Art Snobbery

[MystyGlyttyr]

If the point of it was to point out what utter sheep people are, then yes, it did it's job. (I suspect it was not, but I still have a point to make ) See, people talk about what great, caring things they are, but being told not to feed a starving dog when they can very easily get to it and do so, let alone being able to let it go (it's not that hard to cut a rope)...yeah. How many people will say "Yeah, I'd be the one to do the right thing!" and actually follow through? The vast majority who do say that are full of crap, because if they thought they'd get in trouble or even be freaking inconvenienced for helping a starving animal, another person, etc., they'd fall off their morals pretty damn quick. Milgram, Stanford, and Kitty Genovese all prove that.

Yeah, it's probably always going to be written off as (and may have been intended as) cheap shock value, but a lot of people won't get a lesson unless you hit them square in the face with it, and even then, most probably don't.

[Greenday]

Except none of that makes it art still...

[anriana]

If the point of it was to point out what utter sheep people are, then yes, it did it's job. (I suspect it was not, but I still have a point to make ) See, people talk about what great, caring things they are, but being told not to feed a starving dog when they can very easily get to it and do so, let alone being able to let it go (it's not that hard to cut a rope)...yeah. How many people will say "Yeah, I'd be the one to do the right thing!" and actually follow through? The vast majority who do say that are full of crap, because if they thought they'd get in trouble or even be freaking inconvenienced for helping a starving animal, another person, etc., they'd fall off their morals pretty damn quick. Milgram, Stanford, and Kitty Genovese all prove that.

Yeah, it's probably always going to be written off as (and may have been intended as) cheap shock value, but a lot of people won't get a lesson unless you hit them square in the face with it, and even then, most probably don't.

The Milgram experience didn't cause any harm to the participants, the Kitty Genovese incident wasn't a deliberate experiment, and the Stanford prison experiment prompted massive reform in research ethics. I know you're only using them as examples and not trying to compare this exhibit to them, but they're really not at all on the same level.

And I don't think "I'm going to actively starve a dog to show people that it's wrong to allow a dog to starve through their own inaction" is an ethical or artistic lesson.

[AFPheonix]

Do I support starving the dog? No, of course not. Do I think the artist made a very strong point with the dog? Yeah, yeah I do. Art is a mode of communication. I think this was a pretty loud shout about how people behave when presented with something very uncomfortable. We tend to do what the people around us do. In this case, it was walk past the dog, even though it was obvious the dog was starving.
If this made anyone, even one person, think about how they react to events like that, then yes, I would classify it as a successful exhibition.

And if I were an art teacher, you can bet your ass I'd be bringing up this in class for kids to talk about and think about. That is the sort of thing good teachers do.

[lordlundar]

But art is about conveying emotions, feelings and personal opinions, not directly stirring up controversy. The only reason the person used art as an excuse was because if he said it was a sociological experiment, he'd have been busted sooner. He had every ability to express his feeling and convey emotions through another medium but instead chose to torture a living being. This was an experiment that the person doing it was using art as an escape clause, nothing more.

[AdminAssistant]

Well, here's another example - an artist and a scientist got together and created a rabbit that could 'glow' under a blue light. Go, Go, Wikipedia!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba_(rabbit)

The understanding is that the rabbit was not harmed in any way by the experiment (although I can't imagine that the stress caused by the media attention was very good for it). Is it justifiable? The artist has decried the negative attention, saying that scientists do these kinds of things all the time, and that he's only being treated negatively because the experiment falls under the category of 'art' and not 'science'.

[the_std]

But art is about conveying emotions, feelings and personal opinions, not directly stirring up controversy.

How are those two things not directly related? Controversy is about emotions, feelings and personal opinions.

[protege]

Does anyone consider cars to be art? I sure do. There's something to be said about how some of the older ones are styled. When vehicles started moving under their own power, very little thought was put into how the thing looked. Designers were more concerned how they ran. That is, until the 1930s...and suddenly styling became all the rage. Vehicles like Talbot-Lagos, Grahams, Delage, Delahayes, et a. appeared to be moving quickly...even while sitting still. As if that wasn't enough, there's the extremely limited-production Bugatti Royale...which had a hood ornament sculpted by Rembrandt himself! For those who don't know, Rembrandt was the younger brother of auto magnate Ettore Bugatti.

[AFPheonix]

How are those two things not directly related? Controversy is about emotions, feelings and personal opinions.

Bingo. And again, this exhibit was very successful in my view because, hey, people in disparate places are discussing in on the internet long after the exhibit stopped.

[Evandril]

Art can generate controversy, but the presence of controversy does not make it art. Yes, it is still being talked about, but so are very many other atrocities that make no claim to be 'art'. I see this on the same level as a poorly controlled scientific experiment, not art.

[bigred]

I enjoy a lot of abstract art. People do say they could do it, it's just random placement of paint. But when confronted with a blank canvas, could you put colours in places that looks so good? A random collection of colours doesn't work, there needs to be space, the right colours, sizing etc (I'm not an artist and don't know the right words sorry).

Look at Indigenous Australian art. Much may look random, but it's not, there is something happening that the viewer doesn't necessarily understand, and it works. It isn't random. It's an understanding of the relationship between colours and space.

I also admire realistic artists, I could never do that.

[Slytovhand]

People do say they could do it, it's just random placement of paint. But when confronted with a blank canvas, could you put colours in places that looks so good? A random collection of colours doesn't work, there needs to be space, the right colours, sizing etc (I'm not an artist and don't know the right words sorry).

But is this true?? No, seriously, I've seen stuff that primary school kids would do - yet it's supposed to be 'art' and has even been used as advertising (saw some today, which is what I'm thinking of...).

In seeing that, the thought came to me (as I realised the subjectiveness of it all... I hadn't seen this thread prior to now... ooh - spooky coincidence )... what exactly is this thing called 'art'? What defines 'art', and thus what isn't it???

[the_std]

what exactly is this thing called 'art'? What defines 'art', and thus what isn't it???

art - 19 dictionary results
1   /ɑrt/ [ahrt]
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

According to dictionary.com, almost anything can be art, but I tend to agree with the very first defition. Beautiful, appealing and of more than ordinary significance. I love how open-ended it is, because who is to say what is art for each individual person? I might see art in a plastic bag swirling in the wind, while someone else sees pollution. Who knows?

[AdminAssistant]

I might see art in a plastic bag swirling in the wind, while someone else sees pollution. Who knows?

Y'know..I think I remember reading that a plastic bag in the wind was Alan Ball's inspiration for writing American Beauty. Hm.

[BroomJockey]

Why is it so hard to respect it?

Because if I think it's shit, I'm not going to respect it. I've seen some excellent abstract art. I've seen some shitty abstract art. I refuse to respect something I think sucks just because someone made an attempt. I can respect the person for making an attempt, sometimes. But that doesn't mean I have to respect the product. It's like a cook in the kitchen. If they have no skill, and the food turns out awful, then I'm not going to say "that's fine, I still think it's good, even if it isn't to my taste." I'm going to say "I get that you wanted to try something, but for the sake of all of us, STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN."

Just because someone says it's art, doesn't mean I have to respect it.