Elsewhere, Bob Hale commented, "modern art's such a rum thing," and CJ agreed, " I heartily agree with your assessment regarding abstract art. Call me square but I'm a Norman Rockwell man, myself."

Reminds me of a limerick (what else?), not original.

The cross-eyed old painter McNeff
Was color-blind, palsied, and deaf;
When he asked to be touted
The critics all shouted:
"This is art, with a capital F!"

Any other interesting or poetic assessments of art?

I thought there was a ban on political arguments here. Guess not. Anyway, here goes. One of the things that art is about is choice. Usually the artist's, but sometimes the consumer's. If verisimilitude is the sine qua non of art, then of course the Aunt Einie's Instamatic snapshot is better than Rockwell or Rembrandt or Art Frahm. That a painter chose some objects to paint (or a poet to write about) and then presented them in some way that makes you stop, look (listen), and contemplate is more of what art's about than some "accurate" representation of "reality". Abstraction is important in all art, e.g., an artist usually filters out a lot of reality when painting a scene. Abstract expressionist simply chose to concentrate on abstraction, just as Vermeer chose to study and paint light. It's not a question, as to which it is so often reduced, of whether Pollack or Rothko is or isn't art, but rather is it good. Here we leave behind ontology and enter into aesthetics. And as we all know, chacun a son gout. BTW, I love both Vermeer and Rothko.

Well if we're discussing art...

As the person quoted at the top of this thread I have to point out that the "modern art's such a rum thing" was part of a limerick and may or may not have actually expressed my genuine view on the subject.

In fact I believe - as I've said elsewhere - that modern art falls into three categories; good, bad and huh?

I like quite a lot of modern art and I dislike about as much. In the final "huh" category comes things like the Turner prize winner (I'm too lazy and too drunk to check the artist's name) which consisted of lights going on and off in an otherwise empty gallery. I admire the sheer cheek (I can't spell "hutzpah" which is the better word) of it without in any way considering it art. In his defense the artist seemed bemused when he won the prize with something he clearly intended as taking the piss.

For me art needs one of two things, preferably both - some sign that some thought has gone into it and some sign that some effort has gone into it. Far too much modern art seems to have been dreamed up in two minutes and constructed in five. This is why I dislike Damien Hurst. You get the impression that one day he thought "I know I'll slice up a cow" and the next day he bought a cow and a chain saw. It isn't art - to me anyway - it's self indulgent twoddle. As for Tracy Emmin, please don't get me started.

On the other hand there are many modern artists I do like and for the dilligent researcher comments about them can be found scattered throughout the board.
Right now I'm a little too tired (tired as a newt in fact) to put down the details.

BobHale, I'd have to agree with you and also with Ted Sturgeon. Mine was a knee-jerk reaction to an oftentimes expressed anti-everything-that's-come-about-since-I-hit-puberty-ism usually grunted by some old coot (tm). Not that I ain't been the latter or haven't been guilty of the former.

I hadn't heard of Tracey Emmin's (and I suppose you're referring to) Unmade Bed, which won the Turner Prize. I sorta get it, I just don't think it's very good and it doesn't have much to say. But I don't know what other works it was up against. Damien Hirst I don't know from a load of hay, but what I saw of his online when I googled seemed about par for mediocre art. There was also a lot of mediocre and bad art produced before the 19th century. So much of the reaction to art has little to do with aesthetics and more to do with social grooming, the economics of investing, and such like. Hope you get to rest your newt.

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

I love some of the modern art, especially the abstract ones with the bright colors. However, there are some that are just plain pitiful, in my opinion. There is a huge, wall-sized, painting in the Art Institute that I just don't understand. It is all black! I don't get it.

What I have noticed about "art" (and I include all forms of art in this, including music) is that it depends on the person presenting it.

If the presenter has established artistic credentials, then his or her submissions (unmade beds, flickering flourescent tubes, 4 minutes of silence) are accepted by some (although not by me) as being genuine artistic expression.

However, were I to submit a musical composition comprising nothing but silence or a fickering flourescent tube as a Turner Prize contender, then I know exactly where I would get. Nowhere. Because I'm not a "famous" artist

Like the emperor and his invisible new suit, it needs the status of the "arist" and the gullibility of the crowd for such rubbish to be considered art.

And please don't say that it was, for example, Tracey Emin's imagination that allowed her to conceive of the idea of an unmade bed as being art that is the real talent; I can think of plenty of original pieces of rubbish that are just as "artistic".

Indeed, I've just made one completely original item of abstact art - called "The world in turmoil" and I am happy to submit it to any judge of modern art - for a price, of course!

"art"

Well, this is the sort of thing I was on about. Of course, you're wrong, but I'll just leave it and let us disagree. Works for me. Ciao.

Well, I am not sure what (or even who) jheem disagrees with, but that's not uncommon for me with either him or Hab.

However, I do have to disagree with Richard. To become a great artist means that people have admired and bought the work; that is, they are enamored with it. That takes talent. Now, as with anything, you or I might not agree with particular artistic presentations, but we surely respect the artist and those who admire that art.

I am sure there is something quite aesthetic about that all-black, wall-sized painting that is in the Chicago Art Institute...I just don't appreciate it. It may be that I am ignorant about that kind of art, or maybe I just don't like that type of art. It makes no differnce.

After all, there are people who don't like Gilbert and Sullivan (how...is beyond me!), Alice in Wonderland (how...is beyond Bob!), cask conditioned beer (how...is beyond Richard), and the word "schadenfreude" (how...is beyond jheem!).

Quote "...To become a great artist means that people have admired and bought the work; that is, they are enamored with it. That takes talent...."

I agree in part with the first sentence - people will have bought the work or works. But I disagree with the second if by talent you mean talent of an artistic nature.

A talent to deceive, maybe. But there was not, is not and never will be any artistic merit in an unmade bed or a flickering flourescent lamp. If there were, then about a hundred million US homes would contain works of great art!

Well, I am not sure what (or even who) jheem disagrees with, but that's not uncommon for me with either him or Hab.

That's because jheem's a disagreeable old harumph. (Say, it's fun talking about yourself in the third person; Oh-oh.)

To become a great artist means ...

Well, there's the art, the artist, and the consumer, at least. One could define art as what artists produce, but that just shunts the meaning of art to people who can be called artists. My problem with how art is defined is with people who say that art that they find aesthetically displeasing is not art. Saying that you dislike G&S is one kind of statement about art, but saying that works of G&S are not art is an entirely different kind of statement, and not about art, but about semantics or lexicography. G&S were artists not because enough people said they were, but because they somehow fulfill some or all of the criteria for being judged an artist, (within an historical context, of course.) For me art is tied up with what Heidegger called techne 'craft, art' and Aristotle poesis 'making, doing'.

A talent to deceive, maybe. But there was not, is not and never will be any artistic merit in an unmade bed or a flickering flourescent lamp. If there were, then about a hundred million US homes would contain works of great art!

So, American Budweiser is not only beer but a great one. How could all those fans be wrong. There's a problem with going to the masses for definitions of what words mean, because that leads you into accepting infer as meaning the same as imply, etc. Nope, doesn't work for me or you. Saying some work of art is not a work of art means that the person doing the uttering has a problem with linguistics and not with aesthetics. I looked at Tracy Emin's Unmade Bed, and it looked like art to me, just not very good art, but then I've seen some classical paintings that I didn't think were very good either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jheem:
I looked at Tracy Emin's _Unmade Bed_, and it looked like art to me, just not very good art, but then I've seen some classical paintings that I didn't think were very good either.

---

(I distinctly remember saying "Don't get me started on Tracey Emmin")

I too looked at Tracey Emmin's "My Bed" (which inspite of popular myth is the actual title) and applied my two tests to decide if it's art.

It sort of passes the "has any effort gone into it" test but sadly the effort involved is that of the installation team under the supervision of Ms Emmin. It almost certainly took quite a time to set up but that's not the kind of effort I meant. By that criterion the end result of the six hours exam marking I have to do tomorrow would be counted art. Still I cannot deny that some effort of some description was involved.

Did it look as if some thought had gone into it? Sadly this is where it falls down because quite frankly it didn't. No matter how I tried I couldn't think of any way that the whole conception of the piece could have taken more than about ten seconds.

I am willing to accept jheem's contention though that it might be art but just very bad art.

Lest anyone thinks I have a disliking for all modern art let me compare for a moment "unfinished gallery" by Peter Fischli and David Weiss which was at the Tate Modern. I don't know if it's still there as I haven't been in a while but it was easy to overlook it altogether as what it apeared to be was exactly what the title suggests, a gallery in which there were no exhibits but the decorators had been in leaving tools, cups of half drunk coffee, half eaten lunches, paint brushes and buckets and all sorts just lying around.
The thing about it is though is that all is not as it seems. A superficial glance shows it as described but a closer glance shows that none of it is real. The whole thing is a sculpture with every item down to the Coke can on the table and the role of duct tape is sculpted and from polyurethane and meticulously painted to look exactly like the real thing.

Any effort ? Incredible amounts.
Any thought ? I'd say so. The whole design, the whole structure and the original concept all seem to have required a great deal of thought. Would it have been the same if they had just assembled the real objects ? No I don't think so. Then it would have been a variation on "My Bed".*

Similarly I saw in The Chicago Art Institute an exhibition by Gerhardt Richter whose paintings of massively blown up bad photographs aare perfectly crafted. That they are perfectly crafted paintings of what would be stunningly bad photographs does not reduce their artistic merit in any way.

So, if in doubt apply my two question test.

And now gentlemen if we can all retire to neutral corners...

... and please, please don't get me onto what I think of Sarah Lucas...



* I tried and failed to google an image of this work. You'll just have to imagine it.

Quote "...I looked at Tracy Emin's Unmade Bed, and it looked like art to me,..."

Well, it looked like an unmade bed to me. How can her unmade bed be art and mine not art? And how about John Cage's 4.32? How can John Cage's silence be art and mine not?

Rubbish, balderdash, nonsense. Modern art can be artistic even if one might not like it; unmade beds and periods of silence - to say nothing of flickering lamps - cannot be artistic since none of them is art.

Defending the indefensible.

Just for the crack I'll have a go at explaining why her bed could be considered art while yours shouldn't.

Your bed is, I presume, unmade and untidy by accident. The sheets are falling on the floor where gravity insists that they fall, your empty Budweiser cans (just kidding!) piled in random crumpled mountains where your lack of aim tossed them, your magazine open at the page it fell to as you dozed while reading.

Her bed is, I presume, unmade and untidy by design. The sheets lie where she has intentionally arranged them, her empty wine bottles have been deliberately placed wherever it is they are standing, her magazine is open at a chosen page.

I'm not sure I actually buy any of that but that would certainly be one way of justifying the use of the word "art".

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

Richard, could your opinions on art possibly be because you, personally, love music, but you don't like art?

Truly, I don't mean to be picking on Richard. It is just that I know Richard fairly well, having met him a few times, and we e-mail each other frequently. I happen to know he doesn't like art, which I completely respect. However, I do love art, as do many people. Art is different to each person. For heaven's sake, it is just plain ridiculous to say "rubbish, balderdash, nonsense" about what some admire as art, just because you don't. I might say (though, I assure you, I don't!) that Beethoven is "rubbish." Not that I compare Beethoven to an unmade bed, but one does have to respect individual differences.

Actually I do like art (as in pictures, painting and the like) although not so strongly as does Kalleh. However, I get a great deal of enjoyment from looking at good paintings.

My point remains, though (and I speak as a music-lover) that the musical "art" of John Cage (and others such as Stockhausen) is not worthy of that description.

The question I posed (and which has not been answered) is why a piece of "music" comprising nothing but four and a half minutes of complete silence is art (when put forward as such by an established composer) but if not art when I sit in silence in front of my own piano?

And the same question applies to the flickering flourescent light piece of "art" that won the Turner prize recently. I have that same artistic depiction in my shed right now - enhaced by my artistic rusty freezer and my artistic tea chest full of old cables.

I still say rubbish, balderdash, nonsense and a pox on those who support such rubbish!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

Quote "...I'm not sure I actually buy any of that but that would certainly be one way of justifying the use of the word "art"...."

I think what this really proves is that, if one is sufficiently good at it, one can justify anything!

Ask George Bush!

The question I posed (and which has not been answered) is why a piece of "music" comprising nothing but four and a half minutes of complete silence is art (when put forward as such by an established composer) but if not art when I sit in silence in front of my own piano?

Well Cage was a musician, and he composed 4'33" in 1952. There is a score and the piece is for any instrument or combination of instruments thereof. It has been performed and recorded. Sounds like music to me. And music by definition is art. Art is art even if RE or the Queen of England does not like it. There's simply tons of art that I don't like. Calling something art is not supporting it. It's using language in a certain way. Stockhausen is a composer, too. I've listened to many of his pieces. Some I like, some not, but saying that his work is not art is like saying that Maggie Thatcher or Neville Chamberlain were not prime ministers because I did not like what it was they did when they were living at 10 Downing Street.

I never said it wasn't art if you sat at your piano quitely not playing. One thing that would make it art is if you told some folks that you had composed a new piece of music and if they'd like to hear they should come round to your flat, etc. Now, of course, somebody might say that your piece was similar to 4'33" and might ask you if you're familiar with the music of John Cage, etc. So, in this way, there's not much difference between you and John Cage, except that Cage was an internationally renowned composer who has quite an extended body of work. You, too, may have composed dozens or grosses of musical pieces, but if I and the rest of the world haven't heard of you and your works aren't available, it just means you're an unknown composer and not that you are not a composer. Being known or unknown doesn't really affect whether you're a good artist or not, but it is possible, and many might conclude, however wrongly, that you were not. As I wrote earlier in this thread, there's a lot of societal and economic factors in art, too.

As for your definition of art, I can only say "nonsense."

Quote "...As for your definition of art, I can only say "nonsense." ..."

I wasn't aware that I had defined, or even tried to define art, although I have said what I think is not art - and 4.33 is not art.

For those of you who are unaware of the work - it is a score, containing musical notations, but no notes. In other words, 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence.

John Cage was a composer of some distinction and thus people accepted that 4.33 is music since it was a musician who gave this non-composition its name. That it has a score doesn't make it music by any definition I have ever seen.

Had I tried to pass off a period of total silence as music I would have been laughed at since I am not a well-known composer.

The "work" would be the same and my own definition of any work of art would include what it is and under what cirsumstances it is being aired. My definition would not include who created it.

Like and dislike does not come into my definition. I like silence very much, but that doesn't make it art. I don't care for Picasso's later work but I can see why it is art.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
I don't care for Picasso's later work but I can see why it is art.

---

Perhaps, just to give us an insight into your thinking, you can explain for us what makes this work, which you admit you don't like, into art. If we can understand what you do think of as "art" we might be a step down the road towards understanding what you think of as "not art".

The problem, I think, is coming from trying to create an artificial art/not art split.

To take a different form let's consider the short story. When is it art and when not ?

Clearly a computer generated series of random letters of the requisite length wouldn't be considered by many to be art. (Though you might consider it part of a programmer's art to produce that.)
Clearly a short story by, for example, Somerset Maugham would.
What about Stephen King?
What about me ?
What about a short story written by a six year old in her first writing class?

What about a list of random letters created not by a computer but by me?
What about random words?
What about a cut and paste approach to sentences?

It isn't a black and white decision. You may be able to answer for yourself with yes or no to each of the above questions but that doesn't mean that someone else will have the same opinion.

This is where the problem is.

Do you for examples consider the Beano* to be art ?
If you do then what about graffiti or doodling or childish drawings of genitalia on lavatory walls - if you don't then what about individual original drawings from it framed and hung on a wall?

It's impossible to set an arbitrary cut off and say everything this side of the line is art and everything that side isn't.

*a British children's comic.

Quote "...It's impossible to set an arbitrary cut off and say everything this side of the line is art and everything that side isn't...."

Clearly there will be cases which are borderline. Picasso's later work is art to my mind since it show evidence of technique and thnking. That he decided to portray faces in such a way as to make more than one dimension visible might be a distortion that some don't care for. But thought, talent and technique have all been involved.


Tracy Emmin's unmade bed required no thought, no technique and no talent. Neither did the other artistic endevours I have mentioned.

That a person is capable of great artistic expression does not mean that he or she always expresses it. As I said, the person should not be part of the definition. If Tracey Emmin's unmade bed is art then anyone's unmade bed is art.

I won't go through all your examples although the graffiti example in germane. A pornographic graffito is a pronographic graffito whether drawn by John Lennon and exhibited, or by Joe Soap and on a lavatory wall.

And the Beano (or its sister, Dandy)? I consider that to be art of a sort; certainly the work exhibits considerable talent. It's not Turner or Constable but it's far more deserving of the name art than is a flickering flourescent lamp or 4 minutes of silence.

And, by the way, nobody has taken me up on my offer of a completely new piece of art - the world upsidedown - that I have created. To you, just £50,000 or I'll take $80,000.

And why not? Because I am not an "artist" - I'm just a person with the same amount of talent as Tracey Emmin!

Had I tried to pass off a period of total silence as music I would have been laughed at since I am not a well-known composer.

I addressed this before. If you tried to pass off a 4'33"-like piece as your own, just as if I tried to pass off The Nightwatch as my own, you'd be laughed at, but it has nothing to do with your fame, but rather your marketing or lack of knowledge about art history.

Since Cage intended 4'33" as a composition, and since, at least to me and others, he seems to have worked on it and put some thought into it, I'm willing to accept it as art.

And why not? Because I am not an "artist" - I'm just a person with the same amount of talent as Tracey Emmin!

But I never said you weren't an artist. Maybe you did, but I wasn't there if that happened. Since she destroyed most of her early work, done presumably when she was at the Royal College of Art and before her more controversial works, it would be difficult for me to see how much "talent" she had. But, since she is described as an artist, teaches art, and has been exhibited, I willing to believe she is an artist, in that she produces works intended by her and described by others as art. RE I do know as a consultant and a beer afficiando who also posts on these forums about language and other things. Now, if RE wishes to be an artist, I suggest he start doing some of things that artists do, and of course he can produce whatever kind of art he wants to. Of course, then I and other consumers and critics of art can start decided just whether he's a good artist or a bad one.

It sort of passes the "has any effort gone into it" test ... Did it look as if some thought had gone into it? Sadly this is where it falls down because quite frankly it didn't.

I don't know, she had to decide which sheets and other bedclothes to use, and for all we know she may have agonized over whether the used condoms were real or if she just bought some and squirted some hand lotion into them before placing them. And the exhibition workers are presumably following her instructions, even if those are go down to the local Woolworth's and buy some sheets and pillows and a bed, etc. (It always shocked me that the great painters, e.g., Rembrandt or Titian, used galleys of underpaid apprentices to do the drudgework. Seems like an historical thang to me.)

In the end, I wouldn't buy it, but I wouldn't mind having a copy of James Broughton's The Bed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jheem:
It sort of passes the "has any effort gone into it" test ... Did it look as if some thought had gone into it? Sadly this is where it falls down because quite frankly it didn't.

I don't know, she had to decide which sheets and other bedclothes to use, and for all we know she may have agonized over whether the used condoms were real...

---

I dare say, but that's not what I said.
I said it didn't look as if any thought had gone into it.

I said it didn't look as if any thought had gone into it.

Ah, well, sorry for the confusion. Where's the apparent thought (or what is the apparent thought) in Van Gogh's Pair of Shoes or Rembrandt's The French Bed? Seems there's a bunch of art lying around in museums and such that do not appear to have any thought gone into them. But I think I see what you're on about, and I'd have to say that Emin's My Bed, qua conceptual art, has little conceptual substance to it, and that's one of the reasons why I don't care much for it.

Quote "...Now, if RE wishes to be an artist, I suggest he start doing some of things that artists do,..."

Now we're getting down to it! What they do (or many of them) is spend a great deal of time in marketing themselves. Nothing to do with a talent for art but everything to do with a talent for self-promotion!

There's a lot of that around - but it still doesn't necessarily mean that what they produce is art - no matter what critics and consumers might say.

And I've already told you - I have this very artistic piece just waiting to be assessed by one whose job it is to spend thousands of pounds on a thing, simply because nobody has though of it before. (And no, it's not Richard English's 4' 32", after the style of John Cage!)

Quote "...I said it didn't look as if any thought had gone into it. ..."

Quite so. And I'm willing to bet that the only thought that went into it was how she could con the judges into accepting it as a work of art!

Now we're getting down to it! What they do (or many of them) is spend a great deal of time in marketing themselves. Nothing to do with a talent for art but everything to do with a talent for self-promotion!

I never said I agreed with her vocation or how she marketed herself. In both she's seemed sucessful. But this is a different argument. Whether her art is any good, or whether she has convinced people (in a position) of whether her art is good. As for Richard English's 4'32", send me the score or a recording of a performance and I'll judge it for you. Might even buy it, if it's cheap enough. Send your CV also, I might be able to represent you in the States if you're any good. I never said you can't be an artist. If you think you can do as well or better than Cage or Emin, then it shouldn't be me or any other philistines sans taste who should hold you back.

Quite so. And I'm willing to bet that the only thought that went into it was how she could con the judges into accepting it as a work of art!

So now we know that it's not the appearance of thought behind the piece, but what that thought is. I believe this is called critical thinking. In other words, you disagree with TE because of her vocation and the thought behind her art. Thanks for the clarification.

Quote "...As for Richard English's 4'32", send me the score or a recording of a performance and I'll judge it for you..."

As I said, that's not what it is.

But you're on. I'll send you an analysis of the ccritical thinking behind the work. It's a figure, not a painting or piece of music.

But nothing I do is cheap...!

But nothing I do is cheap...!

Ah well then, you're probably out of my art investment bracket. Send away. Sorry to assume it was a composition.

B.H. asked i today's chat if I was in on the What is Art dust-up (I think that was his term) and I didn't know what he was referring to. I haven't been on this thread recently but, My, we're certainly getting into it here!

I'd like to think that we can all come to the general agreement that the OEDILF is art and that everything else is not. It's a simple as that.

Punch up was the term I used but dust-up will do just as well.

And incidentally I think all you new guys should also check out the rest of the site.
The OEDILF is a magnificent venture but it's not ALL we're about you know. There's lots of other lovely language stuff just waiting for your input.

I have no problem with calling the OEDILF art. Now I better go find that language stuff ...