• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Conceptual Art and does skill matter in art?

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
15,719
A lot of conceptual art doesn't require any skill, a tampon in a teacup will do , an unmade bed, in fact on more than one occasion cleaning staff have thrown out exhibits by mistake. In most other art forms you have to demonstrate skill, music for example needs to demonstrate technical skill but still is flexible enough and allowed composers like Philip Glass to take music in new directions back in the 60's. Conceptual art on the other hand seems to have a certain emperor has no clothes about it yet consumed vast amounts of funds to indulge it. I'd assume there is a certain immunity from criticism built into the art, if you think its rubbish or that a 6 year old could have made it you are the problem.

Apparently there has been some fall off in attendances with domestic visitors to the Tate in London for example down 20% in recent years. so whats the verdict? it did more harm than good by crowding out the market in recent decades? mixed but overall a good development?

CONCEPTUAL ART MOVEMENT AND EXAMPLES | WideWalls



 


Caothaoir

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
418
I made my bed this morning, blithely unaware I was destroying a piece of art. :roll:

I might have gotten thousands for it - what a fool I was!
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,268
Not too hung up on strict definitions.. works that engender emotion, admiration.. maybe a little wonder and reflection have their place even if they don't fit into traditional categories.

What irritates me is that a lot of conceptual art fails not only conceptually (inasmuch as the concepts are uninteresting or predictable, although they are supposed to provide grounds for appreciation of the piece); but they so often also fail aesthetically by being a little lacking in the visual pleasure department.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,636
Why do we need a science of evaluating art? Why not simply enjoy it, or not, as your tastes decide?
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
23,974
I know what I like and I know what I don't like.

And I like quite a lot - both contemporary and traditional.

What I don't like is a'holes who are obviously taking the p!ss imo... and I reckon there's a fair few of them... p!ss takers who dream up all sorts of bullsh!t to explain their 'art' who are aided and abetted by sychophantic a'holes who are either p!ss takers themselves or are so feckin' stupid that they actually buy into the bullsh!t... imo.

Obviously art is subjective so no doubt anyone could think the same about anyone and their taste...
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,268
Why do we need a science of evaluating art? Why not simply enjoy it, or not, as your tastes decide?
Surprised to see this post from you. Why question anything at all?

What if ethics is a sub-branch of aesthetics?

What if pursuit of "the good" and the mysterious "ought" is in fact pursuit of the beautiful and avoidance of the ugly?

Then any consideration of ethics would also have to consider the aesthetic.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
Why do we need a science of evaluating art? Why not simply enjoy it, or not, as your tastes decide?
Probably because someone else decides what is monetary valuable and what is not.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,636
Surprised to see this post from you. Why question anything at all?

What if ethics is a sub-branch of aesthetics?

What if pursuit of "the good" and the mysterious "ought" is in fact pursuit of the beautiful and avoidance of the ugly?

Then any consideration of ethics would also have to consider the aesthetic.
If anything has subjective value, art is surely it.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
Why does that matter?
Because whatever is chosen as having monetary value has a far higher chance of prevailing over something that hasn't. Art, of any type, needs exposure to gain traction.
 

TedHankey

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
1,061
A lot of conceptual art doesn't require any skill, a tampon in a teacup will do , an unmade bed, in fact on more than one occasion cleaning staff have thrown out exhibits by mistake. In most other art forms you have to demonstrate skill, music for example needs to demonstrate technical skill but still is flexible enough and allowed composers like Philip Glass to take music in new directions back in the 60's. Conceptual art on the other hand seems to have a certain emperor has no clothes about it yet consumed vast amounts of funds to indulge it. I'd assume there is a certain immunity from criticism built into the art, if you think its rubbish or that a 6 year old could have made it you are the problem.

Apparently there has been some fall off in attendances with domestic visitors to the Tate in London for example down 20% in recent years. so whats the verdict? it did more harm than good by crowding out the market in recent decades? mixed but overall a good development?

CONCEPTUAL ART MOVEMENT AND EXAMPLES | WideWalls



The are two basic elements to it really, the conception of an idea and the bringing of such into existence. The second relies on manual skills like dexterity in the fingers or softness of touch or whatever. The first relies on a mental or intellectual skillset, imagining, developing and realising a thought or idea. Some artworks contain more emphasis on the mental skills, others on the manual skills.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
The are two basic elements to it really, the conception of an idea and the bringing of such into existence. The second relies on manual skills like dexterity in the fingers or softness of touch or whatever. The first relies on a mental or intellectual skillset, imagining, developing and realising a thought or idea. Some artworks contain more emphasis on the mental skills, others on the manual skills.
Everybody's an artist!
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,268
If anything has subjective value, art is surely it.
The same is often said of ethics; that it is based on subjective values.

That doesn't mean we should stop doing ethics, though, does it?

Ethical arguments may be of more consequence, measured by the potential for ethical positions to have a more forceful impact on people's day to day well-being than works of art (Brit Art muck aside, obviously, which can cause serious mental health issues), but the aesthetic and the ethical may not be as estranged and unrelated as you seem to think... in short, I'm not seeing why art should be exempt from philosophical consideration (except, and this is very important) to the extent that intellectualizing the artistic creative process often ruins it :D
 

TedHankey

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
1,061
Everybody's an artist!
I'd agree up to a point. Imo art is an examination and expression of what we see/feel/are and it is an end in itself. Once reward or esteem or praise or status becomes the goal then it ceases to be art. Most art is not art, it is production for economic or social gain. But anyone can be an artist yes.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
15,719
The are two basic elements to it really, the conception of an idea and the bringing of such into existence. The second relies on manual skills like dexterity in the fingers or softness of touch or whatever. The first relies on a mental or intellectual skillset, imagining, developing and realising a thought or idea. Some artworks contain more emphasis on the mental skills, others on the manual skills.
in other forms you need both, you can come up with a great idea for a book but you also need to be able to write a good book. However if someone who creates a painting that could have been drawn by a monkey or is just a zoom in of a painters smock, I now have no idea if there are any skills in play or any meaning apart from being told that the artist is a "good" artist. Basically show me you have the skills of a Cezanne and are not a spoofer from a second rate art schools who is just famous for being famous
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
The commercial side of art is wonky.

If you manage to ignore that aspect of it you can then say that art is whatever it's appreciators believe it to be. If it's just a scrawl that looks like a child made it and if it also happens to make people happy then so be it. Just do not come up to me and tell me that Andy Warhol was as good an artist as Salvatore Dali or William-Adolphe Bouguereau, because YES is my answer to the OP - technical skill deserves to be acknowledged and vision too.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
I'd agree up to a point. Imo art is an examination and expression of what we see/feel/are and it is an end in itself. Once reward or esteem or praise or status becomes the goal then it ceases to be art. Most art is not art, it is production for economic or social gain. But anyone can be an artist yes.
Which brings us to the contradiction of teaching art.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,636
The same is often said of ethics; that it is based on subjective values.

That doesn't mean we should stop doing ethics, though, does it?

Ethical arguments may be of more consequence, measured by the potential for ethical positions to have a more forceful impact on people's day to day well-being than works of art (Brit Art muck aside, obviously, which can cause serious mental health issues), but the aesthetic and the ethical may not be as estranged and unrelated as you seem to think... in short, I'm not seeing why art should be exempt from philosophical consideration (except, and this is very important) to the extent that intellectualizing the artistic creative process often ruins it :D
The kind of people who tend to say that ethics is subjective tend to express views that collapse into moral nihilism, so yes, actually, if ethics is subjective in that sense we probably should stop doing ethics (to the extent that we "should" do anything).
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,268
The kind of people who tend to say that ethics is subjective tend to express views that collapse into moral nihilism, so yes, actually, if ethics is subjective in that sense we probably should stop doing ethics (to the extent that we "should" do anything).
Moral perspectivism or relativism is not the same as moral nihilism.

However, if one is arguing for a specific set of ethical values (as opposed to doing the wondering and doubting and dwelling in uncertainty that is also part of philosophy) moral relativism can indeed be portrayed as nihilism, but only by a sleight of hand that caricatures simple diversity as a gateway to some dangerous nihilism.

But even if ethics is subjective in that sense, that doesn't mean we should stop doing ethics.

Nor should we stop doing aesthetics.. why exclude anything from philosophical investigation? The best philosophies are not just systematic, they are also encyclopedic and data-driven and pay attention to the things in themselves (even though this places almost impossible demands on the philosopher due to the diversity of data that has to be successfully accommodated into the system).
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top