> Art is based on its intrinsic aesthetic properties and the kind of contemplative experience it elicits.
Would that mean that you don’t recognise the existence of bad art? Because that seems to be the consequence of what you are saying.
> or the "common sense" view
Oh. Sorry. I didn’t know you are the resident common sense expert this week. Next time i will make sure to ask you what i should think before i think.
> then the photos in the article have very little aesthetic value
What you seems to be missing is that the photos here are not the art. This is not photography. The whole package together is what is art here. The story behind the photos, what they did and how they did it. This is a sort of performance art.
The photos are just an aspect of this performance art. Imagine that you would hear the sound recording of a dance performance. Shuffling feet, occasional stomping. Would it have an aesthetic value? It might or might not. But that doesn’t mean the dance wasn’t artistic. Similarly to this case the audio recording is not the art piece, just an imprint of it. Part of the whole package, but not the package itself.
> and elicit no contemplative experience
Lol. You are just wrong on that. I’m here contemplating the whole thing since half an hour at least. But you sure seems to like to just declare things.
> > Art is based on its intrinsic aesthetic properties and the kind of contemplative experience it elicits.
> Would that mean that you don’t recognise the existence of bad art? Because that seems to be the consequence of what you are saying.
To be honest, I can't think of anything that would constitute "bad art" in accordance with this view of art. It's an interesting question, and maybe it does exist, but right now I just can't think of anything that qualifies as such. To me, there's "art" and "not art", though I admit the line dividing the two is fuzzy. "Bad" would require some form of ranking, but it's hard to imagine an adequate criteria even before factoring in different art forms.
>> > or the "common sense" view
> Oh. Sorry. I didn’t know you are the resident common sense expert this week. Next time i will make sure to ask you what i should think before i think.
I went out of my way to say that it doesn't matter what I personally think, but rather the aesthetic properties of the artwork and the contemplative experiences it evokes on the receivers of the art in general. And the choice of the words "contemplative" and "experience" are not accidental. This feels like a bad faith rather than a charitable interpretation of my position.
My use of "common sense" (in quotes) was perhaps a poor attempt at saying that, if within a given social and cultural context there exists some moderately agreed upon view of what is and isn't "aesthetically interesting and a contemplative experience", then this may also be applied to a broad enough social and cultural group to arrive at a "common" view of what has artistic merit. Ask a million people if Vermeer is art. I can't imagine a significant number of them will say it isn't.
> > then the photos in the article have very little aesthetic value
> What you seems to be missing is that the photos here are not the art. This is not photography. The whole package together is what is art here. The story behind the photos, what they did and how they did it. This is a sort of performance art.
I'm saying it has very little artistic value even if it might have meaningfully political value. It can be a political performance. A form of protest, even. It's just not art, performance or otherwise, according to the model of artistic reality which I espouse.
> The photos are just an aspect of this performance art. Imagine that you would hear the sound recording of a dance performance. Shuffling feet, occasional stomping. Would it have an aesthetic value? It might or might not. But that doesn’t mean the dance wasn’t artistic. Similarly to this case the audio recording is not the art piece, just an imprint of it. Part of the whole package, but not the package itself.
That's a strawman. My argument goes way beyond claiming this isn't art because the photos aren't artistic enough. Even with the performance, the project, the bringing the people together, posting, getting reactions from people, it's all just a cool project with a political bent. It still doesn't qualify as aesthetically interesting.
> Lol. You are just wrong on that. I’m here contemplating the whole thing since half an hour at least. But you sure seems to like to just declare things.
It's quite remarkable how visceral of a reaction this causes on people. This whole response just reads like cognitive dissonance, but particularly this final bit. My arguments have generally been about art and aesthetics. I rarely used the words "you" or "your", except to point out what I perceived as less-than-adequate debate manners for the most part. It would be nice if others would extend me the same courtesy.
> I can't think of anything that would constitute "bad art" in accordance with this view of art.
Many can. It is everywhere. Trite poems, uninspired paintings, thematically muddled novels, boring photos. The people who made them aimed at creating something great and kinda missed. Either by a litle or a lot. I call that bad art.
> I went out of my way to say that it doesn't matter what I personally think
But you also said your view about what art is is the “common sense” view. In other words you are right others are wrong. Which is what i take an exception with.
> Ask a million people if Vermeer is art. I can't imagine a significant number of them will say it isn't.
Why would that be at dispute?
> My arguments have generally been about art and aesthetics.
You postulated that this work of art has no contemplative value. As if you are the final arbiter of that. If you would have said “folks, this doesn’t do it for me”, I wouldn’t have cared. But you choose to pontificate on it in absolute terms. As if your analysis is going to have universal value.
I still wouldn't call any of that "bad" art, because that term means more than just "failing to achieve greatness".
> you also said your view about what art is is the “common sense” view. In other words you are right others are wrong. Which is what i take an exception with.
I questioned whether the general public is right while the art world can't see the emperor has no clothes.
> > Ask a million people if Vermeer is art. I can't imagine a significant number of them will say it isn't.
> Why would that be at dispute?*
Great, now ask a million people if Duchamp's Fountain is art. That's what I mean by common sense. That's what's at dispute.
> You postulated that this work of art has no contemplative value. As if you are the final arbiter of that. If you would have said “folks, this doesn’t do it for me”, I wouldn’t have cared. But you choose to pontificate on it in absolute terms. As if your analysis is going to have universal value.
I'm really repeating myself here, but to be clear I'm not saying I am the one who is deciding its artistic merit. I'm saying works that evoke no contemplative experience through their aesthetic characteristics shouldn't be called art, even if they evoke contemplative experiences through other features such as political relevance.
This is certainly not pontificating in absolute terms. It's just debating Theory of Art. My analysis doesn't have to have universal value to be logical and cogent.
I'm aware that goes against the contemporary view of art in the art world, which seems to equate artistic intent with artistic expression (or some other long form variant of that statement). To me that's just a charade, a long con, a hack. It solves for high-browness at the expense of beauty. But b e a u t y m a t t e r s.
And that's what I take issue with, hence this thread. If you're allowed to challenge my view, why am I not allowed to challenge yours?
I never claimed that my analysis would have universal value, whatever that means. What I am trying to do is to arrive at a definition of art through first principles. But the cognitive dissonance is deafening in this thread, so most of my energy has been spent trying to explain why I'm allowed to even present an argument instead of actually debating the issue. Oh well.
> I never claimed that my analysis would have universal value
Let me quote your own words to you: "It still doesn't qualify as aesthetically interesting." and "photos in the article have very little aesthetic value and elicit no contemplative experience" These are your opinions masquerading as universal truths.
> What I am trying to do is to arrive at a definition of art through first principles.
And you ended up with "art is what people call art"? Deep.
Would that mean that you don’t recognise the existence of bad art? Because that seems to be the consequence of what you are saying.
> or the "common sense" view
Oh. Sorry. I didn’t know you are the resident common sense expert this week. Next time i will make sure to ask you what i should think before i think.
> then the photos in the article have very little aesthetic value
What you seems to be missing is that the photos here are not the art. This is not photography. The whole package together is what is art here. The story behind the photos, what they did and how they did it. This is a sort of performance art.
The photos are just an aspect of this performance art. Imagine that you would hear the sound recording of a dance performance. Shuffling feet, occasional stomping. Would it have an aesthetic value? It might or might not. But that doesn’t mean the dance wasn’t artistic. Similarly to this case the audio recording is not the art piece, just an imprint of it. Part of the whole package, but not the package itself.
> and elicit no contemplative experience
Lol. You are just wrong on that. I’m here contemplating the whole thing since half an hour at least. But you sure seems to like to just declare things.