Child 'Genius' wows new york

[Ciarán]

But anything and everything could be considered art. That doesn't mean that we can't decide which bits of it are worthwhile or not. I'd never say that something wasn't art (and didn't), because you always come across the argument that anything can be considered art, which is fine, as long as you don't extend that to saying 'all art is beyond criticism' which is what you appear to be saying. I think it's thoughtless shit which is having too much attention (and money) drawn to it simply because she's a child. If a piece of art can draws the question 'isn't that just the scrawlings of a child?' isn't there the slightest chance that it could be exactly that, yet avoid anyone taking notice of the claim simply because it's been picked out as 'art'. I hate the attitude that it's wrong to try to point out charlatans in the art world, or even accept the fact that such a thing exists.

I don't know what's worse - the "it's not art" argument or the "it is art, but it's shit art".

[Ciarán]

A bit of a gripe of mine, but I'm reminded of it by this thread...

The story of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' by Hans Christian Andersen. God, I hate it. I'm not having a pop at old Hans, I'm talking about the way the phrase is trotted out as a kind of trump card in arguments about contentious art. It's used to dismiss just about anything that ever contained a challenging idea; modern art, experimental prose, continental philosophy...you name it. You can use it to dismiss John Cage's '4'33'', 'Finnegans Wake', Mark Rothko paintings etc. It just gets on my bloody nerves. The person saying usually imagines themselves to be an expert who has somehow avoided brainwashing and so on. Everyone wants to be the boy who points out that the Emperor has no clothes. There's a kind of fervour about it. And it's just the most incredibly smug position to adopt.

Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest.

[NoSleep]

A bit of a grip of mine, but I'm reminded of it by this thread...

The story of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' by Hans Christian Andersen. God, I hate it. I'm not having a pop at old Hans, I'm talking about the way the phrase is trotted out as a kind of trump card in arguments about contentious art. It's used to dismiss just about anything that ever contained a challenging idea; modern art, experimental prose, continental philosophy...you name it. You can use it to dismiss John Cage's '4'33'', 'Finnegans Wake', Mark Rothko paintings etc. It just gets on my bloody nerves. The person saying usually imagines themselves to be an expert who has somehow avoided brainwashing and so on. Everyone wants to be the boy who points out that the Emperor has no clothes. There's a kind of fervour about it. And it's just the most incredibly smug position to adopt.

Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest.

I reckon the emporor's new clothes is more a tale about received opinion, as the punch line is the kid saying "but... he's isn't wearing any clothes." Better to pull that one out for something where everybody seem to be in agreement but you feel some questions need to be raised (like the lazy "the Beatles invented music" version of music history - don't get me started 8^).

[Koant]

All this reminds me of this fun quizz: http://reverent.org/true_art_or_fake_art.html
The results of the quizz were analysed in one of those fun, short arXiv papers:  http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703091v2

Many other tests here: http://reverent.org/quizzes.html (Pollock or birds?   An artist or an ape? etc.)

EDIT to add this fun bit of history: http://ecclesiastes911.net/story/pierre_brassau.html

[thugler]

A bit of a gripe of mine, but I'm reminded of it by this thread...

The story of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' by Hans Christian Andersen. God, I hate it. I'm not having a pop at old Hans, I'm talking about the way the phrase is trotted out as a kind of trump card in arguments about contentious art. It's used to dismiss just about anything that ever contained a challenging idea; modern art, experimental prose, continental philosophy...you name it. You can use it to dismiss John Cage's '4'33'', 'Finnegans Wake', Mark Rothko paintings etc. It just gets on my bloody nerves. The person saying usually imagines themselves to be an expert who has somehow avoided brainwashing and so on. Everyone wants to be the boy who points out that the Emperor has no clothes. There's a kind of fervour about it. And it's just the most incredibly smug position to adopt.

Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest.

Isn't it just as smug to say 'you just don't get it' over and over again. You could at least admit that there is such a thing as crap art, and that something being 'challenging' doesn't always make it good.

I did very well on those 'is this real art' tests. But mainly because the real ones looked more professionally done, and were by such well known artists you could pick them out.

And no I don't rate Rothko. I can see the value of doing paintings like that to shock and challenge peoples minds, but having an entire career of essentially the same paintings isn't very challenging or shocking at all.  It may have needed to be done, but not over and over. And since art is entirely based on personal preference, I find his work a bit drab.

You're right to an extent, though dismissing something is no worse than proclaiming it genius and everyone who disagrees just doesn't 'get it'.

[boxofslice]

I guess what we've learned from all this is that art is something thats difficult to define. If I take a photograph of my lawn, enlarge it, frame it and then hang it on my wall does it then become art. And what makes it art? Is it the photograph? Is it the frame that has made it an artistic statement or the act of hanging it on my wall? Maybe the old adage is true that it is in the eye of the beholder.

[alan nagsworth]

It is in the eye of the beholder. Who knows, seeing a picture of your lawn might take someone back to the time when they once owned a lawn, and in fact a house altogether. Maybe it takes them away to greener pastures than the apartment complex they live in. Maybe it makes you feel homely or homesick? It's all subconscious most of the time, there's no specific reason for liking certain art.

[Ciarán]

Isn't it just as smug to say 'you just don't get it' over and over again. You could at least admit that there is such a thing as crap art, and that something being 'challenging' doesn't always make it good.

Rather than say this is crap art, I say "I don't get this, I don't like it, it doesn't interest me".

I did very well on those 'is this real art' tests. But mainly because the real ones looked more professionally done, and were by such well known artists you could pick them out.

At the risk of sounding rude, who gives a shit? I mean, you know, well done you and all that but what difference does it make? What does the test itself offer in terms of people evaluating works of art?

And no I don't rate Rothko. I can see the value of doing paintings like that to shock and challenge peoples minds, but having an entire career of essentially the same paintings isn't very challenging or shocking at all.  It may have needed to be done, but not over and over. And since art is entirely based on personal preference, I find his work a bit drab.

Having possibly just offended you, I'm probably now gojng to patronise you by saying...fair enough, I've much more time for responses of the kind you've offered where a reason is given for not liking this or that. But the idea of a clear distinction between real and fake art or good and crap art, as if we were talking about scientific values seems to me to miss completely what makes art vital in the first place.

You're right to an extent, though dismissing something is no worse than proclaiming it genius and everyone who disagrees just doesn't 'get it'.

It would be a bit of a conversation ender either way, I'd be in favour of active conversation rather than absolute "last words on the subject" such as those you mention.

[thugler]

Rather than say this is crap art, I say "I don't get this, I don't like it, it doesn't interest me".

That's exactly what the term 'crap art' means to me.

At the risk of sounding rude, who gives a shit? I mean, you know, well done you and all that but what difference does it make? What does the test itself offer in terms of people evaluating works of art?

I suppose the intention is trying to show that the artists involved have made meaningless gibberish rather than art and that the same results can be got by drawing a squiggle in paint. But as I said, it doesn't really work and wouldn't necessary make any difference to the originality of the pieces when they were made. Yes it's pretty much nonsense.

Having possibly just offended you, I'm probably now gojng to patronise you by saying...fair enough, I've much more time for responses of the kind you've offered where a reason is given for not liking this or that. But the idea of a clear distinction between real and fake art or good and crap art, as if we were talking about scientific values seems to me to miss completely what makes art vital in the first place.

Worry not, I'm not the offended sort. And yes I was probably being too scientific, I think thats an effect of being frustrated by certain art and trying to come up with a decent reason as to why I don't like it and think it's place in the art world is overrated. But thats a pretty stupid thing to do when talking about art.

It would be a bit of a conversation ender either way, I'd be in favour of active conversation rather than absolute "last words on the subject" such as those you mention.

Quite. I guess we can consider this matter over.