ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st August 2019, 05:25 PM   #161
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,165
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
If you haven't got the gist of what I am saying from what I have written here already, I doubt any further scribblings of mine will help you there.
"The only reason you don’t understand our music art is because you don’t like it!".

RIP Rik Mayall
(yes I know he didn't write it)
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2019, 05:41 PM   #162
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,507
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The one that still cracks me up is Fountain.



It's a urinal that he got out of a hardware store.
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
It cracks me up also, and is an excellent example illustrating my skepticism about art - well some sorts of art really.



So the artist created a new thought for the urinal by orientating it another way and hey presto it becomes a work of art.
I wonder how the art experts would recognize a forgery.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2019, 07:42 PM   #163
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,801
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I think a key difference is that with baseball (or with various types of science), there are definitive outcomes. A home run is a home run, a win is a win, etc. In science you can do measurements and point to concrete results.

With art, its completely subjective. There are no measurements that say "this piece of dog-poop on a dinner plate is more artistic than this piece of gum stuck to a canvas". It is completely subjective. (Yes you can delve into history... where painters learned their art, trends in styles, etc.) but that's not really relevant in judging the quality of an individual piece.

The subjective nature of art means that its possible for a certain amount of 'group think' to take hold. That's why art is treated differently than sports, or science.
My point was about the appreciation of baseball, not the quantitative calculation of baseball outcomes.

The appreciation of baseball is entirely subjective even if it's made up of measurable facts. You can love an underdog, cheer for a powerhouse, marvel over a decades long rivalry.

Art appreciation can similarly be grounded on facts. Knowing the history of the Spanish Civil war and it's relationship to Picasso can affect how you read Guernica. You're blocked off to a lot of the experience of Guernica without the background. It's not irrelevant. Anymore than knowing what a first down means is irrelevant to enjoying a football game.

Take the Robert Rauschenberg piece linked to early in this thread. If you know that Rauschenberg intended the piece to be a focus for the changing light and shadows in a room, then analyzing it based on a cropped digital photo might seem like a silly way to make a judgement of the work. Learning the rules of an artwork is a little like learning the rules of a sport. You may still find cricket or curling or Rauschenberg boring after you know the rules, but if you try to go in blind and refuse to hear anything about them, you're far more likely not to be able to appreciate it.

And as others have said, art appreciation isn't some contest to find something "more artistic". Art offers experiences, just like a sports event, or a novel or a plate of food. Those experiences can offer enjoyment on a number of levels, and many of those levels are helped a lot by knowing things. Simple as that.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON

Last edited by Cavemonster; 21st August 2019 at 07:56 PM.
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 09:00 AM   #164
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,251
I usually paint figurative pictures, but fully appreciate the idea of abstract paintings.

The figurative works can be seen at the following link where my name is Dajjal

One of my abstract paintings appears on page three of the following thread called 'my paintings'
The abstract picture is on page three, title, 'The war between blue and yellow'

http://www.usmessageboard.com/thread...intings.242516
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy

Last edited by Scorpion; 22nd August 2019 at 09:07 AM.
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 10:02 AM   #165
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,687
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
It cracks me up also, and is an excellent example illustrating my skepticism about art - well some sorts of art really.

So the artist created a new thought for the urinal by orientating it another way and hey presto it becomes a work of art.
Your skepticism of art in this case seems to be, "I'm skeptical that this is art because I don't like it and I can't believe a plain old urinal can be used as an artistic expression."

Well, that's like . . . your opinion, man. And you are entitled to it. But I can't help but detect a bit of sneering mockery at people who do appreciate art like this . . . as if they are stupid or something. I think that's wrongheaded. Why not just let people appreciate art in their own way and acknowledge that skepticism is a poor method of evaluating something completely subjective? It's like telling someone you are skeptical that a particular flower is pretty -doesn't quite fit.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 10:29 AM   #166
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,496
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Quote:
t cracks me up also, and is an excellent example illustrating my skepticism about art - well some sorts of art really.

So the artist created a new thought for the urinal by orientating it another way and hey presto it becomes a work of art.
Your skepticism of art in this case seems to be, "I'm skeptical that this is art because I don't like it and I can't believe a plain old urinal can be used as an artistic expression."
Keep in mind that one of the arguments against 'urinal is art' is not 'I don't like it' but 'this took no ability or effort to create'. I can go to an art gallery and see plenty of pieces that I don't like that I at least recognize took some artistic ability to create.
Quote:
Well, that's like . . . your opinion, man. And you are entitled to it. But I can't help but detect a bit of sneering mockery at people who do appreciate art like this . . . as if they are stupid or something. I think that's wrongheaded. Why not just let people appreciate art in their own way and acknowledge that skepticism is a poor method of evaluating something completely subjective?
There are 2 possible responses:

- Some of the very people who praise pieces like 'The Fountain' are often quite critical of art that DOES appeal to the masses. If experts can criticize 'pop art' then when can't fans of pop art criticize what the experts like?

- I think the same mentality exists when people make fun of fans of 'The Fountain' as when skeptics make fun of the followers of Peter Popoff. We can obviously see Popoff is a scam artist, and we question why anyone would be so fooled (even though some may say "why can't you just let people enjoy what he does"). So we see "The Fountain" as the Peter Popoff of the art world... something we recognize as a scam and can't quite figure out why people are falling for it as "art".
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 02:33 PM   #167
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,830
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Your skepticism of art in this case seems to be, "I'm skeptical that this is art because I don't like it and I can't believe a plain old urinal can be used as an artistic expression."

Well, that's like . . . your opinion, man. And you are entitled to it. But I can't help but detect a bit of sneering mockery at people who do appreciate art like this . . . as if they are stupid or something. I think that's wrongheaded. Why not just let people appreciate art in their own way and acknowledge that skepticism is a poor method of evaluating something completely subjective? It's like telling someone you are skeptical that a particular flower is pretty -doesn't quite fit.

Well like Segnosaur said ^. I will leave you to gaze in awe at a urinal and perhaps interpret the "meaning" of the piece of artwork, and the genius of the artist. I have other things I think more worthy of my attention.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 03:28 PM   #168
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,359
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well like Segnosaur said ^. I will leave you to gaze in awe at a urinal and perhaps interpret the "meaning" of the piece of artwork, and the genius of the artist. I have other things I think more worthy of my attention.
... such as this thread, for some reason.

If we can gaze in awe at your anti-theist (and now anti-art) works and perhaps interpet the meaning of them and the genius of the author, then certainly we can do the same with a urinal. Why do you judge the latter so harshly, and hold the former in such high esteem?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 04:31 PM   #169
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 25,212
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Everyone keeps saying the one thing that effectively ends this thread: Art is subjective. There is no one definition that satisfies everyone. You don't consider Pollack art? Fine, whatever. What does that have to do with my appreciation of Pollack's work? Your considerations do not nullify mine.

Arguing about art is just another way to put each other down; effectively, when you say something that another person appreciates is not art, what you are really saying is, "You are stupid."
There is one objective measure of art. Put a piece of work up for auction and it is worth whatever it is sold at. Then repeat many times and the sale prices could be used to find the value of other pieces of art.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 05:20 PM   #170
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 65,238
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
... such as this thread, for some reason.

If we can gaze in awe at your anti-theist (and now anti-art) works and perhaps interpet the meaning of them and the genius of the author, then certainly we can do the same with a urinal. Why do you judge the latter so harshly, and hold the former in such high esteem?
Thor 2's antitheism is not the topic of this thread.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 05:32 PM   #171
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,359
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Thor 2's antitheism is not the topic of this thread.
Thor 2's brand of skepticism is, though.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 05:48 PM   #172
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,830
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
... such as this thread, for some reason.

If we can gaze in awe at your anti-theist (and now anti-art) works and perhaps interpet the meaning of them and the genius of the author, then certainly we can do the same with a urinal. Why do you judge the latter so harshly, and hold the former in such high esteem?
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Thor 2's antitheism is not the topic of this thread.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Thor 2's brand of skepticism is, though.

Trying awfully hard to pick a fight here theprestige. Didn't know my type of skepticism had a brandname.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 07:57 PM   #173
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,165
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
There is one objective measure of art. Put a piece of work up for auction and it is worth whatever it is sold at. Then repeat many times and the sale prices could be used to find the value of other pieces of art.
THis forgery went for $10.6million - but only because it was thought to be by Frans Hans.

It is now worthless.
But is exactly the same as the original.

I don't think price can really called objective at all, since the "worth" is being decided on provenance, history and reputation, not necessarily "content" and execution.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 09:35 PM   #174
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 25,212
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
THis forgery went for $10.6million - but only because it was thought to be by Frans Hans.

It is now worthless.
But is exactly the same as the original.

I don't think price can really called objective at all, since the "worth" is being decided on provenance, history and reputation, not necessarily "content" and execution.
Provenance, history and reputation would be factors that help determine the price, hence its value. A painting that is believed to be painted at one date will lose [heaps of] value if it is found to be painted much later.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 09:49 PM   #175
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,683
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
THis forgery went for $10.6million - but only because it was thought to be by Frans Hans.

It is now worthless.
But is exactly the same as the original.

I don't think price can really called objective at all, since the "worth" is being decided on provenance, history and reputation, not necessarily "content" and execution.
On the contrary; a price based on objective facts such as a painting's provenance, history, and reputation can indeed be objective. Whereas content and execution will always be a matter of subjective interpretation.

That facts can be misrepresented to serve fraud doesn't make the original facts or judgments based on them less objective.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 09:55 PM   #176
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,683
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Keep in mind that one of the arguments against 'urinal is art' is not 'I don't like it' but 'this took no ability or effort to create'.
That's still a qualitative judgment. Of course it took ability and effort to create. Not "enough" by your standard to interest you personally; but nobody has to like everything.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 10:13 PM   #177
Cheetah
Master Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,030
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well like Segnosaur said ^. I will leave you to gaze in awe at a urinal and perhaps interpret the "meaning" of the piece of artwork, and the genius of the artist. I have other things I think more worthy of my attention.

What properties do you require something to have, to be 'art'?
Once it's art, in your opinion, what makes it good or bad, worthless or valuable to you?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 22nd August 2019 at 10:16 PM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2019, 03:40 PM   #178
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,544
I have to echo that skepticism is simply the wrong tool for this particular job.
I disagree with the total rejection of modern art by some in this thread, but I am not going to argue about it. To each his own. etc.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2019, 03:45 PM   #179
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,544
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
On the contrary; a price based on objective facts such as a painting's provenance, history, and reputation can indeed be objective. Whereas content and execution will always be a matter of subjective interpretation.

That facts can be misrepresented to serve fraud doesn't make the original facts or judgments based on them less objective.

When somebody goes to prison for art forgery, it's not a judgment about the artistic value of his painting, but because he was defrauding somebody by trying to pass his painting off as somebody else;s..somebody whose name had sale value.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2019, 04:24 PM   #180
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,830
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
What properties do you require something to have, to be 'art'?
Once it's art, in your opinion, what makes it good or bad, worthless or valuable to you?

Good question I suppose, although given I am a philistine, my opinion my not be worth much.

To be good art in my opinion, the piece has to be pleasing to look at for a start. If it is a portrait it should display the character of the subject to a greater degree than a photo. Having said this I think photography can be an art form, and a portrait can be done with photography, showing more than bland photography.

My brothers work was impressionist and up close you could only see blobs of colour, but from a reasonable distance you could see what was being represented. Perhaps more vividly than the object being drawn. I quite liked his work.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2019, 06:29 PM   #181
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,683
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
When somebody goes to prison for art forgery, it's not a judgment about the artistic value of his painting, but because he was defrauding somebody by trying to pass his painting off as somebody else;s..somebody whose name had sale value.
Exactly; it's the same as passing counterfeit currency. The phony bill can look exactly like a real one, and when used it has the same purchasing power in the eyes of the people who have been misled to believe it is genuine; yet, when exposed as a fake it is instantly worthless and the forger goes to jail, but this does not mean that a genuine bill does not have an objective value.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2019, 06:57 PM   #182
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,656
Pretty sensible thread all round.

Some education, interest, experience, with art does definitely make a huge and obvious difference in how people appreciate art, though, even commercial art, well before elitism and dada issues set in. For example, I was putting together a convention magazine and was selecting from the submitted cover art options. About half the office went to the local art school and we all agreed on a really nice, striking Mike Mignola cover. It’s comic book art, strong silhouettes, bold colors. It looked frikking snazzy. The other half of the office picked a painted illustration promoting the Silverhawks DVD. It was fine. Think of any competently painted box art trying to sell a toy to a 12 year old. But one of the reasons its fans gave for why they picked it was that it was clearly better art. Because it was a realistic, painted illustration.

It was super, super not better art.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2019, 10:26 PM   #183
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,687
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Keep in mind that one of the arguments against 'urinal is art' is not 'I don't like it' but 'this took no ability or effort to create'. I can go to an art gallery and see plenty of pieces that I don't like that I at least recognize took some artistic ability to create.
”Took no ability or effort to create,” strikes me as a criterion for “I don’t like it.”

‘The Fountain’ took some effort to create. It’s an idea that Duchamp had and he had to put it together and present it. He’s trying to say something with it. If it falls flat with you, fine. Why say it isn’t art, though?



Quote:
There are 2 possible responses:



- Some of the very people who praise pieces like 'The Fountain' are often quite critical of art that DOES appeal to the masses. If experts can criticize 'pop art' then when can't fans of pop art criticize what the experts like?
Right. Why can’t it all be “art?” You like that art and he likes some other art. We are all happy.



Quote:
- I think the same mentality exists when people make fun of fans of 'The Fountain' as when skeptics make fun of the followers of Peter Popoff. We can obviously see Popoff is a scam artist, and we question why anyone would be so fooled (even though some may say "why can't you just let people enjoy what he does"). So we see "The Fountain" as the Peter Popoff of the art world... something we recognize as a scam and can't quite figure out why people are falling for it as "art".
Popoff presented something as a miracle and it was debunked as a trick. He was an outright and obvious fraud. Duchamp presented something as art. How does one debunk art? You can’t, because it is 100% subjective. The healing of an illness is not at all subjective; Popoff either healed someone or he didn’t.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2019, 10:31 PM   #184
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,687
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well like Segnosaur said ^. I will leave you to gaze in awe at a urinal and perhaps interpret the "meaning" of the piece of artwork, and the genius of the artist. I have other things I think more worthy of my attention.


Ok. In what way are you then applying skepticism to art? If I say, “I think it’s a cool piece,” all you really have in response is, “Well I disagree.” That’s not skepticism; it’s a mere disagreement over something completely subjective.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2019, 10:45 PM   #185
Cheetah
Master Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,030
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
To be good art in my opinion, the piece has to be pleasing to look at for a start. If it is a portrait it should display the character of the subject to a greater degree than a photo.
I must say I also like art most when I enjoy it!
I do understand the other side as well though. It's a bit like movies. People enjoy movies not only when they are pleasing, but because they trigger an emotional response. People enjoy movies that don't necessarily trigger a positive emotional response.
I might like a movie that grosses me out, or scares me or makes me feel guilty, whatever. Weirdly though, when it comes to visual art, I don't want to be grossed out.

But some people obviously do.

Art is something created to trigger an emotional response, not necessarily a good one. But it's still art.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Having said this I think photography can be an art form, and a portrait can be done with photography, showing more than bland photography.
I totally agree about photography. I love having a phone with a camera on me.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
My brothers work was impressionist and up close you could only see blobs of colour, but from a reasonable distance you could see what was being represented. Perhaps more vividly than the object being drawn. I quite liked his work.
That always amazes me. Some paintings that look like a photograph from a distance and when you go closer it's just a bunch of blobs and smudges. It actually seems to have more details from a distance than from close up. How the hell do they do that!
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 23rd August 2019 at 10:47 PM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2019, 11:10 PM   #186
llwyd
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 544
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Now you may personally hold that the category is not well served by having such loose signifiers and qualifications. A fair number of people hold more narrow views of art. I'd be interested to hear what your more specific qualifiers are.

In general, there are a few categories of more limited definition.

One hold that "art" is something like a superlative, reserved for a level of quality judgement or effect. Something is art if it shows great skill or evokes great emotion or something like that.
A great post. I'm in that more narrow category - the Finnish word for art "taide" is connected to the word for skill, "taito". I generally expect a work of art to require quite a high degree of skill and considerable effort connected with an aesthetic and intellectual dimension. Thus much of modern art (market) leaves me rather indifferent. Obviously abstract art can be good or experimental writing (fiction and poetry are my favourites), but much of the stuff seems largely worthless and depending on feverish promotion for its momentary appreciation.

Last edited by llwyd; 23rd August 2019 at 11:13 PM.
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 12:53 AM   #187
Scopedog
Muse
 
Scopedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 576
I've noticed that when an otherwise talented amateur presents their work for critique, art enthusiasts easily point to all sorts of flaws and possible improvements to foreshortening, perspective, negative/positive space, composition, and so on. I think even art produced by popular and famous professional artists can have those flaws. However, the same aforementioned art enthusiasts would probably be inclined to declare the famous, professional work exquisite and that every molecule of paint is arranged perfectly, and that any perceived flaws are actually intentional and are in fact what makes the work sublime. If those art enthusiasts were then told that the amateur piece was also by a famous professional, I imagine they would suddenly notice all the reasons that it's actually exquisite and how all the previously perceived flaws are intentional.

Art critics and art curators have a vested interest in perpetuating art enthusiasm at any cost, otherwise they wouldn't have jobs. They are the Peter Popoffs of the art world, not the artists. The BS, word-salad, purple prose descriptions from curators and critics that accompany a popular and potentially expensive piece are often as interchangeable as horoscopes.

Last edited by Scopedog; 24th August 2019 at 01:01 AM.
Scopedog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 03:18 AM   #188
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,232
Originally Posted by Scopedog View Post
Art critics and art curators have a vested interest in perpetuating art enthusiasm at any cost, otherwise they wouldn't have jobs. They are the Peter Popoffs of the art world, not the artists. The BS, word-salad, purple prose descriptions from curators and critics that accompany a popular and potentially expensive piece are often as interchangeable as horoscopes.

You might also claim that they are the true artists: They interpret otherwise worthless crap as art thus turning it into art. Without their approval, it would have remained worthless crap. But I tend to think that you're right. I adhere to Hegel's definition of art in Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik
Hegel's Die Ästhetik (Wikipedia)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 11:46 AM   #189
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,683
Originally Posted by Scopedog View Post
Art critics and art curators have a vested interest in perpetuating art enthusiasm at any cost, otherwise they wouldn't have jobs. They are the Peter Popoffs of the art world, not the artists. The BS, word-salad, purple prose descriptions from curators and critics that accompany a popular and potentially expensive piece are often as interchangeable as horoscopes.
I disagree.

Critics, whether of fine art or of other media like film, don't really have a personal stake in art they critique, in the sense that they are neither buying nor selling, nor being paid based on how positive their review is. They lose nothing by judging a piece as bad and gain nothing by judging it as good, save maybe reputation based on how many other critics agree with them.

And it shows. Art critics don't uniformly just walk up to random pieces and say vague nice-things about them. Art critics sometimes don't like works or exhibitions; sometimes they really don't like them. Take for instance art critic Ben Davis's review of a 2015 MoMA exhibition on the singer Bjork:

Quote:
What do you get from the “Björk” experience? The heart of it is something like a cross between a fashion show and a theme-park ride, though that doesn’t make it sound as lame as it actually is. After waiting in a long line—and this is MoMA-plus-a-celebrity, so long lines are part of the experience—you strap on a small iPod and headphones for a “psychographic journey” through Björk’s oeuvre. ...

“Take your time,” a soothing voice tells you, introducing the experience, suggesting about “five minutes per room, about 40 minutes overall.” Five minutes to a gallery is a pretty low bar for taking your time, I thought. But then I got in there, and five minutes in these rooms, in fact, seems an eternity, as if you had been plunged into some kind of special purgatory for half-baked celeb worship and muddled exhibition design.
And Davis isn't some outlier either, or the art-critic version of a shock-jock. The Bjork show was pretty roundly panned by modern-art critics.

Curators are far more likely to be homogenously oozy about the pieces in their galleries; but this rather should be expected: curators curate. They choose which pieces they want to put in their galleries and reject ones they don't like; so obviously they'll only have good things to say about pieces in their collections. How bizarre would it be if you went to somebody's house and they called your attention to a painting on their wall and railed for five minutes about how awful it is and how much they hate it? You'd be left wondering why they don't just take it down if they feel that way, or better yet why they put it up in the first place.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 02:11 PM   #190
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,830
Originally Posted by Scopedog View Post
I've noticed that when an otherwise talented amateur presents their work for critique, art enthusiasts easily point to all sorts of flaws and possible improvements to foreshortening, perspective, negative/positive space, composition, and so on. I think even art produced by popular and famous professional artists can have those flaws. However, the same aforementioned art enthusiasts would probably be inclined to declare the famous, professional work exquisite and that every molecule of paint is arranged perfectly, and that any perceived flaws are actually intentional and are in fact what makes the work sublime. If those art enthusiasts were then told that the amateur piece was also by a famous professional, I imagine they would suddenly notice all the reasons that it's actually exquisite and how all the previously perceived flaws are intentional.

Art critics and art curators have a vested interest in perpetuating art enthusiasm at any cost, otherwise they wouldn't have jobs. They are the Peter Popoffs of the art world, not the artists. The BS, word-salad, purple prose descriptions from curators and critics that accompany a popular and potentially expensive piece are often as interchangeable as horoscopes.

Well said Scopedog. I have also had the pleasure of listening to art critics opinions, about amateur and professional pieces. I get the impression that the primary objective of some, is to impress others with their level of astuteness.

Your description of art enthusiasts changing their appraisal of a work, when they have the knowledge that the artist was a professional rather than an amateur, illustrates what I was talking about in the OP.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 02:16 PM   #191
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,830
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Ok. In what way are you then applying skepticism to art? If I say, “I think it’s a cool piece,” all you really have in response is, “Well I disagree.” That’s not skepticism; it’s a mere disagreement over something completely subjective.

If you look at my post above in answer to Scopedog you will see the root cause of my skepticism.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 02:34 PM   #192
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,950
Well then, be properly sceptical. Don't utter vague platitudes like 'often art critics will be super snooty'. Name the critic, quote them, and argue against it.
What you're doing isn't scepticism, it's just complaining and disagreement.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 06:30 PM   #193
Scopedog
Muse
 
Scopedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I disagree.

Critics, whether of fine art or of other media like film, don't really have a personal stake in art they critique, in the sense that they are neither buying nor selling, nor being paid based on how positive their review is. They lose nothing by judging a piece as bad and gain nothing by judging it as good, save maybe reputation based on how many other critics agree with them.

And it shows. Art critics don't uniformly just walk up to random pieces and say vague nice-things about them. Art critics sometimes don't like works or exhibitions; sometimes they really don't like them. Take for instance art critic Ben Davis's review of a 2015 MoMA exhibition on the singer Bjork:



And Davis isn't some outlier either, or the art-critic version of a shock-jock. The Bjork show was pretty roundly panned by modern-art critics.

Curators are far more likely to be homogenously oozy about the pieces in their galleries; but this rather should be expected: curators curate. They choose which pieces they want to put in their galleries and reject ones they don't like; so obviously they'll only have good things to say about pieces in their collections. How bizarre would it be if you went to somebody's house and they called your attention to a painting on their wall and railed for five minutes about how awful it is and how much they hate it? You'd be left wondering why they don't just take it down if they feel that way, or better yet why they put it up in the first place.
You may be missing the forest for the trees. Art critics, whether lauding or disparaging a work, still contribute to and perpetuate the art enthusiasm conversation. Art enthusiasts react to the critics, they agree or disagree. As a separate matter, I imagine that artists who ingratiate themselves to the gatekeepers of the art world consistently get a better reception than Björk did. The art world emperor is either wearing clothes that are only invisible to idiots or perhaps the art world emperor is actually a naked fool.
Scopedog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 06:50 PM   #194
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,687
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
If you look at my post above in answer to Scopedog you will see the root cause of my skepticism.
There is much to be skeptical about in the Art World, for sure. But the fraud/scam/etc stuff relates to the money side of the equation: Inflated appraisals, forgeries, rigged auctions, hidden pricing, etc. People trying to rip other people off.

If that’s what you are talking about then I agree with you. I can’t, however, agree that there’s anything to be skeptical about regarding the art itself; there’s art you like and art you don’t like.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 06:54 PM   #195
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,683
Originally Posted by Scopedog View Post
You may be missing the forest for the trees. Art critics, whether lauding or disparaging a work, still contribute to and perpetuate the art enthusiasm conversation. Art enthusiasts react to the critics, they agree or disagree. As a separate matter, I imagine that artists who ingratiate themselves to the gatekeepers of the art world consistently get a better reception than Björk did. The art world emperor is either wearing clothes that are only invisible to idiots or perhaps the art world emperor is actually a naked fool.
This is a gigantic non sequitur; your conclusion that "the art world" is some kind of fraud doesn't appear based on or supported by any of the preceding comments. Yes, enthusiasts respond to critics, to a degree. This is also true of film, home design, video games, and non-art topics such as automobiles and computer components. How does this make any of those things a hoax?

People create art. Some people like to collect art, while others simply like to enjoy or admire it transiently. People form opinions on which kind of art is better or more deserving of praise or being collected than others. An industry of critique develops which some collectors and enthusiasts use to help them decide what to spend money and time on and what to not bother with. There's no clothing or emperors involved.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 06:59 PM   #196
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,687
Skeptical About Art .... Anyone?

Originally Posted by Scopedog View Post
You may be missing the forest for the trees. Art critics, whether lauding or disparaging a work, still contribute to and perpetuate the art enthusiasm conversation. Art enthusiasts react to the critics, they agree or disagree. As a separate matter, I imagine that artists who ingratiate themselves to the gatekeepers of the art world consistently get a better reception than Björk did. The art world emperor is either wearing clothes that are only invisible to idiots or perhaps the art world emperor is actually a naked fool.
Its no different than any other field, really. The culinary world, the music world, the literature world...all these scenes have their tastemakers -influencers to use a modern word. It’s all subjective and, as theprestige said before, governed by the rule of cool. I personally have no desire to “get into” the establishment art world because what the art critics say I should like and what the gallery owners/auctioneers are trying to sell me is not often to my taste or they are charging way more than I want to pay. But I’m definitely an art lover. I have a lot of original art on my walls. But what I buy tends to be stuff that the establishment art scene would sneer at. **** them. I like it.

ETA (posted too early): But at the same time, I’m not calling the establishment scene a fraud. It’s just not something that 1)appeals to me and 2)even if it did, I can’t afford the price of entry.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 24th August 2019 at 07:01 PM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 10:50 PM   #197
Cheetah
Master Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,030
Originally Posted by Scopedog
You may be missing the forest for the trees. Art critics, whether lauding or disparaging a work, still contribute to and perpetuate the art enthusiasm conversation. Art enthusiasts react to the critics, they agree or disagree. As a separate matter, I imagine that artists who ingratiate themselves to the gatekeepers of the art world consistently get a better reception than Björk did. The art world emperor is either wearing clothes that are only invisible to idiots or perhaps the art world emperor is actually a naked fool.
You did miss the forest for the trees. Your criticisms are criticisms of human nature, not of the art world in particular.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 24th August 2019 at 10:52 PM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2019, 11:45 PM   #198
Scopedog
Muse
 
Scopedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
You did miss the forest for the trees. Your criticisms are criticisms of human nature, not of the art world in particular.
I'm not sure we disagree. The reason there are corrupt, disingenuous, laughable aspects of the art enthusiasm world is because the luminaries, enablers, perpetuators, and consumers are all merely humans vulnerable to the same biases, errors in thinking, and flaws in reasoning of any human (and many of them probably think they're not). Of course this is true about every human enterprise, but this thread is about art.
Scopedog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 12:49 AM   #199
Cheetah
Master Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,030
Could also be that since there is so much subjectivity in art, people are just easier to influence and exploit than in other less subjective areas of life.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 25th August 2019 at 12:55 AM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2019, 01:39 AM   #200
Scopedog
Muse
 
Scopedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Could also be that since there is so much subjectivity in art, people are just easier to influence and exploit than in other less subjective areas of life.
Also a large population of people who are too intelligent, educated, and elite to be misled or fooled.
Scopedog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.