Sand mandalas are created in art spaces and then destroyed. When is it “art”?
When it’s done, before it’s destroyed.
Have you ever seen a movie you sort of disliked but you couldn’t stop thinking about it?
Yes, but sometimes that’s because it was so bad that they couldn’t get even basic things right. I don’t think you’d argue that an incompetently made movie is a work of art because people can’t stop thinking about it. Although, sometimes things can come full circle and something can be such a train wreck that “art” emerges from the public’s response to it, see for example The Room.
I’m talking a month later you are thinking about it and still debating if it was good or bad
No, I don’t have that experience. I’ve seen movies that I can acknowledge were well made that didn’t appeal to me. I’ve seen badly made movies that I still enjoyed. I’ve seen movies that other people thought were amazing that I thought were crap. But, I’m never conflicted about whether a movie was good or bad.
I would say Hilters paintings didn’t engaged us.
And I would say the same about Jackson Pollock and Barnett Newman.
They didn’t expand our understanding of art through his paintings.
And I would say the same about Jackson Pollock and Barnett Newman.
He is famous for being the fascist Nazi leader but his paintings are a result of his fame as a figure.
And I would say the same about Jackson Pollock. Would his paintings be as famous if he’d lived to 80 years old instead of dying tragically young? Would his splatter art be as famous if he hadn’t made a name for himself (i.e. achieved some degree of fame) doing traditional art first?
Imagine if an unknown 20 year old with no background at all in art had created the paintings that Pollock had created. Imagine she’d been painting her house and thought the paint drops on the ground looked interesting, so she put a canvas over the plastic and did some dripping intentionally. Would that art be hanging in a museum? Almost certainly not, because she wouldn’t have the fame, story or background necessary to get the art world to take her seriously.
As for Dali, I’m sure he’d be well known. I love his stuff. But, you can’t separate the art from the artist. Would his art be less famous if he just looked like a short, chubby peasant from Spain, and he’d lived a quiet life? I think it definitely would be less famous.
What I’ll acknowledge is that there are “artist’s arists”, artists whose work is considered very important and influential by other artists, but not by the general public. You’ll find that in all kinds of fields. There are standup comedians who have never been able to draw a big crowd, but who other standup comedians think are absolute geniuses. That’s a situation that’s pretty interesting because the whole point of standup comedy is to make people laugh. If a standup comedian can’t reliably do that, then are they actually a good standup, even if other comedians think of them as a genius and highly influential?
The other issue is how you can’t untie art from the reception of that art. Take “Voice of Fire”, which is hanging up in Canada’s National Art Gallery. Artists may think it was important or influential, but the general public thinks it’s absolute crap. But, the controversy of the gallery paying $1.8M for it made it incredibly famous. As a result of that fame, it is now valued at more than $40M. IMO the reason it is valued at $40M today is the result of it being selected for the art gallery, and the controversy around its selection. If there had been no controversy about its acquisition, it would probably be valued considerably lower today.
But, does any of that change the “paint on canvas” value of that art? I don’t think so. All of that is related to the circumstances related to the art: the fame of the artist, the circumstances around the creation of that art, the price other people have paid for it, any controversies around that, etc.
The point I’m making is that although you can’t separate the art from the artist, or from the circumstances surrounding the art, including its history, etc. You should still try to do that when evaluating it as “paint on canvas”. Talking about the buzz surrounding a piece of art opens the door to all kinds of things that are not relevant to the paint on the canvas. If you argue that a piece of art is important because people are talking about it, then that opens the door to saying that art by Hitler, Ringo Starr and Jim Carrey are important. And then you have to get into an impossible scenario where you dissect why it is that someone is famous, and how much of the fame of their art is the result of their own personal fame. While it may seem obvious with people like Ringo Starr that his art would be completely ignored if it weren’t for his fame, it’s much less obvious with someone like Dali or Andy Warhol, or some of the people who made huge money with NFTs.
I don’t think you’d argue that an incompetently made movie is a work of art
You are making a fundamental mistake: that art is venerable by nature. I.e., if it is not venerable, it is not art.
I would insist that an incompetently made movie is a work of art, actually. It’s very interesting to me that you wouldn’t.
then that opens the door to saying that art by Hitler, […] are important.
Fascist art is actually very interesting because there is a perverse artlessness to it.
The nazis were not good artists. They liked big, masculine, square stone blocks. They liked big nipple domes that communicated power through their sheer size and their size alone. They hated degenerate, jewish ornamentation and artistic flavor.
Their depiction in recent Wolfenstein games is notably cool as shit, but also entirely unlike them: the gothic-esque qualities of those pillars and tall buildings would have been seen as degenerate, damaging the masculine austerity they wanted to project.
Their art, their marble statues of strong, muscly soldiers, venerates status and power in a purely aesthetic, unthinking kind of way—you’re not meant to think about it.
Now, why point this out. You keep bringing Hitler up in an obvious attempt to disgust, as if the words “Hitler” and “important” in the same sentence are itself a crime, but “important” doesn’t have to mean “good.” It doesn’t even have to mean “likeable.”
Hitler is a very notable historical figure, I’m sure you can imagine why, and his art, and the art of his fascist contemporaries, is an important reflection of what they were like as people: boring and stupid.
Why should I care if Ringo Starr or Jim Carrey are “important” or not? They don’t deserve to be? Does “importance” come with a trophy or something?
You are making a fundamental mistake: that art is venerable by nature. I.e., if it is not venerable, it is not art.
Anything can be art, but most things are not good art. I’m not interested in wasting my time with bad art. A badly made movie is art, but everything is art, so what does it matter?
The nazis were not good artists.
The Nazis were effective artists. Just look at their rallies. Their aesthetic was ideal for what they were trying to achieve. It’s not the sort of thing I’d want around my house. But, the Germans were coming out of a time when they had been defeated in WWI and then humiliated by having to make reparations to the French. Their style was “we’re powerful, manly men”, which appealed to people as a contrast to the humiliation of post-war Germany.
You keep bringing Hitler up in an obvious attempt to disgust
I’m not trying to use him to disgust. I’m just pointing out that if the frequency with which art is discussed is important, then he’s an important artist. I think if you focus just on the paint on the canvas, he was not at all important. He doesn’t seem particularly skilled, and he didn’t seem to do anything interesting or new.
Does “importance” come with a trophy or something?
If you consider “whose art should we study?” to be a trophy, then I suppose it does. I’m sure that question gets asked pretty often, and I think if your answer is Hitler, or Jim Carey, or Ringo Starr, you’re not making good use of your time.
![[OC] Personal opinion on Jackson Pollock's drip art](https://fedia.io/media/57/a6/57a68784da258ac88cbf772d4cc1c57c31be67a0f7ddda1a203f62c49fd84eff.jpg){kind=link}
When it’s done, before it’s destroyed.
Yes, but sometimes that’s because it was so bad that they couldn’t get even basic things right. I don’t think you’d argue that an incompetently made movie is a work of art because people can’t stop thinking about it. Although, sometimes things can come full circle and something can be such a train wreck that “art” emerges from the public’s response to it, see for example The Room.
No, I don’t have that experience. I’ve seen movies that I can acknowledge were well made that didn’t appeal to me. I’ve seen badly made movies that I still enjoyed. I’ve seen movies that other people thought were amazing that I thought were crap. But, I’m never conflicted about whether a movie was good or bad.
And I would say the same about Jackson Pollock and Barnett Newman.
And I would say the same about Jackson Pollock and Barnett Newman.
And I would say the same about Jackson Pollock. Would his paintings be as famous if he’d lived to 80 years old instead of dying tragically young? Would his splatter art be as famous if he hadn’t made a name for himself (i.e. achieved some degree of fame) doing traditional art first?
Imagine if an unknown 20 year old with no background at all in art had created the paintings that Pollock had created. Imagine she’d been painting her house and thought the paint drops on the ground looked interesting, so she put a canvas over the plastic and did some dripping intentionally. Would that art be hanging in a museum? Almost certainly not, because she wouldn’t have the fame, story or background necessary to get the art world to take her seriously.
As for Dali, I’m sure he’d be well known. I love his stuff. But, you can’t separate the art from the artist. Would his art be less famous if he just looked like a short, chubby peasant from Spain, and he’d lived a quiet life? I think it definitely would be less famous.
What I’ll acknowledge is that there are “artist’s arists”, artists whose work is considered very important and influential by other artists, but not by the general public. You’ll find that in all kinds of fields. There are standup comedians who have never been able to draw a big crowd, but who other standup comedians think are absolute geniuses. That’s a situation that’s pretty interesting because the whole point of standup comedy is to make people laugh. If a standup comedian can’t reliably do that, then are they actually a good standup, even if other comedians think of them as a genius and highly influential?
The other issue is how you can’t untie art from the reception of that art. Take “Voice of Fire”, which is hanging up in Canada’s National Art Gallery. Artists may think it was important or influential, but the general public thinks it’s absolute crap. But, the controversy of the gallery paying $1.8M for it made it incredibly famous. As a result of that fame, it is now valued at more than $40M. IMO the reason it is valued at $40M today is the result of it being selected for the art gallery, and the controversy around its selection. If there had been no controversy about its acquisition, it would probably be valued considerably lower today.
But, does any of that change the “paint on canvas” value of that art? I don’t think so. All of that is related to the circumstances related to the art: the fame of the artist, the circumstances around the creation of that art, the price other people have paid for it, any controversies around that, etc.
The point I’m making is that although you can’t separate the art from the artist, or from the circumstances surrounding the art, including its history, etc. You should still try to do that when evaluating it as “paint on canvas”. Talking about the buzz surrounding a piece of art opens the door to all kinds of things that are not relevant to the paint on the canvas. If you argue that a piece of art is important because people are talking about it, then that opens the door to saying that art by Hitler, Ringo Starr and Jim Carrey are important. And then you have to get into an impossible scenario where you dissect why it is that someone is famous, and how much of the fame of their art is the result of their own personal fame. While it may seem obvious with people like Ringo Starr that his art would be completely ignored if it weren’t for his fame, it’s much less obvious with someone like Dali or Andy Warhol, or some of the people who made huge money with NFTs.
You are making a fundamental mistake: that art is venerable by nature. I.e., if it is not venerable, it is not art.
I would insist that an incompetently made movie is a work of art, actually. It’s very interesting to me that you wouldn’t.
Fascist art is actually very interesting because there is a perverse artlessness to it.
The nazis were not good artists. They liked big, masculine, square stone blocks. They liked big nipple domes that communicated power through their sheer size and their size alone. They hated degenerate, jewish ornamentation and artistic flavor.
Their depiction in recent Wolfenstein games is notably cool as shit, but also entirely unlike them: the gothic-esque qualities of those pillars and tall buildings would have been seen as degenerate, damaging the masculine austerity they wanted to project.
Their art, their marble statues of strong, muscly soldiers, venerates status and power in a purely aesthetic, unthinking kind of way—you’re not meant to think about it.
Now, why point this out. You keep bringing Hitler up in an obvious attempt to disgust, as if the words “Hitler” and “important” in the same sentence are itself a crime, but “important” doesn’t have to mean “good.” It doesn’t even have to mean “likeable.”
Hitler is a very notable historical figure, I’m sure you can imagine why, and his art, and the art of his fascist contemporaries, is an important reflection of what they were like as people: boring and stupid.
Why should I care if Ringo Starr or Jim Carrey are “important” or not? They don’t deserve to be? Does “importance” come with a trophy or something?
Anything can be art, but most things are not good art. I’m not interested in wasting my time with bad art. A badly made movie is art, but everything is art, so what does it matter?
The Nazis were effective artists. Just look at their rallies. Their aesthetic was ideal for what they were trying to achieve. It’s not the sort of thing I’d want around my house. But, the Germans were coming out of a time when they had been defeated in WWI and then humiliated by having to make reparations to the French. Their style was “we’re powerful, manly men”, which appealed to people as a contrast to the humiliation of post-war Germany.
I’m not trying to use him to disgust. I’m just pointing out that if the frequency with which art is discussed is important, then he’s an important artist. I think if you focus just on the paint on the canvas, he was not at all important. He doesn’t seem particularly skilled, and he didn’t seem to do anything interesting or new.
If you consider “whose art should we study?” to be a trophy, then I suppose it does. I’m sure that question gets asked pretty often, and I think if your answer is Hitler, or Jim Carey, or Ringo Starr, you’re not making good use of your time.