Against my better judgment I'm going to argue that virtually all pornography is art. It's only not art if its level of communication is so low that it tries to arouse the viewer without actually making him conscious of its intentions, or caring whether he is. Like a drug, or something subliminal. But I can't think of any porn that is that purely mechanical. I don't claim to be an expert on porn but what I've seen usually makes some effort in the direction of character and narrative, even if the characterization amounts to nothing more than "she's a slut" and the narrative is "we just pulled the van over and picked her up". If it has no time for such pretenses, then that's what strikes me: the directorial intention that these people, who they are and what they want, could not possibly be less important. I think I'm supposed to receive that message, and I think the intended audience of that porn actually enjoys that message.
Why? Is this going to turn into an appeal to authority?
If you'd like.
I wouldn't, actually.
Then because a urinal is a consciously designed and crafted object.
It is also chosen specifically for that bathroom, consciously, by another designer. And you don't want to know the level of detail drawings and specs that hanging a urinal involves.
Then because a urinal is a consciously designed and crafted object.
Then why did we have to pick such a specific object?
We didn't.
Then why did you? It was obvious from the moment you suggested a urinal what you were talking about. Of all the urinals in the world, why is that one special?
Then because a urinal is a consciously designed and crafted object.
Then why did we have to pick such a specific object?
We didn't.
Then why did you? It was obvious from the moment you suggested a urinal what you were talking about. Of all the urinals in the world, why is that one special?
Who said it's special? And comparing a specified object to an abstract notion, such as the built environment, is more of a pain in the ass. Besides, the keyboard as art argument got played out in the other thread.
Art is anything that has been created that someone, somewhere, refers to as art.
There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.
I more or less agree with this.
When people engage in discussions over what is and is not "art," it's because they want to ascribe some lofty social value to art. They want the degree to which something is "art" to be proportional to the amount of social value it holds.
For example, look at the discussion of obscenity that prompted this thread. The notion is that something is not obscene if it contains "artistic merit." So now we need to decide what has artistic merit and what does not, which is almost always a circle jerk when we're not discussing easy cases like Venus De Milo.
It's all art. That doesn't make it good. At least when we're discussing whether something is good art or bad art it's easier to remain aware of the subjective biases that play into the words "good" and "bad," whereas defining an academic term like "art" allows us to obscure our biases with philosophical language. "I like Venus De Milo therefore it is art; I don't like that Jesus is a Cunt shirt therefore it is not art."
Likewise we get into discussions about art containing sex or nudity that always hinge on "Is it art or pornography?" This seems silly to me, pornography is clearly a form of art, it's just art meant to make people aroused. Plenty of art lacks any narrative structure and exists solely to evoke an emotional reaction in the audience. Your average porn movie might not be as unique or skillful as Un Chien Andalou or Scorpio Rising, but there is no definition of art that sensically distinguishes between the former and the latter.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Then why did you bring it up? I suggested any urinal but you were intent on selecting a specific one. Why didn't you just say "yes, any urinal?"
I did.
And I brought it up because a specific object is easier to discuss than an abstract notion like 'the built environment' which is more of a pain in the ass.
And I brought it up because a specific object is easier to discuss than an abstract notion like 'the built environment' which is more of a pain in the ass.
I think most people are familiar with the concept of a urinal.
Herzog and de Muron are the architects who designed the Tate Modern. Meaning they designed the bathrooms in the Tate, though they wouldn't have designed the interior gallery space as that is left up to the curators. Of all the urinals in that building, Duchamp's Fountain is actually the only one that is not hanging. It is also the only one that was not chosen by Herzog & de Muron.
And I brought it up because a specific object is easier to discuss than an abstract notion like 'the built environment' which is more of a pain in the ass.
I think most people are familiar with the concept of a urinal.
Right, which would be why I used it rather than the more abstract notion.
And I brought it up because a specific object is easier to discuss than an abstract notion like 'the built environment' which is more of a pain in the ass.
I think most people are familiar with the concept of a urinal.
Right, which would be why I used it rather than the more abstract notion.
And I brought it up because a specific object is easier to discuss than an abstract notion like 'the built environment' which is more of a pain in the ass.
I think most people are familiar with the concept of a urinal.
Right, which would be why I used it rather than the more abstract notion.
And I brought it up because a specific object is easier to discuss than an abstract notion like 'the built environment' which is more of a pain in the ass.
I think most people are familiar with the concept of a urinal.
Right, which would be why I used it rather than the more abstract notion.
I'm certain there are people who find both regular run of the mill keyboards and regular run of the mill urinals to be attractive art.
And that's pretty much where I cut ties with Jeffe's definition. It may be correct in that we avoid the subjective discussion we're currently having, but it's way too broad for me.
I'm absolutely unable to give serious consideration to a person that enters my place and says "But you're surrounded by art!", clapping hands joyfully and pointing at the regular door, the tv remote and the DSL modem.
I'm not about to revoke the existence of applied arts, but does Industrial design really include every single product ever? I guess it may, in which case Jeffe's definition still holds and I've run out of counter arguments.......what a shittypiece of art* keyboards are.
I'm afraid your consideration of what people think doesn't really matter. If they think it's art, it is art. It's designed and crafted by someone and expresses a meaning to someone other than just utility. Or maybe it's the sheer utility itself they find to be so wonderful.
Which part of "I've run out of counter arguments" was difficult to get? Never in a second did I imply my consideration was anything but subjective and irrelevant.
Yes, I saw that. But putting it at the end of your post doesn't render the post null and void of critique.
Your critique would have been just if I wrote that "But because I can't to blablabla then......". I didn't. I said that I personally struggle with accepting that definition and then I admit I'm unable to actually present another argument against its validity. So, wtf does:
"I'm afraid your consideration of what people think doesn't really matter." is supposed to weight on when I pretty much spell out that my consideration means shit?
Posts
Such raw, projectile, majesty
That's interesting about the programming bit though, I did not realize that's what he was going for.
A urinal in the Tate Modern.
One chosen by Herzog & de Muron.
Actually it is.
If you'd like. Duchamp's Fountain would cover that quite easily.
Then because a urinal is a consciously designed and crafted object.
It is also chosen specifically for that bathroom, consciously, by another designer. And you don't want to know the level of detail drawings and specs that hanging a urinal involves.
We didn't.
Who said it's special? And comparing a specified object to an abstract notion, such as the built environment, is more of a pain in the ass. Besides, the keyboard as art argument got played out in the other thread.
I more or less agree with this.
When people engage in discussions over what is and is not "art," it's because they want to ascribe some lofty social value to art. They want the degree to which something is "art" to be proportional to the amount of social value it holds.
For example, look at the discussion of obscenity that prompted this thread. The notion is that something is not obscene if it contains "artistic merit." So now we need to decide what has artistic merit and what does not, which is almost always a circle jerk when we're not discussing easy cases like Venus De Milo.
It's all art. That doesn't make it good. At least when we're discussing whether something is good art or bad art it's easier to remain aware of the subjective biases that play into the words "good" and "bad," whereas defining an academic term like "art" allows us to obscure our biases with philosophical language. "I like Venus De Milo therefore it is art; I don't like that Jesus is a Cunt shirt therefore it is not art."
Likewise we get into discussions about art containing sex or nudity that always hinge on "Is it art or pornography?" This seems silly to me, pornography is clearly a form of art, it's just art meant to make people aroused. Plenty of art lacks any narrative structure and exists solely to evoke an emotional reaction in the audience. Your average porn movie might not be as unique or skillful as Un Chien Andalou or Scorpio Rising, but there is no definition of art that sensically distinguishes between the former and the latter.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I did.
And I brought it up because a specific object is easier to discuss than an abstract notion like 'the built environment' which is more of a pain in the ass.
I think most people are familiar with the concept of a urinal.
Herzog and de Muron are the architects who designed the Tate Modern. Meaning they designed the bathrooms in the Tate, though they wouldn't have designed the interior gallery space as that is left up to the curators. Of all the urinals in that building, Duchamp's Fountain is actually the only one that is not hanging. It is also the only one that was not chosen by Herzog & de Muron.
Right, which would be why I used it rather than the more abstract notion.
And?
And?
Actually reading the thread is worth gold:
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=6028469&postcount=15
And that's pretty much where I cut ties with Jeffe's definition. It may be correct in that we avoid the subjective discussion we're currently having, but it's way too broad for me.
I'm absolutely unable to give serious consideration to a person that enters my place and says "But you're surrounded by art!", clapping hands joyfully and pointing at the regular door, the tv remote and the DSL modem.
I'm not about to revoke the existence of applied arts, but does Industrial design really include every single product ever? I guess it may, in which case Jeffe's definition still holds and I've run out of counter arguments.......what a shitty piece of art* keyboards are.
*Where art means turd.
The bad thing about it is that I'm not one of those people, so I find it pretty dull.
Your critique would have been just if I wrote that "But because I can't to blablabla then......". I didn't. I said that I personally struggle with accepting that definition and then I admit I'm unable to actually present another argument against its validity. So, wtf does:
"I'm afraid your consideration of what people think doesn't really matter." is supposed to weight on when I pretty much spell out that my consideration means shit?