Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Consul]

If you start arguing about whether artist A is a good artist, or whether A is 'better' than artist B, you have lost sight of the art! You are both right, because your judgements are personal ones. Sculptor1 doesn't like Richter, Consul does. There is no contradiction, and no basis for argument. Both judgements are unchallengeably correct.

As its history shows, the discourse of aesthetics has always been much more than a primitive exchange of Like! or Dislike! exclamations. There are bases for argument, and there are criteria for judgment. Philosophers of art and art critics have always been arguing about who is a good or great artist and who is not; and despite all quarrelling, a wide consensus has emerged regarding who belongs to the best and greatest artists in their respective fields. There are canons of great art, which are not immutable but relatively stable. For instance, I doubt that Beethoven will ever be expelled from the pantheon of composers.

[Sy Borg]

I agree. I can go to a modern art exhibit and enjoy the experience, but it's very hit-and-miss, and a fair bit of it is accidental comedy. Still, there are pearls amongst the swine, usually by skilled artists broadening their vistas.

Inspiration can strike the naive artist. Ideally, the filter of taste separates those occasional inspired efforts from the many failed naive experiments. That filter that has always been somewhat lacking in the general public, but the bar has lowered further due to, what I think is a misunderstanding of what postmodernism should be about. The value of postmodernism IMO was the point out the limitations of modernism, not to remove all standards.

True enough.
What I can't stand is the posing and the pretending. The "Oh if you dont like it you dont understand it ********".
Like the way Homi K. Bhabha has made a career out of verbal diarreah describing his friend Anish Kapoor's work, with mountains of Post-moderist ********. I once sat through a Q&A with these two. It was embrassing.

The one thing of value modern art has potentially done is to implicitly increase the value of the art of anyone from a child to an old person in a care home spilling paint - but getting something out of it. In real, (not money) terms their art is as valuable as any "great" artist of the day.
But none of it detracts from the skill of craft - and that is where the real art is for me.
There is more artistry in Camille Claudel's marble foot than in a mile of Pollock canvases.

Yes, the fancier the blurb needed to justify or explain a work, the more likely that the work is incapable of speaking for itself.

I like Pollock's splatter paintings. If the colours are right and there's energy in the splats, they can make pleasing designs. I made a few myself for home, but the prices for them are absurd. However, craft isn't enough for me, and I am not a huge fan of hyper-realism either, despite the incredible technique needed because the imaginative elements are so limited. Hyper-realism can be brilliant as a novelty or a statement but, in the end, you can just take a photo and achieve much the same effect (or better if you photographer uses light cleverly).

It's interesting that most people would agree that art at the top end is outrageously overpriced when there are comparable works languishing in obscurity. Success in the arts seems to be largely about networking. Great contacts and no talent will always do better than no contacts and great talent.

I've made some Pollacks for myself too. I think there is a story there. If two people feel happy with a simple copy in technique that produces a work of art, then you have to wonder at the ridiculous prices for an "original". My own effort was sufficiently different from an y Pollack that I was as happy about the aesthetics as I would about having a Pollack reprint, with the added joy of knowing I did it - and that it actually matched to colour scheme of my leather sofas!!

I did not wish to imply that craft was enough. But as a sculptor who likes to improve there is always something to appraciate in the craft of that art even if the art does not move it - it has value in the same way you can appreciate other crafty object that do not pretent to be art.
I have a saying "art without craft is like sex without love". You can tell when the artist has made an effort.

Another aspect - I hate artists who work with their tongue, and just get other people to realise their ideas- For me real art involves dirty fingernails, and paint spalttered overalls. Physically engaging with the medium is important.

And in your last paragraph we are in accord.

My splatter paintings were made to match my lounge room too. They were a fun to make. A designer friend with a good colour sense mixed the paints and I'd put as much energy as possible into smacking the paint onto and across the canvases. From memory, I ended up with a few pulled muscles.

I agree that art that needs a lot of explaining is not doing its job. It seems that, in certain circles, pretentious explanations are part of the total package. You have an item posing as artwork and an artist creating a logic pretzel of outrageous wankery to explain it as a kind of associated social performance art. Warhol was a master of that game, while presenting graphic design as art with a quirky image and mysterious patter.

Yes, you can tell whether it's a work where an artist has put love into it or not, as compared with craft, where the work is done at sufficient standard to be economic. The love is revealed in attention to detail.

Broadly, bad art without craft is like sex without love. Good art without craft is like sex with a clumsy oaf* with a heart of gold. Bad art with craft is akin to sex for pay. Good art with craft is better than sex.


* Or an oafess or they-oaf of indeterminate gender. Let it not be said that I am politically incorrect.

[Sculptor1]

True enough.
What I can't stand is the posing and the pretending. The "Oh if you dont like it you dont understand it ********".
Like the way Homi K. Bhabha has made a career out of verbal diarreah describing his friend Anish Kapoor's work, with mountains of Post-moderist ********. I once sat through a Q&A with these two. It was embrassing.

The one thing of value modern art has potentially done is to implicitly increase the value of the art of anyone from a child to an old person in a care home spilling paint - but getting something out of it. In real, (not money) terms their art is as valuable as any "great" artist of the day.
But none of it detracts from the skill of craft - and that is where the real art is for me.
There is more artistry in Camille Claudel's marble foot than in a mile of Pollock canvases.

Yes, the fancier the blurb needed to justify or explain a work, the more likely that the work is incapable of speaking for itself.

I like Pollock's splatter paintings. If the colours are right and there's energy in the splats, they can make pleasing designs. I made a few myself for home, but the prices for them are absurd. However, craft isn't enough for me, and I am not a huge fan of hyper-realism either, despite the incredible technique needed because the imaginative elements are so limited. Hyper-realism can be brilliant as a novelty or a statement but, in the end, you can just take a photo and achieve much the same effect (or better if you photographer uses light cleverly).

It's interesting that most people would agree that art at the top end is outrageously overpriced when there are comparable works languishing in obscurity. Success in the arts seems to be largely about networking. Great contacts and no talent will always do better than no contacts and great talent.

I've made some Pollacks for myself too. I think there is a story there. If two people feel happy with a simple copy in technique that produces a work of art, then you have to wonder at the ridiculous prices for an "original". My own effort was sufficiently different from an y Pollack that I was as happy about the aesthetics as I would about having a Pollack reprint, with the added joy of knowing I did it - and that it actually matched to colour scheme of my leather sofas!!

I did not wish to imply that craft was enough. But as a sculptor who likes to improve there is always something to appraciate in the craft of that art even if the art does not move it - it has value in the same way you can appreciate other crafty object that do not pretent to be art.
I have a saying "art without craft is like sex without love". You can tell when the artist has made an effort.

Another aspect - I hate artists who work with their tongue, and just get other people to realise their ideas- For me real art involves dirty fingernails, and paint spalttered overalls. Physically engaging with the medium is important.

And in your last paragraph we are in accord.

My splatter paintings were made to match my lounge room too. They were a fun to make. A designer friend with a good colour sense mixed the paints and I'd put as much energy as possible into smacking the paint onto and across the canvases. From memory, I ended up with a few pulled muscles.

I agree that art that needs a lot of explaining is not doing its job. It seems that, in certain circles, pretentious explanations are part of the total package. You have an item posing as artwork and an artist creating a logic pretzel of outrageous wankery to explain it as a kind of associated social performance art. Warhol was a master of that game, while presenting graphic design as art with a quirky image and mysterious patter.

Yes, you can tell whether it's a work where an artist has put love into it or not, as compared with craft, where the work is done at sufficient standard to be economic. The love is revealed in attention to detail.

Broadly, bad art without craft is like sex without love. Good art without craft is like sex with a clumsy oaf* with a heart of gold. Bad art with craft is akin to sex for pay. Good art with craft is better than sex.


* Or an oafess or they-oaf of indeterminate gender. Let it not be said that I am politically incorrect.

I remember as a young teen seeing a documentary about Warhol, whilst he was still alive.
At one point he painted a woman's breast with paint, then pressed a piece of paper onto the breast to make an impression.
He then screwed this up and put it in a toilet and whilst flushing the toilet he took a picture of it as it flushed.

The "art" was the photo.

Still after all these years I am astounded how this person with clear social communication problems had managed to beguile an entire society and foist himself upon them as an "artist"

[Pattern-chaser]

If you start arguing about whether artist A is a good artist, or whether A is 'better' than artist B, you have lost sight of the art! You are both right, because your judgements are personal ones. Sculptor1 doesn't like Richter, Consul does. There is no contradiction, and no basis for argument. Both judgements are unchallengeably correct.

As its history shows, the discourse of aesthetics has always been much more than a primitive exchange of Like! or Dislike! exclamations. There are bases for argument, and there are criteria for judgment. Philosophers of art and art critics have always been arguing about who is a good or great artist and who is not; and despite all quarrelling, a wide consensus has emerged regarding who belongs to the best and greatest artists in their respective fields. There are canons of great art, which are not immutable but relatively stable. For instance, I doubt that Beethoven will ever be expelled from the pantheon of composers.

OK, so there are times when lots of people hold the same, subjective and personal, opinions of art or an artist. Those who seek to go beyond 'like' and 'dislike' are fooling themselves, IMO. Any extra-personal 'standards' are arbitrarily and inappropriately imposed; they contribute nothing. Because, when we get right down to it, we like what we like, and we dislike what we dislike, often without apparent reason, but usually without actual reason. That's what this kind of subjectivity is about, I think.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, the fancier the blurb needed to justify or explain a work, the more likely that the work is incapable of speaking for itself.

I like Pollock's splatter paintings. If the colours are right and there's energy in the splats, they can make pleasing designs. I made a few myself for home, but the prices for them are absurd. However, craft isn't enough for me, and I am not a huge fan of hyper-realism either, despite the incredible technique needed because the imaginative elements are so limited. Hyper-realism can be brilliant as a novelty or a statement but, in the end, you can just take a photo and achieve much the same effect (or better if you photographer uses light cleverly).

It's interesting that most people would agree that art at the top end is outrageously overpriced when there are comparable works languishing in obscurity. Success in the arts seems to be largely about networking. Great contacts and no talent will always do better than no contacts and great talent.

I've made some Pollacks for myself too. I think there is a story there. If two people feel happy with a simple copy in technique that produces a work of art, then you have to wonder at the ridiculous prices for an "original". My own effort was sufficiently different from an y Pollack that I was as happy about the aesthetics as I would about having a Pollack reprint, with the added joy of knowing I did it - and that it actually matched to colour scheme of my leather sofas!!

I did not wish to imply that craft was enough. But as a sculptor who likes to improve there is always something to appraciate in the craft of that art even if the art does not move it - it has value in the same way you can appreciate other crafty object that do not pretent to be art.
I have a saying "art without craft is like sex without love". You can tell when the artist has made an effort.

Another aspect - I hate artists who work with their tongue, and just get other people to realise their ideas- For me real art involves dirty fingernails, and paint spalttered overalls. Physically engaging with the medium is important.

And in your last paragraph we are in accord.

My splatter paintings were made to match my lounge room too. They were a fun to make. A designer friend with a good colour sense mixed the paints and I'd put as much energy as possible into smacking the paint onto and across the canvases. From memory, I ended up with a few pulled muscles.

I agree that art that needs a lot of explaining is not doing its job. It seems that, in certain circles, pretentious explanations are part of the total package. You have an item posing as artwork and an artist creating a logic pretzel of outrageous wankery to explain it as a kind of associated social performance art. Warhol was a master of that game, while presenting graphic design as art with a quirky image and mysterious patter.

Yes, you can tell whether it's a work where an artist has put love into it or not, as compared with craft, where the work is done at sufficient standard to be economic. The love is revealed in attention to detail.

Broadly, bad art without craft is like sex without love. Good art without craft is like sex with a clumsy oaf* with a heart of gold. Bad art with craft is akin to sex for pay. Good art with craft is better than sex.


* Or an oafess or they-oaf of indeterminate gender. Let it not be said that I am politically incorrect.

:)

I remember as a young teen seeing a documentary about Warhol, whilst he was still alive.
At one point he painted a woman's breast with paint, then pressed a piece of paper onto the breast to make an impression.
He then screwed this up and put it in a toilet and whilst flushing the toilet he took a picture of it as it flushed.

The "art" was the photo.

Still after all these years I am astounded how this person with clear social communication problems had managed to beguile an entire society and foist himself upon them as an "artist"

I did a little graphic art back in the day so I enjoy Warhol's work. He was an imaginative designer but, as with your example, he became ever more self indulgent took postmodernism to absurd extremes, seemingly less so when he was working with Jean-Michel Basquiat, who was a more talented painter.

Warhol was much better socially than his image portrayed, which was largely an act put on for reporters. He was a focused, organised and highly skilled at shmoozing the rich and famous. He'd hobnob in elite circles, entertaining them with his Andy Warhol persona. The social games are the major part of such artists' arsenal, and far more effective at attracting buyers than, say, creating a high quality artwork. Now that he is part of history, the effect is amplified.

[Sculptor1]

I've made some Pollacks for myself too. I think there is a story there. If two people feel happy with a simple copy in technique that produces a work of art, then you have to wonder at the ridiculous prices for an "original". My own effort was sufficiently different from an y Pollack that I was as happy about the aesthetics as I would about having a Pollack reprint, with the added joy of knowing I did it - and that it actually matched to colour scheme of my leather sofas!!

I did not wish to imply that craft was enough. But as a sculptor who likes to improve there is always something to appraciate in the craft of that art even if the art does not move it - it has value in the same way you can appreciate other crafty object that do not pretent to be art.
I have a saying "art without craft is like sex without love". You can tell when the artist has made an effort.

Another aspect - I hate artists who work with their tongue, and just get other people to realise their ideas- For me real art involves dirty fingernails, and paint spalttered overalls. Physically engaging with the medium is important.

And in your last paragraph we are in accord.

My splatter paintings were made to match my lounge room too. They were a fun to make. A designer friend with a good colour sense mixed the paints and I'd put as much energy as possible into smacking the paint onto and across the canvases. From memory, I ended up with a few pulled muscles.

I agree that art that needs a lot of explaining is not doing its job. It seems that, in certain circles, pretentious explanations are part of the total package. You have an item posing as artwork and an artist creating a logic pretzel of outrageous wankery to explain it as a kind of associated social performance art. Warhol was a master of that game, while presenting graphic design as art with a quirky image and mysterious patter.

Yes, you can tell whether it's a work where an artist has put love into it or not, as compared with craft, where the work is done at sufficient standard to be economic. The love is revealed in attention to detail.

Broadly, bad art without craft is like sex without love. Good art without craft is like sex with a clumsy oaf* with a heart of gold. Bad art with craft is akin to sex for pay. Good art with craft is better than sex.


* Or an oafess or they-oaf of indeterminate gender. Let it not be said that I am politically incorrect.

I remember as a young teen seeing a documentary about Warhol, whilst he was still alive.
At one point he painted a woman's breast with paint, then pressed a piece of paper onto the breast to make an impression.
He then screwed this up and put it in a toilet and whilst flushing the toilet he took a picture of it as it flushed.

The "art" was the photo.

Still after all these years I am astounded how this person with clear social communication problems had managed to beguile an entire society and foist himself upon them as an "artist"

I did a little graphic art back in the day so I enjoy Warhol's work. He was an imaginative designer but, as with your example, he became ever more self indulgent took postmodernism to absurd extremes, seemingly less so when he was working with Jean-Michel Basquiat, who was a more talented painter.

Warhol was much better socially than his image portrayed, which was largely an act put on for reporters. He was a focused, organised and highly skilled at shmoozing the rich and famous. He'd hobnob in elite circles, entertaining them with his Andy Warhol persona. The social games are the major part of such artists' arsenal, and far more effective at attracting buyers than, say, creating a high quality artwork. Now that he is part of history, the effect is amplified.

You seem to be claiming that he was better "socially" than the image of himself he portrayed.
You would only be able to say that had you met him yourself.
The impression I have is a person manipulated more than manipulating, and was surprised by his own ghostly persona.

[Sy Borg]

My splatter paintings were made to match my lounge room too. They were a fun to make. A designer friend with a good colour sense mixed the paints and I'd put as much energy as possible into smacking the paint onto and across the canvases. From memory, I ended up with a few pulled muscles.

I agree that art that needs a lot of explaining is not doing its job. It seems that, in certain circles, pretentious explanations are part of the total package. You have an item posing as artwork and an artist creating a logic pretzel of outrageous wankery to explain it as a kind of associated social performance art. Warhol was a master of that game, while presenting graphic design as art with a quirky image and mysterious patter.

Yes, you can tell whether it's a work where an artist has put love into it or not, as compared with craft, where the work is done at sufficient standard to be economic. The love is revealed in attention to detail.

Broadly, bad art without craft is like sex without love. Good art without craft is like sex with a clumsy oaf* with a heart of gold. Bad art with craft is akin to sex for pay. Good art with craft is better than sex.


* Or an oafess or they-oaf of indeterminate gender. Let it not be said that I am politically incorrect.

:)

I remember as a young teen seeing a documentary about Warhol, whilst he was still alive.
At one point he painted a woman's breast with paint, then pressed a piece of paper onto the breast to make an impression.
He then screwed this up and put it in a toilet and whilst flushing the toilet he took a picture of it as it flushed.

The "art" was the photo.

Still after all these years I am astounded how this person with clear social communication problems had managed to beguile an entire society and foist himself upon them as an "artist"

I did a little graphic art back in the day so I enjoy Warhol's work. He was an imaginative designer but, as with your example, he became ever more self indulgent took postmodernism to absurd extremes, seemingly less so when he was working with Jean-Michel Basquiat, who was a more talented painter.

Warhol was much better socially than his image portrayed, which was largely an act put on for reporters. He was a focused, organised and highly skilled at shmoozing the rich and famous. He'd hobnob in elite circles, entertaining them with his Andy Warhol persona. The social games are the major part of such artists' arsenal, and far more effective at attracting buyers than, say, creating a high quality artwork. Now that he is part of history, the effect is amplified.

You seem to be claiming that he was better "socially" than the image of himself he portrayed.
You would only be able to say that had you met him yourself.
The impression I have is a person manipulated more than manipulating, and was surprised by his own ghostly persona.

Looking at the Netflix documentary, it seemed to be that he was extremely socially active. Far more than I ever was. He suffered from social anxiety but he shmoozed in circles that wouldn't even bother looking down their noses at me. No doubt people used him for his fame, but he used them too.

[Consul]

Broadly, bad art without craft is like sex without love. Good art without craft is like sex with a clumsy oaf* with a heart of gold. Bad art with craft is akin to sex for pay. Good art with craft is better than sex.

As for (good) abstract art, it is not true that there is no craft involved in making it.

[Consul]

OK, so there are times when lots of people hold the same, subjective and personal, opinions of art or an artist. Those who seek to go beyond 'like' and 'dislike' are fooling themselves, IMO. Any extra-personal 'standards' are arbitrarily and inappropriately imposed; they contribute nothing. Because, when we get right down to it, we like what we like, and we dislike what we dislike, often without apparent reason, but usually without actual reason. That's what this kind of subjectivity is about, I think.

Aesthetics or philosophy of art cannot become free of subjectivity; but there is an intermediate level between purely individual subjectivity and purely natural objectivity, viz. the level of cultural intersubjectivity, which provides a common ground for non-arbitrary, norm-governed aesthetic judgments that are intersubjectively valid.

Aesthetic Judgment: https: //plato.stanford. edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment/
(Copy and paste the link into your browser as it is with spaces!)

[Sy Borg]

Broadly, bad art without craft is like sex without love. Good art without craft is like sex with a clumsy oaf* with a heart of gold. Bad art with craft is akin to sex for pay. Good art with craft is better than sex.

As for (good) abstract art, it is not true that there is no craft involved in making it.

Abstract art and modern art are not the same. Abstract art has been around in the west for over a century. The great Picasso created many abstract pieces. However, his work is a long way from, say, Piss Christ.

[Consul]

OK, so there are times when lots of people hold the same, subjective and personal, opinions of art or an artist. Those who seek to go beyond 'like' and 'dislike' are fooling themselves, IMO. Any extra-personal 'standards' are arbitrarily and inappropriately imposed; they contribute nothing. Because, when we get right down to it, we like what we like, and we dislike what we dislike, often without apparent reason, but usually without actual reason. That's what this kind of subjectivity is about, I think.

The historical fact that there has been such a cultural institution as aesthetics or philosophy of art since ancient times proves that there is more to art than ineffable hedonic experiences of pleasure or displeasure, emotional attraction or repulsion (joy or digust). We don't just feel art; we also think and talk about it, using the evaluative terms "good" and "bad" in the context of it, and thereby making aesthetic judgments which are intended to be intersubjectively valid.

[Consul]

Abstract art and modern art are not the same. Abstract art has been around in the west for over a century. The great Picasso created many abstract pieces. However, his work is a long way from, say, Piss Christ.

Abstract art is modern art, but not all modern art is abstract art. For example, Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans are examples of nonabstract modern art. (We can distinguish between modern art and postmodern art, but there is no sharp temporal boundary.)

[Sculptor1]

I remember as a young teen seeing a documentary about Warhol, whilst he was still alive.
At one point he painted a woman's breast with paint, then pressed a piece of paper onto the breast to make an impression.
He then screwed this up and put it in a toilet and whilst flushing the toilet he took a picture of it as it flushed.

The "art" was the photo.

Still after all these years I am astounded how this person with clear social communication problems had managed to beguile an entire society and foist himself upon them as an "artist"

I did a little graphic art back in the day so I enjoy Warhol's work. He was an imaginative designer but, as with your example, he became ever more self indulgent took postmodernism to absurd extremes, seemingly less so when he was working with Jean-Michel Basquiat, who was a more talented painter.

Warhol was much better socially than his image portrayed, which was largely an act put on for reporters. He was a focused, organised and highly skilled at shmoozing the rich and famous. He'd hobnob in elite circles, entertaining them with his Andy Warhol persona. The social games are the major part of such artists' arsenal, and far more effective at attracting buyers than, say, creating a high quality artwork. Now that he is part of history, the effect is amplified.

You seem to be claiming that he was better "socially" than the image of himself he portrayed.
You would only be able to say that had you met him yourself.
The impression I have is a person manipulated more than manipulating, and was surprised by his own ghostly persona.

Looking at the Netflix documentary, it seemed to be that he was extremely socially active. Far more than I ever was. He suffered from social anxiety but he shmoozed in circles that wouldn't even bother looking down their noses at me. No doubt people used him for his fame, but he used them too.

There's a Netflix documentary?
Kill me now!

[Sy Borg]

Abstract art and modern art are not the same. Abstract art has been around in the west for over a century. The great Picasso created many abstract pieces. However, his work is a long way from, say, Piss Christ.

Abstract art is modern art, but not all modern art is abstract art. For example, Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans are examples of nonabstract modern art. (We can distinguish between modern art and postmodern art, but there is no sharp temporal boundary.)

"Modern art" as in the label, but abstraction is far from modern, given the amount of indigenous abstract art. The first "modern" abstract paintings were created over a century ago. I'm far from an expert, but if the art community still calls these older works "modern", then the labels are off. Would we call ragtime from 1920 "modern music"?

[Pattern-chaser]

OK, so there are times when lots of people hold the same, subjective and personal, opinions of art or an artist. Those who seek to go beyond 'like' and 'dislike' are fooling themselves, IMO. Any extra-personal 'standards' are arbitrarily and inappropriately imposed; they contribute nothing. Because, when we get right down to it, we like what we like, and we dislike what we dislike, often without apparent reason, but usually without actual reason. That's what this kind of subjectivity is about, I think.

Aesthetics or philosophy of art cannot become free of subjectivity; but there is an intermediate level between purely individual subjectivity and purely natural objectivity, viz. the level of cultural intersubjectivity, which provides a common ground for non-arbitrary, norm-governed aesthetic judgments that are intersubjectively valid.

I think this common ground may not be as common as you think or hope, and I wonder who judges these judgements "valid"? How? What criteria do they apply? Are fixed 'criteria' even appropriate for a subjective judgement like this? In summary, I think what you describe is too vague and contrived to be useful.

There is art that I like, and art that I do not like. The same applies to all of us. This much we can rely on. All else is intentionally-contentious bluster, IMO.