Archived comment by Inked:
Reminds me of the time I was at the Museum of Modern ARt and overheard a frustrated Midwestern tourist say to the person who was showing her around the musuem, "You call this that and you call that art!"

Archived comment by Arlene:
"Being childish is a mark of the young at heart"
what do you mean that's supposed to be 'childlike' not 'childish'? Hey, you be childlike, I'll be childish. Nyah, nyah 8-p

Archived comment by steff:
yeah, i CAN be mature, but why? thanks for noticing. =)

Archived comment by Passerby:
I know Steff gets me on this one.

Archived comment by Passerby:
Somehow I just feel so guilty for being so low-minded. I've gotten everthing mentioned here but I can't stop laughing over one of the interpretations I have of one of Slugbuggy's comments.

Archived comment by Saint:
Sorry.

Hey, man, settle in. You want some chips? Leftover pizza? A little bud? No? Toss the remote over here, then.

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
note to self: leave the couch potato points alone. it's a trap.

Archived comment by Saint:
Slugbuggy, as I've mentioned elsewhere, your couch potato points can be cashed in for a lecture from your mother, about how you should go play outside instead of wasting time in front of the idiot boxes. Still want them? (I'd give cool points, but I'm not sure I'm eligible--I mean, wouldn't I have to be cool to give out cool points?)

Here's my two bits to the art discussion: entire philosophy and art classes are devoted to the "what is art" discussion. If we wish to take those classes, they are available. Clearly, some of us have taken them already. Please, for the love of mercy, let's just all agree to disagree.

Seen in a bathroom stall:
1st handwriting: Give piece a chance.
2nd handwriting: Can't we all just git it on?

Archived comment by Arlene:
for 'uncool points'
"I know art, I just don't know what I like."

Archived comment by Passerby:
..feel, I mean feel. Second time tonight I've had to correct my speeling.

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
I just fell an overwhelming sense of joy that something in this thread got resolved. Where do I cash in my points?

Archived comment by Saint:
Couch potato points for slugbuggy (whether you want them, or whether you don't). Yep, Daffy beat the crap out of Taz in order to get back a dollar bill that fell into Taz's cage at the zoo.

Archived comment by philosophile:
Its not all about what the artist encodes into the piece, but how we interpret the piece. For Example, Georgia O'keefe is very well known for her close up paintings of flowers, and many people have interpreted it her paintings as symbolic of women's vaginas, beautifying and empowering it. O'keefe on the other hand merely liked the shapes and textures of flowers, espescially the details, thus, close up images of flowers, non-representative of women, but still, a very important interpretation. Another example, the Mona Lisa... that piece has been interpreted and re-interpreted in conradictory ways. But the fact that a piece can be interpreted in so many valid ways, (and yes there are plainly wrong interpretations of things... ask any English teacher) makes the piece all the more intriguing, and fun to look at.

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
And by "beating a dead horse" I mean continuing to talk about something long, long after it's over and done with, like I'm about to do now:

Seriously though, can art communicate all the things people read into it? I can understand how representational art works at a conscious, literal level, and also how it operates subconsciously, sort of( Carl Jung, how symbols and archetypes work, etc.). But non-representational art, with no identifiable objects- can it have an actual subject matter? I understand that it can convey mood, or suggest an overall sense of life, the way music can non-verbally. I'm thinking Mark Rothko (Brian Eno) or Jackson Pollock (Charlie Parker). Beyond that, however-how much data or meaning is "encoded" in abstract or conceptual art? Is this a universal language of the subconscious or is it everyone's own private language that is never understood by others? Critics and theorists and artists write as if this language is "decodable" and therefore understood at a conscious level. I don't know if what goes on subconsciously is ever really grasped at the level of consciousness, or if that is the point. I wouldn't even bring this up, but pick up an art magazine and you'll find no end to the "exegesis" and interpretation of current art. The art itself is fine, I like it even, I just can't get my mind around it meaning what it's claimed to mean.

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
Evil porpoises? All I got are some really snarky dolphins.

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
Okay. I thought you meant that "flogging the horsey" (rephrase of "beating a dead horse")sounded like a euphemism for "wanking," which people often use as a metaphor for any type of self-indulgent or self-important display of knowledge, in which people will talk and talk until they've told you everything they know, usually about art or politics. Which is what I thought I was being accused of,and what I was apologising for.

But now that I look again, "flogging the horsey" sounds like something I might like, depending on what's being referred to as the "horsey."

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
me neither

Archived comment by steff:
*blink* um. i think, slugbuggy, that your mind if far, FAR to high out of the gutter. i have no idea what you're on about. =P

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
Ouch! Ow ow ow ow! I understand what you mean, and I'm probably guilty. Just wondering-do you mean generally that talking about abstract stuff is a pointless, "wanking" experince, or is it more specific, as in "this guy likes to hear himself talk?" Yes and yes, but I'm really trying to work out what I think here and sometimes I get on a roll; I don't know if anything I say makes sense to anybody else or helps the conversation at all. The less I understand something, the more I'll try to figure it out by talking about it. Maybe I should just let go of all of that altogether...

Um... if I got your reference wrong, never mind about all of the above.

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
Oh yeah... didn't Daffy actually defeat Taz? I think it had something to do with greed.

Archived comment by steff:
i think it's kinda sad that posts on the 2nd page get forgotten. =( although then they're much easier to comandeer for your own evil porpoises.

did anyone else think 'flogging the horsey' was a euphemism? well, i mean, it IS, becuase there's acutally no horse, but... i think you all know what i mean. (i'm trying to help saint)

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
Good Lord. I've said "yakkity-yak" and "whackity-whack" in the same post.

This thread reminds me of the episode where Kramer takes a test drive. The one where the car is on "E" but somehow they keep it going for miles and miles.

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
"...y'all are free to go."

I don't think there's really an end to this conversation. I imagine that when the first Neanderthal put charcoal to cave wall there was someone behind him saying, "you call THAT an antelope!?! The horns are backwards!" And it hasn't stopped since.

As far as the value of all this yakkity-yak,it hasn't really provided any concrete answers, but by coming back to the same problem areas over and over I have a better idea about where the real questions are.

F'rinstance, anytime we name or define something, we set up a dichotomy: (x)/(not x). Or, in this case, we have art/not art ( I know this has been said earlier but I'm trying to work the details out). Now, mostly we would say that Van Gogh's "Irises" REALLY IS art, while the lint in my pocket, as is, REALLY IS NOT art. Okay. The problem seems to be that we expect everything to fall into one category or the other; we expect the delineation between (x)/(not x)to be hard and recognizable. Sometimes the distiction is fairly undebatable: dead/ not dead. But with art, among other things, there is a broad area of fuzziness where the object in question qualifies in some ways but not in others. Many things defy our ability to define or categorize, but we have to try anyway, because that's how we get around in the world and that's how we communicate.

So, a different question might be, "what does art do?" That is ,what is going on conciously and subconciously when we attempt to make art, and what is going on when we view/experience it? I don't know, but I think it's one of the ways we have of communicating from one subconcious to another, or "soul to soul" if you like. All the things that can't be said with words.

On a different note, I think I've just joined the "Finding Novel Ways to Flog the Horsey Until It's Really, Really, Really, Deceased...Oh, Wait It's Still Twitching..Whackity-Whack" Club.

(Sorry for large link file size)

Archived comment by philosophile:
Saint:heheh I think my eyes have glazed over as well... Put the quote is finally at the bottom of the index page!!! =) We may soon get rest from this discussion afterall.

SG: Now if you want to bring in Wittgenstein, we should be talking about the definition of the word art, and how we use it, and not about art objects themselves. ;) And for the most part I think he's wrong about a lot of things, but certain things he's hit the nail on the head, like art. We all use the word in a certain way, and when we use it in a weird way, people start questioning, e.g. Reese's chin, trying to get us to play by the rules, but with art, part of the rule is to break the rules, again see Danto's the end of art... and this time I'm referencing it correctly.

As for philosophy being useless I still don't see how pondering about the existence of God is useless. Either way you end up deciding it, will fundamentally change the way you view the world, and not a decision to be made on a whim or simply to accept your parent's conception of. And that goes with any ethical issue, and finally art as well. http://www.sjunderbelly.com/unbelly/Sanjose/Quetzy/quetzy.html
Is this statue art? It cost San Jose Taxpayers $50,000 dollars. The same principles we use to determine whether Reese's chin is art MUST apply to this statue, or else we capitulate that art is a relative term, in which case the city has every right to spend $100,000 dollars to pay Reese to sit on a pedestal 8 hours a day.

And if a rational discussion can't come up with a definition of art, then what can? Again, lets not confuse coming up with a definition, with convincing others. I can tell the the tribes in Africa that genital mutilation won't help women have better sex, which is true, but they won't believe me, no matter how rational I am, because they're dogmatic about tradition.

Archived comment by Larry Hosken:
If y'all like, you can take this discussion over to slashdot.org, where they're debating whether a Legoid mosaic of Callista Flockhardt (sp?) is art.

Archived comment by Saint:
BTW--of course God can create bad art. If God couldn't create bad art, then there would be something God couldn't do, and then He wouldn't be omnipotent. :P

I agree, SG, this discussion got way out of hand. Off from the amusing to the eye-glazingly arcane. I've tried to drag it back to inanity, but it just hasn't worked.

Archived comment by sg:
LAST POST

I am being hopeful when I say that. Last post from me anyway, I can't afford to spend so much time on this.

Arlene: Thanks for the link. Have to say I agree with Saint though, it does look cute (at least in the second slightly fuzzy looking picture).

philosophile: The arguments you are using now to prove the use of reason (whether or not it is good to bomb abortion clinics etc) are not at all abstract, they are tied to specific situations. I have no objection to using reason to solve problems, and I don't think I said anything to that effect. I do find it a waste of time when reason is used, as it has been for a good deal of this discussion, to try and solve a problem that is for the most part irrelevant (even in the case of art with a public purpose - what is important is whether or not it fulfils that purpose rather than whethre it is art - and in any case, if the discussion on this page is anything to go by, it is not likely that rational argument can agree on a single definition of art), and abstract, and as in this case, probably can't be solved.

As for mathematics, I never called it abstract. As I say, reason, logic, all those fields of mental discipline are very good things, I never denied that. But I think it is far more valuable to use them on real problems and situations, rather than on things which have little or no application, and especially if these things can't really be solved by reason anyway.

To (mis)quote Wittgenstein (because I have forgotten the exact wording): 'One should not talk about things on which nothing can be said'.

Therefore, I now cease to talk.

Archived comment by Saint:
Aw, Arlene, I've never seen anything quite so cute in all my life. Where do I get one?


Couch potato points: Who is the only Looney Tunes character to beat the Taz in a toe-to-toe fight? What was his motivation?

Archived comment by philosophile:
heh... just one more thing that occured to me. Abstract ideas are actually rarely waffly things. Mathematics, the most abstract thing out there, is quite strict an unwaffly. Universal truths like All triangles have 3 sides, are unwaffly. (Geeze I'm sounding like Plato here)

We're running out of time. I think if Eve posts maybe a few more IPs, the thread will be stuck on the second page... out of sight out of mind... ahh... heheh

Archived comment by philosophile:
Again, I retreat back to my examples of public art... There is a case where it is a matter of public interest on whether or not something is art or not, and then this discussion wouldn't be completely irrelevant.

I agree, that if you take abstract ethical situations (e.g. abortion) often waffle and depend on the context... what's wrong with that?
We can still talk about how we can determine what is right and wrong by looking at the context. What criteria makes something right? Greater good? Obligatory duties? Rights? Who has them, and when? Eventually it boils down to greater more abstract issues, although ethics is one particular place where philosophy dwells in the situation, rather than the abstract.

As for those who arn't swayed by arguments for the existence of non-existence of God... I think that just shows how quite comfortable people are with not using their brains. "What you've got a great arguement for the existence of God? Well, I don't care. He exists." That isn't using your brain. Listening to the argument and responding to it thoughtfully, examining it for weaknesses or omissions, thats good argumentation, and what philosophy gets you into the practice of doing.

Just because most people are dogmatic about their beliefs, doesn't mean that its right, nor the way things should be. It takes reason to change people's ideas and beliefs. We can't just sit around and hope that people suddenly see the light and capitulate that bombing abortion clinics is wrong. You listen to them, and then poke holes in their arguments and present a stronger position for your case.

Archived comment by Arlene:
Consider this my contribution to your education. I've only seen pictures & video myself. Never seen one in person.

Archived comment by sg:
(Un?)fortunately I haven't.

Archived comment by Arlene:
Have you seen a Tasmanian devil? If so, that answers your question.

Archived comment by sg:
:-) but in that case _everything_ is art!

can God slip up and create bad art too?

Archived comment by Saint:
If God does exist (the creator-God ultimately responsible for everything, per Christian mythology, that is) then Reese Witherspoon's chin is, in fact, art. Divine art, sculpted by the hand of JHVH. That makes the existance of God vitally important to this discussion.

BTW, I don't think it will scroll until it hits 100. So keep babbling. ;)

Archived comment by sg:
I hope this will scroll off on to a second page soon... I was hoping no one would post...

But since you have, philosophile, I better reply. Will try and be brief.

It is, or ought to be, possible to exercise one's brain with questions that have some application to life, more meaningful than trying to define art. Even if just 'exercising' one's brain on those questions does not actually solve them - it could, theoretically at least, have some practical value, unlike totally abstract forms of mental exercise. Furthermore, if one exercises ones mind on something meaningful, it is quite possible that one migth be able to enlighten oneself, or someone else, and get rid of some of one's possibly unhealthy prejudices or irrational attitudes, or get a better understanding about why some things are the way they are. This probably has a greater value, even if it does not solve any problem on a large scale, than simple abstract arguments.

Ethical situations are definitely things that everyone is confronted with, but the academic discipline of philosophy often tends to waffle, because ethical situations, if seen in the abstract, _are_ often waffly things. The actual 'right' or 'wrong' does often depend on the exact situation, and just thinking in the abstract may not really be of much use. But I was thinking more of things along the lines of your other example - is there really a god. Philosophers have been wondering about this for centuries, but have they found an answer? And does it matter? Most people today who believe in a god or gods are definitely not going to be convinced by the arguments of any philosopher. And as long as they believe in god, god exists, for them anyway - which is ultimately probably of more importance than whether there is any objective god or not.

Everyone is confronted with philosophical questions, I agree, but I do not think there is much to be gained by spending years on trying to solve many of the more abstract and insoluble ones, like the one above.

Ok, I didn't manage to be brief.... Apologies. I think I better just avoid this thread for a while.

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
Sorry. I was trying to draw a parallel between what Mike said about this discussion and the development of the art world in general. Just as this discussion used to be about something exterior to itself (it had a topic: art),at some point it turned a corner and now we're discussing the discussion. Art also used to be about something else-either the outer, objective world, or the inner, subjective world (sometimes mediating between the two). It seems that sometime within the last 50 years or so the things that art referred to have disappeared from art, and we're left with art that discusses itself. All very po mo and meta, but maybe a dead end, too.

Archived comment by Philosophile:
Argh! The thread that won't die!! I kick myself for checking this thread! well... when it gets scrolled off to the second page, I'm sure it'll die then.

SG: Why do people walk up stairmasters for hours at the gym? Why do people lift weights or do push ups? Well, partly for the aesthetic, but ideally, so they can function better in life. So they can move the couch and trim the tree without hiring some other guy who does work out often to do it for them. Same with our brain. Yeah we can sit around and talk about meaningful things, and we should, but we arn't constantly bombarded with times where we have to think, or confronted with a situation where we have to defend our ideas in a rational way. But in the even that it does occur, someone who has had practice in defending positions, analyzing situations, and using their brain will be much more apt than the person who just surfs the web all day.

Besides philosophy is more practical than you think. EVERYONE is confronted with ethical situations, or has tried to convince someone else that a movie is "good" or has wondered if there is a god, etc. Pick any other studied discipline and they deal with questions nobody really cares about. Who really cares about covalent bonding, or how the computer programmer made this website work. Only people in that discipline really care about that, or people with really curious minds. Even the mildly curious are confronted with philosophical questions.

Archived comment by Arlene:
I have a definition for Art

Art is a nickname for someone named Arthur.

How's that for a touch of the ridiculous added to a sublime discussion?

Archived comment by umrguy:
Augh! That should've been "There are two kinds". Sorry. 'S what I get for typing in a post before breakfast.

Archived comment by umrguy:
Gah! I think Mike summed things up nicely - this conversation's gone too far! It got to the point where I was thinking, another long post, oh no! and my eyes would glaze over about halfway through, trying to muddle out the meanings.

Here's my two cents:

Art is art. There is two kinds: objective art, and subjective art. Objective art is that art that everyone agrees is art, although exactly what makes it that way is open to debate (and has been discussed thoroughly below). Subjective art is that which individuals or groups perceive as art, although others may not, for whatever reasons (aesthetics, cultural, etc.).

Archived comment by steff:
ok, homework for tonite: everybody go read "the object stares back"

Archived comment by slugbuggy:
I think Mike just summed it up...first art was about the objects of perception and how different modes of representation could alter that perception, then it turned into a comment on perception itself, then it became completely self-referential, where the only subject of art was art itself, and we still haven't defined the term "art" as far as I can tell.

"...it doesn't have to mean anything...it's just beautiful to look at."

Archived comment by Mike:
Okay, that's it! A discussion about art philosophy is hard enough to follow-- now we're discussing the discussion?!?! Too meta... mind... slipping....

Archived comment by steff:
well, i didn't think you were serious. i mean, really. but just the fact that you said it has me all giggly. hee.

Archived comment by sg:
Of course i'm not serious steff :-)

This is a *philosophical* argument, it has nothing to do with the real world. That's the problem with it...

Archived comment by steff:
*points and falls over laughing at sg* try to... to make people... *snicker, snort* be REASONABLE? oh good Lord, stop it, you're killing me! you simply cannot be serious. *lmao* ah. good one. ;)

Archived comment by sg:
ok philosophile, I will be dumb and take the bait:-)

I'm still not convinced we're getting anything out of this. I agree, we are excercising our capacity to reason, and I agree that that is the defnining characteristic of our species (though I have to admit I often think that the defining characteristic is just how stupid humans are).

However, don't you think it is more rational to use reason to do useful things, like for instance trying to stop people from killing each other, trying to make everyone be reasonable, clean up the world's rivers, invent some new form of energy that doesn't deplete natural resources, whatever, rather then spending our time and reason on something that is ultimately rather meaningless and pointless? At the end of it, do we really define what art is? And does it really affect life in any way even if we do??

My main grouse with philosophy is that it often spends an inordinate amount of time on questions that cannot ultimately be answered in any satisfactory way - and after spending so much time often philosophers simply have to admit that they can't really provide a very satisfactory answer. Instead of using reason on abstract things, might it not be better to use the motto of Bertolt Brecht: 'Truth is concrete'?

Archived comment by philosophile:
SG: Yes we are getting something out of this. At the very least, we're exercising our capacity to reason, what most people generally consider the defining trait of our species, and which is commonly unexercised. If you can approach this subject in a methodical clear sense, then you can approach subjects like buying a car, deciding to marry this person, or ethical dillemas that arise in your life with the same reason. A wrongly reasoned decision is still better than a correct decision made on a whim. The latter is accidental and you don't want to leave heavy decisions to accidents. You don't want to leave your life to accident.

heh. I felt that I needed to defend philosophy for a moment. Okay I'm not stuck in that moment anymore.

Archived comment by Mike:
Wait... we were supposed to be getting something out of this?

I agree with sg about the post-modernist thing. It's kinda like those "this page intentionally left blank" things you find in government books sometimes-- a contradictory message that there is no message.

And yeah, that analogy was kinda weird. (Hm? "What was I thinking?" Err... good question.) I guess it would more similar to comparing "good" art to "bad" art; like the whole "I don't know art, but I know what I like" sentiment. I dunno, maybe I was drunk yesterday and didn't know it.

And it's not like the other threads make sense or anything.

(*goes back to searching the web for art links*)