Art or Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrttttttttt!

[Murph]

Ok, spawned from a discussion over on FM, what exactly is "Fine Art"? To me, at least, Art or Fine Art speaks for itself, it needs no lengthy explanation of what the artist meant, it does not need some self righteous, pompous, over inflated egotistical professor or critic telling us that we are untermensch because we cannot understand his art. Any "Artist" who tells you that is engaging, IMHO in self abuse, and has hair on his palms.

Art, Fine Art should speak for itself without any explanations needed. If you have to tell the public what your art is, then you have failed, and should go back to the wine and brie set. For example, there are on this board some of the finest photographers I have seen, and their work speaks for itself, it does not need any explanation.

Years ago I was in Washington DC, in the museum of modern art at the Smithsonian, and there was a large metal plate painted red, with a black like down one side about 1/4 of the way in. The title was something absolutely pretentious like "Man's inhumanity to Man". There were a couple of learned critics or professors looking at it, gassing on and on about the "grace", "form", "definition", and "deep inner meaning" of this. When I expressed my opinion (I was less polite in those days), I was told that I was obviously among the lower classes, and obviously mentally deficient since I could not see the bold statement made by the artist. I gently opined that my 5 year old niece could make better art. I decided to leave before Security was called. As I said, in those days I was much less polite (and circumspect).

I photograph for me, no one else. I have photos hanging in various offices, such as doctors offices, the courthouse, the DA's office, etc, but I photograph for me only. And DON'T CALL ME AN ARTIST!

What thinks the forum??

[Daniel Bates]

I try not to think about defining art. It always makes my head hurt.

[ka5txl]

Originally Posted by Daniel Bates

I try not to think about defining art. It always makes my head hurt.

Ahh but a sandwich Artist at Subway can make your tummy feel full

[Dobick]

My opinion -- since you asked -- is that art should have at least a smidgen of universality about it. What I mean by this is that the emotions felt when you first experience an exhibit should be somewhat explainable. In your example above, without knowing the full history of the "artist" and knowing all of the works that they have ever produced, you would never be able to realistically expect to move from a plate on the wall to something stirring and poignent. If you do happen to know the full history of an artist, and all the requisite items that came before that cause a simple painted dish to emote feelings about human kind's struggle against itself, then as an artist you are kinda limiting the audience that piece will actually speak to. It moves from the realm of art at that point to an inside joke. And while those of that circle may understand the punch line -- pieces like that have no place in a public exhibit.

I also think that deeply subjective reations, such as my own personal dislike of the color yellow, are not truly indicative of great works of art. I may have a very viceral reaction to a painting of a girl holding a prominently placed yellow balloon, but something that deeply subjective could not have possibly been known by the artist, nor can he expect to take credit for such a reaction.

[jeffkohn]

As far as the term "fine art" goes, it just means art that is an end unto itself, as opposed to serving some utilitarian purpose. This wiki article does a pretty good job of explaining the difference between fine art and applied arts.

[Murph]

Why does Art (or Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrtttttttt) have to have some deeper meaning, why can't the artist simply say: "This is a pretty photo of a pretty scene" and leave it at that? Whats wrong with pretty in and of itself?

[iCe]

A red plate with a black line on it?

I call that salesmanship...

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by iCe

A red plate with a black line on it?

I call that salesmanship...

Or a flourescent shop light mounted on a gallery wall at a 45 degree angle.

[toverman]

I agree with your take on art as far as the best is easy to understand on most levels, no matter your age or background. A good picture (or artwork) should be worth a thousand words by itself and not need further explanation to "get."

But "art" is also personal. And it doesn't bother me if someone thinks a jar of cotton balls is art to them.

[sldi]

This reminds me of the old fable about the emperor's new clothes. All the "elite" agree its wonderful because to say less would mark them as low class. On another line, look at what this "art" has done, it has created a discussion about what it is and one class of people are being crass and snobbish towards another class. Maybe the art is working.

[Chief]

It's all in the EYE of the Beholder.

Gordon

[dtscds]

Anytime the discussion of "aaarrrrttt" comes up I remember a story I saw on 60 Minutes years ago. It was about some elderly couple that lived in either New York or D.C. (I can't remember.) Anways, he worked for the Post Office and she was a librarian or some such. What made them special was they had what was considered to be a "world class" art collection. They were considered to be among the elite of the art world. They were really into "art" and made it a point to keep current on who the "up-and-coming" artists were. They would make friends with the new kid on the block and offer help and guidance. As a result, theses new artists would frequently give them some piece they had done and the couple just kept these things. They had an apartment full of artwork that was considered one of the "finest" collections anywhere.
Okay, the long rambling diatribe is now coming to a point... Mike Wallace was walking around their apartment looking at stuff that was about the level of the red plate/line thing and he was saying that he just didn't get it. They showed him a "piece" that some very famous artist had done in their apartment. (It was somebody like Jackson Pollock or equally famous--I just don't remember.) Anyway, the "piece" was a section of nylon rope--prolly about a foot long--that this great, munificent artist took and nailed to their sheetrock wall. That's it--a piece of white nylon rope nailed to the wall. Wallace asked if it would be considered valuable. They estimated it's value at about $1,000.00! Mike looked as puzzled as I was!
Rembrandt I get. Monet I get. The Sistene Chapel I get. "Hunk Of Rope Nailed To The Wall" I don't get.

[futurshox]

Thank God it's not just me that doesn't understand "modern art"!

[Corrie]

It's totally subjective. I am really critical about what I believe is "art". I see stuff that I believe to be complete crap and others fawn over it or the other way around. I don't care how expensive it is, if it's fugly or lacking in some way I'm not buying into it.

[alamoshutterbug]

I long time ago back when I had a TV, I saw this piece about the art trade in New York City. The journalist went into a department store and paid several hundred dollars for a white dress shirt that was covered with wrinkles that could not come out. So he took this shirt and framed it, took it to a gallery and had it critiqued. The curator said it was a good start, had merit, yada yada yada. Then the kicker, he stumbles into a gallery front for an artist's studio and finds (LOW AND BEHOLD) a framed wrinkled white button down shirt, selling for $50,000.

Basquiat did some amazing mural work, but also did SAMO graffiti, cheap quick art, and some things akin to nailing rope to walls. Would all be art? Does art depend on the artist, marketing, pride, effort, critique, acclaim? Does it just have to be on a wall? I don't have answers to any of these questions, really. I do however think it too simple to say it's in the eye of the beholder. Too much subjectivity and you will have people claiming Bernini was a hack.