Art doesn't exist

[Fawkes]

And by extension, neither does music.

In the case of art, if I were to take a permanent marker and draw a smiley face on the floor, would that be art? Most people would find it debatable. Now, if I was to draw a perfect portrait of a reclining nude woman utilizing the same tools, it would surely be deemed art by most. Now, what if I vomited on the floor? The vast majority of people would dismiss that as not being art, and they've got a good point. How is vomiting on the floor art? Well, it's no more art than any of the aforementioned things are. One could argue that because I had no control over my vomiting, it doesn't constitute an artistic creation. But what if I aim the vomit in certain places? That's no different from what Jackson Pollock did.

The same thing applies to music. If I sing a number from Treemonisha perfectly, certainly most would agree it's music. What if I sing it horribly? Well, most would agree it is still music, albeit not pleasant to most's ears. What if I just hummed a single note for a long time? Still music. But, what if I cough? Most would say that's not music, just as they would say that tapping ones foot rhythmically constitutes music, but merely walking does not. Why the difference? The enormous powerful clanging noise that a subway train makes, is that music? Again, most say no. But what makes it any different from a melodious pop song, or even the ringtone on your phone?

Most don't consider Lou Reed's Metal, Machine, Music to be music, but the guitars' feedback's varying tonalities, or lack thereof, isn't really any different from James Brown singing. Yeah, it sounds different, but so does opera when placed next to klezmer, and both are widely considered to be music forms.

A lot of people will argue that definitions of what constitutes music vary culturally. Muslims would rarely consider their call to prayer to be music, but to non-Muslims, it just sounds like someone singing. Definitions also vary within a culture though. Many uptight suburbanites in the 1950s thought of rock and roll as being just noise and possessing no real musical qualities. But it goes even beyond that. Differences in definitions are present in pretty much every individual alive. It is for this reason that I don't think art and music really can exist, either everything is art, or nothing is.

The point I'm trying to make, successfully or unsuccessfully, is that music and art are so impossible to define, that I can't recognize their existence. What gives you the right to say that this is art and this isn't? I'm not trying to be overly cerebral here, in fact, quite the opposite. And the purpose of me declaring this statement is to level the playing field of what is accepted into the realm of art and music and what is not.

It's way too late right now and I probably could've gotten my ideas across a lot better if I wasn't about to fall asleep, but any ideas or opinions?

[Invincible Summer]

Musicians and artists are all narcissistic bastards anyway. All they do is go "hey I think the stuff I just created is awesome... let me try to get people to pay me to make awesome stuff!" and go off and try to make money off of mental masturbation.

I'm saying this as an on-again, off-again musician, btw

[ZeroNowhere]

Games don't exist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations)


Musicians and artists are all narcissistic bastards anyway. All they do is go "hey I think the stuff I just created is awesome... let me try to get people to pay me to make awesome stuff!" and go off and try to make money off of mental masturbation.Not all artists are Dream Theater.

[#FF0000]

Yeah I remember decided p. much the same thing back when everyone was mad at Roger Ebert for thinking games aren't art or something. I don't really care about what's art. I'm more concerned with what I think is beautiful. I guess "beauty" isn't much better than "art" in being nebulous and hard/impossible to define, but it's a whole lot less pretentious.

[Widerstand]

I listen to 4'33'' on repeat whenever I'm outside my house :)

edit: Fawkes sounds like a hipster. Or a hipster hater. I can't quite make it out.

[japagow1]

This is what you're saying. As art is impossible to define then you can't believe it exists,


Art can be defined as anything that's artistic.


Is that any better?

How,s the realm now?

[leftace53]

edit: Fawkes sounds like a hipster. Or a hipster hater. I can't quite make it out.
Whats the difference?

Everything is art in a sense.

[Widerstand]

This is what you're saying. As art is impossible be defined then you can't believe it exists.

Art can be defined as anything that's artistic.


Is that any better?

What is artistic?

Everything that's art.

Circular semantics is circular.


Whats the difference?

How would I know? I'm just a hardcore kid that reads /mu/. I don't even go to Pitchfork often, let alone know any real life hipsters.

[Nwoye]

I recall seeing an "art" exhibit recently, the goal of which was to give a critical examination of the distinction between (sculpture) art and craft. The creator determined through her research that the general consensus was that sculpture art lacked any practical purpose, while crafts were created with a practical purpose in mind. In order to make her point that this was a false dichotomy, she created a large amount of small plaster cups, bowls and jugs (common crafts) and before they were completely solidified, warped them in varying ways causing some to have no possible functional or practical purpose and others to have strange deformities. This meant she was presenting the entire spectrum - small bowls and cups which were standard crafts all the way to manipulated pieces of plaster (very artsy). The consequence was a blurring of the lines between arts and crafts.

idk i thought it was interesting. good op btw.

[Fawkes]

I listen to 4'33'' on repeat whenever I'm outside my house :)

edit: Fawkes sounds like a hipster. Or a hipster hater. I can't quite make it out.

Haha, I'm definitely not a hipster, if that word really means anything anymore anyway, nor am I really a hipster hater, live and let live really, I just live how I want to and let others do the same I guess.

japagow1:
It is because the fact that anything can be defined as being artistic that I don't really think art exists, because everything has the potential to be viewed as art, thus making the term and distinction kind of useless.

Nwoye:
That sounds pretty sick, remember who the artist was by any chance?

[Steve_j]

The point I'm trying to make, successfully or unsuccessfully, is that music and art are so impossible to define, that I can't recognize their existence.

But it is possible to define within your own reality/experience/perception. Whilst it may be possible to develop a general consensus on the boundaries of what is and isnt, the general consensus may be legitimatly questioned i dont se how that equates to art/music ect not existing.

For me its kinda like a debate of morals

For you do they exist? And if yes/no, why?[/QUOTE]

Edit: Interesting post btw, quite enjoyed it. Im off with the better half to enjoy some artistic wank cinema shit :) be back later.... If im not too drunk.

[Fawkes]

But it is possible to define within your own reality/experience/perception. Whilst it may be possible to develop a general consensus on the boundaries of what is and isnt, the general consensus may be legitimatly questioned i dont se how that equates to art/music ect not existing.

For me its kinda like a debate of morals

For you do they exist? And if yes/no, why?


I recognize that within ones own mind they exist, and I don't really see that as a problem at all. However, it does become a problem when curators of art museums and record company employees/owners and people in that same realm adopt the holier-than-thou mentality of being able to deem what is and isn't art, and therefore have a huge effect on not only what audiences and viewers/listeners are exposed to, but also the ability for many artists to support themselves financially and have a viable audience for their work.

As far as whether they exist for me or not, I don't really know, this is all something I'm still working out a lot in my head.

Edit: Thanks, and nothing like some good art house cinema and the ensuing wine and cheese party ;)

[Ele'ill]

Musicians and artists are all narcissistic bastards anyway. All they do is go "hey I think the stuff I just created is awesome... let me try to get people to pay me to make awesome stuff!" and go off and try to make money off of mental masturbation.

I'm saying this as an on-again, off-again musician, btw


I don't think this is accurate. I mean I have no idea if you're a musician but i'm taking your word on that part of the post- anyways-

I've met genuine artists that are- well- genuine artists. Same with musicians. Same with writers.

Although it's funny because while I'm not an artist or musician- I am a writer- and there are a lot of stupid assholes submitting complete shit that gets accepted. Most critique group events are fucking horrifyingly painful to sit through. So maybe I understand what you mean when you refer to musicians- it's because you're one yourself.

On the flip side to this though- I've been recognized as an 'exceptional writer of fiction and poetry (prose)'- and other recognized teachers, publishers, editors and writers have told me that I stand out- and the way that they say I stand out coincides with the reasons I think I'm a better writer than the poor saps with a dream at the critique groups.

[Steve_j]

I recognize that within ones own mind they exist, and I don't really see that as a problem at all. However, it does become a problem when curators of art museums and record company employees/owners and people in that same realm adopt the holier-than-thou mentality of being able to deem what is and isn't art, and therefore have a huge effect on not only what audiences and viewers/listeners are exposed to, but also the ability for many artists to support themselves financially and have a viable audience for their work.

Yeah i see where you are comming from there, the industry itself is shit and always will be aslong as it is driven by a profit motive, i sometimes feel some affinity with the anti art mvement aswell. That said as someone who makes a small income from music, p2p has done some negative things (i have seen some very talented composers walk away after their albums were leaked pre release) but i honestly think it is great overall as it is at the lower levels of the industry i feel it is really beginning to challenge the staus quo.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Maybe "art" is something that humans put conscious effort into creating... If I take a piss outside in the winter it isn't really "art", but if I spell my name in the snow with that same stream of urine I put conscious effort into creating something, and it is thus transformed into something artistic.

[ckaihatsu]

This, like any other complex topic, can be empirically analyzed by borrowing from complexity theory.

Given a certain multitude of material choices what does the individual decide to do with their time at any given moment? Beyond satisfying basic human needs we -- like many animals -- actually find ourselves with a *surplus* of time (and materials) at our disposal.





Maybe "art" is something that humans put conscious effort into creating... If I take a piss outside in the winter it isn't really "art", but if I spell my name in the snow with that same stream of urine I put conscious effort into creating something, and it is thus transformed into something artistic.





I recall seeing an "art" exhibit recently, the goal of which was to give a critical examination of the distinction between (sculpture) art and craft. The creator determined through her research that the general consensus was that sculpture art lacked any practical purpose, while crafts were created with a practical purpose in mind.





Wilde, _The Soul of Man Under Socialism_

A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist. Art is the most intense mode of Individualism that the world has known. I am inclined to say that it is the only real mode of Individualism that the world has known.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/slman10.txt


So, I would say that once the *intentionality*, or *individuality*, is genuinely expressed -- no matter in what form or minimum of effort expended -- its finished result is subject to the same process of creativity, in the form of 'critique', from *other* people, theoretically endlessly. (This is another Wilde idea.) Likewise, the artwork will also be subjected to the regular social dynamics of ownership, valuation, politics, etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the case of art, if I were to take a permanent marker and draw a smiley face on the floor, would that be art? Most people would find it debatable. Now, if I was to draw a perfect portrait of a reclining nude woman utilizing the same tools, it would surely be deemed art by most. Now, what if I vomited on the floor? The vast majority of people would dismiss that as not being art, and they've got a good point. How is vomiting on the floor art? Well, it's no more art than any of the aforementioned things are. One could argue that because I had no control over my vomiting, it doesn't constitute an artistic creation. But what if I aim the vomit in certain places? That's no different from what Jackson Pollock did.

You don't need to speculate:
http://beautifuldecay.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/4534.jpg
According to the art establishment, this is art. Dash Snow used semen and other bodily fluids to make his art. Obviously in this one above, it's the context that makes the glittered semen "artful".

What makes it art, what makes anything art? In class society, the ruling class does - indirectly or directly. Think about "outsider" art - what makes it art is that art collectors and galleries and other institutions deem it to be art and collectible.

In my opinion the idea that "everyone is an artist" is a BS Disney story for the left. Not everyone is an artist because only a tiny fraction of a percentage of actively creative people can make art full time. A slightly larger fraction has access to institutions like art school and resources, but this doesn't guarantee that they will be able to make art as their main use of personal labor - most "working artists" are like academics because they can't live off of their creativity, they have to teach or sell their skills to advertising companies or whatnot.

I do believe, however, that "everyone is creative" and that everyone has the potential to create art. But in order to create the conditions where "everyone can be an artist" we have to destroy the class system and then art can really be art for the sake of expression and fulfillment and so on.

Art is always subject to the ruling class of the society its in: feudal art was religious in nature and the church was the patron; in the high-middle ages and renaissance, art also began to incorporate portraits of rich merchants or aristocrats; in early capitalism art began to include landscapes as the rulers and rich of that era began to become more "national" in outlook and wanted to glorify their countrysides and coasts and the natural beauty of their land (and in the US, justify taking rich "virgin" land). In modern capitalism, art was more or less freed of constraints on subject matter, but not free in terms of the purpose - art has to become a commodity otherwise it simply is not "art" - it has no value. This is even true of the big graf artists like Sheppard Ferry - although they have not created a specific physical commodity (since it is on the side of a wall) they have create a commodity of a recognizable "brand" which then makes their books and actually for-sale pieces more valuable.

When these class-based requirements are finally eliminated, then art can be for all people and judged solely on its own merits.

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, jotting down the main themes covered so far in this thread I've gotten this list:


- art as non-definable (possibly encompassing the a-humanity functioning of the universe and all organic, natural-life processes)

- art as life

- art as individuality / subjectivity

- art as personal expression / fulfillment

- art as pretense / pretentiousness / less-than-genuine / narcissism

- art as social self-identity

- art as defined by a larger consensus

- art as a defining social event

- art as determined by an in-crowd, or "playground politics"

- art as cultural byproduct

- art as non-definable (possibly encompassing the entirety of human intentionality and/or activity)

- art as access to material resources

- art as making a living / vocation

- art as commodity / brand / media distribution outlets (commercial / industrial)

- art as judgable on its own merits

- art as beauty / aesthetics


I've ordered the list in the format of an expanding circle, from the pin-point center representing a non-humanity non-definability, to the smallest circular area representing the individual person in a generic physiological-organism way, all the way out to the broadest area of time-tested artistic norms.

For the purposes of a materialist Marxist critique I think we can address art in its broader social forms, from about the 'material resources' point outward. It's a good place to start because many artists seeking genuine self-expression may validly raise the objection that they do not have adequate access to the means and materials by which to *make* their creations in the first place (myself not included, btw).

Moreover, as Jimmie Higgins pointed out, even if they *could* do *some* artwork many would not be able to *sustain* their efforts for very long, for the same basic reason -- they could not materially support themselves from the commodification of their most heartfelt creations.

Beyond this point would be matters of bourgeois control of the means of publicity, as through branding and notices for the same, over corporate-controlled mainstream media outlets (TV, print ads, etc.). Without sufficient exposure no artist would have a broad-enough audience from which to derive broader-based discussions and critiques, much less anything approaching a general societal consensus on their artwork's merits and/or aesthetic value.

Since cultural commodities -- and even scientific discoveries and technologies -- are subordinate to the machinations of the profit-based economic system, our entire societal reality has been, and is being, defined by the prevailing uses of materials (and human efforts) according to bourgeois-economic motivations. Many genuinely heartfelt *individual* intentions and motivations must give way to the *prevailing* currents of bourgeois culture, thus forfeiting any access to necessary resources, including the artist's *own* life-time.

[Tor_Hershman]

Musicians and artists are all narcissistic bastards anyway. All they do is go "hey I think the stuff I just created is awesome... let me try to get people to pay me to make awesome stuff!" and go off and try to make money off of mental masturbation.

I'm saying this as an on-again, off-again musician, btw

Hey, I used the term "Mental masturbation" in this wee musical parody vid moi did.
Starring all Reds' favorite U. S. of A. president - Ronnie Ray Goon +
gods and devils, galore.

youtube.com/watch?v=_m6qC6FCiY0 :thumbup1:

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

[x371322]

Wait, what's wrong with mental masturbation? I do it all the time! :laugh:

Seriously though, any kind of "art" ultimately comes down to individual taste. It's subjective as hell. What I find aesthetically or aurally pleasing, other's might find completely deplorable. I think you might be looking too much into this; analyzing a bit too closely. Who cares? Just enjoy what you like!

[ckaihatsu]

Marx and ideology

During the mid-20th century art historians embraced social history by using critical approaches. The goal is to show how art interacts with power structures in society. One critical approach that art historians used was Marxism. Marxist art history attempted to show how art was tied to specific classes, how images contain information about the economy, and how images can make the status quo seem natural (ideology). Perhaps the best-known Marxist was Clement Greenberg, who came to prominence during the late 1930s with his essay "Avant-Garde and Kitsch".[13] In the essay Greenberg claimed that the avant-garde arose in order to defend aesthetic standards from the decline of taste involved in consumer society, and seeing kitsch and art as opposites. Greenberg further claimed that avant-garde and Modernist art was a means to resist the leveling of culture produced by capitalist propaganda. Greenberg appropriated the German word 'kitsch' to describe this consumerism, though its connotations have since changed to a more affirmative notion of left-over materials of capitalist culture. Greenberg later became well-known for examining the formal properties of modern art.

Meyer Schapiro is one of the best-remembered Marxist art historians of the mid-20th century. Although he wrote about numerous time periods and themes in art, he is best remembered for his commentary on sculpture from the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, at which time he saw evidence of capitalism emerging and feudalism declining. Arnold Hauser wrote the first Marxist survey of Western Art, titled The Social History of Art. In this book he attempted to show how class consciousness was reflected in major art periods. His book was controversial when published during the 1950s because it makes generalizations about entire eras, a strategy now called "vulgar Marxism". T.J. Clark was the first art historian writing from a Marxist perspective to abandon vulgar Marxism. He wrote Marxist art histories of several impressionist and realist artists, including Gustave Courbet and Édouard Manet. These books focused closely on the political and economic climates in which the art was created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_history#Marx_and_ideology

[Invincible Summer]

I don't think this is accurate. I mean I have no idea if you're a musician but i'm taking your word on that part of the post- anyways-

I've met genuine artists that are- well- genuine artists. Same with musicians. Same with writers.

Although it's funny because while I'm not an artist or musician- I am a writer- and there are a lot of stupid assholes submitting complete shit that gets accepted. Most critique group events are fucking horrifyingly painful to sit through. So maybe I understand what you mean when you refer to musicians- it's because you're one yourself.

On the flip side to this though- I've been recognized as an 'exceptional writer of fiction and poetry (prose)'- and other recognized teachers, publishers, editors and writers have told me that I stand out- and the way that they say I stand out coincides with the reasons I think I'm a better writer than the poor saps with a dream at the critique groups.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not really saying all musicians/artists are douchebags or anything like. I'm just taking a really cynical (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) look at artistic expression.

If you think about it, people who write or make music/art eventually think that their stuff is good enough to show off to people in the form of a book, painting, song. It can be argued that all forms of art are just ways to get attention and jerk off onto the rest of the world, under the guise of "self expression."

[Meridian]

Art is art, obviously. Saying art doesn't exist is senseless. It is an ordinary word, people use it every day. That means it is useful.


If you think about it, people who write or make music/art eventually think that their stuff is good enough to show off to people in the form of a book, painting, song. It can be argued that all forms of art are just ways to get attention and jerk off onto the rest of the world, under the guise of "self expression.
I make music but I do not play it for other people.

There are a lot of artists who care little for entertaining, performing, music industry, etc., and care instead about making the art itself. And there's many who enjoy both. I don't see the need to single out artists in that respect, many industries today are more about showing off than having actual content.

[ckaihatsu]

Art (Wikipedia)

Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements in a way that influences and affects the senses, emotions, and/or intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[1] Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art



Design (Wikipedia)

[...]

More formally, design has been defined as follows.

(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;

(verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates)[3]

Here, a "specification" can be manifested as either a plan or a finished product and "primitives" are the elements from which the design object is composed.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design