Philosophy Discussion Forums

HANDSON wrote:1. How do we know when we're seeing art? And does it matter? Might the object before us be simply the remnants of an unfinished construction project? Might the beautiful color and form we see be the accidental juxtaposition of a produce sellers fruit against the backdrop of verdant city park?

Here's a true story for you:

About a year ago, I was out shopping in a nearby city. As I was walking up to the main street, I could hear some really cool experimental music. It obviously had some strong industrial/noise/musique concrète influences. I'd never heard anything like it in a public space before; I remember thinking how cool it was that there were buskers who had the guts (and the permission) to play that kind of thing.

Anyway, when I turned onto the street, I saw that it was actually some people doing roadworks. Very disappointing.

Zoot's story is what I'd call unwitting testimony to the existence of the creating imagination of the human.

Neither phrase is attributable to me.'Unwitting testimony ' is from Arthur Marwick and 'creating imagination ' is either Coleridge or Keats I forget which. May even be Wordsworth.

HANDSON wrote: 1. How do we know when we're seeing art? And does it matter? Might the object before us be simply the remnants of an unfinished construction project? Might the beautiful color and form we see be the accidental juxtaposition of a produce sellers fruit against the backdrop of verdant city park?

2. When we view something as art we view it differently than we observe things outside the art context. What compels us to implement our aesthetic response?

Art that doesn't appear to be art is a pretty good hook. I was at the Guggenheim in NYC recently and saw a couple of lovers making out on the floor in the middle of the atrium. I thought, "well that won't last long." I did last a long time, it was art. I'll never forget it. The same artist also had children walking around the museum engaging people and talking about the show while being a part of the show. Unexpectedly polite and delightful, they were also art, giving the place a subtle weirdness.

The discovery that something that you are seeing and figuring out turns out to be an artwork is unexpected and delightful.

3uGH7D4MLj;

The Guggenheim piece makes me think of work by Marina Abramovic; she, similarly creates situations where museum visitors become participants in the work. I like the idea of this.

HANDSON wrote:3uGH7D4MLj;

The Guggenheim piece makes me think of work by Marina Abramovic; she, similarly creates situations where museum visitors become participants in the work. I like the idea of this.

I saw her The Artist is Present at MOMA, amazing. I loved it.

She is a performance artist and that genre is already pretty aggressive about confronting the audience. The artist is still the artist and the audience is still the audience though, that's clear.

You know the avant garde you mention is really a modernist concept, no? We can't really use this term since what, 60s abstract expressionism? These days there is no avant garde, the art world churns along with a parallel universe model instead. It's better, but the glory days are over.

I agree; no longer any cutting edge.