02-29-2024, 03:12 AM
There's a lot of ideas in here, and it's impossible to respond to it all succinctly. Especially because this debate of "what is art?" is pretty huge, and has been ongoing for over a hundred years. To respond to the first part, I think OP's definition of Art is actually so broad that it is no longer very useful. Like he says a purely utilitarian wheelbarrow is not art, unless it's appreciated in a certain arrangement, then it becomes art. I disagree with that. I think art requires composition. It requires intentional arrangement of elements. So someone may appreciate the shape of the wheelbarrow against the setting sun, but that doesn't make the wheelbarrow art. Things that happen to look pretty are not art, otherwise every tree would be a work of art and the word would cease to have meaning. If the admirer of the wheelbarrow were to set down to work on a drawing or painting of that scene, then that composition they create would be the art.
Similarly, bottles thrown under a sink are not really art. An artist may come along and see something in the arrangement of shapes and colors, and compose a work of art that expresses them. Then that composition is art and the bottles remain bottles. They very well might be visually interesting, or even beautiful, but I don't think it makes sense to say that everything that is interesting is now art, unless they were intentionally arranged to be art, like a sculpture.
I will admit a bit of hypocrisy in these statements, due to the fact that pottery is an extremely ancient art. An ancient bowl or pot may have been created for utilitarian purposes alone, but is now exactly the sort of thing you might see in a museum. Could a bottle of windex someday be on a plinth in a museum? I think it could. There was a certain art that went into the creation of every man-made object, which the author of this post mentions. But you can acknowledge that without believing that EVERYTHING that is interesting beyond utility is a work of art. Or maybe we could admit that nearly everything made is art, but not everything is necessarily fine art.
As to whether contemporary art is better or worse than classical art. I think it's worse. But it's not really trying to do the same things. It's like meta art, it's stuff arranged to comment on society, and art itself. It can be interesting. Colored squares on canvas can be somewhat interesting as a comment on how we view art, or sincerely aesthetically pleasing. Or not. Personally I don't really engage with contemporary art much, but I appreciate it more for what it is than I used to. I think I just got bored of getting mad about it. It's kind of a joke, most of the time. But you can ignore jokes you don't find funny.
_____
In response to the second part, If you don't like static-pictorial art that's fine. It's just your preference. It could be that exposure to so many images and videos, video games etc. has kind of desensitized you to a single image, and you have a hard time finding it engaging enough. I don't think still images are obsolete, or art for the past, though. I enjoy both still paintings and video games. They both offer different things. The advantage of like, a painting hanging on the wall is that it can show something in an 'iconic' way. A single image can sometimes be more powerful than thousands of them, in that it can represent an entire story all at once, and sear into your memory. It can also be a powerful or beautiful arrangement of forms that one enjoys looking at for a long time. I enjoy looking at certain images in museums because I find the arrangement of colors, shapes, and forms beautiful, it is as simple as that. It doesn't have to be for any pretentious reason. You may not find the same images interesting, and might prefer art that reflects your own time period more, and that would make perfect sense. Or maybe you just don't really appreciate art in that way. Some people don't. I like repeatedly looking at the same picture, it becomes familiar. It's like a song that you really like. You won't mind hearing it many times because you enjoy it. If I get bored of a painting hanging up in my house, I can always switch it out with a different one, just like you can put on a different song.
I don't think the Scottish girl was faking interest in fine art. When you study art academically, you have to engage with artworks that you don't necessarily feel that excited about, yet are important to your study. Or maybe she really did passionately like the paintings she was looking at, but just saying something looks nice and you like it is about the most bland and uninteresting take you could have when it comes to writing an art history paper. You have to come up with something more to say about it, and in many cases it can end up coming off as disingenuous. Same with the tour guides. They provide historical context and other information. Whether you like the work is kind of not for them to say. I've definitely encountered museum guides that I think are full of crap, though.
Similarly, bottles thrown under a sink are not really art. An artist may come along and see something in the arrangement of shapes and colors, and compose a work of art that expresses them. Then that composition is art and the bottles remain bottles. They very well might be visually interesting, or even beautiful, but I don't think it makes sense to say that everything that is interesting is now art, unless they were intentionally arranged to be art, like a sculpture.
I will admit a bit of hypocrisy in these statements, due to the fact that pottery is an extremely ancient art. An ancient bowl or pot may have been created for utilitarian purposes alone, but is now exactly the sort of thing you might see in a museum. Could a bottle of windex someday be on a plinth in a museum? I think it could. There was a certain art that went into the creation of every man-made object, which the author of this post mentions. But you can acknowledge that without believing that EVERYTHING that is interesting beyond utility is a work of art. Or maybe we could admit that nearly everything made is art, but not everything is necessarily fine art.
As to whether contemporary art is better or worse than classical art. I think it's worse. But it's not really trying to do the same things. It's like meta art, it's stuff arranged to comment on society, and art itself. It can be interesting. Colored squares on canvas can be somewhat interesting as a comment on how we view art, or sincerely aesthetically pleasing. Or not. Personally I don't really engage with contemporary art much, but I appreciate it more for what it is than I used to. I think I just got bored of getting mad about it. It's kind of a joke, most of the time. But you can ignore jokes you don't find funny.
_____
In response to the second part, If you don't like static-pictorial art that's fine. It's just your preference. It could be that exposure to so many images and videos, video games etc. has kind of desensitized you to a single image, and you have a hard time finding it engaging enough. I don't think still images are obsolete, or art for the past, though. I enjoy both still paintings and video games. They both offer different things. The advantage of like, a painting hanging on the wall is that it can show something in an 'iconic' way. A single image can sometimes be more powerful than thousands of them, in that it can represent an entire story all at once, and sear into your memory. It can also be a powerful or beautiful arrangement of forms that one enjoys looking at for a long time. I enjoy looking at certain images in museums because I find the arrangement of colors, shapes, and forms beautiful, it is as simple as that. It doesn't have to be for any pretentious reason. You may not find the same images interesting, and might prefer art that reflects your own time period more, and that would make perfect sense. Or maybe you just don't really appreciate art in that way. Some people don't. I like repeatedly looking at the same picture, it becomes familiar. It's like a song that you really like. You won't mind hearing it many times because you enjoy it. If I get bored of a painting hanging up in my house, I can always switch it out with a different one, just like you can put on a different song.
I don't think the Scottish girl was faking interest in fine art. When you study art academically, you have to engage with artworks that you don't necessarily feel that excited about, yet are important to your study. Or maybe she really did passionately like the paintings she was looking at, but just saying something looks nice and you like it is about the most bland and uninteresting take you could have when it comes to writing an art history paper. You have to come up with something more to say about it, and in many cases it can end up coming off as disingenuous. Same with the tour guides. They provide historical context and other information. Whether you like the work is kind of not for them to say. I've definitely encountered museum guides that I think are full of crap, though.