The Aesthetics of Art

[TheAleph]

In college I took a course called "The Aesthetics of Art". It was a discussion class and everyone came into it with unique perspectives on what exactly art is. Whether they were the strict classicists, dismissing anything that did not necessarily require classical training to create, or the flimsy types that thought "everything and anything could be art as long as it is beautiful". At the end of the course everyone left with a more centrist agenda. I know I began to appreciate things I had at one time dismissed as craft or decoration instead of art.

I'm interested in what your limits of art are, forget any hierarchy of man's design and create your own. For instance, say, my taste for Miming over that of Caricature Portraits. I will list a few interesting cases and you all respond accordingly. Is it art? Why?

Case One:

In 1964, the Parisian performance artist Ben Vautier sat down in the middle of a street in Nice with a placard on his lap. The placard read, "Regardez moi cela suffit je suis art." ["Look at me. That's all it takes; I'm art."] He then had himself photographed in this position.

Was he right? Is this self proclamation enough to constitute art? Or is it the result of some mis-guided narcissism? Is he critiquing the method that popularly accepted art is produced?

Case Two:

In Liverpool, England, late in 1983, a wine merchant named Maureen Gledhill bought an abstract painting from Ernest Cleverley, a sculptor who also runs a pet shop. When Ms. Gledhill walked into the shop, the sculptor had been discussing the picture with Brian Burgess, an artist, and she believed it was one of Burgess' works. She paid $105 for the painting, thinking it a bargain, and displayed it prominently in her home.

But it turned out that the painting was the work of a duck named Pablo, who had escaped from his cage while Cleverley, the sculptor, was doing some painting, and had got his feet in the paint. "The duck," said Cleverley, "is a natural."

Should Gledhill have been disappointed to find out this was the work of a frantic duck, without intent of cause or pattern? Does art necessarily require a human element at all? Would you have kept the painting, or asked for your money back?

Case Three:

Okay, here's a hypothetical one. Suppose a well-known artist happens to be vacationing in the small community where you are curator of the local museum. One day you see him walking along the beach, and you tell him that your museum - although it is almost without funds to purchase new works - would be greatly honored to be given a work by him. The artist pauses, smiles in an indecipherable way, and bends over to pick up a piece of driftwood that is lying on the beach. "Here," he says with a glint in his eye, "take this. Call it Driftwood."

As curator, do you exhibit the driftwood or not? [Your gallery would be greatly enhanced by acquiring a genuine work by this famous artist.]

---

If this topic sparks any interest, perhaps I will post more cases later. For now, tell me what you think.

[Chris.S]

It is not art in either of the 3 examples. None of them created an abstraction of life. In the 2nd, it wasn't even a man that created anything, it was a duck that obviously had no clue what it was doing (like every other "abstract" artist).

Whenever I see this stuff and other random works of "art" in galleries and other places in Toronto, I think a) the person who created this is lazy mentally and physically, and b ) this person has some psychological problems, and the people who have no idea of what art should be are buying this shit like it's candy. I can't believe these people get away with it. But not only do they get away with it, but they get subsidized by the federal government for it. Perhaps they get away with it because they're subsidized - that's more likely.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Chris.S

[TheAleph]

It is not art in either of the 3 examples. None of them created an abstraction of life. In the 2nd, it wasn't even a man that created anything, it was a duck that obviously had no clue what it was doing (like every other "abstract" artist).

Whenever I see this stuff and other random works of "art" in galleries and other places in Toronto, I think a) the person who created this is lazy mentally and physically, and b ) this person has some psychological problems, and the people who have no idea of what art should be are buying this shit like it's candy. I can't believe these people get away with it. But not only do they get away with it, but they get subsidized by the federal government for it. Perhaps they get away with it because they're subsidized - that's more likely.

I tend to agree with you for the most part, you make some good points. But does art necessarily depend on the re-creation of living form? If so, which is more desirable? Realists that create true to life images, flaws included, or Idealists that create that which may never exist in reality, improving upon it, as it were?

Your ideas on abstraction and subsidized art recalled to me two other possible cases for this topic. I'll post them later after I write them down.

Thanks for replying.

[Chris.S]

I can't explain in detail, but it's all in "The Romantic Manifesto". I had these thoughts about art before I read TRM, but Rand helped me be able to put it in objective terms.

Basically it comes down to art being the selective recreation of life, taking abstract concepts and putting them in concrete form, of man as a heroic figure, of what he can be and ought to be. Something that inspires. A huge mess of colour and strokes on a canvas is neither of these. Neither are duck-foot prints or a piece of driftwood.

Here's an example of what passes for art at The Art Gallery of Ontario: 2 small video screens on a wall showing a video of a woman wrapping her head in pieces of cardboard paper by stapling them together, then drawing a face on the front with a marker. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's just weird.

[Jill]

None. In case two the person took aesthetic pleasure from something random. The Art Renewal site explains this well, check it out.

[Eiuol]

Art does not necessarily require man to be portrayed as a heroic figure or even portray man at all. But it does need to portray the artist's metaphysical value judgments. "Good" art is a separate discussion.

#1- Art has to be created. It can't just exist already. You have to draw a drawing, paint a painting, write a novel.

#2- He's a duck, so he wouldn't have metaphysical value judgments. Even if the duck were capable of making art, one can't accidentally make art. It requires at least a thought of "What values do I want to portray?"

#3- see #1

[Alfa]

#2- He's a duck, so he wouldn't have metaphysical value judgments. Even if the duck were capable of making art, one can't accidentally make art. It requires at least a thought of "What values do I want to portray?"

I think you got it slightly wrong here. It requires at least a thought of "what do I want to portray?". The artists value judgements will be implicit in what(and how) he portrays.

[Eiuol]

I think you got it slightly wrong here. It requires at least a thought of "what do I want to portray?". The artists value judgements will be implicit in what(and how) he portrays.

Do you mean "it does not require"? But anyway, in order to portray something, you must have thought about it on some level. A thought does not require the ability to put it into words, that's why value judgments are put into the form of art. What and how the artist portrays is directly related to the values being expressed.

[AMERICONORMAN]

There's the difference between non-objective art and more-objective art. Non-objective art can still be considered art only because the metaphysical value-judgments of an artist are still expressed to a viewer, if only by some special code of the artist and some esoteric few. But we prefer objective art, art whose method of creation is potentially available to the common man, and whose message also can be readily understood if the right, objective concepts are understood. An artist follows basic rules of creation that all artist's follow, no matter how original he is. And there are basic rules of criticism and analysis to understand a work of art. More-objective art is grounded in reason and concepts; it is not emotionally dependent. It's meaning is not desperately and mockingly playing hide and seek with the viewer. It may want to be seduced, but it first and foremost wants to be understood, which is the least it asks.

[tito]

I tend to agree with you for the most part, you make some good points. But does art necessarily depend on the re-creation of living form? If so, which is more desirable? Realists that create true to life images, flaws included, or Idealists that create that which may never exist in reality, improving upon it, as it were?

Your ideas on abstraction and subsidized art recalled to me two other possible cases for this topic. I'll post them later after I write them down.

Thanks for replying.

It would appear that you've had a good post-modernist whitewash on your course.

This is not a case of agreeing, feeling or wishing - these are established definitions, no debate is required.

Being an Objectivist forum, we can assume that everyone here agrees with Ayn Rand's definition of art (selective recreation of reality according to persona values).

Nobody once mentioned recreating the living form. No Objectivist would say that realism or "idealism" are the best forms of art.

I suggest you read The Romantic Manifesto before continuing, everything you are asking and implying is covered in detail there.

Edited June 21, 2009 by tito

[Alfa]

Do you mean "it does not require"? But anyway, in order to portray something, you must have thought about it on some level. A thought does not require the ability to put it into words, that's why value judgments are put into the form of art. What and how the artist portrays is directly related to the values being expressed.

What I mean is that the value judgements does not have to be made explicit. The what and how can relate to implicitly held values. So that's where I disagree, when you wrote that art requires atleast a thought of "what values to I want to portray?"(which is a question of explicitly held values).

[Eiuol]

What I mean is that the value judgements does not have to be made explicit. The what and how can relate to implicitly held values. So that's where I disagree, when you wrote that art requires atleast a thought of "what values to I want to portray?"(which is a question of explicitly held values).

We agree then, I was just a little vague with my wording. There still must be a thought, some sort of mental processing, whether it is implicit or explicit. An accident is neither.

[TheAleph]

Great responses everyone. I'm glad to see at least a bit of interest.

If you find me encouraging certain ideas, know that I am only playing the devil's advocate, as it were. I knew that the majority of responses would come from common minded individuals, so forgive me if I throw some different ideas in there for the sake of argument.