When is art, not art?

[ChunTzu]

I admit to having not fully read each post in this thread but, as somebody who identifies myself as an artist (a term I'm still not comfortable with, mostly because of the culturally defined view of what an "artist" does), I feel like I should at least put in a few thoughts...

First of all, I've never met an artist who will define art. And in conversations where we attempt to identify "distinctions" (as I will call them), there is, inevitably, a 3 hour conversation that hovers somewhere between academically accepted counter examples, counter examples or opinions to the counter examples, and thoughts on the pointlessness of the raging debate. Either way, no conclusions are made. To that I say, good. There should be something in this world that is not seen through tunnel vision and has the ability to adjust itself as necessary or maybe just desired.

If forced (ugh), I would give a very vague notion along the lines of "art" as a frame through which to see an object or experience in another context that could yield different conclusions, for better or for worse, or you're maybe unchanged. Consider also "art" as Humberto's Maturana's "languaging" about "communicating." An example given in Capra's The Web of Life to understand the difference: A cat meows every morning to wake me up so that I'll follow it to the refrigerator and pour some milk into a bowl. This is "communicating". Suppose one day I didn't have milk. The cat comes into my room, meows, and begins walking to the kitchen. Noticing that I haven't followed, he returns to my room and says/meows "Hey! Where's my milk?" This is "languaging"- kind of like a 2nd level/order of discourse which allows us to analyze the 1st level/order of discourse which can take many different forms through non-traditional media. So, if you see a piece in a gallery that you don't believe to be art, probably one of the questions the artist is asking is "Do you believe this to be art?" Most likely, there are also some other things going on...Damien Hirst, for example, in his pieces where the lambs are literally chopped in half reference sacrificial rituals, etc. I could go on but I think you get the picture (eh? eh?).

This is, of course, not meant to exclude the fact that sometimes art is really just the pursuit of "beauty" (which is another term that leads to a whole other debate) and a landscpape, still life, whatever has something to say that's worthwhile. It's just that the art market, which is really the driving force in mainstream development, isn't interested in landscapes right now. I believe Bill Viola, a video artist, said it best:

"...but I mean in general that artists are basically out of touch with what people are feeling and thinking as participants in a specialized dialogue. There are a lot of different aspects to art, and I think it's arrogant of the art world to believe, or unconsciously promote the assumption, that that it has some kind of monopoly on creativity...The common human trait of creativity is something that's going to link people from all different walks of life to art. I think it's important for people who are involved as professional artists to begin to come out of their little cubbyholes and begin to acknowledge the rest of the society. At the same time we need in art an area of specialization in the same way scientists need to have conferences of physicists where they talk in equations that you and I could not possibly comprehend. That's absolutely necessary. I tend to look at this...as the research arm of the field of art where people are going to be at the edge pushing things, doing something that no on else is doing, putting two ideas together that haven't been put together before.
- Bill Viola

Allan Kaprow in Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life (edited by Jeff Kelley) has an interesting debate on the differences between "art", "un-art", and "anti-art" in the chapter titled "Education of the Un-Artist."

It's also worth it to note that when I feel like I'm creating "art", my work is usually very bad. When I'm just making something meaningful to me, or researching, or whatever, the "art" label is something that's simply applied when I'm done and the work is in a gallery or some site for critique/consideration.

But to answer your question, "When is art not art?" it doesn't matter. What do you gain from the distinction other than the personal satisfaction of saying "This is very bad art. If at all." Well congratulations, I say that all the time, too. But in the end, it doesn't really change much, my friend, because somewhere, somebody disagrees with us which is why the art in question is "art."

P.S. The link to the Kaprow book is to Google Reader so you can actually read the chapter I'm referring to.

edit: Another large factor in determining "art" vs. "non-art" is intention.

[pamela]

yes, Chun Tzu, intention is something not to be overlooked.
I have a friend, who in my opinion, is a very talented artist.
Due to financial reasons, has had to crank out what she terms as "fuzzy animal" pictures. This is what the market in her area is seeking. Although, these are not bad, they certainly do not reflect, the depth and imagination and thought that goes into her masterpieces.
We recently took a stroll through the local art alley, and saw some interesting pieces. She was very excited about one artist in particular and commented much about his work. My initial reaction was these pieces were best served on a comic strip. I decided then to take the time to really look at each one and see beyond my initial reaction.They were infact good.They prompted old childhood emotions and thoughts in me, that had not been experienced in many years. It was indeed, stimulating.Now, these would never be purchased by me, as they are not a reflection of who I am today. I choose art that speaks to my inner most being at a very calm level. But that is me. I am sure that some buy for this very same reason and others who purchase simply to keep up with the Jones'. But whatever the reason, these still remain art.

[ChunTzu]

It's also not unusual for collectors to purchase pieces of art in a fashion that resembles investing in the stock market. Buy when the price of the painting, or whatever, is low and sell it years later when the price is high because the artist is now a superstar and all of their work is worth millions. Especially when the stocks are as combustible as they are currently, this practice could be seen as more grounded.

[Turtle]

Just a note for Paige to say that I haven't singled you out for lampoonage, as I'm an equal opportunity pasquinader and was already primed for this by the Pope's recent tirade on art. To whit: >>

Pope Benedict XVI has condemned a sculpture of a crucified frog on display at a museum in Bolzano, Italy, the Italian news agency ANSA reported. Franz Pahl, an official from the Trentino-Alto Adige region in northern Italy, said the pope had written to him to complain about the frog, which was installed in May at Museion, the modern-art museum in Bolzano. In a letter dated Aug. 7, Pope Benedict said that the sculpture “injured the religious feeling of many people who see in the Cross the symbol of the love of God and of our salvation, which deserves recognition and religious devotion.” ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/ar....html?ref=arts

My lampoon of the Pope, Muhamed, Jebus, the Frog Artist, Art, Galleries, and anyone else who may take offense:

YouTube - LORD OF FLIES

[alexander]

Start with a great quote:

Originally Posted by Chun-Tzu

I admit to having not fully read each post in this thread but, as somebody who identifies myself as an artist (a term I'm still not comfortable with, mostly because of the culturally defined view of what an "artist" does), I feel like I should at least put in a few thoughts...

Methinks art has not a definition with or without some sort of a monetary value attached to the piece, beautiful art can be expensive, or free, we have many ways of expressing art, and it's not about how it is expressed, it is about how one feels when one makes it. Art is only art when the emotion of making the art go beyond having to make something, art is only art when the artist's emotion is represented in the form that portrays others in tune with the emotion to feel what the artist felt when they expressed the art in whichever way they chose to express it.

Art does not have to be beautiful, art does not need to be PG rated, and most of all, art does not need to be in the box.

[Turtle]

Speaking of sour-grapes art haters, how about that Hitler huh!? Wow! Plenty of time to drench yourself in the history of all that fun because a new program is airing soon on Hitler's claim to know good from bad art.

Here we go then's: >> ..........................
The Rape of Europa | PBS

Originally Posted by PBS Promo

THE RAPE OF EUROPA tells the epic story of the systematic theft, deliberate destruction and miraculous survival of Europe’s art treasures during the Third Reich and World War II. In a journey through seven countries, the film takes viewers into the violent whirlwind of fanaticism, greed, and warfare that threatened to wipe out the artistic heritage of Europe. For twelve long years, the Nazis looted and destroyed art on a scale unprecedented in history. But heroic young art historians and curators from America and across Europe fought back with an extraordinary campaign to rescue and return the millions of lost, hidden and stolen treasures. Now, more than sixty years later, the legacy of this tragic history continues to play out as families of looted collectors recover major works of art, conservators repair battle damage, and nations fight over the fate of ill-gotten spoils of war. Joan Allen narrates this breathtaking chronicle about the battle over the very survival of centuries of western culture.