What isn't "art?"

[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

[jnantz]

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!