Art Debate: So Lacklustre vs. Bambooneedle

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:37 am

BAMBOONEEDLE
FOR: THE CASE FOR THE ARTIST DECIDING WHAT IS ART

If you ask someone, "What is the art of the past?", or if you go to school to find out, they'll show you stuff in art books. Both the view of the artist and the audience is subjective as to what is art and who are artists. I understand the idea that art is for people, that they know what moves them, so that over time they have decided what art is for them - time made the audience's choices more 'objective', and they ended up in art books.

But the audience doesn't gain more 'objectivity' with time to decide what is art anymore. The idea of an audience identifying something new and significant in art that might go down in history is obsolete. Or it is too confusing for them to do so, if 'what is currently happening in art' is what it is supposed to go by - a lot of post modern wankerama: a "performance artist" going on stage and pissing into a metal bucket, rows of bricks piled up neatly, junk sculptures, and other useless stuff. So it's still very subjective, and whatever goes into art books now has practically no meaning in terms of art being for people - it's just a lot of intellectualizing by art critics.

So who should decide what is art? It has got to be left to the individual, who knows it's all subjective and that he can call anything he* likes art. There is so much creative stimuli to choose from, so much to like - a movie, clothes to wear, foods, a chair, a practical joke by your girlfriend ('performance art' perhaps)...- art is where you find it, and besides there are so many 'artists' these days.

So who can say whether someone isn't more of an artist than say Elvis Costello, when it's all subjective?

YOU might. You would assert that your choices are better than anyone else's, because art is supposed to be for YOU. There can be big differences in how you decide what is worthy creative stimuli, and in how creatively you interact with it - only you could make these choices. Much like artists have made theirs in their artistic process before asserting that they created art.

So the individual's process in being the 'audience' varies in creativity - it can be so creative that the dichotomy between artist and audience can disappear and he really identifies with being an artist as well. The more you are able to, and recognize that the process is artistic and engage with it, rather than just thinking of yourself as a passive 'audience', the more you qualify yourself to decide what is art now and can own art. That will determine how much positive impact what is normally presented to you as art, or anything else, might have on you. It will also determine how creative you can be in terms of output.

In the absense of meaningful audience concensus, and in recognition of art's subjectivity, today's artist is above all whoever can honestly recognize themselves as such, in the way I describe above. As they always have been, really - if Michelangelo had only sculpted David and not shown anybody it would still be art and he would still be an artist, just not considered as significant.

Artists have always understood themselves as also being an audience, but mere audiences don't identify themselves as artists, so between 'artist' and 'audience', artists (being the more artist-type audience - YOU, if you recognize it. Not the more audience-type audience) should decide what is art. And they do.

* Or 'she' - applies any time I say he.

****************************************
SO LACKLUSTRE
AGAINST: THE CASE FOR THE AUDIENCE DECIDING WHAT IS ART

First of all is there any point in asking this question? It is far too complex and there are far too many opinions, oh all right then here goes (with some help from internet sources).

I must admit that I am part Stuckist, and believe that art should have an emotional content and be skills based.

Conceptual artists on the other hand believe that art is anything they want it to be. Tracy Emin has taken a lot of criticism for her work, 'My Bed', shown at the Tate Modern for the Turner Prize 1999, (an unmade, soiled bed). Is it art because she said it was art? My opinion is that it is not art it is shite (accuse me of unintelligent debating but there you go).

I do not dismiss conceptual art out of hand but feel that sometimes the ‘artist’ is taking the piss. Or in this case giving piss:
I could piss in a pot and call it wine but it wouldn’t be.
I could piss in a pot and call it chocolate sauce but it wouldn’t be.
I could piss in a pot and call it art and Tracy Emin/Bombooneedle would probably agree.
But why?

Art should be beautiful.

Art should be ugly.

But, art should not be made for art's sake, nor should it be accepted as such because the artist calls it creative expression.

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:21 pm

Otis - good job of setting up this thread.

We're supposed to have the option of one response before anyone else posts. I won't add anything more for the sake of the debate question, except to say, no, I wouldn't call pissing in a pot art.

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:51 pm

I have nothing to add, just that I feel very sleepy after reading Banboo's short piece.

girl out of time · Post by **girl out of time** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 5:59 pm

definition of artist: someone who does or creates ART........(he or she comunicates a certain point of view or certain feelings)
an audience: appreciattes art.....each individual has a personal and particular interpretation of any given piece of art (whether it is a song, a painting or a sculpture).......
......borges used to say that it was a mere accident in life the fact that he was the one writing a book and someone else was doing the reading, stating that he had once been a reader and not a writer......but hey! as romantic and sympathetic that idea is, i wouldn´t dare placing myself in borges´ league......right?

girl out of time · Post by **girl out of time** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:16 pm

yoko ono´s first "piece or work of art" (whatever you prefer) was to give someone an apple as a present........and that was art to her.........i wonder if it was art to the other person?......
i had the chance to visit one of her exhibitions once, and i gotta tell you....i can´t see any kind of art in piling up some stones.........then again she calls herself an artist......

Post by **BlueChair** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:19 pm

Art is simply the vision of an artist. Art can be invisible and exist entirely inside the artist's head. John Cage's "4:33" is essentially 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. I would argue that while this form of art does little or nothing for me, or for most people, it is still art in terms of it being the concept of an artist.

It's up for us as an audience to decide whether or not we appreciate the art, but we cannot deny its identity as art.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:43 pm

Otis, my dear pal, whatever it was you took before you wrote that... can I have some?

A few extremely random comments: history's choices of what becomes art are hardly objective. It could be argued that a contemporary audience is more objective simply because it has a broader set of extant things to choose from. Mikey's DAVID might have been art in some theoretical sense if it never became famous, but we'd never have seen it. It would have been ground down for fishtank pebbles sometime in the 19th century, if not sooner. History is written by the victors, in art as in all things (barring some lucky freakish cases). It's like natural selection (yes, Crow?) only, er, not natural, strictly speaking.

Also although I'm never one to buy into Emporer's-New-Clothes type of bullshitty postmodernism or conceptual art, those are not inherently corrupt forms or takes on reality. If art is in the experience, then many different things can elicit the spark of understanding, or shared humanity, or horror, or uncomprehending but stupified fascination, or whatever powerful form of meaning is uniquely issued from the piece, that comes as that experience.

And good art is usually hard-- we take this for granted with certain kinds of music and writing, but when it comes to visual forms there is an arrogance that the audience should be able to touch down for a brief minute of their leisure time and consume the art like an ice cream sundae.

However, I don't know if this has anything to do with what you've written, as I got caught up in the abstract contrapuntal beauty of your sentence patterns and so have no idea what you really said.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:19 pm

PS-- I'd love to see a Monty Python-style skit involving a fist fight between John Dewey and Theodor Adorno, with Marcel Duchamp pulling the meat out of some escargots and throwing it underfoot to trip them up. Or something... I suppose Dewey would have been too old or dead to have stuck up for himself.

Gillibeanz · Post by **Gillibeanz** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:50 am

As there is not a button for both then i've got to go with with SLL on this one. It is up to each observer to decide for themselves and only for themselves not others whether an exhibit is art or not.

For example, I for one cannot appreciate Picassos work and no matter how much i'm told it's fantastic, it's a masterpiece etc, I wouldn't give any of it hanging space on my walls let alone pay millions if I had the money! To me Picasso's work is not art its shite!! (I can hear all the art experts groaning from here)

In most cases the artist provides the art for purchase, or the exhibit if not for sale is visited by the audience for opinion - therefore it is the audience who has to decide whether the object is art or not. Art is entirely an individual thing and therefore can only be considered whether it is art or not by each seperate individual.

Post by **BlueChair** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 11:16 am

See, this is exactly what I mean. No one can deny the fact that Picasso was an artist, whether we like his stuff or not. Personally, I really like his stuff. But I also really like going for walks in nice neighborhoods. Is that art? No. But art was Picasso's thing. We can't deny the fact that we he did was art, even if some of us dislike it.

Most dictionary definitions show art as being some sort of form of creative expression. It's no different than people who publish books, make records, or release films. There are good books, good records, and good films, but we cannot say that bad books, bad records, or bad films are not books, records, or films.

laughingcrow · Post by **laughingcrow** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 12:11 pm

Art is a method of communication, of expressing something, be it an emotion, a realisation or life. In terms of 'modern art' these communications are embodied by physical pieces, but they can also be communicated in song, in word, or in the eyes of someone you love.

Many are too quick to judge something that appears to be 'easy' to create as worthless or facile, but the as soon as the artist has experienced it and felt the need for it to be expressed, it becomes art.

Gillibeanz · Post by **Gillibeanz** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 1:04 pm

We are not just talking about paintings here BC - everything painted is classed under the title of art, just as all books are called books but thats not the discussion. We are discussing whether anything produced in the name of art is art or not.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 5:01 pm

Oy veh.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:53 pm

I can't always identify art. But I can spot kitsch at 1,000 yards (almost a meter for everyone outside of the US).

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 7:47 pm

Misunderstanding on the part of the Mug on how this works: I took and wrote nothing and in fact I didn't even read it, and haven't still (can't be arsed with such a topic, it's a culturally relative value whether the artist, the audience or the crumpled sheet on Tracey Emin's bed decides to call it art or not, why debate it?). There are two debaters, as named in the line above their bits. I was just the one to set it up. Have fun...

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:28 am

I can spot kitsch

That's a cherry liqueur isn't it?

1,000 yards (almost a meter for everyone outside of the US).

1,000 yards = 1 metre?

laughingcrow · Post by **laughingcrow** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:01 am

No way, 1000 yards is 2/3 of a mile (0.56), and is 914 metres!

That's some kitsch-spotting ability!

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 7:56 am

Otis - you mustn't have read the original debate thread either because you didn't get the intended spirit of it. The concern wasn't so much to get 'the definitive answer' or to win debates, as much as of inquiry and to have general discussion. It's just a different way to spark off thought and discussion.

A lot of good points were made. I'll add a few more thoughts later... gotta go.

mood swung · Post by **mood swung** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 8:43 am

I think art is supposed to invoke emotion. A pile of dog crap on a silver platter is likely to invoke disgust in me, particularly if I paid for the privilege. A dog would look at it differently, and smell it differently--it speaks a whole different language to him. Is it good art? Not for me, but my dog would probably think it's a masterpiece.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:15 am

I meant 1 yard is almost 1 meter. And that's an "er" meter, not some crazy "re" metre. How do you folks justify that spelling? Wouldn't you have to pronounce that "met-ruh"?

Kitsch is camp, only without the irony. Or else it's art, only without the quality. Think Precious Moments figurines and kitty cat "Hang in There" posters, and you've got the idea.

ReadyToHearTheWorst · Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:19 am

noiseradio wrote:... And that's an "er" meter, not some crazy "re" metre. How do you folks justify that spelling? Wouldn't you have to pronounce that "met-ruh"?

We blame our bizarre spellings on Johnny Foreigner, in this case the French.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:49 am

That's a great one. We blame our bizarre spellings on the Canadians. I'm not sure how we justify it, but blaming Canada (or the Communists) always worked well here in the good 'ol US of A.

Ok. I have to stop now. As fun as these last two posts were, I don't want them to take.

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:55 am

Has anyone ever been to the Tate Modern? Bruce Naumann has his own room. I hate this guy; everything he does is soulless and empty, completely self-indulgent, and every halfway clever art student I know (and I know quite a few) could art circles around him. And yet he's totally famous. Anyway, in the Tate Modern, he has a quote on the wall that's something like, "Art is what the artist does in his studio." To me, that's totally backwards. One is an artist because one creates art--just because you consider yourself an artist, doesn't mean that therefore, everything you do is automatically art.

So, who decides? Apparently Bruce Naumann. Self-indulgent asshole.

ReadyToHearTheWorst · Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:10 am

When asked whether an particular painting could be considered art, apparently Tracie Emmin (she of Unmade Bed) replied along the lines of 'only if the painter has studied for 6 years'.

A rope leash · Post by **A rope leash** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:39 am

I recently visited The St. Louis Metropolitan Art Museum with JosieCat and her kids. You should have seen security jump into action when we came inside, and I stuffed a ten-spot into the donation box. "He's dropped a ten in the the box. He must be expecting trouble!"

Anyway, I enjoyed it quite alot, especially the old stuff, up until about 1960. Then I went upstairs to the northeast corner, where the "modern" art is. First, in one of the stairwells, is a set of three televisions in a semi-circle with a stool in the middle. On the televisions tapes are playing of people saying things like "what is it?" and "who are you?". I didn't "get it", and I couldn't change the channels.

On down the hall, I am confronted with a vast quantity of unexplainable art. First, there is a pile of crunched up auto parts, which I spent some time trying to identify the various pieces and which cars they came from.

Then, there was an entire room, probably larger than many houses, which contained simply long, old, stinky, rubber mats that were painted orange. For some reason, this really pissed me off, and I started to think about what sort of scam art I could create with all the leftover parts I have from my career in cable and satellite.

Then, the corker. On one wall, there is a piece of dried-out chamois cut into an eight-sided swath. It's called "Octagon 1". Next to it, is eight tacks hammered into the wall, with a string tied between them. It's called "Octagon 2". Hoo-ray! I am definitely an artist, because I was doing stuff like this back in grade school!

Essentially, I believe that art is in the eye of the beholder. If that eye is in an "established" artist, then how can any layman deny it? The bottom line with modern art, as my Nazi-painter-brother often says, is that it is an elitist circle-jerk. Oh? You don't "get it"? You must be stupid, or at least uneducated. We, the suavely educated, will tell you what is art.

Oh yeah, one more thing. In the lobby, there is a cordoned-off "sculpture" that is basically a lot of crap hanging on the wall, with a lot of broken glass on the floor beneath it. As I sat on a couch waiting for the kids, some punk came by and stuck his foot inside the rope, and kicked some of the glass.

Is it still art?

I prefer the huge statue of Hercules outside. He's totally nekkid!

Elvis Costello Fan Forum

Art Debate: So Lacklustre vs. Bambooneedle

"Who should decide what is 'art', the 'artist' or the audience?"

Art Debate: So Lacklustre vs. Bambooneedle

A visit to the art museum.