If it is art, then it can be criticized as art. Is American Idol "good art"? — BC

I remember your "Can this art work even be defaced?" discussion from a couple of years ago fondly. That was one of the first times I tried to figure out my understanding of art systematically.

Yes, my mistake for abbreviating that way. Nevertheless, your last comment applying Collingwood's definition applies to both "AIs." Except for the individual singers, the overall "show" does not seem to be "experiencing" emotions in the production, which it wishes to express.

But...in my haste to clarify that I recognize the manipulative, the kitschy, the commercial drive etc behind Idol, I may be capitulation too easily.

Take the Sex Pistols, that 1970s British Punk Band. Just because they may have been the creation of Malcolm MacLaren(sp), designed to manipulate audiences, sell a product riding on the tail of the Ramones, relative to someone like Pink Floyd, cheap or kitschy, does not mean their album "Never Mind the Bullocks," shouldn't classify as art.

Or perhaps people think pop music period is not art. But I would say I have drawn more aesthetic value (and certainly more "feelings") from blues, jazz, rock, r & b, rap, than I have from sculptures and paintings in my life time.

Yes, "designed to mock the world of art, and the snobberies that go with it." — ENOAH

Well, that definitely wasn't my point of contention or "indirect message" at all. Just an interesting documentary I thought you'd enjoy and perhaps others a bit less informed or impassioned on the subject writ-large might benefit from, and along with the DuChamp segment offering a point of discussion and insight as to the changing definition or accepted bounds of "what is art", etc.

Didn't mean nothing by it. :sweat:

Except for the individual singers, the overall "show" does not seem to be "experiencing" emotions in the production, which it wishes to express. — ENOAH

It's not the show that would experience emotions but the artist, perhaps the producers or writers, but as I noted before, I don't think the show is art by Collingwood's criterion.

Or perhaps people think pop music period is not art. But I would say I have drawn more aesthetic value (and certainly more "feelings") from blues, jazz, rock, r & b, rap, than I have from sculptures and paintings in my life time. — ENOAH

Collingwood includes music among the arts, but I doubt he would include the genre's you identify or those included on American Idol. He doesn't really like recorded or broadcast music at all because of the distance it puts between the artist and their audience. He was certainly something of a killjoy. On the other hand, I think those types of music can be artistic by his standard.

Didn't mean nothing by it. — Outlander

Maybe you misunderstood me. I was quoting the doc with respect to Duchamp's urinal. I get why people might be annoyed, yet isn't his message, that snobbery is overtaking art appreciation (I would assert, at the organic level); isn't that message art? It is to me.

And if a urinal can be art...

Interesting. And is Collingwood the convention in Aesthetics? Or is he fringe? Or just one among a few?

It's not the show that would experience emotions but the artist, perhaps the producers or writers, — T Clark

Of course. I was lazily noting that since it is a "production", the producers and writers may just be performing tasks no differently than an accountant or nurse does in a days work. Hence, the "show"
makes Idol not qualify as art, emotions wise.

I suspect that Idol could be seen as a type of art in its own right - in the genre of realty TV (whatever one may think of this). The music/performances are incidental. The show is about telling stories of people struggling against the odds to follow their dream. It's carefully crafted and built to follow certain emotional arcs. Perhaps it is kitsch, which certain purists might argue precludes it from being art. I would argue there is good and bad kitsch. And the line between kitsch and art may be irrelevant.

...is Collingwood the convention in Aesthetics? — ENOAH

Collingwood died in the early 1940s and is still respected and discussed. As far as I know, he is just one among many philosophers who write about art. He happens to be a favorite of mine and I find his theory of art matches my intuition well. I strongly recommend his "An Essay on Metaphysics." Both books gave me words to describe what my intuition was trying to tell me.

...the "show" makes Idol not qualify as art, emotions wise. — ENOAH

I don't think that is necessarily so - writers, producers, directors, actors, and technical staff for a show might rise to the level of artists. I would judge that isn't true for American Idol.

I suspect that Idol could be seen as a type of art in its own right - in the genre of realty TV (whatever one may think of this). The music/performances are incidental. The show is about telling stories of people struggling against the odds to follow their dream. It's carefully crafted and built to follow certain emotional arcs. Perhaps it is kitsch, which certain purists might argue precludes it from being art. I would argue there is good and bad kitsch. And the line between kitsch and art may be irrelevant. — Tom Storm

I think you're probably right - it's possible this type of production might be considered art. I'm sure Collingwood wouldn't think so and I doubt you could convince me it is.

Americal Idol probably is not art but the individual performances may be. — T Clark

My sentiments exactly! I've heard a few skilled, talented, moving performances on that show. But I tend to mix them up with America's Got Talent - and so have lots of other countries, apparently - where I've seen some really original and creative acts.

Thank you

I know of no plausible alternate source for feelings. — Vera Mont

Ok.

What you have there is an assortment of performances within the framework of a commercial production. — Vera Mont

I liked your categories which immediately preceded the above. But are you saying in the final analysis Idol doesn't fit into any category even of "the arts" but is rather, an assortment etc. ?

It can be criticized as a television program. Television programs have their own separate criteria to consider them good or bad. — Vera Mont

The way television works (and not just television) is that the real product is access to the audience's eyeballs, for which advertisers pay what they consider 5 million pairs of eyeballs worth. Programming is the bait.

"Good programs" mean large audiences (eyeballs) and profit for the platform (CBS, Netflix, whatever). Bad programs have paltry audiences and little income. Is the bait good? Well, the mice go for the cheese in the trap whether it's fine cheese from France or it's Velveeta. Now there is a difference between Great Performances on PBS (high quality cheese) and schlock on the networks and cable (Velveeta). But networks don't want to feed the masses with high quality French cheese. Let them eat caca.

the same thing applies to newspapers. When Google and other systems selling advertising grabbed the eyeballs, the newspapers starting going broke. It didn't make much difference how good the column inches of newsprint were.

But most of the content is not of the show itself, and none of the artistic content is. — Vera Mont

Isn't that true for most programs? Unless the show is entirely scripted for an untalented group of repertory performers, talented performers make it happen, or it doesn't. Whether it's AI or the Tonight Show or SNL, it's the talent that make the show, even when working with scripts. It's the writers, cover artists, and cartoonists that make THE NEW YORKER a great magazine -- not Condé Nast's offices and tons of glossy paper.

So for you art has to be something 'special'? — Tom Storm

Yes!

Seems to me a lot of people mistake the word art for the word 'sacred' and need for anything proposed for this category to have mystical, perhaps even transcendent, aesthetic properties. Can you help me make sense of this? — Tom Storm

It's an artist's view of art and maybe not even every artist's view. Certainly not a standard dictionary definition. So, it's not something that can or should be forced on anyone. It proposes there is art proper and "art". For example, what most people do in a casual art class is "art" but art proper is not something that can be pinned down to a simple skill or process ("how to" paint, write or whatever). It should have something that contextualizes our symbolic sphere in an important way rather than merely participates in it. But then, you might say, like @BC, that's just to distinguish between good art and bad art, and that's not unreasonable either.

Oh right, I agree with most of that except I think a urinal in the right context can be art because again, the form itself is not what's important in my view--it's rather the relationship of the art object to the symbolic sphere. And I'm not trying to be obscurantist here. I just mean how it fits with the zeitgeist or dominant ideology. Does it help us move beyond it or give us a new or interesting perspective on it? One great thing about Ibsen's plays were that he was so ahead of his time. His work was often badly received because of that, but history vindicated him. "A Doll's House" is a great example; it portrays the "scandal" of a woman thinking for herself and following her own desires rather than submitting to her husband's and society's view of her as a mere ornament. And this is presented with great skill and human understanding. Duchamp's route to a social statement was more vulgar and direct, but it worked. He helped move art forward and legitimize alternative means of expression. All this filters down and changes us. And we need to change. This is why we need artists and this is why art is "special".

My sentiments exactly! — Vera Mont

Personally, I have a hard time separating art, including mediocre art, from good entertainment. Collingwood arrogantly seemed very certain of his judgments. In "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" Robert Pirsig proposed defining art as "high quality endeavor." I found that compelling 45 or so years ago, but now I don't find it convincing. Pirsig discussed it in the context of a welder who fixed a broken part on his motorcycle. Collingwood would call that craft, not art. He has an interesting section on the difference between craft and art in "The Principles of Art."

Well, the mice go for the cheese in the trap whether it's fine cheese from France or it's Velveeta. Now there is a difference between Great Performances on PBS (high quality cheese) and schlock on the networks and cable (Velveeta). — BC

I am deeply moved by your acknowledgement of my attachment to America's greatest cheese (product).

But are you saying in the final analysis Idol doesn't fit into any category even of "the arts" but is rather, an assortment etc. ? — ENOAH

Pretty much. "The Arts" is a very broad classification of enterprises. Some of the products that are categorized under that heading, I don't consider art.
I think of the show somewhat like I think of the frame for a painting. Some or all of the content may be art, but the frame is just a good or bad mass-produced frame.

"Good programs" mean large audiences (eyeballs) and profit for the platform (CBS, Netflix, whatever). Bad programs have paltry audiences and little income. — BC

Not really. 'Good' and 'successful' are not synonyms. Some of the best television programs I've seen either didn't make it to a second season, or were ruined by a change of direction to make them more successful.

Now there is a difference between Great Performances on PBS (high quality cheese) and schlock on the networks and cable (Velveeta). But networks don't want to feed the masses with high quality French cheese. Let them eat caca. — BC

The masses must prefer Velveeta (or even caca) or they would support PBS.

Isn't that true for most programs? — BC

No. It's true of reality shows that feature performances by non-professionals. Talk shows, news magazine shows and comedy shows are in their own categories. Scripted fictional stories are another category. That one can be considered under the art form Cinema, and judged by the same criteria as Woman of the Dunes and Howard the Duck.

Personally, I have a hard time separating art, including mediocre art, from good entertainment. — T Clark

That's only because modern media can produce entertaining art and artistic entertainment.

So for you art has to be something 'special'? — Tom Storm


Yes! — Baden

Riddle me this, for the sake of defining art. What is "special"? Unique? Surely a blank piece of paper with a black dot squarely in the center is not what comes to mind when one thinks of "art". Or is it?

What if it's a single drop of blood, sweat, or tears from a person's last moment in life as he performed a valiant act of self-sacrifice saving an entire village from a deadly threat or attack? Surely that would be considered "special" and, due to its context, make it a worthy competitor along the lines of other great works. Symbolizing the lone nature of the sacrifice, one man, surrounded by the vastness of the world and the insurmountable odds around him, something like that, no?

What is an example of something "non-special" that attempts to masquerade as art? A simple outline of a circle is not considered "art", I wouldn't think? What would have to be added to that circle to make it qualify, to graduate from a mere diagram to something that can be considered "art"?

I am less willing to be patient with slipshod artists than I used to be.

Compare these two items by William de Kooning and Louise Nevelson. Both were in a large show of Abstract Expressionists at one of the Guggenheim museums:





They both are abstract expressionist, but De Kooning applied paint to canvas--quickly, it appears. Nevelson's assembled objects then painted them black. I wasn't there when the works were done, but it seems like Louise Nevelson applied more effort and thought to the work than did de Kooning. Perhaps De Kooning labored mightily to choose just the precise colors and brush strokes to express "Villa Borghese". Perhaps, like the elephant, he just labored mightily and brought forth a gnat.

Nevelson's Night evokes more response from me. The monochrome shapes and forms are definite, deliberate. Not so much de Kooning's summer day color scheme.

I've stood in front of a number of Pollock's works, and I found them to be reasonably compelling -- even knowing how he went about producing them (it wasn't a painfully skilled process). The thing is, one of them is enough. Several square yards of smeared paint doesn't need endless repetition, while one might enjoy many different paintings of mountains, or a particular biblical scene, or a classical topic, or a rodeo -- whatever.

It's an artist's view of art and maybe not even every artist's view. Certainly not a standard dictionary definition. So, it's not something that can or should be forced on anyone. It proposes there is art proper and "art". For example, what most people do in a casual art class is "art" but art proper is not something that can be pinned down to a simple skill or process ("how to" paint, write or whatever). It should have something that contextualizes our symbolic sphere in an important way rather than merely participates in it. But then, you might say, like BC, that's just to distinguish between good art and bad art, and that's not unreasonable either. — Baden

Old school, huh? As an artist myself, I don't believe that there is 'proper art', just good art and bad art and even this is subject to entirely debatable criteria of value.

They both are abstract expressionist, but De Kooning applied paint to canvas--quickly, it appears. Nevelson's assembled objects then painted them black. — BC

I find both works banal but I'm happy with them both being called art. The word 'art' to me doesn't contain within it an assumption about merit.

De Kooning applied paint to canvas--quickly, it appears — BC

De Koining's is medium-bodied with a bouquet reminiscent of lemongrass and hints of parsnips and rhubarb.

Parsnip and rhubarb combo? I don't believe I've encountered that particular bouquet.

I think my main point is, if you have a more interesting conversation you'd have, I genuinely want to see what that would look like.

And this is presented with great skill and human understanding. Duchamp's route to a social statement was more vulgar and direct, but it worked. He helped move art forward and legitimize alternative means of expression. All this filters down and changes us. And we need to change. This is why we need artists and this is why art is "special". — Baden

I think this would make Susan Boyle performance art, on the basis of her disrupting and throwing into relief the equation of pop with beauty. She sings beautifully and just looks like an old lady. That was on Britain's Got Talent, which is the same thing but Bri-ish innit.

There wasn't a further development of the symbolic related to the conceptual content of her performances, but there was a development of the symbolic enacted through the social context of them. Susan Boyle as a phenomenon was very much both.

Maybe where that throws a spanner in the works is that interventions in the symbolic need to modify the symbolic - which Boyle did - but modify them in a way related to the modifying the understanding of the the expression of content in the symbolic simpliciter - which Boyle did not, she highlighted and undermined a stereotype in a manner that created a fandom.

I'm just pointing out that that's you're choice - you don't have to argue with anybody if ads are art, you can talk about the other stuff you said was more important anyway.

You could literally do it now. That guy that said a McDonald's ad was art... you could literally have the discussion you said was more important, right now, with him. The wishy washy definition of the word "art" isn't the thing stopping you from doing that. — flannel jesus

That's not the issue here, I'm talking about a broader perspective of how society handles knowledge and how to mitigate unnecessary lack of clarity through better handling of definitions in language.

At the same time, the "definition of art" is at the core of aesthetic philosophy, so I don't get your "who cares" attitude? If it doesn't matter, the why are you even in this discussion? You're literally in a thread that tries to define something as art or not, and for that we need to set a definition of what art is.

I already set parameters for defining art in a way that answers the OP question. So far I've not seen any reasons to why those parameters would be any worse than any "who cares" arguments.