A Writer's Life - Latest Comments in What makes something art?

Re: What makes something art?

cjwriter — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:09:16 -0000

Hi Lisa, I'm so glad you liked the cartoon! It still makes me laugh now weeks later, which is the sign of a good cartoon.

I think that's a great way to look at art. Art (and certainly high art) should be original and reveal something about the world that we haven't seen before... I suppose the only problem is that what one person might call original another might think is a copy or doesn't move them. But then quality is always in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

I'm definitely with you on #2. I couldn't tell you how many books I've read that I found so beautiful I thought they were a work of art, even if no one else quite got them... so perhaps that's the most important criteria, that it means something to us. If it does then it probably means something to someone else too.

Thanks for stopping by. I'll pop across to see your blog later. ;)

Re: What makes something art?

Lisa Damian — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:40:58 -0000

First off -- Love the cartoon!

As for art, I have often pondered the topic of creativity on my own blog, but I haven't yet explored this question of what makes something art. For me, there are two dimensions to this answer.

1) If something is original and fresh yet represents a global truth, an archetype, that resonates with people in a profound way, then certainly that is art.

2) Additionally, if something speaks to me personally, if it hits a chord, produces some sort of emotion and rings true, regardless of whether or not anyone else feels the same way, then to me, that is also art.

Re: What makes something art?

cjwriter — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:08:14 -0000

Now I want to scratch my eyes out, LA! That is one of the weirdest, most disturbing things I've ever seen. What is it supposed to be? A joke? Social commentary? Eroticism? A dog's fantasy? I wouldn't consider that art, no, but maybe they should submit it for the Turner prize - it'd probably win.

I'll have to have a look for that documentary; it sounds interesting. I know Hockney was involved in a couple of others as well, particularly one on Henry Geldzahler. I find his early work quite interesting... I'm not so sure about his work from the 80s onwards. I did like A Walk Around the Hotel Courtyard, though. Something about it reminded me of Picasso.

Thanks for stopping by, LA. It's going to take me a while to get that painting out of my head! :) If anyone else is interested, click over and have a look... it's got my vote for the worst piece of art ever made.

Re: What makes something art?

The Lazy Aussie — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:48:42 -0000

How about this one mate?

http://theworstofperth.com/...

I don't know what's shocking about the innocuous cartoon. Some people just like to be offended.

I never really like Hockney, but he did a very interesting doco on perspective. Very very good. I like some of the photo montages he did too. Not so keen on the pale young boys standing by swimming pools stuff though.

Re: What makes something art?

cjwriter — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:06:02 -0000

Hi Heather, thanks for stopping by. I don't mind Chris or CJ; I go by both and I tend to use CJ more with my writing, which is why it's on the blog. But either's good. ;)

I think you're right about art being better (or at least more accessible) if the majority judged it. We have an art award in Aus called the Archibald Prize which is highly regarded and it has three prizes; one is awarded by critics, another by museum staff, and the third by the public. The three have never coincided and shows how differently we look at art. But most of the public winners have done well afterwards, so I guess we have good taste!

My only problem is that the public doesn't always have the knowledge to appreciate a work and I'd hate to see something unappreciated because it's different. I mean, if you think about all the movies which go to #1, sometimes you get a good one but a lot of them are pretty forgettable... so sometimes critics can be useful. I just wish people wouldn't rely on them so much; it's just an opinion but people give them the power to make or break careers.

I couldn't agree more about genres and education, though... I've run up against that brick wall so many times. We all have a favourite genre but not reading something because of one or two books we haven't liked (or were told we wouldn't like) doesn't make sense - and for schools it's reprehensible. I'm hoping kids will be more open to different genres now; that's something Harry Potter has done, made them interested in other worlds again, and many like to see where the original ideas came from as well. Perhaps we'll see a change as they get older, and with the availability of it online... but it'll probably still be a long time.

That seems to be the consensus on art; a mix of skill, talent and impact... something that has meaning whether we love it or hate it... who knows, maybe one day a Narcoleptic Romance will be a work of art. I've read stranger things. :)

Re: What makes something art?

Heather S. Ingemar — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:58:10 -0000

Brilliant observations here, Chris (CJ? Which do you prefer?).

I have held for a long time that "art" would be so much better if we put its judgement in the hands of the majority instead of clinging to the cynical words of critics. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that by placing arts education in the hands of critics, we're killing it in the long run.

And I was just talking about this at work today, in relation to the selection of works for English literature textbooks. It's insane, the numbers of people I've talked to who say, "Oh, I hate [insert genre or literature form here]. I don't read that stuff." And when asked why, they say "I read [insert corresponding piece here] in high school and couldn't stand it."

C'mon folks; stop trying to feed our kids literary pieces with "high critic appeal" to teach them "literature." Expose them to more mainstream art, more popular writing, and have them "think critically" about that. I know this sort of approach would work, if only we could convince the "critical gurus" to accept it. As a librarian, I see it often: when a kid likes what they've read, they're very eager to tell you all about it. And I'd bet money that if you asked them to tell how how that work relates to a particular literary idea (that they've had explained to them), they could do it, and do it eagerly, with a better retention rate.

But, I think it will be a long time before we'll ever see such a shift in educational/literature/artistic thinking. Unfortunately.

As for what makes something "art," I'd have to say it is something done with an incredible amount of creative skill, that stirs its audience.

Great post.

All the best,
H.

Re: What makes something art?

cjwriter — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:03:41 -0000

I read through AD like that as well. It's hard to read but it's one of those works that's so powerful you still want to read it... the sign of a good work.

I haven't read Persepolis but I've heard a lot about it; I'll have to find it. If it's anything like Spiegelman's Maus, it sounds like a must read.

Re: What makes something art?

B0bbyG — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:55:28 -0000

Thanks for that link; I've just read AD from the very start to the end of chapter 10. You're right; it's very powerful. It reminded me of Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis.

Re: What makes something art?

cjwriter — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:02:30 -0000

Brightfeather, thank you so much for your thoughtful comment. You've given me a lot to think about and I couldn't agree more that art is subjective. Perhaps the question isn't so much "what is art?" but "what does art mean to us?", because in the end art rests in the eye of the beholder, as you said.

I guess I'm lucky that I haven't had your experience with people talking about art! I have had some spirited discussion through a few groups I belong to, though. There was a book we read called Air by Geoff Ryman which I hated; I didn't have a problem that they liked it but I couldn't understand that a lot of critics were calling it a work of art. It's well written but I found the story hollow and something happens to a child in it that's just shocking. I think Life of Pi and Midnight's Children are works or art but we had a very heated debate about Air, one I was glad to leave behind.

The Britannica's definition makes a lot sense. I tend to look at art in terms of the impact it has on a person, but the way something is created is vital too... and that's interesting about art being subject to time. I didn't think of that but if you look at the Egyptian or Terracotta exhibitions, they're amazing, but most of the objects were created for a purpose... I suppose that's the difference between modern and ancient art; most of what we create now is manufactured and I can't imagine many of our tools being seen the same way by future generations. But perhaps it depends on what survives.

Thanks for the link; I'll have to check it out and subscribe. Sounds like my kind of thing. ;) Thanks for stopping by, brightfeather. It's a fascinating discussion and I appreciate your perspective. As always. :)

<hr>

Glad you liked the cartoon, Bobby! I thought it was clever to use something as recognisable as Dr. Who like that, but then I'm biased when it comes to sci-fi. :)

I quite like Hockney's art, though generally I like more traditional artists and painters. So I was interested to hear his comments, particularly on Emin... she did one work I liked, a tent where she wrote all the names of the people she was close to, but then there's something like My Bed which just seems bizarre... it was his comments about the iPod which ruined it. I understand not liking the iPod but he comes across as resisting change and that's very strange, considering his role in pop art.

Deviant Art has some great art but I can't believe I've never heard of Elfwood! Thanks; I just checked it out and some of the art is amazing. I'll have to have a proper look later. ;) There's a webcomic called After the Deluge which is an amazing comic; it's about the real experiences of five New Orleans residents during and after Hurricane Katrina. It's a very powerful comic and has quite unusual drawings. If Hockney thinks art is dying, AD is just one example of what's possible.

I think the future of art is web-based; the power of the net is in mashups, using different forms to tell a story. We're going to see a lot of new media art over the next decade as text, audio, video, and visual art become part of the same canvas. I find that very exciting myself, the kind of works that might be created, but perhaps people like Hockney resent the change. But if some people aren't offended I guess it wouldn't be art, eh? :)</hr>

Re: What makes something art?

B0bbyG — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:57:19 -0000

I think that cartoon is very funny. Some people really need to lighten up.

I have mixed feelings about Hockney's remarks. I would tend to agree that I prefer Hockney's art to Emin's (although I always think I'm probably missing something where modern art is concerned), even though the only Hockney painting that springs to mind is A Bigger Splash. However, I prefer music to visual art anyway, so I don't really see what's wrong with iPods.

I agree with you that there's some good stuff on Deviant Art; Elfwood too. Plus there are webcomics like xkcd and The Order of the Stick which serve as a reminder that even the most basic of stick figures can be brilliantly expressive when drawn by a competant artist. Maybe Mr. Hockney should go online more often.

The irony is that Hockney's own art isn't exactly traditional. It's a far cry from Monet or Miro, which are in turn both completely different from each other and their predecessors. I can remember that my least favourite art lessons at school were those where we had to copy existing artists' work. You may well have hit the nail on the head when you suggest it's a generational issue.

Re: What makes something art?

cjwriter — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:56:53 -0000

I think you're right, WC. Art is such a subjective thing and even the methods we use to create a work can be debated, but if it elicits a strong reaction and shows genuine skill, to me that makes it art. My problem with Emin's work is that it feels empty... apparently it's supposed to represent a bout of suicidal depression, so you're not far off with the low self-esteem.

What I find interesting about the cartoon is that I can see how some people might not like it, but if it's on someone's blog then they must have looked to find it; if I don't like something I just click away, I don't see the need to leave a comment like that. But if they are defensive then perhaps they felt like they needed to challenge it... although they could have done it in a better way.

And I agree about shock in art. I don't like shock value either; it cheapens a work and I find something like the Piss Christ very distasteful. I think there are times when it can work for some forms, like a shock twist in a book or film, but it's a case of knowing when it's appropriate and paying the work respect... being controversial just to get attention makes someone a celebrity, not an artist.

And I couldn't agree more about critics. I avoid reviews like the plague now. I read a few after I've seen something but I don't like having my mind made up for me first. It's scary how many critics were former writers or artists themselves... kind of like agents. :)

<hr>

Thanks MQ! I was surprised by what Hockney said as well... I can understand what he means but by attacking an object he's sidestepping the real issue, which just shows he's out of touch.

Ironically you could even make a case that the iPod has added to visual arts. It's very design is iconic and has resulted in thousands of short films that wouldn't have been made otherwise. And that's not even mentioning the ads. They're just as iconic as the iPod itself and we've haven't even begun to see their impact on future artists yet.

</hr><hr>

I'm glad you found it funny, Jule! It was one of the first cartoons I saw on Mike's blog and I almost fell off my chair laughing when I saw it. That's pretty much how I felt as well; I think humour can be a way of looking at ourselves and if we can't laugh at ourselves, what can we laugh at?

And that's a great definition of art. I've often thought that writing is like a kind of telepathy; the reader and writer create the world together, so the work becomes unique. You could apply that to any kind of art. The only thing I'd wonder is where do you draw the line? I mean, you wouldn't compare Britney Spears to Mozart... but in the end there's history behind any work and it's how the creation touches the person that matters, not the form. As long as it has beauty to us, that's all that matters.</hr>

Re: What makes something art?

911jule — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:12:30 -0000

I think the cartoon is hilarious! And I consider myself a born again Christian and a huge Dr. Who fan! I certainly didn't consider this an insult to Christianity but more of a tongue in cheek about what Science is and how we use that to explain what we don't understand.

As to Art .. I believe that art is anything which takes what you see and draws your imagination into that moment and allows you to BE involved in the ongoing creation of it. Whether it's painting, photography, music, written word, digital media ...... whatever it is. Once something is created that draws someone else's imagination into it with them they have created art for that person.

Re: What makes something art?

Magik Quilter — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:06:23 -0000

Great post CJ and informative. Did not know Hockney had said that about the ipod generation....interesting. Especially when people are saying that we are living in a more visual age due to people discovering books and history through the visual medium of cinema.

Re: What makes something art?

writerchick — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:26:04 -0000

Hey CJ,
compelling post. I think art is that which has an emotional impact and demonstrates a technical expertise of the artform. In other words, a bottle of urine on a blue table displayed in an art museum would not be considered art, at least not by me. Neither does that lady's bed. The only thing I derived from that was that she was a slob and probably has low self-esteem.

I do understand (though I don't share) the person's response to the cartoon. People do take their religion seriously, so when they feel that other's are making fun of it, they feel defensive. That's an expected response - and I'd venture to say that your friend who drew the cartoon was going for at least a little bit of the shock factor.

Which brings me to your point - I believe that many 'artists' as well as critics consider 'shock' to be an artful impact when in fact, it is not. It is simply shock, titilation, a slap in the face. It does get attention certainly, but to me has no lasting merit or value as art or anything else for that matter.

As to art critics, I often wonder if they secretly seek to destroy real art and promote only poor imitations of art in an effort to destroy it and destroy people's interest in it. Motivated by the fact that pretty much all critics are critics because they cannot produce anything remotely artful, artlike, artistic or anything else creative.

And I agree wholeheartedly that there are many art forms, writing, painting, dancing, music, performance arts, films, books, even some television shows could be considered art.