Is your view that you can't comment on something that you don't have a degree in? And is a degree nowadays enough - what about a masters or PhD or professorship? Does everyone with a degree or above agree on all subjective matters (or even objective ones)?
Only I know what I like in way of taste - I like my music, my books, my art , my films, my food, my sport, my fashion, my colour palette, my.... - an 'expert' can explain the good and bad (subjective) of each of those things, but I may still like/dislike what I do.
Iâm not talking about the subjective @steveTu ⊠that is of course a matter of personal preference ⊠I am talking about the denial of objective facts.Â
You seem to think there is no such thing as objectivity in the arts and that whatever you think or feel is the only criterion.  No one is saying that you should  have a Magritte or a Kandinsky on your wall if you donât like them ⊠but to say, as you did, that something isnât art because you donât like it is just plain wrong.Â
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Surely I decide what is art to me Dove? Are you referring to this comment of mine:
'...Again, as a viewer I disagree. I decide what I think art is. To me,
Emmin's bed is not art, but I'm told it is. On the other hand some of
the photos I see even on this board are, to me, artistic. You can't know
intent behind an object unless you're told.....'
...why is it invalid for me to say that TO ME the bed was not art?
Again you are confusing subjectivity and objectivity @steveTu.  Your opinion is not the objective criterion of what is and isnât art.Â
You are perfectly free to say that Tracy Eminâs Bed is not art  ⊠but just as if you said that the world is shaped like a pyramid, your statement would be factually incorrect.Â
If you said that to you Tracy Eminâs bed is ânot artisticâ  that is your subjective view ⊠however to say that factually it is ânot artâ is objectively wrong.Â
If a photograph appears to you to be âartisticâ ie appeals to you aesthetically,  that is one thing ⊠however it does not mean that it is âartâ. Conversely it doesnât not mean that it isnât art either. As Iâve said before, context is the key.Â
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
But I never said it was not art @Dovefromabove - you may see it as art, Joe Bloggs may see it as art, the world may see it as art. I don't - to me it is not art.
Can you give me an objective way then of deciding what is and what isn't art? What criteria can I apply for instance to Emin's bed that categorically shows that it is art and my unmade bed (what a slob eh?) isn't?
Youâve just demonstrated  the criteria @steveTu ⊠Tracy Emin is an artist, she created the piece and intended it to be part of her body of artworks and stated that it is art.Â
You do not describe yourself as an artist and have not created a body of artworks within which to contextualise your unmade bed as a piece of art.Â
Context and intention.Â
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
The only music I've come across that I question whether it is music at all is Modern Jazz, although probably not so modern any more. Back in the late 1970s we were on a boating holiday on the Thames. Moored up by a pub called the 'Rose Revived' and were having a drink when a group of musicians came in. From the sounds they were making I assumed they were tuning up their instruments, but when they stopped there was loud applause. To me and my wife it was just a discordant racket, literally as if all the instruments were out of tune, and playing entirely different tunes! It was clearly music to some ears, but not to ours. We moved to another pub - quickly.
Whoa. So I can say my bed is art can I not? I do consider myself an artist - although others may class my art as non-art.
Isn't this self-certification? Akin to the Trump 'I declassified all the classified documents so I didn't have any at my house'. All things become art if the person claims they are? Or do you exclude artists who don't have a back catalogue as they can only have a back catalogue by having a single piece of art at some point. So their first piece of art isn't art?
Are you also then saying that someone cannot create a piece of art without being defined as an artist? Amateur, part time hobbyists don't count?
This is all totally subjective as far as I can see.
KT53, I had to laugh at that, I donât âgetâ jazz at all. I also made the mistake of thinking that Benjamin Brittenâs Midsummer Nights Dream would be a good introduction to opera, as it was in English! Had me wincing like I was sucking lemons! Luckily I have since explored some other composers who proved more to my taste, despite not understanding the words. I do like what I think of as a good tune.
Posts
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
you to be âartisticâ ie appeals to you aesthetically,  that is one thing ⊠however it does not mean that it is âartâ. Conversely it doesnât not mean that it isnât art either. As Iâve said before, context is the key.Â
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Emin is an artist, she created the piece and intended it to be part of her body of artworks and stated that it is art.Â
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxSK6AnPBXSjJxyAvM-TikGeZIOcdAuZvj