What actually IS Art, specifically performance art?

[Kheldarson]

Or heck, maybe next time I pee, I'll catch it in a jar, take it to an art museum, and say, "Here's my latest piece. Display it somewhere."

Been done. But there was a crucifix in the jar as well.

Larger point is not that we're declaring anything art, but that we're making allowances for artistic meaning. If you, as the artist, have some larger meaning you want to show via what seems a mundane medium, how are we to gainsay that? Say it's not art? Well, that stifles creativity. Better to say, "I don't think you achieved your meaning."

[Anthony K. S.]

This discussion reminds me of a scene from the early 1980s sitcom, Bosom Buddies. Kip Wilson (played by Tom Hanks) had managed to get his paintings displayed in a museum exhibition along with two other artists.

Kip was what you might call a more "traditional" artist. For example, one of his pieces was titled "Aunt Sarah's Garden," and it was, logically enough, a painting of his aunt Sarah's garden.

But, apparently, a painting of the simple, sheer beauty of a flower garden in spring bloom, purely for its own sake rather than for any deeper symbolic meaning, was, in the opinion of the art critics, somehow "incomplete" or "amateurish."

At one point, Kip became really steamed by the critics' snooty dismissal of his work, and he pointedly asked them what they thought of a painting done by one of the other two artists in the exhibition. The artwork in question looked like this :



Critic : Well, I think it's very good.
Kip : Oh, yes?
Critic : Yes, it reduces experience to its most elemental aesthetic.
Kip : Uh-huh.
Critic : It's quite profound in its simplicity.
Kip : Mmm-hmmm.
Critic : It's -
Kip : It's the flag of Japan!!!

It was. But was it art?

The person who actually came up with that idea was, of course, one of the show's writers, who did it purely to poke fun at "modern art." But in real life, might an artist actually intend a deeper, symbolic meaning in a red dot painted against a white background? Absolutely. I have no idea what it could be, but that doesn't mean it can't exist. It's also possible that the artist intended no specific meaning at all, but expected the viewers to read their own meanings into it.

In one episode of the reality game show The Mole, two of the players visited an art gallery. They were instructed to create their own piece of art, which would be placed in the gallery. A professional art critic would try to guess which of the gallery's works was theirs, and if she failed to guess correctly, the players would win money.

As it turned out, one of the two players involved in this game was the "Mole," the show's double agent, Kathryn. She deliberately sabotaged the game by creating a piece of art that was distinctly different from all of the other works in the gallery, to make it easy for the art critic to see which one was theirs. Specifically, Kathryn saw that most of the art in the gallery was very simple (such as loaves of bread arranged in a Cross or Crucifix pattern, and orange slices arranged in the shape of a heart), so when she and the other player, Jim, were creating their art, she insisted on throwing as many unnecessary pieces and details on it as she could.

The strategy worked. When the critic saw the arrangement of bread, for example, she said, "I think this is too simple to be the non-professional piece. Non-professionals always tend to do too much. They put too much in ..." After a while, the critic correctly picked out Kathryn and Jim's work, because it was a "very active" piece, in contrast to the others, which were all "much more internal."

So the players lost the money, but if it was of any consolation, the art critic praised their artwork, saying she liked it very much.

When Kathryn and Jim were creating their work, they had a specific meaning in mind for each individual element they added to it. The mistake (on Jim's part, that is, for Kathryn it was quite intentional) was simply adding too many elements. It occurs to me, then, that a professional artist might simply take one element, with a specific meaning, and just display that, rather than combining several of them in a single piece.

I don't know what the artist who made the bread arrangement had in mind, and some viewers of the show dismissively said that they could make the exact same thing in ten minutes themselves ... but perhaps it took a long time for the artist to make that piece, because he/she had a specific intent that had to be expressed a certain way. And perhaps the artist intended for the viewers to interpret it in our own way, whatever that may be.

As others have said, art is in the eye of the beholder. The artists have their reasons for doing what they do, and the audience has theirs for interpreting it the way they choose.

[KabeRinnaul]

I recall a story from an art teacher when I was in college. There was a piece of modern art that was simply the entire canvas painted solid, brilliant red. In the textbook, it just came off as a red square, and wasn't particularly impressive. When some students brought it up, the teacher said she'd actually seen that particular piece in person (at the Metropolitan, maybe), and the effect was much different that way. Seeing it in person, it was apparently overwhelming in just how much presence it had with that one color.

[Hyena Dandy]

The person who actually came up with that idea was, of course, one of the show's writers, who did it purely to poke fun at "modern art."

So the person who made it made it as an artistic statement? >_>

Anyway, the flag of Japan is a minimalist representation of the sun. The US flag is a symbolic representation of the original 13 colonies, and of all 50 modern states. I fail to see how either would be called "Not Art."

I think there's a very big line between "Art I approve of/appreciate/like" and "Art." I think most anything can be considered art, it's all in a question of personal taste if anyone else likes it. Sure, I might think your work of performance art is stupid, but you might have a meaning you wish to convey to it.

Also, I think that sometimes, it's easy in our modern world to think of historic works of art. For example, Yves Klein's blue paintings seem easy for us to make. But they were quite difficult for him, since he needed to create a whole new type of paint to paint them. A painting of a grid could be done today by a kid with photoshop and basic color knowledge, but that kid isn't painting it by hand, letting it dry, painting the next line, etc. The big red square requires attention to the size and consistency of brushstrokes...

I also think some older artists had ideas about art that were, well, far from the mainstream. If I watch Andy Warhol's version of Clockwork Orange, and tell him "I could do that on my own with my five friends. I could probably do three different versions of that using just items I happen to be carrying." He'd respond "YES! Awesome! Show me, I wanna do it!"

"Art can be anything" is also an artistic statement that can be made, ironically, just b dropping something in a museum. The pranksters who make piles of trash and put them in museums are doing the same thing as some artists, but ironically have totally different views. Some think it's "This is art, too!" and some think it's "You idiots will call anything art!"

Finally, I personally am of the view that "Thing looks cool" can be a good reason to make a work of art. Most of my writing these days is smut. I won't sugarcoat it by calling it erotica, it's smut. I write it to get people off. Thing is, I've found I make the exact same types of decisions about my scene with two MLP Gryphonesses fucking, that I make in my gothic mystery story. I can carry on conversations about that with my friend who doesn't write erotica, and we're talking about exactly the same things. Pacing, word choice, characterization. In fact, I have held conversations about it at the dinner table with his parents, and was able to have those without them having any idea I was talking about porn.

It's just that all my decisions are angled towards making something that's sexy. My only 'artistic statement' is "I thought that a scene with Falco Lombardi having sex with Saeki Kayako would be sexy, and fun to write." Now, you might find it pretty weird. That's your right. I find it pretty weird, and I wrote it. So when it comes to things like a bunch of rocks in a circle, it doesn't need to be a statement on anything, I think, other than "I thought you guys would like a bunch of rocks in a circle." I'm sure they made decisions about the rocks and the size of the circle and the coloration and shape that they felt most aesthetically pleasing. Or, if they did have a thing to convey, they chose them for that reason.

When it comes to performance art - Why wouldn't it be art? The artist is making a conscious choice to do certain things a certain way. That way highlights something, whatever they want. "The Artist is Present" was just Marina Abramovic sitting in a chair. But she made a decision about the table, the chair, the way she sat, etc. Sure, you can do the same thing. But would you make the same decisions for the same reasons, and wouldn't your work end up different from hers as a result?

Now, you don't need to like it. I've seen more than my share of art I find boring, unimaginative, uninteresting, uncreative, whatever. But I'm not going to call it "Not Art" for that.

[Tama]

Andy Warhol sounds to me like the kind of guy who really would do what "he" said he did in MIB III....film a man eating a hamburger because it's transcendent. He sounds like one of those kooky artists who just wanted to see more art though. :P

[Hyena Dandy]

Andy Warhol sounds to me like the kind of guy who really would do what "he" said he did in MIB III....film a man eating a hamburger because it's transcendent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejr9KBQzQPM

He really did that.

For those who don't want to watch, it's about three minutes of Andy Warhol eating a hamburger and putting it away, a minute and a half of silence, and then Andy Warhol says "My name is Andy Warhol, and I just finished eating a hamburger." A man says "Burger, New York." And then a sound plays.

He sounds like one of those kooky artists who just wanted to see more art though. :P

I think I wouldn't quite agree with that. I'd say it's more that he saw artistic potential everywhere, and wanted more people to recognize it.

He also liked pro wrestling, so he's got that going for him, which is nice.

[protege]

I think I wouldn't quite agree with that. I'd say it's more that he saw artistic potential everywhere, and wanted more people to recognize it.

Andy tended to see art in everyday things--his famous Soup Cans painting, for example.

Then there was the BMW M1 "art car" he did in the 1970s. At the time, the cars were actually raced, and that was it. Later, they were used as public relations tools--BMW was then seen as a company that would promoted artists and other causes.

[Estil]

How was it Red Green once said? "If I can do it, it's not art."

[Canarr]

How was it Red Green once said? "If I can do it, it's not art."

That is basically my personal definition of art: something I can't do. The uniqueness is one part, yes; but if I feel that an object is something I could reproduce, I find it hart to call it art. Thus, I would see a fine painting of a flower garden as art, but could not say the same about a red circle on white ground.

The same goes for movies, theater, music: the "Maltese Falcon" or "Rio Bravo", I consider art; Michael Bay's fourth installation of the "Transformers" franchise, not so much. "Bohemian Rhapsody" - art. Justin Bieber's 38th song - nope. And so on.

Sure, it probably doesn't matter to an artist what I, or most others, think about their work. And sure, others may have their own opinion on whatever I see as art, or not. But that doesn't keep me from having an opinion on it.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

How was it Red Green once said? "If I can do it, it's not art."

Doesn't that mean, however, that writing could never be considered art?

Anyone can write, everyone does write. Sure, some people might claim, "I could never write that" (but then the argument is 'why would you, it's already been written!') But I've seen a lot of people write something lovely once they've been goaded into it, or just had a brief moment of creative spark in their brain.

Really, the question "What is Art?" has a single answer;



(<_< Those are beholders btw.)

[Tama]

Give the Beholders your paintings, if they take them and spare your life, then it was obviously art!