What is [Art]? Baby don't hurt me...

JusticeforPluto

While online last night, a friend of mine told me and another friend about the new Dead Island collectors edition fiasco (Thread hear: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/172163/dead-island-pr-come-up-with-most-appalling-idea-in-history-of-gaming-pr/p1).

When told about it, me and my friend looked it up and both agreed it was dumb. However, she used the word "art" to describe said item included in the collectors edition. I had to disagree, as I felt it was a "product" intended for mass consumption. However, it occurred to me that other forms of media that are labeled art were also intended for mass consumption (movies, games, books).

So my question is, where is the boundary between art and a product, and how do we draw it?

davidsdurions

I know it when I see/hear it?

Vanguard

This is about framing it as such. We know when we are interacting with a poem because it has been presented to us as such. We know we are looking at a sculpture because it has been framed as such, etc.

To put it another way, these lines are arbitrary.

Podly

GK Chesterton wrote:

Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.

Jacobkosh

JusticeforPluto wrote: »

So my question is, where is the boundary between art and a product, and how do we draw it?

The difference is fuzzy-to-nonexistent at best and the downsides to worrying about it vastly outweigh the upsides.

The important thing to understand is that "art" is a category of object - like "wood" - rather than a medal of praise that we bestow on stuff we think is really peachy-keen. A Rodin sculpture and a crass naked zombie torso thing are both forms of self-expression, and I guarantee you that someone spent a decent amount of time laboring over that torso and trying to get it just right, but being art isn't a magic shield that protects the zombie torso from criticism.

Grouch

If anything that is produced is a product, and if all art is produced, then all art is a product.

JusticeforPluto

Jacobkosh wrote: »

JusticeforPluto wrote: »

So my question is, where is the boundary between art and a product, and how do we draw it?

The difference is fuzzy-to-nonexistent at best and the downsides to worrying about it vastly outweigh the upsides.

The important thing to understand is that "art" is a category of object - like "wood" - rather than a medal of praise that we bestow on stuff we think is really peachy-keen. A Rodin sculpture and a crass naked zombie torso thing are both forms of self-expression, and I guarantee you that someone spent a decent amount of time laboring over that torso and trying to get it just right, but being art isn't a magic shield that protects the zombie torso from criticism.

I agree! I was also hoping that the discussion could be broadened to include other topics, like movies and such. Art is a very fuzzy line, and yet I feel fine placing some items within that category and some out side it.

Podly

Art, throughout history, has been the justification of itself. Those who were able to woo benefactors were able to claim the term "artist" and those who weren't fell by the wayside. There may have been some really rad body performance artists in the quatrocentro but they definitely didn't get any support.

Atomika

There is Art and there is the Artful.

They are not inherently mutually inclusive, and one is not inherently more valuable than the other.


Art seeks to inform and comment; the Artful seeks to show an aptitude for aesthetics. Art may be unattractive and poorly wrought; the Artful may be completely needless and disposable. Art is the result of an expression; the Artful is the result of skill.

Godfather

Art used to be a hell of a lot more clear cut before the whole Modern Art thing kicked into gear

Feral

I said this in a chat thread a while back and I think it stands:

Feral wrote:

Art isn't a category of noun so much as it is a verb. Art is a way of relating to things, not a thing itself.

Quarks are art if and when we relate to them as art. They are not art if and when we do not relate to them as art.

If you can get people to relate to your thing (color square, urinal, shark, graffiti, naked person, quark) as art, you've succeeded in creating art. Congratulations. Here's your Artist Badge, you are now invited to the secret society.

Tastyfish

Podly wrote: »

GK Chesterton wrote:

Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.

To be honest though, just drawing a line and then calling it art sounds pretty lazy.

Vanguard

Tastyfish wrote: »

Podly wrote: »

GK Chesterton wrote:

Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.

To be honest though, just drawing a line and then calling it art sounds pretty lazy.

Beyond the minimum of presenting a thing as a piece of art, we do not define works of art based on the amount of effort necessary. After that, we're likely talking aesthetics or making wildly fallacious arguments.

Tor_Hershman

Methinks me wee animated gif of Duchamp, in the following video, explains
EXACTLY what art is.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eDAV4ebjXwI&quot; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
& the URL just in case embedding ain't workin'.
youtube.com/watch?v=eDAV4ebjXwI