Picasso's imagination seems to have been much wider than Rockwell's, and he worked in several different forms. His "Mask" sculpture in Chicago is an example: — Bitter Crank

Rockwell's work is representative, while much of Picasso's isn't. It's hard to compare. I like some non-representative work. I might even get it sometimes, but it always seems like a joke. Maybe a pun. A play on images instead of a play on words. When you see how good a representative painter Picasso can be, it puts a whole different light on his work. It's not that he can't paint purty, he chooses not to. I believe there's something there, but I often can't see it.

Let's say, "personal judgement". How else would anyone decide? — Bitter Crank

Then who cares what you or I think? And we can stop making judgements about what is art, except to ourselves.

It isn't art for the same reason that a seashell isn't art, even if it is mounted in a nice display case. — Bitter Crank

I agree with @T Clark - an invitation to regard an object aesthetically makes it art. Duchamp made that point a century ago and modern artists are still doing it. It may be boring as fuck for the most part but it is still art in my view.

Rockwell is as much an illustrator as a painter. Even his paintings are really illustrations. Illustration is a different art than fine art painting, but it is worthy of respect — T Clark

Before my present career I worked briefly (in a lowly position) in antiquities and fine art - we liaised with places like Sotheby's and Christie's. One of the painting experts used to talk about people like Rockwell as 'a very fine draftsman' and then pause. The pause mean.. 'but sentimental pap'.

It's not that he can't paint purty, he chooses not to. I believe there's something there, but I often can't see it. — T Clark

Nail on the head. The choosing demonstrates a fidelity to the form, since we know Picasso has range.

On what basis are you saying it is not art - personal opinion? — Tom Storm

Let's say, "personal judgement". How else would anyone decide? — Bitter Crank

I think it's important to keep the question of whether something is art separate from whether or not it is good, although Robert Pirsig wrote that art is "high quality endeavor" in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." I don't buy that. That's why I like simple definitions. The simplest - Art is anything that is presented by someone for aesthetic judgement. It's similar to saying that it's art if I say it is, but not exactly. It's a rule that's easy to apply.

I think the question of what is good is harder, at least for me. There are a lot of things I really like that I know aren't high quality and there are a lot of things I don't especially like that I know are.

I think it's important to keep the question of whether something is art separate from whether or not it is good, — T Clark

Yes, I keep saying this. :up:

The pause mean.. 'but sentimental pap'. — Tom Storm

I don't think I buy this, but that brings us back to what is good and what isn't. There is a tendency for sophisticated people to see sentiment as overly sentimental. That's one of the raps against country music that I don't buy. Most rock and roll is unwilling or afraid to talk about mothers, fathers, children, friendships, families, communities. If I remember correctly, you're not a country fan. I am. Then again, there's good and there's bad.

I started a thread under Philosophy o Fart about a defaced painting, It won't go anywhere. — Bitter Crank

Just a reminder that you started this thread as a joke, a throwaway. It's turned into an interesting discussion. 65 posts and three pages. That's a respectable showing and we're not even done yet.

Yes, but throughout this thread we have been discussing more than personal taste - potential objective criteria (you suggested effort and quality) by which to assess a work. It's even been suggested that bad art isn't worth calling 'art'. — Tom Storm

Getting back to Mozart. Genius though he was, he still had to do the work, which he had to do under much more difficult circumstances than Haydn worked under. Professional musicians have commented that Mozart's scores are not polished in the way Haydn's are. Of course not: Mozart was a free agent working in the rough, open market; Haydn was a residential employee of the Esterhazy family.

Mozart's Don Giovanni and Adams' Dr. Atomic both demonstrate what effort and quality look like. So do many rock albums. So do great short stories and novels, movies, New Yorker covers, etc. Levendis, the main character in Harlan Ellison's short story, "The Man Who rowed Christopher Columbus Ashore", is a demon--an unlimited being in a sadly limited world. He is timeless. Anyway, great story. Levendis makes the observation that "it is not surprising that there is a lot of bad art. "What is surprising is that there is so much good art -- everywhere"

"it is not surprising that there is a lot of bad art. "What is surprising is that there is so much good art -- everywhere" — Bitter Crank

On the day I was born there were more very, very good books than I could read in 100 lifetimes. Since then, there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of good books published each year. Every generation gets whatever they can create plus everything anyone else created all back through history. Same is true for music, visual art, sculpture, movies, TV, everything really.

And now, more than ever, it's all available to us in our homes. We don't even have to stand up. I can sit here in my easy chair and see just about the entire product of human culture for thousands of years.

I don't think I buy this, but that brings us back to what is good and what isn't. There is a tendency for sophisticated people to see sentiment as overly sentimental. That's one of the raps against country music that I don't buy. Most rock and roll is unwilling or afraid to talk about mothers, fathers, children, friendships, families, communities. If I remember correctly, you're not a country fan. I am. Then again, there's good and there's bad. — T Clark

I wasn't saying the art expert was right, merely that there may be distinction between excellent draftsmanship and artistic merit. Quite often people think virtuosic displays of skill imply excellence, just as the converse may also be held as true. I don't buy that.

I generally don't listen to pop, country, folk, rock or rap. I find the music ugly and unpleasant. Personal taste. I'm sure there is good and bad everything subject to some criteria, including porn. The point is apart from subjective taste, what do we have?

"it is not surprising that there is a lot of bad art. "What is surprising is that there is so much good art -- everywhere" — Bitter Crank

And we are yet to arrive at any foundation for what 'good art' might be. Just calling it good only does part of the job.

Art is anything that is presented by someone for aesthetic judgement. It's similar to saying that it's art if I say it is, but not exactly. It's a rule that's easy to apply. — T Clark

I do not know why some people think it is an upgrade to put a beautiful seashell in a case and hail it as art. Or, for that matter, to give the display case treatment to a dehydrated dog turd. Maybe because it's just easy to do that.

The entire visible universe is available for one's aesthetic judgement (see Van Gogh, Starry Night). The world is a beautiful place (often enough). It doesn't have to be art to be worthy of contemplation. There are many other things beautiful, awesome, ugly, horrifying... interesting objects can be. Folded, uplifted rock isn't made more amazing by being called "art". "Uplifted folded rock" is really amazing enough.

Aesthetic judgement doesn't kick in just because we are in a museum displaying art. It also kicks in when we see an interesting, almost cadmium yellow fungus. Beautiful! What's its name? What is the coloring composed of? Interesting how the yellow fades to brown over a week's time. How many shelf fungi start out as bright yellow? Et cetera.

including porn — Tom Storm

The quality of porn is easy to measure.

The simplest - Art is anything that is presented by someone for aesthetic judgement. It's similar to saying that it's art if I say it is, but not exactly. It's a rule that's easy to apply. — T Clark

"Does my butt look big in these pants?"

And that's art?!

I do not know why some people think it is an upgrade to put a beautiful seashell in a case and hail it as art. — Bitter Crank

Well if you use words like 'upgrade' no wonder. You seem to have a hierarchical frame for this discussion. The point is there is an invitation to consider the object aesthetically in a more formal sense. An invitation - that's all. You can then say, 'well I think that shell on display (let's call it 'Not a Fountain') is third rate art.' Now we have the start of something.

The quality of porn is easy to measure. — Bitter Crank

Do tell.

And we are yet to arrive at any foundation for what 'good art' might be. Just calling it good only does half the job. — Tom Storm

So, what are you going to do about this deficiency?

The point is apart from subjective taste, what do we have? — Tom Storm

Culture, tradition, elites.

So, what are you going to do about this deficiency? — Bitter Crank

Cry my eyes out!

I wasn't saying the art expert was right, merely that there may be distinction between excellent draftsmanship and artistic merit. Quite often people think virtuosic displays of skill imply excellence, just as the converse may also be held as true. — Tom Storm

I think that's highlighted by the fact that Picasso could draw a nice pitcher when he wanted to but he was trying for something else.

I have often wondered about how skillful technique counts toward making good art. When I think of folk art, I think of people who's technique is not sophisticated, but who have artistic vision. In country music the cliche is "three chords and the truth." At the same time, it seems to me that overcoming difficulties in technique, finding a way to express yourself within constraining artistic conventions, is at the heart of art.

The point is apart from subjective taste, what do we have? — Tom Storm

This is something I've thought a lot about without coming to a satisfying conclusion.

I do not know why some people think it is an upgrade to put a beautiful seashell in a case and hail it as art. — Bitter Crank

I didn't say it is an upgrade. I said it is what makes it art. Art is not an upgrade from nature.

The entire visible universe is available for one's aesthetic judgement (see Van Gogh, Starry Night). — Bitter Crank

According to my definition, the entire universe is not art because it has not specifically been offered by someone for aesthetic judgement. "Starry Night," on the other hand, has been. If you don't agree with or accept my definition of art, I'm sure you don't find this distinction useful.

Aesthetic judgement doesn't kick in just because we are in a museum displaying art. It also kicks in when we see an interesting, almost cadmium yellow fungus. Beautiful! What's its name? What is the coloring composed of? Interesting how the yellow fades to brown over a week's time. How many shelf fungi start out as bright yellow? Et cetera. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. Again, according to my definition, aesthetic judgement doesn't make it art, it is the act of presenting something for aesthetic judgement that does. It's a human act. Art is a human act.

The quality of porn is easy to measure. — Bitter Crank

The quality of porn is not easy to measure. Not by a long shot. There's already so many moral hoops and hurdles you have to go through to get to the real nitty gritty, and even then it's difficult.

Edit to Clarify: This isn't the case for everyone, the vanilla-ists have a fairly easy time sifting through the material. Same goes with those whose tastes are relatively reserved.

So, what are you going to do about this deficiency? — Bitter Crank

I'm asking you. You're the one making claims about merit that seem to hint at some kind objectivity. :wink:

have often wondered about how skillful technique counts toward making good art. When I think of folk art, I think of people who's technique is not sophisticated, but who have artistic vision. — T Clark

I agree. Many technically astonishing artists have no depth or emotion in their work. It's all technique. But this starts to get alarmingly speculative. What does it mean to have 'depth' or 'feeling' in your art? I certainly know that in the classical tradition there are pianists and violinists who can hit all the notes with wonderous ability and yet is seems 'empty'. Fuck... are we heading towards qualia again?

What does it mean to have 'depth' or 'feeling' in your art? — Tom Storm

I think generally it plays on the sentiment of being wide, strong, encompassing in some sorts. A piece that makes people plunge, I'd say that's what we're trying to illustrate when we say deep.

"Does my butt look big in these pants?"

And that's art?! — baker

Maybe not art per se, but it is artsy fartsy :joke:

I'm asking you. You're the one making claims about merit that seem to hint at some kind objectivity. — Tom Storm

I agree. Many technically astonishing artists have no depth or emotion in their work. It's all technique. But this starts to get alarmingly speculative. What does it mean to have 'depth' or 'feeling' in your art? I certainly know that in the classical tradition there are pianists and violinists who can hit all the notes with wonderous ability and yet is seems 'empty'. Fuck... are we heading towards qualia again? — Tom Storm

I'll throw this in with little hope that it will resolve anything. I'd like to try it out though. I have another definition of art that applies to my personal experience - Art is something created by people that has no meaning beyond the experience elicited in the viewer/listener/reader. The only thing of value we can really say about a work of art is a description of our experience of it.

Given that definition, what can we say about the quality of art? How is one experience better than another? Is it universality? The more people who are moved by something the better it is. Is it depth of feeling? That's probably how I judge if something is good for myself - how deeply I am moved emotionally and intellectually; how much has my awareness of myself, my senses, or the world increased?

I think that's somewhere in the vicinity of a partial answer. I don't really know where to go from here.

Art is something created by people that has no meaning beyond the experience elicited in the viewer/listener/reader. The only thing of value we can really say about a work of art is a description of our experience of it. — T Clark

I think this can work. Possibly it's heading towards a phenomenological approach.

Art is not about being able to reproduce a scene optically (thereby rendering it abstract and ARTificial). The most abstract paintings are in fact the optically (hyper-)realistic ones. Art is not about imitating or expressing personal feelings. It's about expressing ideas. It's not about creating pleasurable esthetic experiences. You can find that anywhere (just take a morning walk through town, or nature, or blow smoke through incoming sunrays).

Art is about expressing worldviews (scientific experiments for example). About criticizing society.

The painting obviously is not made by children or by just randomly throwing on paint.

@Tom Storm Fortunately we do not have to come up with criteria for good art, bad art, art at all. Culture, I hear, is a collective process, a cooperative product.

Culture, tradition, elites, — baker

and others. What constitutes good art, good music, good literature, good landscaping, good architecture, good sculpture, good... whatever is determined by the votes of everyone interested in the matter. If you stand and look at a Pollard for 75 seconds, you are voting yes, even if you don't get it. It was significant enough to keep you looking for longer than 5 seconds. Some votes count for more than others, of course. If the Guggenheim or MOMA or Alabama State Museum of Spittoons includes a piece, then it has been deemed important, excellent (or influential). Same for music. Orchestras record and perform music they consider excellent. Museums and orchestras are gate keepers; arbiters; mavens; taste makers. What are the standards they use? Read the notes under the picture and in the concert program.

By participating in cultural events we absorb the collective idea of "what is worthy" and why. It isn't necessary that you like everything that is considered 'worthy'; it is enough to recognize that it has been so rated, and to have some idea of why.

The cash nexus also enters in to the picture. How many people will buy a ticket? How much can I get when I unload this thing at Sotheby's? Christies? (Somebody mentioned 'cartel'...)

There are market results. How many records were purchased, streamed, swiped, played on air, etc.? Who's in the top 10? Top 100? top 100,000? I would imagine that Godsmacked best recording may make it all the way up to solid lead.

The quality of porn is not easy to measure. Not by a long shot. — john27

That hasn't been my experience.

That hasn't been my experience. — Bitter Crank

Huh! Lucky you...

Well, "art" is subjective after all. Maybe I'm just a picky eater.