Modernist and Postmodernist Con-Aritsts

[Ellen Stuttle]

Victor,

Would you please post some links to works which you would classify as "abstract art"?

Apparently -- if I've understood right some things you've said -- you do not consider Kandinsky's work and works like Apple Tree abstract art. It would help if you could provide visual examples of what you're talking about when you use the term "abstract art."

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And, Michael, I'm afraid that I along with Victor have discerned "the institutional definition" in your attempts to provide what you're thinking of as a "cognitive" definition. He gives examples in a following post. I remember seeing others. I'm sorry, I haven't time to search through the many posts on these various threads looking for further examples. In has seemed to me too, though, that you've been saying something to the effect: Anything that gets put in a place called an art gallery and is called art by those running the gallery therefore is art.

Ellen,

Not just those who run galleries. I am surprised you didn't read the part about the consumers, producers and sellers also. Art is a field of human activity. That is one of the definitions of art (a cognitive one that includes no normative concepts). An abstract painting is not a hamburger served in a restaurant.

To be extreme, in the cognitive sense, if a hamburger is to be art, it must be part of a composition aimed at aesthetic contemplation and consumed as such, not as food. Normally this happens in a place made specifically for displaying art works to the public, but not always. The gallery is only a place, not a defining characteristic of art.

Where do you guys get gallery managers being essential to a definition of art from my words? I never wrote anything like that.

Michael

[reason.on]

You didn't answer my question at all.

Yeah, that's because a> I couldn't understand what the hell you were trying to say or ask, and I didn't think you could possibly be so intellectually dishonest as to answer the questions posed to you with yet another irrelevant question, and b> I'm not the one who has been running around making proclamations, or asserting my perfect understanding of aesthetics. In fact, I've been quite up-front about my NOT having a solid definition, and also that I don't consider "anything" and "everything" art.

I asked you if the examples given on this thread are art? Well, are they? Look how you slip out of answering me with the bullshit above.

Watch that hostility, Victor.

For the dull record, I happen to agree with ES. I would not consider most of the cliched post-modern references Victor posted to be art, and I can't believe that would be surprising to anyone.

However, stating that Turner's wild sunsets and seascapes aren't art, or that Frank Lloyd Wright and Victor Hugo didn't have or utilize "skill", stikes me as more than a little surprising (and dubious).

RCR

[Jonathan]

Ellen wrote,

(3) Where I do agree with Victor is that what he calls "the institutional definition" is not a definition -- and that there is one hell of a lot of sheer gimmickry which these days is being touted and even sold to the tune of high bucks as 'art."

I don't think that "anything can be art" is commonly used as a proper "definition," but more as a general observation which has a lot of truth to it. It's the recognition that if you try to stake out and guard the boundaries of what you think is and is not art, artists will find multiple exceptions to your rules and alter the shape of your perimeter.

I agree with you that a lot of the stuff in the art world seems to have reached the point of silliness. Much of it is theory driven, and has all sorts of complex mind twists to it -- many of them quite wrong-headed, in my opinion. But if one knows that a lot of that sort of art is connected to a larger dialog, similar in some ways to the conversations we're having here (including my posts in which I've seeped through Victor's picket lines with examples of things that can be art by his definition even though he doesn't want them to be), one will have a better appreciation of the possibility that there may be contexts involved in which a work of art might be a challenge to another work of art which established a precedent which was the result of another work of art that challenged yet another, etc. It's definitely esoteric (and can get ridiculous), but in a lot of cases I think it's driven by a rebellious rejection of constraints rather than by a desire to "destroy art" (often times an explicitly stated desire to "destroy art" means something more like the desire to destroy the boundaries that people (like Victor) seem eager to impose).

That said, some of the rebellious attitude eventually goes overboard and becomes what it was rebelling against, as when those who assert that "anything can be art" also begin asserting that figurative representational art isn't art, but "kitsch." And then someone comes along, like a Mark Tansey for example, and messes with their boundaries.

J

P.S. I'm really getting behind in trying to keep up with the conversations lately. I've been very busy, so if I've missed some relevant points, give me time and I'll try to catch up.

[Victor Pross]

However, stating that Turner's wild sunsets and seascapes aren't art, or that Frank Lloyd Wright and Victor Hugo didn't have or utilize "skill", stikes me as more than a little surprising (and dubious).

RCR,

What? I NEVER said that Victor Hugo and Frank Lloyed Wright didn't have skill. Where do you get this from?

Regarding Turner's wild sunsets and seascapes. Is that what they are? Oh, okay--it's art,

Regarding the examples I cited and linked--MSK thinks it's art. (He merely has a low opinion of much of it--speaking in the "normative sense"). Take an arguement to him.

-Victor

Edited January 26, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Jonathan wrote: "It's definitely esoteric [modernist art] (and can get ridiculous), but in a lot of cases I think it's driven by a rebellious rejection of constraints rather than by a desire to "destroy art" (often times an explicitly stated desire to "destroy art" means something more like the desire to destroy the boundaries that people (like Victor) seem eager to impose)."

Indeed. The "constraints" that the modernists and postmodernists wished to free themselves of were rationality and reason.

-Victor

[Danneskjold]

I'm having trouble figuring out why everyone insists that defining art is constraining freedom of expression. I define art, and they say "no because I don't want to be limited by that boundary." Well why is it that they must create art? Why can't they create a design? It can be as valuable and take more skill than some art (stick figure) so what's the big deal with defining the concept? Why does everyone insist on the title of artist? As we have established, you can create beauty without creating art.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As we have established, you can create beauty without creating art.

Jeff,

Where?

I take this comment in the design-versus-art context. Where was a definition of design presented? Did I miss it?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

MSK said:

Not just those who run galleries. I am surprised you didn't read the part about the consumers, producers and sellers also. Art is a field of human activity.

Okay, very well. So the institutional approach along with a census approach. I am reminded of Roark when he said “why is the truth always made a matter of arithmetic, and of only addition at that?” :turned:

[Danneskjold]

As we have established, you can create beauty without creating art.

Jeff,

Where?

I take this comment in the design-versus-art context. Where was a definition of design presented? Did I miss it?

Michael

If art is limited further than created beauty then something can be beautiful without being art. Because created beauty cannot be the definition of art (see my post on the second page of Art and Subobjectivity about subjectivie definitions) then something beautiful can be created without being art.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

I will ask again. Do you have a definition of design that will distinguish it from art?

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Nope, don't think I need one either. What I was trying to say isn't that whatever isn't art is design. What I was saying was that I don't see why everyone puts so much emphasis on a cognitive definition that has no bearing on the quality of what it does or does not define.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What I was saying was that I don't see why everyone puts so much emphasis on a cognitive definition that has no bearing on the quality of what it does or does not define.

Jeff,

That's easy. We do that in order to organize knowledge about the universe we live in so we can judge matters like quality.

(Let me add that I wish there were two different words for the different concepts, but there it is. Since the same word is being used, it is my job to be clear on the different meanings if I wish to understand properly.)

Michael

[Danneskjold]

I've blundered in my explanation again I'm afraid. What I was trying to say is that I do not understand why people feel the need to expand a cognitive definition so that they can say they take part in it (why people call the things that people do in Victor's initial post art instead of something else) when it is a cognitive definition and has no bearing on quality. Why do they care? It can (isn't) still be as good or better as what is considered within the ranges of that cognitive definition.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wrote:

"the institutional definition" goes along the lines, "Art is whatever those who put things in galleries put there."

And, Michael, I'm afraid that I along with Victor have discerned "the institutional definition" in your attempts to provide what you're thinking of as a "cognitive" definition. He gives examples in a following post. I remember seeing others. I'm sorry, I haven't time to search through the many posts on these various threads looking for further examples. In has seemed to me too, though, that you've been saying something to the effect: Anything that gets put in a place called an art gallery and is called art by those running the gallery therefore is art.

First, I should have included "or museums or exhibit halls," instead of just "galleries"/"gallery." I was thinking in terms of the generic category which might be described as "place of display of items said to be art."

Michael replies:

Not just those who run galleries. I am surprised you didn't read the part about the consumers, producers and sellers also. Art is a field of human activity. That is one of the definitions of art (a cognitive one that includes no normative concepts). An abstract painting is not a hamburger served in a restaurant.

To be extreme, in the cognitive sense, if a hamburger is to be art, it must be part of a composition aimed at aesthetic contemplation and consumed as such, not as food. Normally this happens in a place made specifically for displaying art works to the public, but not always. The gallery is only a place, not a defining characteristic of art.

Where do you guys get gallery managers being essential to a definition of art from my words? I never wrote anything like that.

Michael, consider these quotes Victor selected from your posts:

(1) “Art (painting for the time being so as to stay simple and consistent with the previous posts) is exhibited in special display spaces like galleries, museums, halls, etc. People go there to contemplate it. So long as people produce it and consume it like that, it is cognitively ‘art.’”

(2) “Let's call it the obviousness premise. I see people all over the world engaged in an activity they all call 'art.' They buy it and sell it (often for oodles of money). They make it and exhibit it in the most important cultural centers of practically all the major cities of the world. They contemplate it. I look in several dictionaries and see it so characterized there. Then along comes Victor Pross and says it is not really art. All these people throughout ages are and have been engaged in something else entirely…”

I think you did indicate something there very like: those who run the display places are the ones who have the say.

Embellishing your quote (1) to show where I'm getting this:

“Art (painting for the time being so as to stay simple and consistent with the previous posts) is EXHIBITED IN SPECIAL DISPLAY SPACES like galleries, museums, halls, etc. People go THERE [where? to the special display spaces] to contemplate it. So long as people produce it and consume it like that [like what? to be displayed in those display spaces], it is cognitively ‘art.’”

Possibly you don't mean any implication that anything thus displayed, in those special display spaces, is ipso facto art. I'm fully prepared to believe you don't mean this implication, but it does seem to me at least indicated by the words you wrote.

Again, in quote (2), though the implication isn't as strong, you write: "They make it and exhibit it in the most important cultural centers of practically all the major cities of the world." So, if something is exhibited in one of those cultural centers, is it therefore, by that very fact, art? Again, this might not be what you mean, but what you write sounds to me as if that's what you mean. And what I don't see you providing is a clear distinguishing characteristic other than being displayed in such places.

You write (scroll back up to the first paragraph of yours I quoted):

Art is a field of human activity. That is one of the definitions of art (a cognitive one that includes no normative concepts).

But that isn't a definition which provides a distinguisher from any other "field of human activity."

Similarly, you wrote, in post #48:

"Art is simply an activity of man and the products of that activity. It is a concept that differentiates it from all other fields of human activity. This is an activity present in all cultures and times."

But what activity and which products? You speak of contemplating the works in both quotes (1) and (2), and I recall that in some earlier posts (maybe on the "Art and Subobjectivity" thread) you specifically talked about the function of art being something to contemplate. This provides a differentiator, though a vague one. I'm not incidentally objecting to a fairly vague differentiator, since I believe the lines of demarcation are vague and shifting. But when you add the idea that art is something that's put to be comtemplated in one of those designated places ("this is a designated art area" ;-)), then you do sound to me as if you're resorting to "the institutional definition," i.e., as if you're saying, "Whatever's put on display in one of those places is therefore, because it's been put on display there, art."

I hope this clarifies. (If not, I'll probably just leave it unclear. It isn't any "big deal" to me; I'm merely indicating that I understand where Victor is getting it when he detects "the institutional definition" in what you write.)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I've blundered in my explanation again I'm afraid. What I was trying to say is that I do not understand why people feel the need to expand a cognitive definition so that they can say they take part in it (why people call the things that people do in Victor's initial post art instead of something else) when it is a cognitive definition and has no bearing on quality. Why do they care? It can (isn't) still be as good or better as what is considered within the ranges of that cognitive definition.

Jeff,

I think I understand your question. I'll give you two answers, one an answer pertaining to the non-Objectivist wider world, the other pertaining to Objectivist views on art.

The first answer is pretty simple: The designation "art" has "class." It's considered more serious and important to be doing "art" than to just be doing "design," for instance.

Also, status appeal aside, I personally find it an interesting question exploring why I would consider some things "art" and others not -- e.g., why do I unhesitatingly classify Escher's tilings as "art" whereas I'd classify wallpaper tilings as "design"? (There are those occasional strict tilings, even occasionally in wallpaper, more often in ultra-luxuriant Christmas wrapping paper, which I find so well done they creep over the border into "art" despite their having exact symmetry. One of the Christmas wrapping papers I got this year, for instance, is so intricately and cleverly done I had to study it for some while before I could find the lines of symmetry. And another, although I could easily spot where the pattern repeated, featured ornamented pear shapes which were so well drawn as to deserve, I think, to be framed and hung on a wall. Thinking about such subtleties of difference in patterns is of interest to me.)

The second answer, and the significant one to the current discussions, is because of how restrictive and even moralistic the Objectivist view of art is. Numerous Objectivists take the Objectivist view of art as ruling out from the category "art" large numbers of works which in the non-Objectivist world would be considered art. Victor is the prime example here, but on other Objectivist lists he'd have a lot more people on his side than he does here. The battle being fought over certain painters' work on this list has been fought over those painters and others, and over various composers and literary figures, in the wider Objectivist world probably since that world started, certainly since I learned of that world (in late spring '63).

The examples Victor brings up in the current post aren't the important battleground. There are always works on the edges which get pretty silly. (This isn't, contra Victor, a phenomenon reserved to the 20th century. For instance, I was thinking earlier today of 18th-century burlesques and mock opera and bawdy productions. Some of those got silly enough, it's questionable if they qualified as "art.") The important battleground is over whether works considered those of major figures by the wider world should be considered "non-art" by the Objectivist. (I think that by a strict interpretation of the Objectivist view of art, yes, they should. But I think the problem is the Objectivst view of art.)

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Rather than go into a long detailed hairsplit over words, let's just say that an artist can display his works in his own studio, people can display them on the walls and spaces of their homes, in public squares, hell, even in a barn, on a tree or in an automobile. I definitely remember mentioning banks and corporates buildings, etc. Those are all spaces where an art work can be displayed for contemplation. What does any of that have to do with a gallery manager?

And it is obvious that furniture, light-switches and lights, windows, walls, ceilings and floors and all kinds of stuff are "on display" in art galleries, if that is where you want to go. That does not make them art works. They have other functions. (Notwithstanding the specific work highlighting those elements mentioned earlier.)

I don't think my words excluded the places in the first paragraph and I don't think they meant the items in the second paragraph.

One thing they did not include was some authority figure in a gallery somewhere determining at his whim what art is. If you or Victor got that impression from my words (and I sincerely don't see this meaning in them), let's clear it up. That is not what I intended. Ever.

So if I was not clear in communicating what I did mean, maybe this will be clearer. The concept I meant was the very useful one you need in life to make certain decisions, for example when you decide on a university program. You see before you a medical degree, an art degree, a law degree, a science degree, etc., and you have to choose one. I sincerely doubt you will differentiate between an art degree and a law degree by the subject matter being painted. You want to learn how to make art works and how to exist in the art field as a generic concept. You only think about what goes on the canvas AFTER you have decided on art over medicine, etc., and start the studies.

Or when you decide to build a building and choose whether it will be a factory building, a residence or a museum or whatever. You think about putting art works in the museum as its reason for being, not the manufacturing plant. The reason for the manufacturing plant is to house production tools and systems. Any art work displayed there will be in addition to those production tools and systems. At that level of decision, you don't decide on which art works are "valid" according to an aesthetic theory or standard.

Or when you look at a cave in an archaeological dig and you see the scratches on the wall depicting an animal or figure, and an arrowhead on the floor. You call one art and the other a hunting weapon, regardless of what the scratches are (which, on a primitive level of language, will be a primitive level of representational figures, or even designs) or how perfectly formed the arrowhead is.

That is what I call the cognitive concept. At that level (the cognitive one), if it's a painting, it's art. That goes for other works intended for display and aesthetic appreciation. (I used the word "contemplation" before, but "aesthetic appreciation" is probably more precise.)

I don't understand the resistance to admitting that a word like art can have more than one meaning.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

What is wrong with an institutional definition of art anyway? After all the definition of art is merely a convention, not referring to something that is objectively verifiable or falsifiable. In such cases the most practical definition is that definition which reflects the general consensus among people. It's unavoidable that such an institutional definition is rather vague and that the boundaries are unclear, as this isn't science but a more or less statistical description of human activities. Now it's very well possible that someone may find this too vague and unsatisfactory and will therefore try to find common elements in what is commonly called "art" and look for essential characteristics, ultimately resulting in a cognitive definition, which will give a sharper delineation of what art is.

But if that person thinks that "abstract art" isn't art at all, this will somehow be reflected in his or her definition. So he can say: this is the definition of art, if you take so-called "abstract art" and check it with "the" [read: "his"] definition, you'll see that it isn't art at all! Of course this isn't any proof at all, it's a prime example of begging the question. The problem in this particular case is that there is a strong discrepancy between this definition and the general, institutional definition. Now that person may shout until he's blue in the face that his definition is the correct one, but that's of course an exercise in futility as he can't prove it, it isn't an objective fact but a personal opinion.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

I personally have no problem accepting that the "institutional" definition of art exists and is a valid definition for what it tries to cover. I was merely clarifying that this was not the definition I was making as a cognitive one (as was being alleged). I consider the cognitive one even broader than the institutional one. There is no place for authority figures whose decision and/or whim determine what reality will be in the cognitive definition.

Michael

[reason.on]

What? I NEVER said that Victor Hugo and Frank Lloyed Wright didn't have skill. Where do you get this from?

You are having some serious trouble with the truth these days, Victor.

As a trained professional and representational artist, I can tell you that no "skill" or "vision" is exhibited in abstract modernism.

I really hope you are kidding with this, since you can't tell anyone any such thing, especially with such an obnoxiously sweeping brush stroke. Frank Lloyd Wright, for example, practiced abstract modernism, as did Victor Hugo, and while you may be of the opinion that such pieces are not art, only a dim-wit would suggest that there is no "skill" or "vision" in said works.

There is no "vision" or "skill" in said works. And I mean it.

RCR

Edited January 26, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Ellen Stuttle]

What is wrong with an institutional definition of art anyway?

That it makes someone else's opinion the arbiter over my opinion in terms of what I am going to think is or isn't art. No thanks.

Another reason: Although I agree with you that there isn't ever going to be a definition of art which provides some universal, objective way to sort the sheep from the goats, falling back on "whatever those who decide these things decide to put in culturally accepted showplaces" strongly discourages thinking about what qualities the individual feels need to be present and why. E.g., an example I've used a couple times already: Escher's tilings. If I just say, well, the opinion of curators, gallery owners, etc., is that those works are art, so I'll classify them thus, then I haven't learned a thing about why I, looking at them, immediately feel that they are art, that there's "more" there than I would classify as "design." (I've also said that I don't think there's a sharp border between "design" and "art," that the categories are on a continuum, but in the case of the Esher tilings I don't have any question in my mind as to which side of the fuzzy area they fall on; it's interesting to me to think about why I have no question about this, what in the work itself I'm responding to.)

Another reason: (As I commented without explaining in an earlier post), the institutional definition isn't properly a definition. I'll add an explanation: because it makes no attempt to say what the characteristics are of something classified as art; it cops out by taking a form of opinion poll (9 out of 10 doctors surveyed recommend...that sort of opinion poll). Thus it tells me nothing cognitive at all (however ultimately subjective) about the nature of the works themselves, not even why those whose opinions are used as the arbiter have the opinions they have, what they're responding to in the actual works being judged.

And a question to you: Is the reason you consider Vermeer a great artist (I'm presuming you do consider him a great artist, though I don't think you've specifically said so) because museum curators would consider his work a plum to have in their establishment and/or because his work could command large sums from art dealers? I bet you have more of a reason than that.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

That it makes someone else's opinion the arbiter over my opinion in terms of what I am going to think is or isn't art. No thanks.

I find the whole question of an exact definition of art completely uninteresting. You say that you don't accept someone else's opinion; so you have your own definition. That's fine, but why should we accept your definition (I say that in general, not implying that your definition is bad)? That is the crux of the discussion: different people use different definitions while they don't agree with the majority definition, but that implies that the choice of definition is a subjective one. Of course I have also some ideas what I think is good art and what is garbage. But why should I bother to try to convince other people that they should adopt my criteria? No doubt many will always disagree, de gustibus non est disputandum. Instead of urging the whole world that they should agree that some so-called artwork is not really "art", I merely say that according to my own norms it is just very bad art. The word "art" is for me not some holy distinction that can only be awarded to some creations that pass the art test, it's just a generic term for those things that are displayed in musea etc. At least in that sense the term is generally accepted and I have no problem in following the majority here, as it doesn't say anything about what I find good or bad art. I'm amazed that people don't realize how completely futile such discussions about the definition of art are. People who think that abstract art is not art will never agree with people who think that abstract art can be real art, so they'll always be talking past each other (see for example this forum) while they use different definitions of art, which they won't give up. Do they really think that they'll ever be able to convince the other?

Another reason: (As I commented without explaining in an earlier post), the institutional definition isn't properly a definition. I'll add an explanation: because it makes no attempt to say what the characteristics are of something classified as art; it cops out by taking a form of opinion poll (9 out of 10 doctors surveyed recommend...that sort of opinion poll). Thus it tells me nothing cognitive at all (however ultimately subjective) about the nature of the works themselves, not even why those whose opinions are used as the arbiter have the opinions they have, what they're responding to in the actual works being judged.

Well, so what? I'm not waiting for some cognitive definition with which I probably would disagree anyway, in other words: that's where I wouldn't accept a majority definition. I judge art works according to my own standards and I'm happy to call it all art, whether it is good art or worthless art is what I decide, and I have no need for some official formula which I use to check whether it is ok or not. I can make my own rationalizations if I want, but I feel no need to impose them on the rest of the world.

And a question to you: Is the reason you consider Vermeer a great artist (I'm presuming you do consider him a great artist, though I don't think you've specifically said so) because museum curators would consider his work a plum to have in their establishment and/or because his work could command large sums from art dealers? I bet you have more of a reason than that.

Now you disappoint me Ellen, in suggesting that I would judge the value of art (which is a totally new element, we were discussing the definition of art, and not what is good art and what is bad art) on its monetary value. I thought you'd know me better than that. I know enough paintings that have been sold for enormous sums, which I find completely worthless. But I have no problem in calling it art. "Bad art" is good enough for me.

[Ellen Stuttle]

That it makes someone else's opinion the arbiter over my opinion in terms of what I am going to think is or isn't art. No thanks.

I find the whole question of an exact definition of art completely uninteresting. You say that you don't accept someone else's opinion; so you have your own definition. That's fine, but why should we accept your definition (I say that in general, not implying that your definition is bad)?

I didn't say you should accept my definition (in general; I wasn't saying that you should accept some definition, whoever's). You asked what's wrong with the institutional definition. I'm telling you what I think is wrong specifically with that one, nothing more. And the point I was making in my rather flip -- intentionally rather flip -- comment is that there's no reason why I should accept anyone else's definition except my own. And, actually, I don't even have a firm definition of my own. I have one I use as rough and ready ("significant presentational form" -- you'd have to know Susanne Langer's theories to know what that means), so the point I was making isn't even an issue of my having a definition. It's an issue of my not accepting someone else telling me what I can and cannot consider art. I'll do the considering for myself, thanks.

That is the crux of the discussion: different people use different definitions while they don't agree with the majority definition, but that implies that the choice of definition is a subjective one. Of course I have also some ideas what I think is good art and what is garbage. But why should I bother to try to convince other people that they should adopt my criteria?

But I didn't say you should try to convince others. I repeat, I was merely answering your question about the institutional definition.

No doubt many will always disagree, de gustibus non est disputandum. Instead of urging the whole world that they should agree that some so-called artwork is not really "art", I merely say that according to my own norms it is just very bad art. The word "art" is for me not some holy distinction that can only be awarded to some creations that pass the art test, it's just a generic term for those things that are displayed in musea etc. At least in that sense the term is generally accepted and I have no problem in following the majority here, as it doesn't say anything about what I find good or bad art. I'm amazed that people don't realize how completely futile such discussions about the definition of art are. People who think that abstract art is not art will never agree with people who think that abstract art can be real art, so they'll always be talking past each other (see for example this forum) while they use different definitions of art, which they won't give up. Do they really think that they'll ever be able to convince the other?

No, I don't think they'll be able to convince each other. And possibly you haven't noticed, but I haven't made any attempts TO convince others of my own views. Victor can think what he wants; Shayne can think what he wants. I don't care, doesn't faze what I see in works which I consider are art. Mostly I'm having fun talking with a few others who are on my wavelength and looking at the works they link.

Another reason: (As I commented without explaining in an earlier post), the institutional definition isn't properly a definition. I'll add an explanation: because it makes no attempt to say what the characteristics are of something classified as art; it cops out by taking a form of opinion poll (9 out of 10 doctors surveyed recommend...that sort of opinion poll). Thus it tells me nothing cognitive at all (however ultimately subjective) about the nature of the works themselves, not even why those whose opinions are used as the arbiter have the opinions they have, what they're responding to in the actual works being judged.

Well, so what? I'm not waiting for some cognitive definition with which I probably would disagree anyway, in other words: that's where I wouldn't accept a majority definition. I judge art works according to my own standards and I'm happy to call it all art, whether it is good art or worthless art is what I decide, and I have no need for some official formula which I use to check whether it is ok or not. I can make my own rationalizations if I want, but I feel no need to impose them on the rest of the world.

Again, I wasn't trying to tell you "[wait] for some cognitive definition with which [you] probably would disagree anyway." (Nor am I waiting for a definition I think is a good one; I may never find such a definition, and I don't spend much time even trying to -- in fact I hadn't much thought about the issue in years prior to the discussions on this list.)

And a question to you: Is the reason you consider Vermeer a great artist (I'm presuming you do consider him a great artist, though I don't think you've specifically said so) because museum curators would consider his work a plum to have in their establishment and/or because his work could command large sums from art dealers? I bet you have more of a reason than that.

Now you disappoint me Ellen, in suggesting that I would judge the value of art (which is a totally new element, we were discussing the definition of art, and not what is good art and what is bad art) on its monetary value. I thought you'd know me better than that. I know enough paintings that have been sold for enormous sums, which I find completely worthless. But I have no problem in calling it art. "Bad art" is good enough for me.

But I WASN'T suggesting that you'd judge the value of art on its monetary value. I specifically said that I bet you would NOT judge the value on the basis of establishment opinion. "I bet you have more of a reason than that," is what I said. Maybe you misinterpreted this as my thinking that "establishment opinion" would be ANY part of your reason in judging merit. Apologies for unclear wording, if so. I don't doubt that your standards of judgment would be directly what you think of the artwork and nothing to do with its pricetag.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

What? I NEVER said that Victor Hugo and Frank Lloyed Wright didn't have skill. Where do you get this from?

You are having some serious trouble with the truth these days, Victor.

As a trained professional and representational artist, I can tell you that no "skill" or "vision" is exhibited in abstract modernism.

I really hope you are kidding with this, since you can't tell anyone any such thing, especially with such an obnoxiously sweeping brush stroke. Frank Lloyd Wright, for example, practiced abstract modernism, as did Victor Hugo, and while you may be of the opinion that such pieces are not art, only a dim-wit would suggest that there is no "skill" or "vision" in said works.

There is no "vision" or "skill" in said works. And I mean it.

RCR

RCR,

Yes, I am aware that there was a modernist movement in architecture. But this is not art. My discussion on this thread (among others) has been about art and only art. It was not my intention to suggest that FLW didn't have skill. It was a mistake. So I'm hereby correcting your mistake that you thougt I did. Okay? Good. Okay, let's move on.

-Victor

Edited January 27, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Of course it's art.

Michael