Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

I can do that

13:46 / 19.07.05

I work as a security guard at a musuem and when people come in and they see an abstract piece of art, or anything they maybe don't understand, they often say quite mockingly " I could do that".
My answer, "No you can't" and more importantly "but you didn't"
I blame pluralism for this and its gross misrepresentation of artists like Duchamp. I would argue that it was never Duchamp's intent to say that "anything at all could be art". For Duchamp it was about context, and railing against the museum and gallery system. (but that's another discussion).
[rant part of discussion]
Perhaps i'm over sensitive because i've spent my whole life in the pursuit of making, understanding, and experiencing art, but it really irks me that art is seen as such an 'easy' thing to do by people who just have no clue, and i won't say that there aren't artists out there who suck and bare some of the responsibility but, damn.
[end rant]

so i would like to discuss the merits of 'Art' as a skill and pursuit. For instance i've built cabinets, but i wouldn't call myself a carpenter. I've made electronic components, but i wouldn't consider myself an electrician, etc...
So should anyone be called an artist without having attained a certain amount of skill and training?

All Acting Regiment

16:38 / 19.07.05

You're angry about people who make snap judgements about art without trying to understand it. That's fine, I agree with you there.

However, I have a problem with some of the things you're saying, which I'll adress here. I think it's maybe that the way you're putting your points across has let some unpleasant stuff in. For example:

So should anyone be called an artist without having attained a certain amount of skill and training?

Training? You mean, if someone has a natural, untutored talent for drawing, but have never been taught to do so, they don't count as an artist? I don't agree with that.

Skill? Well, skill is a very relative word. It takes skill to make a realistic sculpture, but it also takes skill to put two objects together and make it funny or meaningful- Dali with his putting a lobster and a phone together.

And how do you measure this "certain ammount"?

"No you can't" and more importantly "but you didn't"

I agree with "but you didn't". I disagree with "no you can't".

Just because someone displays an agressively narrow-minded view at a given time does not mean that they are incapable of changing.

While the sort of person who would shrug off a work of art by saying "I could do that" probably won't become an open mided artist just yet, that potential is always there in everyone.

It's just often hidden under the fear of being different and the desire to gain power by mocking an artist who isn't there to defend the work. "Sympathy for, not anger at, the narrow mided is the cure for them" etc.

For instance i've built cabinets, but i wouldn't call myself a carpenter.

But that is exactly what you were when you were building the cabinet. You were carpenting. You were a carpenter! You may not have been paid for it, but in terms of linguistics it makes no difference. I am a typer; it's not what I get paid for, but here I am typing.

------

I get the picture from what you say that your idea is that, to be an artist, one should put oneself on that path, one should take steps to make it part of your identity. Effort, basically: giving up the life you lead as a non-artist to gain the status of artist.

Which is fair enough, but doesn't that set up a dichotomy of "Artist" and "Non-artist"? And doesn't that simply push art further away from the average human?

17:39 / 19.07.05

interesting points,

Training? You mean, if someone has a natural, untutored talent for drawing, but have never been taught to do so, they don't count as an artist? I don't agree with that.

natural talent doesn't make someone an artist, for instance, many people have talent for playing piano, but until they refine that talent and work with that talent, whether they are self-taught or trained at academy they will not be concert pianists, and you certainly wouldn't call them pianists simply because they can play 'chopsticks' would you?

I disagree with with your stance that making one cabinet makes you a carpenter. i would argue that until you make cabinets for an extended amount of time and show some proficiency in it, you will not be a carpenter.

I don't want you to think my view of art is narrow, it isn't i believe there are many valid forms of expression, abstract, surreal, graffiti, performance, you name it, a case can be made for it. however i don't believe that art is any less of an endeaver than say, engineering, or chemistry

I agree that people can change, and that they may have the potential to make art, but the fact is that they didn't and could not make the work in the gallery for the simple fact that they aren't the artists the made it in the first place. Someone may look at a Rothko or Pollock and think they can paint it but it isn't possible. There are years of experience and ingenuity that went into those works, it's like reading shakespeare and saying "oh, i think i could write that", that's all i'm saying. And i wouldn't discourage anyone from making works of art, i think the creative process is a wonderful thing for everyone to experience. but i don't think that the occasional making of art necassarily makes them an artist.

as far as setting up a dichotomy of 'artists' vs 'non-artists', i'm not sure that's really an issue, anytime something is defined there will be the possibility of its opposite. I don't have contempt for people that aren't artist or feel as though they are less human because of it. The world needs all kinds of different people with different experiences, different jobs that they serve.

All Acting Regiment

15:18 / 20.07.05

I see your point about the uniqueness of each artist.

07:31 / 22.07.05

however i don't believe that art is any less of an endeaver than say, engineering, or chemistry

Neither do I believe it is less of an endeavour, but it is obviously very different -how does one quantify, or even define, when someone is an artist? There are fairly objective measures for something like engineering -a person with an MEng and the ability to build things that work in their chosen field would be justified in calling themselves an engineer, but is there a similar measure for art? Would it be possible for someone to have a lot of formal training, with all the commitment and practice that entails, and still not be an artist? In other words, do you think there is a analogue for the 'things that work' that the engineer builds -a way of defining when an artwork 'works'?

All Acting Regiment

10:14 / 23.07.05

Sorry to butt in, Vincennes, but surely the idea that a work "works" is dependant on the viewer?

10:38 / 24.07.05

Well, that's one way of looking at it (and it's not 'butting in' if you're on a public forum so you don't need to apologise!) My question was that -since this topic posits that not everything is 'art', and it's also true that lots of art doesn't work for all viewers -whether there was anything else people could suggest as the quality which defines art. Training on the part of the artist is one thing that's been suggested, but is it a guarentee? Hope that makes my post a bit clearer...

All Acting Regiment

15:46 / 24.07.05

...suggest as the quality which defines art.

I really don't think there is any one universal quality that a peice could hold that would make it qualify as art all over the world, in every culture, to every person, other than the notion of Self Sacrifice.

Now, this sacrifice could be physical, or it could be sacrificing your free time, or it could be sacrificing your social life.

I am fairly confident that someone from China can appreciate the Aztec pyramids in Mexico as art because of the ammount of work gone into them (time spent working= sacrifice of personal free time=self sacrifice) even without an understanding of Aztec culture.

Likewise, an Aztec would understand that a European oil painting had taken serious sacrifice in terms of learning to paint and all the related skills.

But I personally beleive that any Expression, be it "Object" or "Phenomena" or "Social Activity" is art if the viewer beleives it to be so, even if the creator does not.

And in fact, it's not just me, and it's not just modern artists who hold this view: I would argue that when the Incas stored idols from neighbouring religions in their own temples within the Inca empire, they were showing a similar appreciation.

Likewise, old plough handles, olive-oil bottles, scraps of simple cups- innocuous things from ancient Greece are on display in our museums that the Greeks themselves probably did not value as art (but obviously valued practically).

Does putting things in museums constitute labelling them as art? Well, I think so. We aren't using that ancient Greek plough fragment to plough with, are we? We're appreciating it (on the whole) in terms of aesthetics.

My final point being that anything (any thing) really can be art, so long as the viewer appreciates it as such. However, not all viewers will have this appreciation (though many, I think, do). In lieu of this, the sense of associated self sacrifice is perhaps almost universal as a quality that lets a thing be appreciated as art.

21:45 / 24.07.05

As an artist of that pseudo-professional variety (meaning I've got paid for it, but not enough to live off proper) who's consistently amazed when people pay for something I've done (be it paint, prose, or the eight foot high banner of cancelled revolution a bar in LA rented from me for three years before I just gave it to them to avoid feeling guilty) - I can honestly say, the problem, as I see it, has nothing to do with people thinking they could 'do that' but the horrendous, terrifying number of people out there who think they (a) can't do it, and (b) can't understand or interpret it even when they clearly do. Are people programmed over decades of school and television to believe they're uncreative idiots who can't make a single intuitive or rational leap?
I can remember, few years back, a bunch of us just fucking about all day with paint and canvas and wood and gaffer tape and when someone stopped by and asked if they could use some of the pieces to fill space in a gallery for a few nights of an upcoming show... someone actually refused on the basis that they were 'not really painting' or some similar shit. Bullshit.
Of course, I just watched a visiting Prof. tell a grad-level class that Picasso and VanGogh never added anything to the world of art and were completely worthless, so... maybe it's just that my aesthetic sense is too free or enjoys too much a bit too much, but y'know, this low/high-brow, entertainment/infotainment/I-Don't-Get-It-So-It-Must-Be-Intelligent, idea that limitations and restrictions and BECAUSE I SAY SO! just annoys me. Talent, patience, energy, impetus, technique and all is very good and useful applied this way, done that, but the idea that it's all beyond you, me, or the few billion I out there is just crap.
The pattern you make, walking/driving/sitting/dancing over the space of a day, that's fucking art, and it's open to a helluva lot of interpretation, almost all of it absolutely right. The sound of twitchy fingers hitting keys to make pictures that collude into other pictures which have meaning and are called words: art. Zombina and the Skeletones, red shag carpet, rugby, schoolgirls in cat-ears ice-skating arm in arm laughing at a fat middle-aged man falling on his ass trying to impress them is all of it art. Why? Because I, as audience, say so.

14:59 / 25.07.05

But I personally beleive that any Expression, be it "Object" or "Phenomena" or "Social Activity" is art if the viewer beleives it to be so, even if the creator does not.

because someone 'believes' something to be so doesn't make it so. I can believe all i want that trees are dogs, but it wouldn't be true (given the current physical state of the world)
I agree that people can experience any number of things and have an aesthetic response to it, but Aztec temples for instance were never created to be art, they had a religous function, i don't believe they had a sense of 'art' as we understand it today. I'll avoid a discussion of decontextualizing Native and Aboriginal works at the moment.
Likewise trees, and natural object are not 'art'. I think a defining characteristic of art would have to be that it is 'created', made, It is at its core an interperatation of the world around us.

To recognize individuals who have spent their lives investigating and developing this 'visual philosophy', if you will, in no way diminishes another persons capacity for understanding art or making art, it simply acknowledges that Aesthetic knowledge is a valid pursuit, and that the people we acknowledge as 'artists' have attained a degree of 'success'(i use the term very loosely) in that pursuit.

As far as measuring that success, i think that it's like any other proffession, it is determined by peers in the system, whether or not that's the best method is difficult to say, but i don't think there are any professions where that isn't the case. There will of course be many schools of thought, some measuring success based on money or fame, some putting skill first, and others vision, but all in all in all i would reject the claim that art is a purely subjective endeavor. there are underlying rules to it, even if we don't always undersand what they are.

15:22 / 25.07.05

-a person with an MEng and the ability to build things that work in their chosen field would be justified in calling themselves an engineer, but is there a similar measure for art?

To answer this a little more clearly i would say this, Having an engineering degree does not mean you'll be a good engineer. you could still make bridges that collapse and buildings that fall down, however you're far less likely to do that than someone who has no formal training. In similar fasion an artist may have their degree and not be able to make pieces that 'work' all the time, but they will have a more developed and consistent approach. Both can claim their respective titles, because they've put in the time and effort, but it doesn't say anything for their ability to make things that work well.

As far as determining what 'works' and doesn't, I would say that art is a language. It has been developed over time and the more you understand about that language the better suited you will be to looking at, and understanding art. Context is very important to determining what 'works' or doesn't. I think it is very analogous to philosophy or history, the more of you know the better you will be at deciphering it. and just like in those fields, the peer review process is good for determining what works and doesn't work.
does that make sense?

09:29 / 08.08.05

It does skolld, cheers for the clarification...

Does putting things in museums constitute labelling them as art? Well, I think so. We aren't using that ancient Greek plough fragment to plough with, are we? We're appreciating it (on the whole) in terms of aesthetics.

This has got me wondering whether there's a valid distinction to be made between 'art' and 'artefact'. Because I enjoy reading etiquette guides from between 1870 and 1930, and read them with no less joy than I would read a work of fiction -but I would never have thought that this fact made them 'literature'. Could the axe head in the museum have a status similar to this, or are art and literature too far apart as categories to discuss like this?

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:58 / 08.08.05

Kant's very big on this. He maintains that aesthetic effect can only be inspired by aesthetic objects - that is, artworks. What is artisanal cannot be art. So, a flint axe head can be well-made, but it can't be artistically valid.

This thesis, for my money, rarely survives contact with a flint axe-head.

21:51 / 13.08.05

Oh, Kant's full of what the birds eat. Anyone who's spent any time around construction equipment will agree with me.

There is an ancient Indian saying: if you work with your hands, you're a laborer; if you work with your hands and your mind, you're a craftsman; if you work with your hands and your mind and your soul, you're an artist.

This seems absolutely commonsensical to me. Why so complicated?

All Acting Regiment

22:33 / 13.08.05

There is an ancient Indian saying: if you work with your hands, you're a laborer; if you work with your hands and your mind, you're a craftsman; if you work with your hands and your mind and your soul, you're an artist.

That saying works up to a point. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with it.

1) Does everybody beleive in a "soul"? Think carefully. If the answer is no, then surely this Indian saying is not applicable in all cases; for example, if as a follower of X beleif system, you beleive there is no such thing as a soul, then this Indian saying implies you are incapable of being an artist, no?

2) Does your Indian saying not rely quite heavily on the context of a strongly differentiated caste system, and does the restrictive nature of the sort of society within which this system typically occurs not, in some way, limit human freedom of expression?

As such, is it not a rather dangerous statement to have as an answer to what is an incredibly complex question, the very nature of which involves the concept of crossing boundaries and breaking restrictions of the sort that a caste system actively enforces?

01:35 / 16.08.05

There is an ancient Indian saying: if you work with your hands, you're a laborer; if you work with your hands and your mind, you're a craftsman; if you work with your hands and your mind and your soul, you're an artist.

This might be true if Louis Nizer were an ancient Indian, but i'm pretty sure he was a Jewish lawyer (and he might have been quoting Dickens, but i would have to refresh my memory on that). so even your quote, qalyndrome, isn't as simple as you would like to believe.