Secrets of the City

If I were looking to startup a big flaming pile of commentary on this post, it’d be the easiest thing in the world: Just suggest that crayon art is not real art, and crayon artists are anything but real artists. Then all the defensive, anything-goes nitwits who have strung together a few broken hashmarks on a sheet of Canson’ll rush to condemn me, exclaim “this is why I avoid art elitists,” and otherwise blather on about themselves and how their own craft pursuits are so important in their live. Web 2.0-ers: Easiest target in the world…

Except, strangely, I kinda like this crayon guy’s stuff. Granted, I’d never actually own a piece of it, and the subjects are mostly pretty insipid (I mean, John Wayne?), but it’s pretty cool that he’s able to wrest such depth and liveliness out of what is perhaps the crappiest piece of art medium ever devised. Dude has masterful technique, at least from the looks of his web images…

So stick that in your craw, young democraticitans of Internet. Oh, and if you’re looking to get riled up about art commentary, you oughta go check out The Thousandth Word instead.

There is no real art anyway; you ought to know that. There’s just stuff people make. Some of it is well made, some of it is poorly made. Some of it is insipid, some inspiring. It’s all art. It’s just that not all art is worth a damn.

yes, you could try that, but you’re not the MNSpeak arbiter of what qualifies as real art. That illustrious title belongs to The Rat. You’ll have to appeal to him first.

What Max said! Art is an attempt to communicate a thought or an idea via some sort of medium. Dance, Song, Painting, Sculpture it is all art — no matter who the artist is. All art is not equivalent. Thus, you can have crappy worthless art.

Msparber: “There is no real art anyway; you ought to know that. There’s just stuff people make.”

Yeah, but it is macrame?

I disagree on the grounds of over-simplification although I will allow that most art is a consciously directed process, with certain exceptions such as the crude daubings of a horse, or Max’s blog.

How-ever; I might argue that not all the things that people make can be considered as art. An example I might offer that there is a point at which utility or function (or intended function) suborns or overwhelms the aesthetic and I think that although art can be functional and objects that have a primary utility can also be art, function is not the central purpose of art.

Intent rather than purpose is what makes things art. Of course, like most questions there is only one correct, object answer. And you just read it, buster.

object answer = objective answer.

Not sure that the Bauhaus guys would agree with your assertion that utility or function can overwhelm, and therefore invalidate, artistic expression.

I do, however, agree that there is no conscious creation of art in my blog. I’m with Charles Ludlum, I like my stuff without the stink of art.

There is no real art anyway; you ought to know that. There’s just stuff people make. Some of it is well made, some of it is poorly made. Some of it is insipid, some inspiring. It’s all art. It’s just that not all art is worth a damn.

Why would I know that? This is just shmemantics. Democraticizing the word art has little meaning or purpose except to belittle the voice of the expert, which, of course, is a main criticism of Internet-based informational clearing houses like this one…

Bauhaus uber alles?

I never belittle critics. I just wait for them to write, and allow them to belittle themselves.

At least, that’s how I always operated when I was a critic.

Blah blah blah.

My crayon drawing of the flying horse (age 6) that looked like a flying pig if you looked at it from one angle or a flying dogcow from another angle is art – my mom said so and hung it on the refrigerator to prove it.

Didn’t really address the point, but thanks for your equanimity regarding self-belittlement.
Are you often in the habit of arguing with yourself in this way?

Kids art sure can be real art.

But, then, what do I know. I buy art from monkeys.

And yes I am, arthappy.

No I’m not.

Let me toss out a (very imperfect) definition of art for today’s discussion from my own, deeply elitist, deeply entrenched view:

Art is an object or gesture made by hand or process that is intended to attract public attention or audience (or coopted for purposes of attracting attention or audience) in a venue suitable for viewing such objects/gestures.

In other words, the definition of art requires that it be looked at by someone else.
Certainly there are lots of holes to be poked in such definitions, but there are two reasons I take this spin on art. First, in philosophical terms, like the proverbial tree in the forest, art doesn’t really exist if it’s not seen. After all, art is a form of communication. Secondly, in practical terms, art relies on an audience to survive. This is why so many commenters are worried of late about the future of art: Increasingly, the audience vanishes.

Anyway, just a workday stab.

I still sorta dig the crayon drawings. And I like the kid’s drawings turned photographs. As for refrigerator art, maybe they can be considered art by the maker and the maker’s mother. But why would anyone else consider them art? They have no context outside of the familial unit.
The monkey drawings, meanwhile, are just neurostatic impulses writ (scribbled?) large. Sorry, not art.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

Get him, Cheeta!

Sorry, can’t retract now. It’s out on the internet!

They’re pretty though–if that’s any consolation…

If it is meant to be looked at, then it should be an attempt to “say something”. While you all are close, you haven’t acknowledged that I am indeed correct.

A chair isn’t art, unless the person making the chair is attempting to make a statement with the chair. IE Olivers form argument. Plus, if it was created for someone to look at, but does not bring across what the artist was attempting to communicate, then it is just monkey art. Even a child’s drawing is an attempt to say something — simplistic as it may be. Thus, art = communication through some medium. Thank you and good night!

Democraticizing the word art has little meaning or purpose except to belittle the voice of the expert, …

Not at all. I would argue that it can enhance their status. How would could any one comprehend how good any of the Old Masters were (just to take them as an example, choose any example you want), if we didn’t have tons of crap to hold it up against?

You obviously aren’t sitting in the same chairs I am.

Because the maker’s mom is an art critic?

We must suffer for art.

A chair isn’t art, unless the person making the chair is attempting to make a statement with the chair.

In my def. I say “…intended to attract public attention…” This is just another way of saying “attempting to make a statement.”

Because the maker’s mom is an art critic?

If your mom were an art critic, then that would do much to validate your childhood refrigerator drawings as art. Because, after all, art critics–even biased ones–always know best what is art!

Any definition of art that excludes monkeys is useless.

Well, maybe if the monkey’s parent were an art critic…

Monkeys are famous for their ability to judge art. Koko was once shown a Paul Klee and immediately signed that it was a forgery. Turns out she was right.

Hm. Sounds more like she was an art appraiser than an art critic. Now that’d I can believe. Monkey art appraiser, yes! Monkey art critic, no way!
BTW, orangutan art critic is much more believable. After all, this species is known to be the consummate slinger of shit…

As you would know if you had ever watched Battle for Planet of the Apes, the primary job of orangutans is to watch over the weapons cache.

And this is different from what an art critic does how?

OK, I’ll stop there…
Losing. Altitude. Fast. Must. Pull. Up. Before. I Crash.

Why must you throw these obscurist art house movies in our faces, Max?

I needed a chair for my new desk, but I decided to just use my exercise ball. Helps strengthen mah core. And, when I’m in the financial position to by art, the first piece I buy will be a Kandinsky. Love that guy.

An artist who doesn’t care for critics?

It’s been done.

Why must you throw these obscurist art house movies in our faces, Max?

(chokes, spasms, Sprite shoots out of nose)

While Battle for Planet of the Apes is one of the weakest in the series, the novelization, by “Trouble with Tribbles” writer David Gerrold, is actually pretty good.

Why do I know this? Because I am ridiculous.

Wait, Planet of the Apes the movie or the planet?

The musical.

Now you’re splitting hairs.

Oh help me, Dr. Zaius!

Paging Dr. Hasslein…

Then there was that 70s sex romp, “Beneath The Sheets On The Planet of the Apes.”

Most memorable line:

“Get your hands on me, you dirty ape!”

em>An artist who doesn’t care for critics?

It’s been done.

Are you perchance referring to my comments (ie critic as shit-slinger, etc)?
If so, you should know I’m not an artist. I’m actually the writer of this semi-tongue-in-cheek piece on the contentious relationship between artists and arts writers.

Why the mixed messages? Well, I’m from the generation of people who actually could still poke fun at themselves. Strange, I know… Also, I’m not from Minnesota, so I’m often compelled to confront uncomfortable topics head on.

Bob for the hilarity win!

Arthappy: “Well, I’m from the generation of people who actually could still poke fun at themselves…”

Which generation was that, then?

Still, I hadn’t detected that you were on the other side of the fence from the (admittedly somewhat cursory due to time limitations) reading of your blog, so my bad.

This is an interesting discussion. I used to teach high school Humanities. We studied aesthetics and I’d preface the conversation with allowing the students to talk about what makes art art.

I’d offer them this scenario to get the conversation started: There are two pieces hanging the wall. They look essentially the same. Lots of red blobs on canvas. Piece #1 is actually a carpet swath from beneath a table from which a bowl of tomatoes was accidentally dropped. The other was a canvas upon which an artist had thrown tomatoes. Assuming they look basically the same, are both art? Neither? One but not the other?

I always enjoyed their musings.

I hadn’t detected that you were on the other side of the fence …

I prefer the term “on the other team.” I’m more of a giver, than a receiver, when it comes to art, dontcha know…

Arthappy is an art top.

Placing the carpet on the wall recontextualizes it into art, Nate.

Arthappy is an art top.

On the whole, I’m glad we stumbled on a much better metaphor for the artist-critic relationship than the whole monkeys-throwing-shit thing…

One scoop of creamed potatoes. A slice of butter. Four peas. And as much ice cream as you’d like to eat. And that Jeff Koons has to go.

Which generation was that, then?

The generation bookended by a generation dubbed “The Me Generation” and another called “Generation Me.”

Shit. He’s part of our godforsaken generation, Oliver.

You couldn’t tell from the cynicism?

I’m not a boomer, you fucks!

Gen X, Oliver.

Oh sorry, like a real Gen Xer I wasn’t reading for comprehension.

Nice use of the Macro to End All Macros, btw.

That will be making regular appearances.

I’m not a boomer, you fucks!

Wow. Tetchy.
Certainly sounds like an Xer.
But bad at reading. Could be on the cusp with the Ys? Were you born in the late 70s?

arthappy: “Were you born in the late 70s?”

Awww, bless you for saying that.

Anyway, perhaps art can be somewhat succinctly described any directed process where the primary intent is to convey an aesthetic commentary of some kind, one that captures some aspect of the nature of an experience or experiences, via at least one of the five senses, and in a way that may also or purely be metaphorical, symbolic, and/or conceptual.

Succinctly?