PlutonianEmpire
King of the Plutonian Empire
inb4 Ron Paul and/or the Civil War. 
The Thread for Bickering About Art
- Thread starter Traitorfish
- Start date
I think you are being too generous. One problem with You People who are always moaning about cultural threats is that you give them way too much credit and pretend they are somehow mainstream or about to become mainstream. You end up glorifying the things you professed to oppose, which gives them more exposure, which then makes you even more paranoid, and so on and so forth until the "threats" that weren't threats in the first place really become mainstream and everyone is worse off.
That said, I agree with the second paragraph.
eduhum
Aahh the gold old days...
@Traitorfish do you accept gladily that that Rothko painting was sold at 86 million dollars?
Do you think it is a better art than the Romantically Apocaliptic website was posted here? (I actually love those comics. They are like, for me, the 'maximal representation of internet art'
Do you think it is a better art than the Romantically Apocaliptic website was posted here? (I actually love those comics. They are like, for me, the 'maximal representation of internet art'
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
before this post, i apologize for decapitalization in general, i was just lazy when i started out and then all of a sudden i typed a lot of everything
first off, art that's "made to be sold" is nothing new, it's rather the first kind of art that was ever produced, you exemplified the rennaiscence, but art that is artisanship is pretty much how it originated. what is your ideal of what art should have as a purpose? because it sounds more remniscent of the post-modernist ideal than you might think
secondly, there are plenty of highly influential, necessarily self-referential or contextual works that required knowledge about the field + an interpretation framework to make the piece work that was not intended to make money whatsoever, but rather intended for the artist to express a point somehow, which in turn did not make the artist any particular amount of money
third, i'm an artist who does not really care about monetary compensation and i know plenty that don't. if they did, they'd enter another field. renaissence art is different from today because it was actually a bourgoise artisan thing where parents taught their children in close circles how to do a good job for a regent. it was a business much different than the contemplating processes that happen today
art hasn't really been a commercial thing in newer times. well, the intent of art isn't commercial. artists can't really help whether they are exposed (and get money) or not. their intention is usually more about intellectual/personal exposition (or even prestige) than wealth, even though the two might go hand in hand. wealth is more a bonus when things go right.
this is a pretty good summary of our contemporary understanding of why art exists: (edit: understand that this rendition of art is oftentimes fallacious when applied in a historical context)
sorry about the tshirts on the right, i couldn't find the original source
that's not to say, of course, that your rendition or opinion on how art is commercialized is inherently valid, i just don't really buy it because it would make all artists pretty dumb people for doing what they're doing. it's not a living you'd want to make.
and lastly, that said: i just haven't stumbled upon an academic rendition of post-modernist art such as yours, which is why i'm so resistant to your position. if you could explain your views a little bit more, you might give me food for thought. some namedropping would be cool 2.
people appreciate good looking artistry because it looks good to them, not because of any particular skills required to do it. i like because i like. dump in the road might merely more interesting to these so-called "pseudo-intellectuals" because their artistic education has covered and explained all earlier art throughoutly to them, therefore newer ways to create things interest them. they know more but less about the dump, therefore they are intrigued and must examine. that's why it must look confusing and useless to people that've worked less with it.
that said, there is plenty of intellectual discourse that is bored with the poop, or even denounce it, and rather think older works are unexplained, hoping to invest time into that area instead.
it's a preference thing. the objective criteria that cements one's assumptions of better or worse art is all socially created. to everyone but us, a poop is just as pointless as a rock or a nothing.
the bourgoise however laps it up because sometimes the "real" intellectuals of art or creative minds or uncreative minds behind a piece start discussing it a lot in smart terms and the bourgoise will be intrigued by what they hear and invest their time in it for reasons of playful curiosity or a wish for prestige. innomatu had something that was remniscent of this problem, but his was more that art is commercialized, which it isn't inherently; the intention of art today is not wealth or production value.
, then again, to some, it is. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/
lol
first off, art that's "made to be sold" is nothing new, it's rather the first kind of art that was ever produced, you exemplified the rennaiscence, but art that is artisanship is pretty much how it originated. what is your ideal of what art should have as a purpose? because it sounds more remniscent of the post-modernist ideal than you might think
secondly, there are plenty of highly influential, necessarily self-referential or contextual works that required knowledge about the field + an interpretation framework to make the piece work that was not intended to make money whatsoever, but rather intended for the artist to express a point somehow, which in turn did not make the artist any particular amount of money
third, i'm an artist who does not really care about monetary compensation and i know plenty that don't. if they did, they'd enter another field. renaissence art is different from today because it was actually a bourgoise artisan thing where parents taught their children in close circles how to do a good job for a regent. it was a business much different than the contemplating processes that happen today
art hasn't really been a commercial thing in newer times. well, the intent of art isn't commercial. artists can't really help whether they are exposed (and get money) or not. their intention is usually more about intellectual/personal exposition (or even prestige) than wealth, even though the two might go hand in hand. wealth is more a bonus when things go right.
this is a pretty good summary of our contemporary understanding of why art exists: (edit: understand that this rendition of art is oftentimes fallacious when applied in a historical context)
sorry about the tshirts on the right, i couldn't find the original source
that's not to say, of course, that your rendition or opinion on how art is commercialized is inherently valid, i just don't really buy it because it would make all artists pretty dumb people for doing what they're doing. it's not a living you'd want to make.
and lastly, that said: i just haven't stumbled upon an academic rendition of post-modernist art such as yours, which is why i'm so resistant to your position. if you could explain your views a little bit more, you might give me food for thought. some namedropping would be cool 2.
people appreciate good looking artistry because it looks good to them, not because of any particular skills required to do it. i like because i like. dump in the road might merely more interesting to these so-called "pseudo-intellectuals" because their artistic education has covered and explained all earlier art throughoutly to them, therefore newer ways to create things interest them. they know more but less about the dump, therefore they are intrigued and must examine. that's why it must look confusing and useless to people that've worked less with it.
that said, there is plenty of intellectual discourse that is bored with the poop, or even denounce it, and rather think older works are unexplained, hoping to invest time into that area instead.
it's a preference thing. the objective criteria that cements one's assumptions of better or worse art is all socially created. to everyone but us, a poop is just as pointless as a rock or a nothing.
the bourgoise however laps it up because sometimes the "real" intellectuals of art or creative minds or uncreative minds behind a piece start discussing it a lot in smart terms and the bourgoise will be intrigued by what they hear and invest their time in it for reasons of playful curiosity or a wish for prestige. innomatu had something that was remniscent of this problem, but his was more that art is commercialized, which it isn't inherently; the intention of art today is not wealth or production value.
, then again, to some, it is. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/
inb4 Ron Paul and/or the Civil War.
lol
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,383
I jusk knew I was going to be challenged for that post, and that an artist would be the first one to complain!
I hold no ideal of what art should be. I fully agree with you that art was commercial before the modern era, even since it became acknowledged as a distinct "job". That was indeed my whole point: I am saying that modernists did hold an ideal of a different kind of art, but failed to uphold it. They have done the exact same thing those who came before them did. That modernist claim to difference is false. If they really wanted to change art (something about which I'm neutral) they'd have to end art as a commercial venture. Because there's not much more that they could change (except try to abolish art altogether. which is impossible anyway)...
But did those influential works actually failed to make money? All influential art tends to become commercial art and make money for someone: influence is reflected in commercial success! Indeed enabled by commercial success. Whatever the artist may have wanted those two will go hand in hand. Did it became influential? Then unless the artist died immediately after he will have profited from it, fame brings commercialization and fortune though sometimes the fortune is mismanaged and end up in hands other than the artist's.
Art has never been more commercial than in modern times. Only in modern times have we had copyright and "intellectual property", no? Whatever the intentions of the artists the current legal framework makes all art a commercial venture by default!
Artists really don't have much, if any, of a say on the whole process. You either say that all creative activity is art, or that what gets attention is art. And what gets attention is what gets (or will get) commercial success.
For an example, consider that "restoration" of a century-old paining in a spanish church by some elderly woman that got into the news a few month ago. Was it art? If Picasso had done it and had decided to do it in the same exact shape, would it be art? If it had gone unnoticed, would it have been art?
We can either say "everything is art", which frankly just annuls the whole concept of art, or admit that what gets positive attention is what becomes known as art, whatever the theoretical justifications advanced in each age for that. This is not new, this is the choice that always has existed. And it's not really a choice, because art only exists with the later definition. Some works become famous and become the art of the age; every other creative works is roadkill, art it may be for some persons but it won't get community recognition. There is only so much attention to spare.
What may have been a relatively new thing, though hard to pinpoint in time, was the "art-as-a-trade" thing. That I would never see as a modern thing, fame and commercialization have been inseparable for a long time. Changing that might be grounds for claiming that art had just undergone a major change. But modern art certainly didn't broke that relation. it's now stronger than ever.
Mind you, with all these words I'm just claiming that modernist hasn't changed what art was/is at all. Sorry, it's just not my field, so I can't use the language of the trade. Which you may regard as an advantage or justification for disqualification. In the end it's one opinion, for what it is worth. I certainly don't intend to become any academic on art!
Optical
The Fall of the Eleventh
Did a bit of thinking on this just now, and here's my answer to the question:
All creative activity is art. That's prose, poetry, music, "art" art, "modern art" art (explanation later), philosophical musings and even - if only just - dubstep. Apologies to anyone here who likes dubstep.
Art can be further subdivided, if you wish, into several broad types of art, depending on the way the artists involved think.
Music is the expression of emotion through sound, even if that sound is a horrible sound.
"Art" art is the expression of the senses through physical non-written medium.
Prose and poetry cover any spoken, written, or painted medium that conveys emotion. Doesn't have to make sense, or be complicated. This includes modern art.
That's my take on it, anyway, and given that it's an expression of emotion through written language - and may not actually make sense - it goes under the broad heading of prose.
All creative activity is art. That's prose, poetry, music, "art" art, "modern art" art (explanation later), philosophical musings and even - if only just - dubstep. Apologies to anyone here who likes dubstep.
Art can be further subdivided, if you wish, into several broad types of art, depending on the way the artists involved think.
Music is the expression of emotion through sound, even if that sound is a horrible sound.
"Art" art is the expression of the senses through physical non-written medium.
Prose and poetry cover any spoken, written, or painted medium that conveys emotion. Doesn't have to make sense, or be complicated. This includes modern art.
That's my take on it, anyway, and given that it's an expression of emotion through written language - and may not actually make sense - it goes under the broad heading of prose.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Art is so subjective that what one person considers as art, another person will consider as rubbish. What I really hate is the snobs who critique every thing as if they know everything about the art.
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
innomatu
many influential works were not commercially succesful at all really. i can exemplify the FLUXUS movement and the 1952 thing and the unsellable pieces that have been done at times - installation pieces or inherently temporary pieces such as street art today which is gaining quite some tempo within certain crowds.
there is a lot of criticism of intellectual property between artists, especially with the people studying it. it wasn't originally intended for artists after all, but inventors. just happened to mix somewhat into the romantic ideal of individual genius and sublimity. read up on kantian aesthetics to get an idea where these constructs are from, same with idealized biographies of beethoven to get examples of them.
just because people with money often value art and expresses it with money doesn't make art a thing with money as an intention as you render it. commercial succes is unimportant to the artist in the most cases - as you must understand - it is unimportant to the reciever - as you understand from the people disliking postmodernist seemingly-nonsense that cost millions of dollars. they really don't care about how much it's worth. they care about the emotional response they experience. it just so happens that people with money that like art happens to express it by buying it from each other, and sometimes it becomes a thing of prestige, sometimes a thing of curiosity, sometimes a thing of understanding. the relationship which happens in upper class circles is a special part of a modern art reception that is by no means universally applicable as it's very rarely, to everyone with serious interests in and understanding of art, relevant to discuss. the more money the art costs? totally irrelevant to academics. it might help with getting exposition, but it's nothing more than a wow factor. academics only care about why or why not the pieces influence. what of kraut bands in 60s germany? their influence has been huge on the alternative music scene the last 20 years. what about the improvised rap of harlem? is that less valid as art because many of the pioneers remain unknown today? were they not artists as they recieved no real money to compensate? were they only artists because pop rappers earn money today?
i'm not disqualifying monetary compensation as a factor in art reception. it has, in actuality, been the only factor at some points. art isn't like that right now, however; currently it is a certain medium of which to expose thoughts, and this medium is ill-defined in this time period because it's oftentimes very much about expressing thoughts on the medium itself, and there are so many ways to completely deconstruct itself as something consistent or eternal, just like there is no way to determine objectively good art. if it was possible to define art, it would be possible to define objectively good art, since you could find a "true form" or an ideal. but you can't. today, it makes much more sense to analyze individual works in relations to specific movements or the things they're attempting to criticize - that is, understanding the art cultures with specific central ideals. edit: and therefore in what context the art was produced, how it seems like that context, how it doesn't. because that "context" is the closest thing you get to a definition of art right now. sad innit?
i mean, your issue with art is the same as my issue with john cage's definition of music. that doesn't make that definition less deep or interesting to discuss. because that is after all the essence of recent art criticism or the art definition - it is examining its own borders and can pretty much be attributed to everything if so desired by an artist.
many influential works were not commercially succesful at all really. i can exemplify the FLUXUS movement and the 1952 thing and the unsellable pieces that have been done at times - installation pieces or inherently temporary pieces such as street art today which is gaining quite some tempo within certain crowds.
there is a lot of criticism of intellectual property between artists, especially with the people studying it. it wasn't originally intended for artists after all, but inventors. just happened to mix somewhat into the romantic ideal of individual genius and sublimity. read up on kantian aesthetics to get an idea where these constructs are from, same with idealized biographies of beethoven to get examples of them.
just because people with money often value art and expresses it with money doesn't make art a thing with money as an intention as you render it. commercial succes is unimportant to the artist in the most cases - as you must understand - it is unimportant to the reciever - as you understand from the people disliking postmodernist seemingly-nonsense that cost millions of dollars. they really don't care about how much it's worth. they care about the emotional response they experience. it just so happens that people with money that like art happens to express it by buying it from each other, and sometimes it becomes a thing of prestige, sometimes a thing of curiosity, sometimes a thing of understanding. the relationship which happens in upper class circles is a special part of a modern art reception that is by no means universally applicable as it's very rarely, to everyone with serious interests in and understanding of art, relevant to discuss. the more money the art costs? totally irrelevant to academics. it might help with getting exposition, but it's nothing more than a wow factor. academics only care about why or why not the pieces influence. what of kraut bands in 60s germany? their influence has been huge on the alternative music scene the last 20 years. what about the improvised rap of harlem? is that less valid as art because many of the pioneers remain unknown today? were they not artists as they recieved no real money to compensate? were they only artists because pop rappers earn money today?
i'm not disqualifying monetary compensation as a factor in art reception. it has, in actuality, been the only factor at some points. art isn't like that right now, however; currently it is a certain medium of which to expose thoughts, and this medium is ill-defined in this time period because it's oftentimes very much about expressing thoughts on the medium itself, and there are so many ways to completely deconstruct itself as something consistent or eternal, just like there is no way to determine objectively good art. if it was possible to define art, it would be possible to define objectively good art, since you could find a "true form" or an ideal. but you can't. today, it makes much more sense to analyze individual works in relations to specific movements or the things they're attempting to criticize - that is, understanding the art cultures with specific central ideals. edit: and therefore in what context the art was produced, how it seems like that context, how it doesn't. because that "context" is the closest thing you get to a definition of art right now. sad innit?
i mean, your issue with art is the same as my issue with john cage's definition of music. that doesn't make that definition less deep or interesting to discuss. because that is after all the essence of recent art criticism or the art definition - it is examining its own borders and can pretty much be attributed to everything if so desired by an artist.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
The "what is considered art" question can die a terrible death already.
Whether or not someone else is creating "true" art is irrelevant. For one, it's their will that took them to their act. If you don't like their act, ignore it. The act of discussing their creations brings them closer to validity, and if you don't like that then...well, stop. Also, it draws energy away from creating or supporting whatever you deem to be "true" art.
Whether or not someone else is creating "true" art is irrelevant. For one, it's their will that took them to their act. If you don't like their act, ignore it. The act of discussing their creations brings them closer to validity, and if you don't like that then...well, stop. Also, it draws energy away from creating or supporting whatever you deem to be "true" art.
If it's about art, why isn't it in A & E?
So dubstep is not considered music?
So do you consider art critics snobs by profession?
Art does not necessarily express an emotion - although it may very well (and usually does) bring forth emotions in the beholder. For instance, an essay is a form of literature. And the paintings of an artist such as Mondrian don't really express an emotion at all.
So dubstep is not considered music?
So do you consider art critics snobs by profession?
Art does not necessarily express an emotion - although it may very well (and usually does) bring forth emotions in the beholder. For instance, an essay is a form of literature. And the paintings of an artist such as Mondrian don't really express an emotion at all.
Optical
The Fall of the Eleventh
It is. That was for comic effect.
I didn't say that. It's expression of the senses IMO.
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Why? Just because it hasn't been answered with a throughout definition (and as such is impossible to universalize in most possibly all contexts) doesn't mean you can't have some set criteria for different movements or genres that exist.
What's wrong with me investigating it even if I dislike it? I don't see a need to weed out "bad" art. People will do that themselves (For example, by kneejerking over "pseudo-intellectualism" or whatever they might feel a need to different themselves from in this thread.). Also, I believe something can be interesting to investigate even if I don't like it.
It sounds like you have a problem with the postmodern discourse of art criticism, anti-art, selfcriticism, and identity crisis. It interests me because you seem to have a quite functional approach to how to treat art; with indifference to what it is, but interest in what it tells you. I have the same approach in regards to what I choose to spend my time on recreationally as well as what I tell others to spend their time on recreationally. But analytically, it makes perfect sense to examine the art movements that exist today even if they're literally crap on a plate.
Then again, you seem to have a "valid"ation complex which I do not have, so you have some kind of criteria of what art is regardless of your quite practical-subjective approach. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...)
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,383
Some day I really should delve into that, yes.
Commercial value does not come before notoriety, but it comes as part of a loop involving both notoriety and commercial value. It seems to me that even the artists that try to escape this end up falling to it, it's hopeless. By practice art==notoriety==comercialization. Or at least that remains my impression. It's like the fate of all "marginal artists's neighbourhoods" in big cities: first it's the place where generally poorer artists install themselves because the cost of living is low, then it gets improvements and attracts the hipsters for the sake of its notoriety and environment, then it becomes an upscale neighbourhood, and the newer/poorer artists start establishing themselves somewhere else...
The "lifespan" of a type of art is very much like that! Some art works or whole types are still influential without ever gaining public notoriety, true, they influence fellow artists and academics, and are only publicly recognized later, it ever. But how many people know about that art? And if the public in general doesn't know about it, does it "exist" as art? How much of a public does a work require to be art? I'm thinking that this question is probably a big one, and I really have no idea about the best answer...
As I said, this is far from being an area about which I know enough to make a reasonable on-line discussion. It would make a fine group conversation with other people, in which I would like to make a lot of questions and interrupt the other participants all the time. A written forum is not, alas, the best place to talk in that way. I'll probably content myself to watch further conversations here.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
EDIT SORRY MY POST IS AN EYESORE, AGAIN, I EXPECTED TO WRITE LIKE A PARAGRAPH BUT IT WENT OUT OF HAND.
an idea would be to delve into the ideas of john cage (i'm a musicologist which is why my examples are practically musical) who pretty much states music doesn't require anything specifically, not even rhythm, intention or pitch, just someone to listen. that doesn't mean all sound is music, but that all sound can be music, depending on a listener who considers it to be music, basically
this is his infamous (i think selfdeclared) opus magnum
Link to video.
it's a contextual "piece" and is pretty much about his thoughts on the nature of silence when incorporated into music and how sounds become music and whether there is ever music at all
that's pretty much loosely translatable into the current understanding of art. call it art and it is but try to define art anyways because that definition is totally useless and messy. again, we are in a time period which in turn has a approximate idea of things, as with all other time periods. i hope the concept of art will transform even further to something else, hopefully something better (i personally think subset branching of art movements, each with different ideals, rather than an overarching ideal, will become the standard understanding of art, especially as it coincides greatly with the rootless experience that is current society. current rootlessness writes itself into postmodern art by questioning the nature of art itself, but it can only be interesting for so long, can't it?
then again, i admit i haven't actually read contemporary art criticism yet in a meaningful manner, only perspectives to contemporary art ideals from texts about older ideals of what art should be. i imagine plenty of knowledgable people with a better ability to cite names may show up and spell things out better, correct me, or say i'm wrong)
and your points are swell enough, but the practice of commercialization just isn't central to art. again, it is often relevant and can be discussed in several fields and practices, but it's not a central concept of art, not as it's understood today, simply as it's not relevant to the artists nor the artistic process as it was two hundred years ago
what you're criticizing is the problem of exposition upon commercial distribution, believing it is a cultural measurement of how good art it is, which is sound as is, but not particularly relevant when discussing the relationship of art reception in the abstract; an emotional response which aestheticians are trying to map. commercial distribution isn't part of the abstract relationship; to put it metaphorically, if the wealthy banker buys an art piece and places it in front of another man, the placing is the exposition but the actual reception doesn't really care for whatever portier brought the piece there: the reception is a reception
what you'll then probably answer is "what if the banker don't just bring it but also slanders to the man's face about the $$$ price of the painting", and well, that's one of the circumstances of exposition that might happen! but it's not the abstract central part of exposition, something all other kinds of expositions share; the relationship between the piece and the receptor.
and no, art pieces don't have to be particularly public before they're art pieces. just because you didn't experience doesn't mean the relationship never happened
an idea would be to delve into the ideas of john cage (i'm a musicologist which is why my examples are practically musical) who pretty much states music doesn't require anything specifically, not even rhythm, intention or pitch, just someone to listen. that doesn't mean all sound is music, but that all sound can be music, depending on a listener who considers it to be music, basically
this is his infamous (i think selfdeclared) opus magnum
Link to video.
it's a contextual "piece" and is pretty much about his thoughts on the nature of silence when incorporated into music and how sounds become music and whether there is ever music at all
that's pretty much loosely translatable into the current understanding of art. call it art and it is but try to define art anyways because that definition is totally useless and messy. again, we are in a time period which in turn has a approximate idea of things, as with all other time periods. i hope the concept of art will transform even further to something else, hopefully something better (i personally think subset branching of art movements, each with different ideals, rather than an overarching ideal, will become the standard understanding of art, especially as it coincides greatly with the rootless experience that is current society. current rootlessness writes itself into postmodern art by questioning the nature of art itself, but it can only be interesting for so long, can't it?
then again, i admit i haven't actually read contemporary art criticism yet in a meaningful manner, only perspectives to contemporary art ideals from texts about older ideals of what art should be. i imagine plenty of knowledgable people with a better ability to cite names may show up and spell things out better, correct me, or say i'm wrong)
and your points are swell enough, but the practice of commercialization just isn't central to art. again, it is often relevant and can be discussed in several fields and practices, but it's not a central concept of art, not as it's understood today, simply as it's not relevant to the artists nor the artistic process as it was two hundred years ago
what you're criticizing is the problem of exposition upon commercial distribution, believing it is a cultural measurement of how good art it is, which is sound as is, but not particularly relevant when discussing the relationship of art reception in the abstract; an emotional response which aestheticians are trying to map. commercial distribution isn't part of the abstract relationship; to put it metaphorically, if the wealthy banker buys an art piece and places it in front of another man, the placing is the exposition but the actual reception doesn't really care for whatever portier brought the piece there: the reception is a reception
what you'll then probably answer is "what if the banker don't just bring it but also slanders to the man's face about the $$$ price of the painting", and well, that's one of the circumstances of exposition that might happen! but it's not the abstract central part of exposition, something all other kinds of expositions share; the relationship between the piece and the receptor.
and no, art pieces don't have to be particularly public before they're art pieces. just because you didn't experience doesn't mean the relationship never happened
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
If I understand you're point, here, then you may not have understood mine. I don't disagree with discussion on whether or not a piece fits into a movement or a style, but the question of whether or not something is "art" as a whole just strikes me as a waste of time.
That sort of hits the nail in my head. I don't question whether or not something is art, because it seems to be a secondary question to me.
In a way, yes. I have an internal validation process that I apply to pieces, yet I firmly believe in not applying it outside of my own consumption. It all strikes me as "is my blue the same as your blue?" kinda discussion. No, I don't see X as art. You may see X as the very pinnacle of art, and that's cool too. I-24 runs through the heart of Nashville, and also Atlanta. That doesn't mean Atlanta and Nashville are neighbors. Perhaps that's a little bit of an obtuse answer, but it's an obtuse discussion down this road.
I suppose, I have a nihilist approach to art. Sort of the "art is whatever you can get away with" deal. I just extend it to "Art is whatever you can get away with, and false-art is whatever you can get away from."
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
Dutch Impressionism is the derange manifestation of a madman's twisted mind and anyone who disagrees with me is equally deranged! 
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
I like your thoughts.
I think your phrasing that "examining what art is strikes you as a waste of time" implies that it's a "waste of time" to you, not to everyone, that is, you don't think it's something as a maxim, which could be heavily implied from such a sentence; if spoken by a politician, he would soon introduce a law to cut fundings to art professors.
I think your phrasing that "examining what art is strikes you as a waste of time" implies that it's a "waste of time" to you, not to everyone, that is, you don't think it's something as a maxim, which could be heavily implied from such a sentence; if spoken by a politician, he would soon introduce a law to cut fundings to art professors.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
Well, I do think it's a waste of time for everyone, but I don't go around telling people how to waste their time. Too busy wasting mine.
