Red iceberg

[Cannibal_Kender]

The red iceberg makes me think of Chris from Northern Exposure, and all his wacky art experiments.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Not really. Even based on your father-in-law's opinion ...(art is) "A creative process, and the results thereof." So, one must create to create art.

Sure it is. Before, there was no red iceberg. Now there is. The act of painting the iceberg was a creative process, because it created a red iceberg.

Of course, by this definition, pooping on the iceberg is art, too. It's just really crappy art.

 

[Mercule]

Of course, by this definition, pooping on the iceberg is art, too. It's just really crappy art.

Literally.

I guess I'm in the camp that it isn't "art". Of course, I wouldn't call a lot of things "art" that probably technically are. Mostly, abstract stuff isn't art in my book. It can be nice to look at, even "artistic", but not "art". It's a bit like a well-built or innovative building can be attractive, striking, and artistic, but I wouldn't really call it "art". Same with interior decorating, which is where I group a lot of so-called "art".

Throwing paint in front of a jet engine isn't art. It may create something attractive. It may even result in something worth hanging on a wall, but never something of the value of David. Likewise for any seemingly random splattering of paint or angular bits of clay or metal. The sort of things that most cities have cluttering up their downtowns are an awefully lot like interior decorating, just done outside. They (sometimes -- though I question the taste of many city planners) make things look nice. It may even require a certain eye to do them well. They ain't art, though.

Of course, I'm drawing a kind of artificial line between "art" and "an art". Interior decorating is, no doubt, an art. I guess it's just a matter of me seeing a big, capitol "A" on "Art". Take that as you will -- it may be that the difference between what I call art and what anyone else calls art is the bredth of the definition. The statement I've made is that "Art is of something."

None of that should be read as disparaging interior decorators, etc. They add value and deserve acclaim.

That said, however, I find the iceberg to be neither "art" nor "artistic".

 

[MerakSpielman]

Mercule: You're doing a fine job giving examples of what (IYHO) is art and what isn't, but you're stopping short of giving your actual definition.

 

[DMScott]

Sure it is. Before, there was no red iceberg. Now there is. The act of painting the iceberg was a creative process, because it created a red iceberg.

Actually, I'm reasonably certain the "before" part is inaccurate - I'm pretty sure coloured icebergs have been displayed before, just normally in paintings or artificially created and smaller. Really, what's happening here is the artist has figured out a way to get more publicity for his work.

So in this case, art is more of a "look at me!" process than a creative process. Not that there's anything objectively wrong with that - seems to me ego is as much a part of art as creativity (maybe moreso), at least for those making a living at it.

 

[Mercule]

Mercule: You're doing a fine job giving examples of what (IYHO) is art and what isn't, but you're stopping short of giving your actual definition.

Probably because I'm an unabashed layman on the issue. I took an art class in high school and was actually not too bad with both 2D (esp. charcoal) and 3D (clay), but I don't have any real formal education in art theory.

I'm not sure I've got a real good, solid definition of what art is. I haven't seen one from anyone claiming that a painted iceberg is art, either. Maybe someone who is better versed in art could share what the real definition of art is, and I could tell how I disagree with it.

Not accusing anyone on these forums (really, I'm not), but from my perception, a lot of "modern art" and art theory appears (to me) to be a bunch of talentless hacks getting together, patting each other on the back for turning out crap, and generally being egotistical snots. Anyone who thinks people spreading feces on canvas or spray-painting large blobs of ice are no talent hacks are then told "Well, you just don't get it." It's like we're the uncouth ones because we figure a toilet is a better place for bodily waste than publicly displaying it.

On a side note, if painting an iceberg monochromatic red is art, does that mean that I'm an artist if I go erect a big red barn? If not, why not? What I often hear is that it's the "message" that an artist relates that makes it art. If so, what is the message this wandering ecohazard relates? It seems to be "look at me", which isn't a particular interesting message. If it's a subjective message, then we can go back to "Red Square" and find that it really isn't any different than a 2nd grade sketch because either could be have the same impact on the viewer.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Probably because I'm an unabashed layman on the issue. I took an art class in high school and was actually not too bad with both 2D (esp. charcoal) and 3D (clay), but I don't have any real formal education in art theory.

Yeah, me neither. I'm reduced to trying to argue my father-in-law's perspective. He could do it better.

I'm not sure I've got a real good, solid definition of what art is. I haven't seen one from anyone claiming that a painted iceberg is art, either. Maybe someone who is better versed in art could share what the real definition of art is, and I could tell how I disagree with it.

You don't need somebody well-versed in art. I should have done this earlier:

art (ärt)
n.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
   1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. <LI type=a>The study of these activities.
   2. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
2. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
3. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
4. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
5. 
   
   1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
   2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
6. 
   
   1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
   2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
7. 
   
   1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
   2. Artful contrivance; cunning.
8. Printing. Illustrative material.

I think most of the arguments are between people using definition 1 verses people using definitions 2 and 3.

Not accusing anyone on these forums (really, I'm not), but from my perception, a lot of "modern art" and art theory appears (to me) to be a bunch of talentless hacks getting together, patting each other on the back for turning out crap, and generally being egotistical snots. Anyone who thinks people spreading feces on canvas or spray-painting large blobs of ice are no talent hacks are then told "Well, you just don't get it." It's like we're the uncouth ones because we figure a toilet is a better place for bodily waste than publicly displaying it.

I'm sure there's a lot of that going on. Thing is, it might be possible to make an interesting artistic statement using human bodily excretions, but it would have to be very deliberately thought out, and I doubt it would be taken seriously more than once or twice. There's one fellow who made a name for himself climbing on a ladder, splattering paint on a big piece of paper, and then sending photos of separate sections of the paper to art auction houses. When they accepted a piece, he sat down and re-painted it on canvas.

There was one early modern artist - I forget his name, somebody might remind me - who got so fed up with people accepting whatever he did as fine art that one day he signed his name on a urinal and declared it art. The urinal sold for thousands of dollars. Now, I don't remember if it was the urinal that he did this stunt on, it could have been some other random object, but after it was sold he got irritated and said that he would sign any urinal (or whatever object it was) that people brought to him, as though it were the "original." The person who spent the thousands of dollars on the urinal was not pleased. Of course, this artist was creating trivial and weird art as a part of a deliberate protest against idiots who think just anything is art, and considered it to be the highest irony that people bought it.

Most people, when their instinctive impulse is that something isn't art, are expecting art to be something meaningful, something that the artist has invested time and creative energy in, to create something special that they wanted to share with the world. Crapping on a canvas, throwing paint randomly, and signing urinals do not fit this concept. Again, compare the different definitions of art I posted above.

On a side note, if painting an iceberg monochromatic red is art, does that mean that I'm an artist if I go erect a big red barn? If not, why not?

Yes. Yes it does. You might have trouble finding an appreciative audience, though. Of course, not having an appreciative audience might be part of the artistic statement you're making.

What I often hear is that it's the "message" that an artist relates that makes it art. If so, what is the message this wandering ecohazard relates? It seems to be "look at me", which isn't a particular interesting message.

I don't actually see a lot of people arguing that this is "good" art. Is bad art still art? And he's using the same paint the meat-packing industry puts on your steaks, so it can't be TOO dangerous. Of course, he used an awful lot of the stuff.

If it's a subjective message, then we can go back to "Red Square" and find that it really isn't any different than a 2nd grade sketch because either could be have the same impact on the viewer.

I remember a single-frame comic. I think it was in Playboy. There's an art gallery with modern art displayed of the "white background with geometric colored shapes" style. A man is holding up a tape measure to one of the larger paintings, apparently judging how far a square is from the side. His wife stands behind him and is explaining to a guard, "Oh, we liked it so much we're taking measurements and we're going to make one of our own!"

The problem is, every new phase of art is declared "unartistic" by the creators and fans of the current trends. Even now-famous people like Monet, Van Gogh, and Picasso were ridiculed for their style and technique. I have a feeling that weird art projects like putting a skirt on an island, a concert written for 12 radios tuned at random, blending goldfish, and painting icebergs will be considered little more than an interesting - and brief - artistic phase a few hundred years from now.

 

[Kilmore]

Hm. At first I thought it was some kind of protest against icebergs sinking the Titanic.

 

[alsih2o]

There was one early modern artist - I forget his name, somebody might remind me - who got so fed up with people accepting whatever he did as fine art that one day he signed his name on a urinal and declared it art. The urinal sold for thousands of dollars.

most of this is wrong. he did sign a urinal, but for completely different reasons.

 

[Mercule]

art (ärt)
n.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
   1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. <LI type=a>The study of these activities.
   2. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
2. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
3. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.

<snip>

I think most of the arguments are between people using definition 1 verses people using definitions 2 and 3.

Could be. I can't really poke too many holes in the definitions.

Okay, I'll grant that it falls into the definition of art.

I'll just say that it's really pathetic and the dolt should be banned from "art". Actually, I've got a great idea for a project for him. He could use his tongue to sculpt, but we'd have to find a suitably soft medium. Isn't elephant dung somewhat in vogue right now? Regardless of what he sculpted, I think I'd have to agree with the message inherent in the methodology (whether you take it as a statement of his tastes or as a commentary on his other messages). And, it would certainly get him some press.

Or, the short form: He might be an artist, but that's only by a technicallity.