What isn't "art?"

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I don't think it's so much a question of whether or not a reproduction of an original is art, because many originals could never see the light of day and enjoyed by many if they weren't reproduced in some way. A good sound recording of a brilliant rendition of a great piece of music doesn't make it any less art than listening to a live performance. It maybe doesn't have the same visceral impact or sentimental meaning for the listener who was lucky enough to attend the concert, but it still retains the creative greatness of all of the contributors. As far as Mr. Kincade is concerned, the thing I was implying was formulaeic about his work is that they all look pretty much the same. He's a one-trick pony. You've seen one, you've seen them all and in my opinion, none are very good. While a reproduction poster of of Van Gogh's "Starry Night" might seem (to some) to be a cheesy thing to hang on the wall, it is still a representation of a way of seeing that was unique to the artist and therefore conveys some amount of his genius. The same might be said for a well printed calendar of Ansel's work or Weston's or whoever. As far as multiple prints from a digital file or a negative are concerned, if the artist made these or closely supervised their making and signed each one, that should really only affect their monetary value, not their intrinsic value as art. These are not reproductions in the same way a poster or calendar (or offset reproductions, dabbed with specks of paint by a stranger in any of 100 cities) are. Each one is the equal to the original one, just like a serograph or a lithograph. Number them, sign them and sell them as originals. When the edition is gone, on to the next. Once again, another opinion.

[John Kasaian]

A couple of years ago I had a student who had fled Julliard and joined the Navy, which is how he ended up in my night class at a naval air station in the middle of Nowhere, CA. He was an interesting fellow and during a unit on art, he came up with a definition which I thought was pretty neat and certainly well thought out. Unfortunately I forgot his definition, but I was reminded of him the last time my informal coffee house philosphy group met. We've been slogging through the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas for the last six months and are nowhere near the end of the tunnel. Fascinating stuff, really---but what reminded me of that young sailor was Aquinas' accepting that some things cannot be defined other than by defining what something is not(God, in the Summa) and how, I'm wondering, that maybe that can be a way of defining "art"---by defining what it is "not" instead of attempting to define what it "is." The reason for my curiosity about this comes from what I've discovered about my own enjoyment of a photograph and how it is not really based on "creativity" but rather a recording of a time past. Even with most of the abstracts I've enjoyed looking at, I find that what makes for a "successful" image(to my mind, anyway) is not the result of some contrivance, but rather from some acute observation of some detail---record if you will---of some "thing" that had been photographed(past tense) This seems to me to be the opposite of what many espouse in those dreaded "artist's statements" I keep seeing at exhibitions.

OK theres got to be a bunch of art institute graduates ready to jump on me for asking this, but here it goes anyway: Can you give me a definition for what "isn't" Art? At least from the photographic standpoint so as not to be too OT?

[Scott Fleming]

To ask, "What is art?" is to ask, "What is man?"

We will ever ask both questions.

[domenico Foschi]

what is art?
What is God?
Why are we in this world ?
These are questions whose answers resemble the action to catch eels.
Once we think we have them in our hand , they slip away.
Once we think we have the answer , out of the blue other answers appear in our mind,equally seemingly valid.

[Mark Sawyer]

Art is defined by itself. Art is that which is produced to be art.

If you accidentally drop a plate of spaghetti on the flag, it is not art. If you drop it purposefully to create art, it is art. Maybe not good art, maybe not profound art, but art. If you walk down the street and see a flag that someone else accidentally dropped a plate of spaghetti on and you pick it up and put it in a gallery, it becomes found art.

If someone else had bought the shovel, it wouldn't have been DuChamp's art... until DuChamp told someone else to do it. Then that person would have been part of DuCamp's artistic process.

A book of photographs is art if the photographer intended it to be. It may be mass-produced, non-unique art, but it's still art. An original signed print may be more valuable art, but both are still art.

Your life can be art, if you decide to make it that.

I've known a lot of people who produced art, but very few I've considered artists.

On the other hand, there's the definition of the pressman: if it ain't text, it's art.

[paulr]

"If you accidentally drop a plate of spaghetti on the flag, it is not art. If you drop it purposefully to create art, it is art. Maybe not good art, maybe not profound art, but art. If you walk down the street and see a flag that someone else accidentally dropped a plate of spaghetti on and you pick it up and put it in a gallery, it becomes found art."

However, there's a long-standing tradition of found art. Which is, something not originally intended to be art, but seen by someone as having artistic potential, and made art through recontextualizing. So what about that Duchamps shovel? It was made by someone else, not as art. All he did was give it a new context. Which is to say, he asked us to look at it, to judge it, to ponder it, AS art. Another example: what about all the photographs by the ubiquitous "anon." that John Szarkowski curated into the collection at MoMA? In a sense he was doing the same thing, although in a more modest way, since he was not claiming authorship.

Again, determining what is art, at least at this point in time with the entire 20th century behind us, is quite easy. Anything defined as art through context, either by its maker, its viewer, or by someone else, is art. This opens it to beeing seen as art, and therefore to being judged as art, which, as in the case of your spaghetti-soaked flag, not necesarily a good thing. The real question, the real can of worms, lies in what we do when we judge something as art. What standards do we bring to it? THIS is the topic worthy of fistfights. But the what is/isn't art issue is long obsolete.

[David R Munson]

To me:



Art is not what is not felt.<br />
Art is not a matter of what other people tell me is or is not art.<br />
Art is not anything that can be nailed down.



To you: <br />
(That's your decision)

[Mark Sawyer]

Paulr-

The question is not what is art; that's like asking what is food. A rancid can of Alpo is food if you eat it. It's just as much food as a fine filet mignon or an expertly smoked rack of ribs. But just because it's defined as food doesn't mean it doesn't suck as food.

The crappiest piece of art ever made is still art. It's just the crappiest piece of art ever made. When we bring the standards in, we start discussing the quality, content, craft, concept, controversy, pedigree, tradition, innovation... so many things, (even the status of monetary value for many, if not most, collectors.)

There's the source of the fistfights; I swear some of the art I see competes with that rancid can of Alpo for which sucks the most...

Then again, I like the quote of one critic, when asked whether some strange thing was art, when he replied, "well, it isn't not art..."

[paulr]

Mark, you're reiterating exactly what I've been saying.

The reason this issue confuses so many people is that the definitions of art have gone through several revisions since classical times, but have never managed a clean break--so what we think art is tends to carry baggage from definitions that are 150 years old, 250 years old, 400 years old, and 2000 years old. Many of these definitions are incompatible with each other, and have as much to do with shifts in culture, philosophy, and language as they have to do with art itself.

At any rate, it's very problematic to have a definition of something that has a level of quality built into it. A defintion should have to do with innate characteristics. A bad chair, one that's ugly and uncomfortable, is still a chair. A great chair is also still a chair; it does not magically become "art" by being great. A wooden crate can become a chair--not by being an especially good crate, but by being put into a different context. Just as that chair can become art (like the Eames chairs displayed in museum design departments). And again, just as that snow shovel became art (not to belabor the shovel example).

This idea that something becomes art by being a great example of something else goes back to Aristotle's Aesthetics, but was a pretty much obsolete idea by the time Heidegger came along and analized our modern relationship with art objects. Aristotle's ideas would not be compatible with any of the modern or contemporary museum collections that I've seen.

[Mark Sawyer]

No, Paul, you're reiterating what I say before I say it. But I did make a couple of negatives a few days ago which might meet the criteria of the original thread, "what isn't art."

[Ralph Barker]

"Can you give me a definition for what "isn't" Art? "

Yes. Nothing, depending on one's perspective. Although, come to think of it, the absence of anything might be an art form in itself. ;-)

[robert_4927]

A lot of hard and well thought out definitions that basically say what Ralph Barker said in a very simple one sentence answer. It is all about perspective.

[chris jordan]

For me it's a continuum. At the left end is work done by photographers who are striving to be self-aware, fully present, and in that state are facing honestly what they see as important in the world and in their lives. They take the risk of finding out what they care about, and express it despite all the costs and risks, pushing themself to achieve the highest degree of expressive integrity and excellence that they are capable of. This kind of work is driven from the interior; it is a labor of love that has no agenda other than the doing of it.

On the right end of the continuum is commercial work that is driven by forces external to the photographer-- what others want, what the photographer believes others want, what the "market" demands, what the photographer is comfortable doing because of fear of external rejection if they do something riskier, what their stock agency says will sell, what they think will sell, what does sell, what their wife says will sell, etc.

The further it gets along the right side, the more diluted it becomes and the less it looks like art; the further it gets along the left side, the more pure of a personal expression it is from that one photographer, and hence the more it looks like art. For me great art is the pure and undiluted realization of a Self, executed into tangible form. Anything that dilutes the effort puts the work further to the right on the continuum.

But then this continuum is a small part of a bigger continuum too: Photography and other artforms on the left, and being a lawyer or corporate executive on the right. In that respect we photographers are all artists. So what isn't art? Legal briefs and corporate minutes are DEFINITELY not art!!

~cj

[julian_4860]

My two fave philosophers for this are Gadamer and Adorno ('relevance of the beautiful' and 'aesthetic theory'). You'll hear a lot about art has to be 'authentic' - which leaves another problem of defining authenticity, it must resist nostalgia, commodification (I thought of this at the weekend seeing a show of almost identical images that was nicely wrapped up for any viewer to be spoon fed). Adorno nicely describes 'authentic language' in art, one aspect of this means that Ansel may have shot 'art', but shooting using Ansel's language now, out of its original time frame isn't (because it then becomes 'mere' nostalgia i.e. lacks authenticity). Gadamer talks about what it is like to view art, a sense of timelessness etc. They both agree that 'enjoyment' has little to do with art too - 'threnody for victims of hirsohima' ain't enjoyable but it sure is art

[domenico Foschi]

Any creative endeavor that doesn't come out from the maker's inner core can be defined as not art.

[Graeme Hird]

If I may paraphrase Chris Jordan, I believe art is the skillful expression of one's creative thoughts without inhibition.

What is not art? Formulaic repetition without consideration or inclusion of personal expression.

However, I could be wrong ....

[neil poulsen]

I'll bet there are legal briefs out there that, to other lawyers, are art.

I know it's simplistic, but I tend to like the following: "If it works, it's art."

I recall on the video taped recording of "Horowitz, The Last Romantic." Horowitz was just getting started, and he commented that his playing was like "cardboard". I noticed, because I've used the same expression. Cardboard, stiff and tasteless.

To me, the best of art transcends the medium and takes on a life of it's own. The initial medium, a photograph, a soprano voice, or a statue isn't nearly so important as the collection of ideas or the meaning that has been produced.

[JohanHB]

Hi John,

An interesting site with some equally intriquing philosophies on art... and photography!

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Best_of_ARC/best1.asp?msg=92&forumID=18

My answer to your question; Anything that is not known to human beings, or hasn't been

invented yet isn't art, IMHO.

[JohanHB]

...but then again as Ralph already said, I must agree, contrary to my earlier post, the idea of nothingness is Art in itself.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

"Can you give me a definition for what "isn't" Art?"

Perhaps it's anything by Thomas Kinkade? That would certainly be in keeping with Graeme Hird's definition "Formulaic repetition without consideration or inclusion of personal expression".

Just another opinion.

[Michael Veit]

"a definition for what "isn't" Art"

Art isn't functional. Any design decision, even of a "purely functional" object, which isn't dictated by that function, is an artistic one (the choice of John Deere Co. to paint its tractors green is an artistic choice.) By this definition, almost everything has an artistic component. The conscious work of art is one whose non-functional components overwhelm the functional ones -- to the point where functionality takes a "hit" or has no pretense of even being served.

[John Kasaian]

WOW! Lots of interesting ideas. I don't see how Domenico's idea that art comes out from the maker's inner core jives with Chris Jordan and Johan's view that nothingness can be/is art. The maker is composed of matter and is constantly in motion. Whatever comes from the maker's core then is also both matter and motion, right? Even if it is a spoken word or thought, some electrons have to be jumpin' the in the grey matter. Nothingness then, can't be "made," not by any human being I know of anyway, and if we accept Domenico's view that art comes from the inner core of the maker, nothingness couldn't be art., could it?

The idea that nothingness can be art does fit in with the post-modernist view of the world, which leads me to speculate that post modernism, like most movements, is a fad whose legitimacy will be justified by history, like anasazi rock drawings(justified) or not(Milli Vanelli)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[Calamity Jane]

It ISN'T art if:

1 - Somebody has to explain it to me

2 - If it's paid for with my tax dollars and the only emotions it invokes is anger and puzzlement

3 - If it doesn't invoke some type of feeling or emotion.

. . . but then what do I know? I'm just a dumb ol' farm girl......

[John Cook]

John,

In my view, the definition of what makes good art, like the definition of what makes good literature, is not so lofty as those gifted in oral flatulence would make it out.

I am reminded of the story of the college English literature professor who, having a mountain of paperwork to catch up on, gave his class a busy-work assignment to free up some teaching time.

He told the students to sit at their desks and write a short story which contained the literary elements of (1) religion, (2) royalty, (3) sex, and (4) mystery. Surely, a story containing all four of those plot elements would require most of the afternoon for his students to compose.

But the professor no sooner sat down to do his paperwork, but an eager student was at his desk with a finished story. The professor incredulously asked the student how he could possibly write a story which contained religion, royalty, sex and mystery in less than five minutes.

The student handed him his paper, on which there was but one sentence: “Oh My God” said the princess, “I’m pregnant. I wonder who dunnit!”

[paulr]

"What is art" and "What isn't art" are the wrong questions.

We know from the last hundred years of critical practice that "what is art" (and by extension, "what isn't art") are determined purely by context: context of presentation, context of understanding, or a combination of both.

As an example, my dirty sock, sitting in my laundry basket is not art. Why? because I did not intend for it to be art, and so I did not present it as art, and so, if you came into my closet and looked at it, there would be nothing suggesting to you to look at it as art. So you will likely accept it as a mere sock, and will likely suppress any urges to unleash your critical apparatus or your ability to look deeply at it. If, on the other hand, I submit that sock in a lucite box to the curator of sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art and (for whatever reason) she acquires it and displays it, my dirty sock WILL be art. Because it has been named art by its context (which in this case is a complex amalgam of its presentation, its location, and all the values that we've been taught to associate with these things).

The catch is, none of this makes my sock GOOD art. In fact, my sock may turn out to much emptier and to have much less worth as art than it did as a sock. The designation of "art" has NOTHING to do with something being good or not. As we all know, there is plenty of bad art. It simply doesn't work to have a definition of something that has relative quality as an implicit part. Furniture can be good or bad; tools can be good or bad; art can be good or bad. The idea that something becomes art by being especially fine represents pre-modern ideas of what art means (please note that ideas of art have evolved constantly since classical times; nothing like our current art museum collections would have made sense to anyone even a hundred and fifty years ago).

So, if anything can be be art depending on its context, the real questions are: what makes art good? What makes art bad? Why was my sock a perfectly good sock when I wore it last week, but then such an attrocity in the opinion of the critic who saw it at MoMA the next week? Conversely, why did my grandmother like the snapshot of my niece with cake all over her face, but not my landscape photograph of an empty lot in Brooklyn, while John Szarkowski liked the landscape (but I somehow knew better than to show him the snapshot)?

I'm not going to try to answer these questions--just want to point out they are the real ones I believe people are trying to grapple with.

[Bruce Wehman]

Anyone doing anything is not art. A baby screaming its head off – however self expressive – is not art. Self-expression, in itself, is not art. Originality and vision alone will not produce art – mental institutions are full of people who have those in abundance. Talent by itself might make nice things, but not necessarily art. An advanced degree in art is seldom successful in producing artists; most were artists first. An artist has a better chance of producing art than one who is not.

[Guy Tal]

Anything dubbed "art" by anyone, is art - if only in the eyes of that person. End of story, end of definition.
I personally regard anyone claiming their work to be art while telling others theirs is not, for whatever reason, in the same category as someone proclaiming themselves to be "cool".

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography (http://www.scenicwild.com)

[jnanian]

images, sculpture, sounds - anything that has been "created" can be considered art.
it doesn't matter if i can relate to it or not or if i have to take a class or workshop &C to understand
it fully. .... oh , what guy said -

[Geoffrey Swenson]

If it is Art, one knows it is, and when it isn’t one knows that also. Of course, there are the Kinkade disciples…brrrrrrrrrr.

[John Kasaian]

Julian: Intereting point. B&W landscapes are full of cliches it seems--how many shots of reeds emerging from the surface of still water that reflects clouds can there be? Its a very clever idea and nearly every photo of the subject I've seen has left me satisfied but it isn't really original, is it? Of course when you speak of Adam's "language" I'm assuming you're referring to B&W landscapes. Is giving Adams a monopoly on B&W landscape really fair? It is kind of like saying that every rock guitarist that came after Joe Walsh or Dick Dale is a copycat or that anyone who has sculpted marble nude since Michaelangelo's "David" is somehow lacking originality.

Graeme: The problem I see with this is, say you have a digital image and print fifty of them from the same file---each identical to the other. Does that make it not "art" since each print lacks unique personal expression or consideration beyond the first print?

Neil: I guess I'm just gun shy after being told repeatedly that "what works for me being art" is proof that I "just don't get it." Well, I truly agree that "I don't get" a lot of the stuff thats heralded as "Art" I'm just trying to understand why.

Robert: What Graeme said.

mveit: Sort of like an arte deco streamlined steam locomotive? It looks so cool that they are worth putting in museums even though they're obsolete as locomotives? Hmmmm I never considered that before!

Calamity Jane: Makes perfect sense to me(I'd never argue with anyone named Calamity anyway!)

John Cook: Oral flatulence---great term!

Michael Alpert: You've brought up an interesting idea regarding religious art. If the intent is usefulness, either for instruction(as a painting or statue may be used to instruct someone who can't read) or as part of a ceremony(like an altar) ceases to be used for that purpose when it is put in a museum, does it at that point become "art" rather than a tool? Can a tool also be art and still be used as a tool? Is art for arts sake(let me rephrase that in keeping with the "what isn't" line:) Is art not art is if it has a purpose other than art? Sheesh this is getting complicated!

paulr: Yup, thats the question I'm trying to grapple!

Bruce Wehman: Can I infer that there has to be either "craft" or successful communication(or something) involved in order for originality, vision, and self expression to be "art?"

john: Interesting thoughts. If a work of art was completely understandable, there wouldn't be much to learn from it. OTOH, if it was something no one understands but the artist, there still wouldn't be much to learn from it would there? Which brings up the point of if we're supposed to learn anything from art in the first place? Successful communication seems like an important element when considering art, but then again is it? Man, I'm getting confused!

G.S.: Take an aspirin and lay down. Try to think of pleasant thoughts(like a cutesy cottage surrounded by zinnias on the shore of a placid lake;-)

Thanks for all the insights!

[John Kasaian]

I meant to say "...marble statue of a nude...";-)

[Scott Fleming]

I don't think we can define art by what it isn't. Not to say we cannot list a whole lot of things that are not art. Art is the expression of the human soul. If one is an atheist then it is the expression of ones feelings or thoughts. Art has so many definitions as to be infinite and one man's art is another's silliness. Repro-art although cheap and silly is still art. Kincaid coppies styles and techniques from masters whose originals are worth millions. If you took a man out of a dungeon after years of isolation and let him view a Kincaid print from twenty feet it would probably make him cry ... if he still had a mind. Or if one had been raised by wolves such a painting would evince an emotional response.

Perhaps we should speak of the best art ... or of the worst. I might not want to look at it or read it or hear it but even the very worst art ... ugly art ... may lead one to the sublime by pointing up opposites. Driving those inflicted by it's debauchery in a positive direction. Personally this is not my calling but I can grasp the concept. Even those making and consuming art for the worst reasons however do not render, what I would think of as negative art, non art.

Being religious and of an emotional bent I wish to make art that leads one toward the sublime directly. Or perhaps just mirrors my own personal glimpse of the sublime. I could be a snob and say that art that does not reflect or reach for the majestic is not art but I believe there exists negative art ... even black art or .... dare I say, evil.

C.S. Lewis had a lot to say about the art of man. He thought we could understand a society (or sub-society) by observing it's art. He saw some men as headed toward darkness and anti-life and using art as a means to that end. I'm sure a psycopath views his murderous escapades as art. Art is the expression of the soul. It is usually employed as a means to influence the minds of men ... even control them. The best art encourages freedom with responsibility. The worst .... enspires all that is ugly about man.

I can imagine the cessation of all art and that would be death or non existence. Total lack of expresson. Perhaps if one living is imagining total nothingness there is art there in that it inspires something within that one's mind.

Perhaps we could define non art as that which has no purpose to express or copy that which expresses emotion. So I don't think we can help to define art by what it is not. All we end up with is a long list of things that are not art. Like defecating or eating a bologne sandwich.

[Struan Gray]

Here's what art isnt: it isn't a material property.

Instead, art is a behaviour: art is that which we treat as art.

Of course, that raises a whole raft of questions, such as how exactly do we treat art, who is 'we', and why should my tax money be spent on someone else's behaviour; but for me, the most important question is whether what is art for me is also art for anyone else. If so, just how many people have to agree with me before we have a de-facto fact: ART so established that even if you don't like it you agree to call it art.

This is very circular and self-referential, but it's the only way to stay sane in a world where a C11th century reliquary and a hole torn in horse chestnut leaves are both called 'art'.

[paulr]

There's actually another relevent question besides "is it good art."
That is: "Is it important art?"

Good and important have shown themselves to be different animals entirely.
Import of a piece is easier to demonstrate. It can be measured by the degree to which the piece or the body of work influences future art, artists, and viewers of art. There's a certain amount of art that exists primarily to comment on the art of the time, and to influence the art that's to immediately follow. Much of the conceptual work of the 60s and 70s fits this description.

Was the snow shovel that Duchamp hung from the ceiling of the Modern "good?"
If you asked him, I think he'd suggest that you're missing the point by asking.
Was it important? Without question--history bears this out.

By my own ideas and standards, Cindy Sherman's work isn't all that good. But it's undeniably important to the recent history of the medium. Some of the anachronistic, Ansel-derivative landscape work that's been discussed here strikes me as very good. But it couldn't be less important.

I believe that "great" is a term reserved for work that scores high marks as both "good" and "important."

[Kirk Gittings]

In all honesty, I know it when I see it.

I think it was Mao who said "because I can call myself a helicopter, it doesn't mean I can fly". Who decides what flies in art? Each individual.

The difficulty in defining art reflects my ambivilence with offering graduate degrees in art. This is a system (MFA) that I have participated in since 1969 in one way or another. Yet how can you offer a graduate degree in something that is unquantifyable? Master of Fine Art. I have one, I help other people get one, I sometimes decide if someone deserves one. Yet I can't tell you exactly what art even is.

Yet the best I can do is say that I know it when I see it. Pathetic.

[Struan Gray]

Paul, I have often wondered: if you were to have an exhibition of landmark art from the twentieth century, would you need to exhibit Duchamp's actual urinal? Could you get away with one just like it? Or would any old urinal do, provided it was mass produced?

I'm sure many would insist on seeing Duchamp's original urinal, which seems to me to miss his point by a statute mile. Despite all the happenings, installations and piles of rocks in remote deserts, people in general keep insisting that art should be a thing they can kick like a rock. This thread is further proof. Perhaps they are right.

[paulr]

<<Paul, I have often wondered: if you were to have an exhibition of landmark art from the twentieth century, would you need to exhibit Duchamp's actual urinal? Could you get away with one just like it? Or would any old urinal do, provided it was mass produced?

I'm sure many would insist on seeing Duchamp's original urinal, which seems to me to miss his point by a statute mile. Despite all the happenings, installations and piles of rocks in remote deserts, people in general keep insisting that art should be a thing they can kick like a rock. This thread is further proof. Perhaps they are right.>>

Well, Duchamp agreed with you, and the funny thing is, the curators at the museum (at the time) did miss the point.
This is a true story: a member of the staff at MoMA actually broke his snow shovel while installing the exhibition. Now, don't ask me how someone with training in handling priceless masterpieces managed to break a snow shovel, but they did. So what did they do? Filled with fear and embarrassment, they reported the bad news to Duchamp. Who replied, "well, get another one." The curators were shocked and said they could't. Duchamp said, "look, just go down to the hardware store on 49th street and get one of the red ones. That's what I did." But the staff said that just wouldn't be right; it had to be HIS snow shovel. So, annoyed and perplexed, Duchamp had to go to the hardware store and get another one.

Now, this interchangeability isn't a condition of ALL art, but it was fundamental to the point of Duchamp's idea-based piece. And as you pointed out, it was very easy for people to completely miss the point. I think the conceptual artists of the 80s completely missed the point. Artists like Sherry Levine, rephotographing other people's work--this was a similar illustration of a concept. And it was important. Once. But she kept going with it. Kind of like Duchamp spending the rest of his career hanging different color shovels. He didn't. Because he got it.

[JohanHB]

Hi John,

"The maker is composed of matter and is constantly in motion. Whatever comes from the maker's core then is also both matter and motion, right? Even if it is a spoken word or thought, some electrons have to be jumpin' the in the grey matter. Nothingness then, can't be "made," not by any human being I know of anyway, and if we accept Domenico's view that art comes from the inner core of the maker, nothingness couldn't be art., could it? "

If you accept the absence of human beings then of course nothingness couldn't be art, but since we can discuss the question; "nothingness couldn't be art., could it?" and "what isn't art?" we display concepts and the idea that we can understand them and make it interpretable.

That for me is giving form to a creation expressed by the art of philosophy. I'm not a philosopher for I am the product of an illusory form of art called life.

Kindest regards,

Johan

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

You cannot prove a negative so I do not think you can define art by what it is not. I do not think "self", "money", "popularity" or "fashion" have ANY place in or with art. I with have to re-read this entire string, there are some fairly good ideas here.

Smile

[Graeme Hird]

Graeme: The problem I see with this is, say you have a digital image and print fifty of them from the same file---each identical to the other. Does that make it not "art" since each print lacks unique personal expression or consideration beyond the first print?



That's a good point. I think the art is in creating the original, but since each print is an exact replica of the first print, then they must all be considered art (the art is in the creation, the craft is the production of each print. I don't think they are the same thing).



In that sense, I think it is valid to compare a print with a recording of music or the production of a movie - in each case the performance of the score has only taken place once but the tangible work (the CD, vinyl, DVD or print) could still be considered art. It's the performance which is appreciated by the viewer or listener, rather than the medium via which it is delivered in these instances.



But what do you do about an actor on stage? They might produce a masterful performance for 200 nights in a row, but each is a replication of the previous night's performance. Is it art, or are they simply reproducing something in a formulaic manner? I can't answer that.



Robert: What Graeme said.

Now, that answer is pure art! :)

[Mark Sawyer]

And since we're the only photographers with perspective control...

[jnanian]

snip: Which brings up the point of if we're supposed to learn anything from art in the first place?

nope - unless you want to read something from your own life-experience into the artwork as you "absorb" it ...

[John Kasaian]

Scott: Great comment! The idea of "best art" vs "worst art" is far more relevant than the notion of "good" art vs "bad" art and its certainly more important to understand the difference.

Straun: Art as behavior? I don't fully understand---can "art" be determined by a majority vote(by a committee?) Or is it the product of "artsy" behaviour? I'm missing the point here!

paulr.: Good observation on the differences between "good" and "important" I think this transcends art and carries over to much of the human experience.

Kirk: Very profound!

johan: "..illusory form of art called life..."I'm not sure I get that one. I'm not a philosopher either but I find the "best" philosophy is reassureing while the "worst" philosophy is terribly disturbing.

Paul Fitzgerald: But just maybe we can recognize those things which are something other than "art" but are erroneously labeled as being "art"---which should give us a more clear picture(pun intended) of what could be "art"---then again maybe not. The real value of this thread is in the expression of ideas by contributors who have actually given the topic some thought and generously offered to share their thoughts for the enlightenment of a dim-wit like myself.

Graeme: Score and performance---good point! I don't know of an actor or symphony (or printer) that repeat a performance exactly time after time--not the way a CD, DVD, vinyl or a digital print can. Is it any less because of it? Or is it (digital)more truthful to the original? I don't know either.

Robert A. Zeichner: Point well taken!

Scott: Now thats profound!

Domenico: Fantastico!

David R. Munson: What art is not(to you) really is important (to me) because if we cannot agree what art is not(or is) how can we appreciate, criticize, or otherwise share and discuss art? If society sees art as a purely individual thing, then art is impotent in it's effect on society, no?

Mark Sawyer: I love the analogy!

Paulr.: Heidegger? Phenomenology?? Huh???

jnanian: "...you absorb it..." How true!

[Struan Gray]

"Art as a behaviour" derives from my attempts to classify my own preferences and experiences, as well as trying to make sense of what appears in galleries and museums. In both cases the range of 'art' is so diverse that in the rare instances I feel the need for a definition I keep coming back to the only common defining aspect: my reaction to whatever it is; the place in my life I make for it; the ways I experience and share it. What I consider to be art is all the stuff I treat as art.

I think the same is true more broadly, so yes, what gets valued as art in a society is decided by a vote - it's just that some votes are decidely more equal than others. Paul touched on this by stressing 'importance', but what I find fascinating is not so much the end result, as the process by which importance is assigned. Again, this is behaviour, albeit of a crowd or society.

In short, I think that art is a topic for the antropologists, not the archeologists. The things are less important than how they are treated.