I'm a few more pages in...it seems to quote a myriad of definitions of art, and say they all have their failings doesn't it? It describes institutions that define what art is - and then (IMHO quite rightly) points out that that can't work. It points at traditions - but again points out that they can't work - as who defined the base on which a tradition is built? It talks about experts, and then decries that - as how can you have an expert in something you can't define? Is that about right so far. Maybe I'll be shocked when I get to the last page and it gives a definition of art - where it isn't up to the individual to decide (ie isn't subjective)
I have no idea how they grade any paper Dove. I think in my base (I left school at 16) case they used to give points in maths for showing working. No idea what they use for subjective things, but my niece is a Senior lecturer (edited from tutor) and grades papers, so I'll ask her. I'd assume that there must be subjectivity in the grading - it's impossible for it not to be involved - but I may be wrong...
Edited to add: A little thought experiment just for fun. If art isn't subjective, you think then that if I could hire a TARDIS and take Emin's bed back through time to all the great Masters, they would all see it as a great (read valuable) work of art I presume? Same with Pollock's abstracts? Stupid hypothetical, subjective question .....
Surely it is self evident that personal appreciation of art, or not, is purely subjective to the viewer. That does not negate the fact that there are whole sets of philosopy and rules about what is to be classed as art and what is not.
Personally, I think photography is art when it is done with composition, lighting, aperture and perspective in mind as opposed to automatic holiday snaps and 99.999% of selfies.
Vendée - 20kms from Atlantic coast.
"The price good men (and women) pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men (and women)."
All of which that I have seen, including (so far) the paper that Dove linked, are based on subjectivity (read that link and see what the author says about the definitions of art and their validity anyway).
But you only think that because the cameras in the past had those settings. They hadn't developed a camera that could handle low light (or various lighting conditions) for you.
Isn't that a bit like saying that painting as art is only valid if you mix your own colours and paints using materials they had 700 years ago?
Surely the product of all art forms are viewed subjectively. Determining what is good art or otherwise comes down to individual opinions and choice Nothing will convince me that a graffiti tag is anything other than vandalism. I've seen some great spray painted works but if they have been done without permission that doesn't stop them from still being vandalism.
Determining what it 'Fine Art' is no different to any other level. It's subjective. Even if there are defined criteria i.e. tick boxes used to determine whether an artwork fits the criteria, those criteria will have beed defined by somebody, and that person will have their personal ideas.
The discussion is about the definition of art itself (ie part of your second point but about art in general), not in the appreciation of something seen (or not) to be art. I think I'm right in saying that Dove agrees that we can all use our own taste and opinion to judge whether we like a specific artwork or not, but (I presume again) that she disagrees that we can say what is art and what isn't. That distinction is apparently decided by...based on criteria of... I think that's the moot point - ie what is the definition of art and is i that definition based on subjectivity anyway? Dove will correct me if not.
Personally, as all I've read and seen that defines what is and isn't art is typically based on subjectivity, then I was arguing that the definition of what is and isn't art is also down to the individual. I (me, personally - other's may think it's art - that's up to them) don't think Emin's bed is art (it isn't to me as it doesn't fit with my definition of what art is) - and I can no more provide a definition of what art is/isn't without that definition being totally subjective.
The type of art that I appreciate, differs in part, to what my wife appreciates. Yes, some of our appreciation overlaps, but, it does create some "discussion" on what to hang on the wall.
Also, beauty and art are not the same thing - although they can be (in my opinion). I have a serious interest in British castles - and not just Warwick or Caernarfon or similar. I see order and beauty in the designs, as well as the stonework and setting. Are they art? Probably not, but pictures of them are. Some art can be clever, funny, etc., as well as visually pleasing, but I recognise that art is very much more than that.
In my opinion though, and it is ONLY an opinion, if something cannot be enjoyed again and again, then can it really be art?
For instance, if there are people who would go back to look at Tracy Emin's unmade bed time and again, then it can be art. But if there are no people who appreciate it time and again (other than the creator), then it remains just an unmade bed - no better than one that may be mine.
The kind of classical art we see in galleries or hidden away in vaults was commissioned and paid for by the rich or the religious. The artist is likely to have painted what pleased the man with the money. As far as I know ( which is very little) we don't see much of what the great masters chose to paint or sculpt in their own time or for their own pleasure. This is a more recent phenomenon that produces art that the ordinary person might find difficult to understand immediately. Not sure about symbolism in classical art, though. Was the ordinary person meant to get it or was in a secret code for those in the know?
@steveTu The discussion has developed from the difference (if any) between graffiti and art. You may wish to narrow the discussion but can't enforce that desire on other people. Maybe a seperate topic purely on the definition of art would be an appropriate place to start.
Posts
Personally, I think photography is art when it is done with composition, lighting, aperture and perspective in mind as opposed to automatic holiday snaps and 99.999% of selfies.
Also, beauty and art are not the same thing - although they can be (in my opinion). I have a serious interest in British castles - and not just Warwick or Caernarfon or similar. I see order and beauty in the designs, as well as the stonework and setting. Are they art? Probably not, but pictures of them are.
Some art can be clever, funny, etc., as well as visually pleasing, but I recognise that art is very much more than that.
In my opinion though, and it is ONLY an opinion, if something cannot be enjoyed again and again, then can it really be art?
For instance, if there are people who would go back to look at Tracy Emin's unmade bed time and again, then it can be art. But if there are no people who appreciate it time and again (other than the creator), then it remains just an unmade bed - no better than one that may be mine.
The same applies to music, or a book.
As far as I know ( which is very little) we don't see much of what the great masters chose to paint or sculpt in their own time or for their own pleasure. This is a more recent phenomenon that produces art that the ordinary person might find difficult to understand immediately. Not sure about symbolism in classical art, though. Was the ordinary person meant to get it or was in a secret code for those in the know?