quote:

I don't see that "opinions are dangerous" when it comes to the fine arts.

Probably not. It is the principle I speak of. And opinions can be very dangerous.

Opinions, especially those not backed by facts, are equivalent to beliefs. And there is more murder, mayhem and madness casued through beliefs than just about anything else.

So far as the "...The fermented garbage juice from rotting grain is not a fine beverage..." quote is concerned, it might be an opinion or a belief but it is a wrong one, contrary to facts. I know of no beverage that is made from rotting grain and I doubt that there is one. So that opinion, even if honestly, held is wrong.

But the wrongness of an opinion does not alter its power. All religions are beliefs; matters of opinion unprovable by facts. And millions have died, and continue to die, in defence of such beliefs. I'm sure I don't need to give examples.

quote:

I know of no beverage that is made from rotting grain and I doubt that there is one. So that opinion, even if honestly, held is wrong.

You can't think of one, therefore I'm wrong? Lack of awareness is not a compelling argument.

History shows that humans will make ethanol from anything -- barley, rice, mare's milk, hairspray -- and flavor it with anything -- pine sap, charred oak, hops, chewing gum -- and even wax poetic about its fine qualities after they've had a few.

In any case, my point was that it's a simple exercise to ridicule the form of any art or craft, but it's rarely insightful.

quote:

You can't think of one, therefore I'm wrong? Lack of awareness is not a compelling argument.

I concede that my lack of knowledge does not prove that there has never been any beverage made from rotting grain. However, I suspect that, even if such a drink existed, it does so no longer. Quite apart from its probable disgusting taste, rotting grain has no fermentable sugars and therefore could be used only as a flavouring to the true fermenting substance - grape juice, honey, maltose (but not lactose, which is why milk does not ferment well). The ingredients you cite can only be fermented if they are treated suitably prior to adding the yeast.

One of the reasons why wine was such an early and continuing success is that the grape needs no treatment prior to fermentation. Just squash the grapes and they will ferment into wine. The sugar, water and yeast are all present in exactly the right proportions in ripe grapes.

quote:

So far as the "...The fermented garbage juice from rotting grain is not a fine beverage..." quote is concerned, it might be an opinion or a belief but it is a wrong one, contrary to facts. I know of no beverage that is made from rotting grain and I doubt that there is one. So that opinion, even if honestly, held is wrong.

Richard, I believe Neveu posted that to show that, even with a beverage made of "fermented juice from rotting grain," someone might have the opinion that it's only a matter of opinion that it's not a fine beverage; indeed that naysayer might think it a fine beverage. I think you misunderstood the intent of the post.

I really can't believe that we are debating whether opinions are a good thing. I guess we should all dress alike, live in the same homes, have the same jobs, read the same books, have the same leisure activities, drink the same beer, etc., because opinions are just too dangerous.

quote:

Richard, I believe Neveu posted that to show that, even with a beverage made of "fermented juice from rotting grain," someone might have the opinion that it's only a matter of opinion that it's not a fine beverage; indeed that naysayer might think it a fine beverage. I think you misunderstood the intent of the post. Roll Eyes

Actually I think I understood the post perfectly. What Neveu was trying to say is that it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not beer is a good drink. However, in referring to it as a "drink made from rotting grain" he was factually inaccurate and I deliberately picked on this inaccuracy for devilment.

quote:

I really can't believe that we are debating whether opinions are a good thing. I guess we should all dress alike, live in the same homes, have the same jobs, read the same books, have the same leisure activities, drink the same beer, etc., because opinions are just too dangerous.

If you look you'll see I said that opinions are "dangerous", not that they were good or bad. Cars are very dangerous, but most would agree thay are generally a good thing. But cars, like opinions, can be used for good or for bad, and that is why we need to be careful with them. ASnd I certainly never suggested that everyone should conform with one set of standards - that is a highly dangerous concept and one of the reasons why we are seeing so much trouble right now in the world.

quote:

In any case, my point was that it's a simple exercise to ridicule the form of any art or craft, but it's rarely insightful.

Richard, here's Neveu's explanation on what he meant.

quote:

Richard, here's Neveu's explanation on what he meant.

??

In the quote. I suppose I have to agree with him, even though his point was to argue against my stance. He was saying that while many people can have contrary opinions, it isn't insightful to take an opposite stance, just to do so.

Sorry Kalleh, you've lost me. I don't understand either of your last two posts.

I don't understand

I think that Neveu's quote precedes Kalleh's statement.

I see. Did I do that - except as an example?

By now, I've forgotten the original question!

Oh...yes, opinions! Where I have learned the most about different opinions is on OEDILF. Sometimes a limerick that I find wonderful, others will pick apart like crazy. The opposite happens too.

However, I find diverse opinions very interesting, and I think it would be so boring without differing opinions.

Resurrecting an old favourite...

I know that not all of you waste your time on my blogs so here, tieing in with an old thread AND publicising a friends most unusual blog/art project is a copy of my latest entry.

I have a colleague who, while always striking me as a little odd, has recently astounded me by admitting to a conceptual art project of staggering strangeness. (To me anyway.)
Before I talk about that though let me remind you of my definition of art – "It's art if the person who makes it says it's art." In the case of conceptual art you may have to substitute "does" for "makes".

I invented my own conceptual art form once. Like all of my best inventions it came to me in a flash of genius while drunk. (Let me help you out on interpreting that sentence. Something that is "genius while drunk" doesn't mean that I was drunk and came up with something that was genius, it means that I came up with something that was only genius because I was drunk.)

I found myself walking along the road from the bus stop to my house composing poems in my head. For me this is as inevitable as the drinking that preceded it. When drunk, I always compose poems in my head. When sober again I always have an incredible sense of regret that I can't remember anything about them other than the fact that they were sublimely beautiful and intensely profound.

And then it struck me. Why not do that deliberately? Compose poems entirely in my head. Polish the words until they gleam. Set the lines together like jewels in a Fabergé egg. And then, without ever having written them down, without a single other human soul ever having seen them, forget them completely. I called it "transient poetry". Boy, if only you could see some of those poems. They make the best of my written-down work pale by comparison. At least I think they do. Kind of hard to say as I have, by definition, forgotten them entirely. And the only person who has ever seen such wonders is me.
You'll take my word for it, of course.

Anyway, while I do still mock and deride a lot of conceptual art and art installations, I never do so from the standpoint of claiming that it isn't art. I only ever claim that it's bad art. Even then, I find myself with a sneaking admiration for the sheer bravado of those standing in front of the critics and saying "Hey, what do you think of that, then?"
And of course much of it I find fascinating. Anthony Gormley's Angel of the North I can take or leave but his Event Horizon was one of the spookiest things I've ever seen, all those silent unmoving figures on the rooftops. He probably wouldn't thank me for the comparison but it reminded me of the Cybermen marching up the steps in London in an early Doctor Who, or perhaps the scene from the beginning of 28 Days Later when the hero is walking around a completely deserted London.
Even things like Martin Creed's "Lights Go On… Lights Go Off", in which an empty art gallery is alternately lit up and then plunged into darkness over and over (winner of the Turner Prize in 2001), amuse rather than irritate me, especially for the bemused look the artist had when interviewed later on the news. Along similar lines was the piece by 2007 winner, Mark Wallinger, who – dressed in a bear suit – filmed himself walking around an empty art gallery.

For me these things, though they may well be risible, are nevertheless art. Other people don't even find them risible. Some people think they are terrific – and who am I to say they are wrong? You must make up your own minds about the quality but to refuse them the label "art" is just to show that you think your taste is superior, to give yourself the label "supercilious".

And my friend's conceptual art? (You knew I'd get back to it in the end.) Well you can see it for yourself at sneezecount. He is writing down the time, location and brief description of all of his sneezes. He puts them on a blog. Why? Buggered if I know. Is it an ironic comment on the trivial nature of blogs and blogging? Quite possibly. Is it, perhaps, a comment on our modern predilection to reveal intimate details of ourselves and our lives to complete strangers? I expect so. Is it something that started as a brief in-joke (like the OEDILF) and has taken on a strange and unlikely life of its own? Seems perfectly plausible. Maybe he just likes counting stuff.

Above all, is it art?

And there, I am sure, is where we may have to agree to disagree. If it gets nominated for a Turner Prize, it has my vote.

And now to my poetry bit. It's so tempting to sit here and write a poem in my head. Then forget it. Then tell you that I've finished and invite comment.

But I won't. I'll post a couple of ones that you can actually read.

First of all there is my limerick from the OEDILF, on "abstract art". This, of course, does not actually represent my view. It's in the voice of those critics who think only representational art is art.

abstract art by BobHale

A painting of nothing's not the done thing.
Ev'ry painting should represent something,
But too often, in fact,
That's the one thing that's lacked,
Which is why abstract art's such a rum thing.


Then there is this piece that was written after visiting the Saatchi Gallery. This isn't meant to be critical, simply descriptive. The question posed at the end is for the reader's contemplation. The writer has already made up his mind.

Oil filled rooms,
towers of mice,
victims of
the slice and dice
approach to art.
Schoolgirl smut,
unmade beds,
elephant dung
and bloody heads
and candy hearts.

Spiral spots,
a butcher's blade,
the dismemberments
of death displayed
in separate parts.
Cows, pigs, sheep,
a sense of balance,
raw egos that
outstrip raw talents –
they call this art?

And, on the same theme, a variation in the form of a double dactyl

Artistry-Butchery
Hirst D. and Emin T.
Cut up dead animals
Mess up a bed
Charles Saatchi, a man whose
Money seems limitless,
Unparsimoniously
Parts with the bread.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Opinions are probably the most dangerous things on this Earth.

This is rich, coming from the most opinionated person on the board.

Bob, I am so glad that Richard is in Canada right now.

I liked your poems. Stupid me. I did not know that "rum" can mean "strange" or "odd," though the dictionary did say chiefly British.

[Edited for typo]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Bob, I am so glad that Richard is in Canada right now.

So that's why he hasn't responded.

quote:

I liked you poems. Stupid me. I did not know that "rum" can mean "strange" or "odd," though the dictionary did say chiefly British.

I've never heard or rum being used in that way, though I have heard rummy.

The OED Online lists two meanings of the adjective rum:

• 1. Good, fine, excellent; great. (now rare or obsolete); citations from 1567 through 1857
  
• 2. Odd, strange, queer. Also, bad, spurious.; citations from 1774 through 1977

Strange how the word made an about-face in meaning.

It is a good thing that I didn't go into editing for a living. I just checked my Blog...found an error. Then I came here...another error (see Tinman's quote of my text, though I have now fixed it). The worst of it is, I do proof everything that I post; I just miss the mistakes sometimes.

The Ruth Lilly Poetry Prize for lifetime achievement is awarded each year during Poetry Month. This year Gary Snyder, of California, has won the award. His poem, "The Rabbit" is posted in that link. The words definitely sing, but I know there are those here who wouldn't like it.

Wow! CW has managed to go one further than me in defining art on her blog.

quote:

If the creator or anyone else experiencing the piece feels that it is Art, it is, indeed Art. If, however, you try to make me say it's all Good Art, I'll not give you the pleasure! I reserve my right to declare what I like and what I don't!

Damn, where's Richard when you really want him?

Oh, my. Everything is art then, I suppose. Not good art...but art.

I can't agree with that because then the word "art" has no meaning. On the other hand, I have a hard time articulating what art is. I sure can't say that "Unmade Bed" isn't art when so many think it is.

When Richard comes to Chicago, I am going to hide my computer. You do the same in Columbus, CW.

then the word "art" has no meaning

Words don't have meaning, people give them it.

Correction: Then the word "art" can't be understood by those who have given meaning to it. Is that better?

I posted more about this here on CW's Blog. The more I think about the question of what is art, the more complex (and interesting!) it becomes.

[Edited after some thought.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Everything is art then, I suppose. Not good art...but art.

I would agree with that!

Just a few comments on this delightful thread.. Bob, your whole entry is hysterically funny, thanks for the chuckle-with-redeeming-social-value. I especially love this paragraph & repeat it here as to me it is representative of the best of Brit humor-- erudite yet light, self-mocking and goofily zany:

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
And my friend's conceptual art?...Well you can see it for yourself at sneezecount. He is writing down the time, location and brief description of all of his sneezes. He puts them on a blog. Why? Buggered if I know. Is it an ironic comment on the trivial nature of blogs and blogging? Quite possibly. Is it, perhaps, a comment on our modern predilection to reveal intimate details of ourselves and our lives to complete strangers? I expect so. Is it something that started as a brief in-joke (like the OEDILF) and has taken on a strange and unlikely life of its own? Seems perfectly plausible. Maybe he just likes counting stuff.

Above all, is it art?

Kalleh, thanks for quoting that poem: how amazing the prize for it was $100k?!?! I do love Gary Snyder's poems.. but couldn't help wondering why they chose one that was 40 yrs old. Reading through it, I enjoyed the way it sounded-- it's got a great variable beat that sounds alternatively like the rabbit scurrying & bounding, and the water bubbling and cascading down the hill.

Great imagination, bethree. I didn't get that at all, but I am sure that's what he wanted. I wondered why they chose such an old one, too.

As I said on the chat, if someone can explain to me why Tracey Emins's unmade bed is a work of art whereas my unmade bed is an unmade bed; why John Cage's 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence is music whereas my own similar period of silence is just silence - then I might agree that these are works of art.

If not , then I will stick to my opinion that neither is art in any shape or form - except in the eyes of those sycophants who like to consider that they are better judges of art than the majority of people who think such "art" is simply rubbish.

In the same vein, I've always wondered why a painting of a guy on a horse is a work of art, but an actual guy on a horse is not.

Nicely put neveu.

Richard , there are some things in life, and I know it's a cliché, where if you have to have them explained to you then you are incapable of understanding them.

quote:

sycophants who like to consider that they are better judges of art than the majority of people

That would be as opposed to just being the opinionated who like to consider that they are better judges of art than the majority of people, then.

I definitely shouldn't have brought this up on the chat today, and I am sorry I did. Obviously there are disagreements on this question, just as there are in many aspects of life. If my memory is accurate, we've already closed one thread on the question of what is art. I hope we won't have to do that again.

The Community would benefit if a reiteration could be given here of the Rules of Engagement whose violation brought about the closing of the former "What Is Art ?" thread.

Jerry, these community rules are posted here.

No, it's probably my fault for posting about sneezecount. That's where the current trouble actually started but I thought it was such a terrifically weird idea I couldn't resist blogging about it and as next to no one reads the blog I wanted to share it here.

The Community would benefit if a reiteration could be given here of the Rules of Engagement whose violation brought about the closing of the former "What Is Art ?" thread.

I suggest that we amend the community rules to include an injunction against arguments in threads using the no true Scotsman fallacy (link) or involving essentially contested concepts (link).

I for one-- as a relatively new member of Wordcraft-- would be sad if we chose not to discuss 'what is art' because we have not been successful discussing it in the past. Take heart! Perhaps we yet can learn to temper our more truculent tendencies!

I am not sure at all that I can even propose to suggest a meaning for an exhibit which consists of an unmade bed-- I do have the idea right, don't I? It isn't a painting of an unmade bed? If I have it right-- and it's an actual unmade bed (does it smell of dirty laundry BTW?)-- all I can say is there's a remarkable similarity to John Cage's 4:33 mins of silence, during which one would be horribly tempted to yell out with brutally bad manners into the concert hall: PLAY SOMETHING ALREADY!! I can just imagine a row of Monty-Python-like museum-goers (picture John Cleese in duster & rollercap) gaping at the crumpled coverlet, their scrubbie-calloused fingers on the velvet cord just itching to get in there and shake it out!
* * * *

Since our last discussion on the subject I have paid attention when my local public radio station has done programs about John Cage and his proteges and their current doings. I was surprised to find that I have a far different reaction to his repeated fillips of instrumentation than I did in the '70's. The gap between what real life sounds like and what John Cage's music sounds like has narrowed tremendously in 30+ years, to the point where it sounds like music to me, not just random sound. I hear Cage's music now as an artistic and intelligent musing on the ambient noise of our time.

I'm sure there must be examples of music from the 30's which sounded like a random cacophony to patrons of the day, but which sound to us like jazzy riffs on the sound of traffic and other machinery? Perhaps some who are better educated than I on this subject would know.


But I can't make the leap from there to the unmade bed!

The problem, bethree, is in the dogmatism that sometimes occurs with these discussions...the desire to be "right" and to prove others "wrong." If the discussion stayed on an intellectual level, I'd agree that the debate would be rewarding. At least I haven't felt rewarded by this discussion...just stressed.

And, Bob, this was not your fault. Your post here was insightful and didn't cause any problem. It was my harping about the subject on the chat that was the problem.

quote:

Richard , there are some things in life, and I know it's a cliché, where if you have to have them explained to you then you are incapable of understanding them.

I have to disagree. There are many, many things that need to be explained before you can understand them. Indeed, I would suggest that almost everything has to be explained to a person encountering it for the first time.

However, once one understands the concept of a thing, then developments and varied examples of that thing need less or even no explanation. Once you have seen one motor car and had its purpose and principles explained, then further examples of motor cars will be readily understandable.

I believe that the same principles should apply to art of any kind. Once you have seen your first sculpture and had it explained then other sculptures will make sense. If they don't, as is the case for me of Emin's unmade bed (and yes, bethree, it is just a bed and it is filthy and contains items that few would like to speak about on a polite board) then their claim to be sculpture needs explanation.

I am not going to try to plead my case again, since I will surely be howled down and told that I don't know what I'm talking about - but those who are interested can take a look at the various article about Emin, including Wikipedia's, and decide for themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Emin But don't go there if you're easily shocked by sexual references.

Incidentally, Emins claims that work becomes art when it is defined as such by her. Readers may choose to agree or disagree with that statement. As for myself, I am off to the pub which, I have decided, is a work of art.

art

What a philosopher of art has to say about it (link). I've been reading Danto now for about ten years, and I've always enjoyed his writing and thoughts on "What is art?". (In a different article, Danto suggested that "the status of an artifact as work of art results from the ideas a culture applies to it, rather than its inherent physical or perceptible qualities. Cultural interpretation (an art theory of some kind) is therefore constitutive of an object's arthood.")

Our latest Royal Academician, Tracey Emin, is featured in "The Times" today in their report on the RA's Summer Exhibition.

I will not comment on it other than to say that, if the report is accurate, I myself can conceive of fewer things that could be considered less artistic than the "works of art" exemplified in the second paragraph of the article. Others have the right to disagree. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_ent...s/article4060524.ece

I am inclined to agree with Rachel Campbell-Johnston who, in her commentary on the exhibition, referred to Emin as being "...like a naughty girl who pulls up her skirt to the public to prove that she is wearing no knickers..." http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_ent...s/article4065596.ece

Others must draw their own conclusions.

quote:

I will not comment on it other than to say that, if the report is accurate, I myself can conceive of fewer things that could be considered less artistic than the "works of art" exemplified in the second paragraph of the article.

Hmmm, that's an interesting way of not commenting.

And what about a woman in non-naturalistic colours with both eyes on one side of her nose, a man nailed to a cross with blood dripping from his palms and a vicious crown of thorns piercing his brow, a depiction of hell in which a demon is eating human beings and shitting them out, or a naked woman asleep on a couch with an orgy in the background and a standing skeleton in the foreground?

Or is the problem that photography, automata and video are not art forms? Is it the medium or the message that bothers you?

And why do I join in every time?

P.S. I'll leave the identification of the specific artworks to those who have some knowledge of the arts.

quote:

Hmmm, that's an interesting way of not commenting.

I did write "...I will not comment on it other than to say that..."

quote:

Or is the problem that photography, automata and video are not art forms? Is it the medium or the message that bothers you?

In most cases the message - which often comes over to me as "there's one born every minute - now who can I rip off?"

But avoiding the question...