TTI Forums

Ok since I am sorta bummed that we stopped talking about art, let's talk about art.

On of the things I find interesting about "art" as a sort of taxonomic designation is that you find yourself surrounded by art. Sure most of it isn't that great but even in the bad examples there is an inherent intent to please. That would mean that you are surrounded by things which were made to please you. That's a pretty friendly world. The other cool thing is that most of this was brought to you by the profit motive. Even utilitarian tools are designed by an artist to please you in order to gain competitive advantage in the market place.

I mentioned that this taxonomic understanding also makes the term somewhat useless. This is because taxonomic designations just describe within each level and with art, there is only art and not art. Maybe there are more and I don't know what they are but w/e we can discuss that. Not very useful. Why is that though? Probably because there is just so much art and so little that isn't.

Go back in history; humans decorate damn near everything. I just watched a Nova special on the megamammals of North America. They discussed the clovis people 12k years ago and the beautiful almost perfectly symmetrical spearheads they made. They didn't have to be that perfect, they weren't for throwing just stabbing. But yet they created beautifully symmetrical objects. These were people that were subsistence hunter gatherers, so it' s not like there was any surplus wealth to explain why they would do this.

Now I make furniture and as a craftsman, I definitely can have an aesthetic experience just looking at a beautiful polished line of a chair or table. I wonder if the man making the spearhead would have a similar experience looking at his beautiful spearhead or even his buddy's. I'm guessing yes.

Does it really matter that the word "art" then becomes useless? I don't think so because it is the result of a massive effort by your fellow man to improve his lot in life by pleasing others and profiting from it. Contrast this to violent plunder. I think it's great that art is everywhere.

Ya know the term taxonomy makes me think about a structure for classifying things that follows a logical structure. Under stand that logic and you can come to a more comprehensive awards of the subject. And if we were to apply definite standards to art, then I agree we would need a a taxonomy. So for my Menudo example we could set some criteria.
To be music;

• The sound must have a regular and predictable tempo – this song scores quite high on that criteria
• The the lyrics should be discernible - again high score
• The notes of the melody should fall within a recognized tonal key – Well... sort of for this tune.

These three standards might form a criteria for music. Miss one or more you have some bad music in your ear. This tune meets the criteria, and yet I can not judge it to be good art.

Beyond the whole taxonomy, I think any innovation in art by definition would a fall outside of our structure. Does being different make the art automatically bad? Impressionistic painting was initially considered heretical, but in time the audience came to appreciate the style. We can try to put a box around art, I am just not sure we can build a box big enough for it to snugly fit into.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote there Musashi. I don't think that a taxonomic designation would present a value judgment. So the Menudo example wouldn't be falling under the classification of "good" music, but more western pop music. This doesn't indicate whether it will be good or bad (well since I definitely have a personal opinion about pop music, I will probably make a judgment based on classification) but which qualities you can expect it to have. Eastern music is going to be aharmonic and sound terrible to my ears, but many Chinese might consider it good music.

Lastly, I think that causing an aesthetic experience in at least one person is a pretty big tent.

Ok since I am sorta bummed that we stopped talking about art, let's talk about art.

Ok. Let me take up you question here:

I mentioned that this taxonomic understanding also makes the term somewhat useless. This is because taxonomic designations just describe within each level and with art, there is only art and not art. Maybe there are more and I don't know what they are but w/e we can discuss that. Not very useful. Why is that though? Probably because there is just so much art and so little that isn't.

Here's my definition and understanding of art:
I'm quoting myself here.

Art is the quality of communication.
Good art creates a desirable emotional impact.
The success of art is entirely dependent on the former experiences of the beholder.
If the emotion it generates is desirable in the beholder, it's that much better in the eyes of the beholder.
If the emotion it generates in the beholder is undesirable, well, it's considered bad art by the beholder.
If it doesn't create an emotion in the beholder, it's not art -for the beholder.

Movies are an excellent example of art.

All the good movies that you ever watched created a desirable emotion in you. If a movie made you cry -it was good. If it was a horror film and you wanted to be scared, and you were scared out of your mind, it was a great film. If it wasn't scary, it sucked.

All the horrible movies you saw either didn't have the desired emotional impact or they created unwanted emotions -or no emotions.

Paintings follow the same rules.

Music too.

The same can go for furniture. Furniture is Art for many.
I'm also skilled at woodworking and I've made my share of desks and cabinets. When I look at a piece of furniture, I can see the skill required to have made it and the quality of the work. Because of my former experinces with furnituremaking, viewing furniture has a diifferent emotional effect than other people. Some really well biult pieces have made me smile. Some of the fiberboard crap that sells disgusts me.

"modern art" for me, usually isn't art, because most of it doesn't communicate anything or relay an emotion I want to feel -if any emotion at all. Most of the modern art I've seen was very ho-hum or boring to me. Some of it had undesirable emotional effects. I walked through the LA Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) and stood in an exibit that was four white walls and a toilet. There were bloody tampons on the floor and red paint splattered all over the walls. The "piece" was titled A women's bathroom. I felt sick. If I had wanted to feel sick that day, perhaps I'd have a different view of contemporary art. So, if you are into being suprised, confused and disgusted, you'll love "modern art".

The whole reason a piece of art will be good or bad depends on the effect it has emotionally on the audience. The former experiences of the audience have everything to do with how it will effect them.

This is why you can hate a movie that your parents raved about. This is why a painting of the ocean is better looking to the active surfer than the guy who can't swim. It's why I admire furniture differently than my wife. It's why I can't stand certain pop music and I love staring at Angelina Jolie when she's naked.

As an artist, when you are creating a piece of art, you have an emotion you want to create in your audience.
That's the goal of an artist.
If you can create this emotion in others through your art, it's very satisfying, and your art is considered good by others who wanted the emotion.

Video Games such as EVE are successful to the degree that they can provide the emotional impact players desire to experience.

I like the comment that art is a form of communication and that it should evoke an emotional response. I'd like to continue to analyze this model.

To ensure the reader is thinking the same way I am I'll go on way to much about the premises I base my observation on, briefly on values since this group is likely familiar with that concept, specifically the concept of emotion. Then I'll present what I think is a challenge in the world of art appreciation.

Values are different to everybody, or more accurately, prioritized differently by everybody. Having children may be the priority for one person, traveling important to someone else. Whether you develop these values explicitly (I wish to see some place this year) or implicitly (I've come to enjoy someone's friendship) you develop a learned response to the stimulus that sort of summarizes those values. We call this an emotional response. I can give concrete examples if anybody is interested, but let's continue.

In most cases, people analyze art implicitly. Thus the saying, "I may not know art but I know what I like." However, there are clues in the piece that evoke this emotional response. Art appreciation, however, is a more focused analysis (or any analysis in the first place).

From the artist's point of view this would start with some concept, e.g. heroism. The artist then must put clues in the piece that are concretes of heroism. This can be subtle or direct, just a few or several. So I imagine "good" art would be one where as many details as possible direct the person experiencing it to the target concept. Distractions or lazy details that do not help work toward the concept reduce its quality. This can go as far as being so obtuse or muddled with distraction as to not convey any message resulting in "bad" art.

From the viewer's point of view, this requires looking for, collecting, and processing these details. You can't just stand back and look/tap your foot and listen/pop it down your throat/etc. and come to a rational conclusion on your appreciation of the art. You need to use the concretes as clues as to the perception of the artist. The better the clues, the more tightly you'll identify with the concept and enjoy the art more.

There is a final connection that is a challenge to both. The artist and the consumer must share the context of the concretes, or be willing to really open up to all the clues to get the message. This is why it's entirely reasonably that a piece that evokes the anguish of losing someone who died may not have the same impact on someone who has not experienced this.

Let's test this on the example given above, bloody tampons against a red spattered background. An emotional response is certainly evoked so is this art? I don't think so because I haven't a clue what concept is being communicated. I see a mess. Chaos? Confusion? It's as meaningful to me as coming across a tipped over garbage can. Sure, I can make up a story but that's not good art.

The Museum of Modern Art in New York has a canvas with a big red box on it. It's well reputed and gets a lot of attention. Drives me crazy. I went through the entire museum with friends of mine and, apart from a few pieces, thought it was a waste of time. Yet I would say it does agree with the times of today. Think about "news", for example. It is often sound (or image) bites that evoke an emotional response without a clear message. "Yes We Can!" Feel good statement with no basis/premises. Images of starving children with no context on what you are actually doing for them (just send money because you feel badly).

Political and economic decisions suffer the same problem: short-term feel good reactions without proper appreciation for the issues and the consequences of the actions. They are not sustainable and neither are those "modern" (dare I say "progressive"?) pieces.

What's that other saying? Art imitating life imitating art?