[karajorma]

So would you simply call those cans of **** art you don't like?

****ty art.

What would you call them?  Since you've rejected calling them art, it's a perfectly valid question to ask you

a) What do you call them.
b) What do you call a gallery that displays them.
c) What do you call the people that make them.
d) What do you call the people that make a living critiquing them.

I'm asking you to explain how you would possibly refer to those things without calling them art in a way that wouldn't require you to redefine them every time you use the word. Spare me the facetious answers.

[Lorric]

So would you simply call those cans of **** art you don't like?

****ty art.

What would you call them?  Since you've rejected calling them art, it's a perfectly valid question to ask you

a) What do you call them.
b) What do you call a gallery that displays them.
c) What do you call the people that make them.
d) What do you call the people that make a living critiquing them.

I'm asking you to explain how you would possibly refer to those things without calling them art in a way that wouldn't require you to redefine them every time you use the word. Spare me the facetious answers.

I don't do facetious.

a) Garbage. But I won't dispute someone who calls it art, because it's art to them. It's subjective.

b) It's still an art gallery. No art gallery will have nothing but works where someone likes every single one.

c) They're just people to me. Artists to whoever likes their stuff.

d) They'd still be an art critic.

[Mongoose]

"Cans of **** that someone put in an art gallery because they were a goddamn idiot" does seem to get the point across without redefining any language.

[karajorma]

It's rather unnecessarily wordy compared with simply saying "****ty art / ****ty artist" though isn't it?

a) Garbage. But I won't dispute someone who calls it art, because it's art to them. It's subjective.

This entire conversation has you been disputing the term. To the detriment of the English language. If someone calls something art and you passive-aggressively refuse to use that term you are disputing it.

b) It's still an art gallery. No art gallery will have nothing but works where someone likes every single one.

c) They're just people to me. Artists to whoever likes their stuff.

d) They'd still be an art critic.

You notice therefore that in at least two of your responses you still have to use the word art. And that in the others you completely failed to answer the question in any meaningful manner.

"Last night he took his girlfriend out to show her some garbage." completely fails to express what actually happened.
"Last night he took his girlfriend out to show her something which isn't art for me" still requires you to acknowledge that it is art and is rather ridiculously imprecise.
"Last night he took his girlfriend out to show her some ****ty art." on the other hand manages to succinctly summarise what was viewed and what your opinions on it are.

You did the same thing with the term artist. What do you call someone who makes a living making art you don't like? And what do you call an art critic who only reviews art you personally abhor? Are you seriously claiming his job title changes depending on whether someone likes his work? Do you not realise the chasm of linguistic stupidity you're skirting on the edge of by suggesting that people should use these kinds of definition?

[Mongoose]

It's rather unnecessarily wordy compared with simply saying "****ty art / ****ty artist" though isn't it?

Yes, but that would entail dignifying the end product with the term "art," which kind of gets back to the crux of the argument.

I mean, I do understand the assertion that "art" as a definition should cover a certain category of creations regardless of one's personal feelings on a specific work, but I think the question has to be begged as to who is attaching the label in the first place.  If you're going by the assertion, "It's art because the person who made it is an artist, and they said so," that's in a sense removing any meaning from the term: if anything can be art just on someone's whim, then that term doesn't really describe anything.  I do feel like there should be some general minimum standards laid out before we can have a real conversation about the topic, and what it actually covers.

[MatthTheGeek]

I'm pretty sure

"Last night he took his girlfriend out to show her some garbage."

expresses pretty accurately what exactly happened.

[Dragon]

Yes, it does. The entire point is that "bad art" is a cut above "garbage". There are works I don't like, but I can see how someone can be fond of them and still be a reasonable person. Then there's garbage which no sane person could consider art, and if they do, they haven't seen/smelled it.

What would you call them?  Since you've rejected calling them art, it's a perfectly valid question to ask you

a) What do you call them.
b) What do you call a gallery that displays them.
c) What do you call the people that make them.
d) What do you call the people that make a living critiquing them.

a) Garbage, junk, crap. We've got more than enough other words, but the filter would cut them out anyway.
b) An art gallery with a manager that's either dumb, insane, malicious, or all that.
c) Nuts, madmen, etc. Once again, plenty of other words I wouldn't say in polite company.
d) Poor, unlucky art critics that have to be near this stuff to make a living. Unless the review comes out positive, then refer to c).

All those call this supposed "art" what it is. And I'm not interested in people who insist that it's art. I have a feeling that I wouldn't want to meet one...

[The E]

Yes, it does. The entire point is that "bad art" is a cut above "garbage". There are works I don't like, but I can see how someone can be fond of them and still be a reasonable person. Then there's garbage which no sane person could consider art, and if they do, they haven't seen/smelled it.

Friendly advice: Get out of this thread. In fact, stay away from any thread that comes even near a discussion of what is art. You literally do not understand why your stance is completely and utterly invalid, and given that there is no way to make you understand that is clearer than what Kara has said here, I fear that there is no hope for you on this topic.

[Dragon]

So you consider my stance invalid. Well enough, you're entitled to have your opinion. I disagree with you, and I'm entitled to have my opinion, too. Your post has failed to convince me to change my opinion so far, and in fact, I have another opinion it's your stance that is invalid. I never told you not to express your opinions, whatever they might be, so do me a favor and don't tell me (or force me, I've seen a guy banned for having an opinion before) to stop expressing mine. So far, Kara didn't convince neither me nor Lorric, though he did have some good points, and he might succeed yet. You don't have to be right every time, and silencing people who disagree with you certainly doesn't make you "right".
I certainly do not understand why you consider my stance invalid. If you cared to elaborate, I could change my mind. Or not. Depends if you have a valid point that is not purely an opinion.

Oh, and if I offended you by what I said about people who like "art" consisting of cans of feces, I apologize. It wasn't my intention. I assumed some things based on people I know, and if it turns out that this sort of thing is, in fact, liked by normal people in some part of the world, I can retract my statements about them. I still maintain it's junk, and have low opinion about it's creator, though. I'm not going to forbid other people from liking it, but I'm afraid I won't understand them, either.

[The E]

Okay, one more try:

Whether something is art or not is completely unconnected to whether or not you consider it art. There are basically two kinds of art: Stuff you get, and stuff you don't get. Both are still art, and will always be art, regardless of your opinion of them.

As kara said, the sentence "It isn't art to me" is completely meaningless. As in, it does not mean anything; it's just an oblique way of saying "I don't get this". In other words, just because you do not understand a work of art does not take away the fact that it IS art, the fact that you can't even answer the few questions karajorma posted above without getting into circular reasoning should be sufficient evidence of the inherent flaws of your and Lorric's position.

You are basically defining "Art" as "Stuff I like". This is not a valid definition of the term as it is used in everyday language.

[Bullhorn]

I'm pretty sure

"Last night he took his girlfriend out to show her some garbage."

expresses pretty accurately what exactly happened.

Heheh

[Dragon]

You are basically defining "Art" as "Stuff I like". This is not a valid definition of the term as it is used in everyday language.

OK, then give me a valid, globally agreed upon definition of the term "art" as it is used in everyday language. In fact, if we knew that, we would easily answer the question in the OP and forever resolve any disputes of whether anything is art or not. Alternatively, give me an exhaustive definition of things that aren't art, so we can define art by what it isn't. Though TBH, I doubt such an universal definition has been formulated.

Besides, if you paid attention, you'd notice that I'm not defining art as "Stuff I like". I mentioned it before. I said there is "Art I like", "Art I don't like". For example, I'm not really fond of Hirst's "half the shark in formaline" exhibit, but I would say it's art. No, I want to exclude stuff that crosses the boundary of what I (and most people around me) understand as "good taste". Basically, stuff that is incredibly gross, involves recently dead humans or is an actual hazard to viewers.

[The E]

OK, then give me a valid, globally agreed upon definition of the term "art" as it is used in everyday language. In fact, if we knew that, we would easily answer the question in the OP and forever resolve any disputes of whether anything is art or not. Alternatively, give me an exhaustive definition of things that aren't art, so we can define art by what it isn't. Though TBH, I doubt such an universal definition has been formulated.

You haven't read the wiki on the subject, have you.

(...) the word art may refer to several things: a study of a creative skill, a process of using the creative skill, a product of the creative skill, or the audience's experience with the creative skill. The creative arts (art as discipline) are a collection of disciplines which produce artworks (art as objects) that are compelled by a personal drive (art as activity) and convey a message, mood, or symbolism for the viewer to interpret (art as experience). Art is something that stimulates an individual's thoughts, emotions, beliefs, or ideas through the senses.

I'd say that's about as concise a definition you can find.

Besides, if you paid attention, you'd notice that I'm not defining art as "Stuff I like". I mentioned it before. I said there is "Art I like", "Art I don't like". For example, I'm not really fond of Hirst's "half the shark in formaline" exhibit, but I would say it's art. No, I want to exclude stuff that crosses the boundary of what I (and most people around me) understand as "good taste". Basically, stuff that is incredibly gross, involves recently dead humans or is an actual hazard to viewers.

See, you can't draw a boundary like that. There are subsegments of art that are explicitly about challenging what "good taste" is.

EDIT: And by the definition above, an artwork that is made to disgust you is still art.

[Lorric]

Karajorma, you just... don't get it. You're not making sense of it, the way I see it and will speak of it, and I don't know what to say to you now to make you understand.

However, I want to show you something though. I was reading The Ghost Brigades last night, and came across the following excerpt on page 215:

Children in art classes had been encouraged to paint the corridor walls, which featured suns and cats and hills with flowers in pictures that were not art unless you were a parent and could be nothing but if you were.

There's nothing outlandish or wrong in speaking this way.

[Dragon]

(...) the word art may refer to several things: a study of a creative skill, a process of using the creative skill, a product of the creative skill, or the audience's experience with the creative skill. The creative arts (art as discipline) are a collection of disciplines which produce artworks (art as objects) that are compelled by a personal drive (art as activity) and convey a message, mood, or symbolism for the viewer to interpret (art as experience). Art is something that stimulates an individual's thoughts, emotions, beliefs, or ideas through the senses.

I'd say that's about as concise a definition you can find.

Besides, if you paid attention, you'd notice that I'm not defining art as "Stuff I like". I mentioned it before. I said there is "Art I like", "Art I don't like". For example, I'm not really fond of Hirst's "half the shark in formaline" exhibit, but I would say it's art. No, I want to exclude stuff that crosses the boundary of what I (and most people around me) understand as "good taste". Basically, stuff that is incredibly gross, involves recently dead humans or is an actual hazard to viewers.

See, you can't draw a boundary like that. There are subsegments of art that are explicitly about challenging what "good taste" is.

EDIT: And by the definition above, an artwork that is made to disgust you is still art.

Perhaps you do have a point here. However, the definition you posted is incredibly broad. For example, any political speech is mean to stimulate your beliefs (political ones, in this case) through your senses (hearing). So it fits the definition of art, yet you don't see them exhibited in galleries. Indeed, any expression of one's thoughts meant to influence beliefs of the others (such as your post) would qualify. You want to stimulate (and convince me to change) my ideas about what is art through my senses (sight). I suppose we can work with that one, but I think it's a bit too broad. Considering all the things that fall under it, it's definitely broader than what most people think about when saying "art" in a common conversation. It also does not account for the fact that the word is positively charged and implies that there's some worth in what we call that.

At least, if we do use that definition, FREDing is definitely art. So we could call that question answered if we agree this definition is good.

[The E]

Perhaps you do have a point here. However, the definition you posted is incredibly broad. For example, any political speech is mean to stimulate your beliefs (political ones, in this case) through your senses (hearing). So it fits the definition of art, yet you don't see them exhibited in galleries. Indeed, any expression of one's thoughts meant to influence beliefs of the others (such as your post) would qualify. You want to stimulate (and convince me to change) my ideas about what is art through my senses (sight). I suppose we can work with that one, but I think it's a bit too broad. Considering all the things that fall under it, it's definitely broader than what most people think about when saying "art" in a common conversation. It also does not account for the fact that the word is positively charged and implies that there's some worth in what we call that.

At least, if we do use that definition, FREDing is definitely art. So we could call that question answered if we agree this definition is good.

Umm

The definition is so broad because it is not possible to find a narrower one. Yes, political speeches are art. A well written speech, using rhetorical devices to achieve a point, is just as much art as a well written book.

I grant you that when we speak of art, most people will imagine a painting, or a sculpture, or maybe a video installation if they're fancy, basically something that can be exhibited somewhere. But even if we constrain ourselves to that subset, art that does not meet your subjective criteria for being "worthwhile" or "significant" or that you find obscene and gross is still art.

Children in art classes had been encouraged to paint the corridor walls, which featured suns and cats and hills with flowers in pictures that were not art unless you were a parent and could be nothing but if you were.

There's nothing outlandish or wrong in speaking this way.

I know John Scalzi is a pretty decent writer, but he should not be considered an authority on these subjects. It's still wrong use of the term "art", plain and simple. It's introducing an artificial dividing line between art you approve of and art you do not, bestowing the "art" moniker on one set of cultural artifacts but denying it from a different set that was produced through the same process as the ones you do approve of.

[Lorric]

Children in art classes had been encouraged to paint the corridor walls, which featured suns and cats and hills with flowers in pictures that were not art unless you were a parent and could be nothing but if you were.

There's nothing outlandish or wrong in speaking this way.

I know John Scalzi is a pretty decent writer, but he should not be considered an authority on these subjects. It's still wrong use of the term "art", plain and simple. It's introducing an artificial dividing line between art you approve of and art you do not, bestowing the "art" moniker on one set of cultural artifacts but denying it from a different set that was produced through the same process as the ones you do approve of.

And you and Karajorma should? Why?

[The E]

Not saying we should. But the position Kara and I are taking is infinitely closer to the actual definition of the term art than yours is. Please read the wikipedia article on the subject (A relevant excerpt of it is quoted above). Our definition of the term is less subjective, and thus more useful when talking about whether or not something is or should be considered art than your purely subjective stance.

[Lorric]

Not saying we should. But the position Kara and I are taking is infinitely closer to the actual definition of the term art than yours is. Please read the wikipedia article on the subject (A relevant excerpt of it is quoted above). Our definition of the term is less subjective, and thus more useful when talking about whether or not something is or should be considered art than your purely subjective stance.

Perhaps you're having trouble with my use of "not art to me". On a subjective subject, it is only for me, not for anyone else. I don't think my view of art should apply to the whole World, nor do I think my view of what is art is superior to anyone else's, or inferior. It is simply mine. It is simply what works best for me. And I think someone else's view is simply theirs and simply what works best for them.

[Dragon]

Umm

The definition is so broad because it is not possible to find a narrower one. Yes, political speeches are art. A well written speech, using rhetorical devices to achieve a point, is just as much art as a well written book.

I grant you that when we speak of art, most people will imagine a painting, or a sculpture, or maybe a video installation if they're fancy, basically something that can be exhibited somewhere. But even if we constrain ourselves to that subset, art that does not meet your subjective criteria for being "worthwhile" or "significant" or that you find obscene and gross is still art.

Here's the thing:

OK, then give me a valid, globally agreed upon definition of the term "art" as it is used in everyday language.

We all could have gone and checked the dictionary, or Wikipedia, for a formal, linguistically approved definition of the word "art". But we aren't playing Scrabble here. For most people, art implies something of value, but the official definition does not capture that. The OP question becomes quite trivial in this context.

Usually, if someone speaks of a "work of art", then it's definitely one he/she considers good. I think that a definition of "art" should account for that. For something to be called "art" by most people, it needs to have a value of some sort, otherwise it's just... Well, random stuff. Mind you, I'm constantly talking the "commonly understood" definition here.

That's why I'm a fan of Lorric's subjective approach. Value is, for good part, in the eyes of beholder. I suppose we could define "word 'art' as commonly used" by "valuable art (as per official definition)". That cuts out most political speeches beside truly amazing ones, among other things, and I think that it fits what most people think about as "art". And using this definition, stuff that you usually pay people to get rid of is out.