From the Dept. of Self-Parody--

[Maxie Zeus]

--comes further proof (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/10/nturn10.xml&sSheet=/portal/2001/12/10/por_right.html) that the art world cannot be satirized.

Check out the grin of the doofus who won. I'd grin too if I'd pulled off such a con job.

[DR. BELCH]

--resurrect my column on modern art I wrote for the campus paper five years ago, Noted Damien Hearst, that sick frig that had the dead cow in a glass case that stunk up some museum, was mentioned here, as in my article. Maybe I should rethink doing what I suggested there--mounting my old glasses in a jar of my own whizz (or at least Mountain Lightning) and selling it for a few K. If Serrano could do it with a crucifix....

[Calhoun07]

Jeez. That site suddenly got annoying!!!! anybody else get bonked over the head with that stupid car advertisement on there? Internet ads are getting more and more annoying.

Anyway, back on topic....All I am gonna say about this is I WORK AN HONEST DAY OF WORK FOR A LIVING and this jerk makes a fautly light switch and wins a ton of money. No wonder why the terrorists get mad at the free world when they have this kind of time, and money, on their hands! Seriously, couldn't these people give their money to more deserving folk?

[Joe Tully]

"Enthusiasts had called it a statement against the clutter and consumerism in the world."

Others have interpreted it as the statement, "I like lights that blink."

[Danielle]

Originally posted by Joe Tully
"Enthusiasts had called it a statement against the clutter and consumerism in the world."

Others have interpreted it as the statement, "I like lights that blink."


Oooooooooooooohhhhhhhh, pretty lights. :rolleyes: Oh, please. We have that sort of thing in our basement.

[Failure]

The first thing I thought was that guy could've been in the "Big book of British Smiles." Remember that from the Simpsons? :p

So.... about art... hmmm, I guess.... that wasnt even interesting... To be fair, I think it sucked. Greatness is really being devalued these days.

[Scythemantis]

Somehow,I like that kind of stuff.

The guy who`s art consisted of meat and live maggots was cool.

[Frozen]

OK, it's time to devalue my popularity - I like this stuff.

The fact that everybody is raging at how Creed's work is 'meaningless' and 'trash' shows just how effective it is as a piece if art. Art is about evocation (is that a real word?), and interpretation. I love a old classic by Millais or Michelangleo as much as the next guy, but I can also see the merit in modern art - this guys blu-tack peice was fantastic! I'm not taking the micky here, I mean it - that work was absolutely priceless.

Now I'm not saying I think everybody should like this stuff - hell, I haven't got the time of day for tons of popular artists and illuminai - but it deosn't mean I'm gonna dismiss there work off-hand. People adore, say, Bob Dillon, but I don't. That's OK, it's a big ol' world, and there's enough room for everybodies tastes. I'm not gonna try and convert you guys to the joys of Da-da or DeStijl, but I'm am going to draw a line in the sand and defend Creed's status as an artist. Ok, so we could all rig a light to switch on and off ebery five seconds, but we didn't - Creed did, and he won the Turner prize, good luck to him. OK, I don't agree with the £20,000 or what-ever he won, that's kinda obscene, but give the guy, and his chosen 'genre' a break, OK? His voice, his vision, and his vocation is just as vaild as Paul Dini's, Bruce Timm's, and, at the other end of the scale - mine.

Please feel free to deride me and throw rotten fruit as you see fit - it wouldn't be the first time I've been heckled over this... :D

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Sting chameleon
Somehow,I like that kind of stuff.

The guy who`s art consisted of meat and live maggots was cool.

Then I should get $30,000 for what's growing inside my refrigerator.

BTW, Mr. Creed's "insight" is hardly original. There's a Peter deVries novel from the 1970s in which an artist exhibits a room full of empty pedestals. His polemical point is the same as Creed's: Rather than impose his own "arbitrary" vision on the spectator, he chose to let the spectator's interpretation be unconstrained by any object set out by the artist.

DeVries may be dead, but I think his estate should sue Creed for plaigarism.

[Frozen]

Then should DC sue me for having a Mr Freeze avatar?

Hey, don't get the wrong idea, Maxie, I'm here for a well-mannered discussion, not an argumant, let me make that clear from the start. I ask this question 'cos I'm genuinely interested in your answer, you know that, don't you?

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Frozen
Then should DC sue me for having a Mr Freeze avatar?

Hey, don't get the wrong idea, Maxie, I'm here for a well-mannered discussion, not an argumant, let me make that clear from the start. I ask this question 'cos I'm genuinely interested in your answer, you that, don't you?

Well, yes. I'm sorry if I sounded short-tempered. It just didn't seem like a point I needed to amplify.

It is of course most unlikely that Mr. Creed has read deVries' novel. But the bite of my satirical reference to "plaigarism" was in another direction: if the currents in modern art are such that 30 years ago a novelist could see their intellectual consequences, then it is certainly a mistake to think of the artist making them now as having a bold and original insight. Even by the standards of the avante-garde, Mr. Creed's "item" is cliched, and the people who awarded him the prize are hopelessly retrograde.

As for a serious discussion of aesthetic theory:

The terms and concepts in aesthetics are vexed and contentious, as I'm sure you're aware. The first question, then, is whether I am required to state and defend a theory of the aesthetic that excludes Mr. Creed's work, or whether you are required to state and defend one that includes his work.

In practice, however, the ball lands in your court. I will cheerfully admit that I do not have a cut-and-dried criterion about what counts as "art." On the other hand, it seems you do have such a theory, or at least a set of assumptions which legitimize Mr. Creed's work. Therefore, I have to invite you to go first.

[Frozen]

OK, I'll go first - but first I want to make one thing clear: this is, for you, a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. I'm articulate, but not very well educated - my entire argument will be constructed from personal feeling and interpretation rather than accepted theory, 'K?

Right, why do I accept Creed's work as a legitimate form of art? Well, As I've already stated, art to me is intended to solicite emotion, opinion, or recollection - or a mixture of all three. Creed's 'blu-tack' piece is a classic example of a moment caught in time, the recollection of that precise moment when he pushed the blu-tack onto the wall or whatever. His thumb-print is perfectly preserved there, the moment caught just as perfectly as if you'd taken a glossy, sepia toned, precisely lit photographical study of him performing the act.

This appeals to me greatly. I've always been exciting by the concept of capturing moments in time. One of the reason's I hate comic drawing is the very act of making these wonderful pencil drawings, and then destroying them by putting inks over the top and erasing the pencils. To me the pencils are the best bit - all those wondeful, sensitive pencil strokes, the exploratory 'sketch' lines, and little errors that get lost when the pencils are erased. That upsets me greatly - I prefer to see the evolution of an artwork than it's final state.

What I like about modern art is the way some of it seeks to capture moments in a variety of different ways, or the way it can stop you dead and think 'what the hell is that?'. Sure, if Creed has done a wonderful painting of a pre-raphaelite damsel in distress, then it would probably have gone unnoticed by and large - it's been seen and done so many times now. However, and this holds true with many of the modern artists, by confronting us with something a little left-of-centre, then we take notice, even if only to scoff and deride it. Do you think Creed cares if we like his work? Probably not. He's made you think, he's made us sit here and have this discussion, he's done his job, he's achieved his aim. Plus he gets a fat cheque for £20,000, which is a bonus.

Don't think for a minute that most of these guys don't know what they're doing. They know a lot of people are scratching their heads right now and saying 'uh?' - that's why they do it. Artists, the best artists, are, to some degree or other, egoists. They want you to see their work, to hear their songs, to see their plays or films - and if making a room with lights that flick on and off is gonna grab our attention, then Creed gets his little moment of recognition, and that's what he's after. As far as I can tell, Creed was pretty surprised to win - he just thought he was gonna get a bit of press coverage, inspire the usual 'modern art is rubbish' diatribes, and then go back to his island. But he won, so hats off to him, and he's got everybody in a spin.

In todays media choked world, everybody is fighting for attention. Films, songs, books, games, comics, the list is endless. The challenge for any artist these days is to even get our attention before they can begin to make an impression. I take my hat off to these guys 'cos they make us take notice by going for the jugular and confronting us with our own little pre-conceptions of art. If a guy can take a screwed up peice of paper, one of the most ordinary things in the world, and get more column inches than Buffy, Star Trek, Star Wars et al, then that's art.

And getting back to your stance that his work is devalued because the concept has been pre-empted by DeVries, then I would say it is no less legititmate just because of that. Creed's intention was to make an uncluttered, clean piece of art - and nothings more uncluttered than an aempty space. So what if it wasn't original - his intention probably didn't include originality. And should DeVries estate sue? Only if Kuraaswa'a estate can sue George Lucas, or if whoever invented Zorro can sue Bob Kane. Art and entertainment DOESN'T have to be original - if it entertains, or if it inspires, then it's doing it's job, isn't it?

Did any of that make any sense?

[RockItShipper]

Did anyone see the 60 Minutes with Thomas Kinkade, best described as the biggest name in Sears art? His work is variations on cottages and lighthouses in different natural types of weather- always lit. It's up to the viewer as to whether it's a nice family get-together or some Hobbit orgy going on inside.

The best had to be this collage I saw of toys- most notably three of the figures from one of Toys R Us' Batman 4-packs... With the notable absence of Alfred who'd come in that set. CalArts being close to a large area of bulk stores makes it an easy place to get pieces for 'found art', especially if you're going for a critique of 'disposable' culture. Having a whole area of this kind of things makes it even easier, when you see Santa sitting on a stack of Coke boxes in Wal-Mart early in November- feet away from the extensive literary offerings: het romance novels, tabloids, chicken soup books... Big grocery store with a Starbucks(a full one is a 2 minute walk away), big party store, Wal-Mart with a McDonalds inside(a drive-in one is in the Fast Food District, only 5 minutes of walking away), Toys R Us... The common nature of something from these kind of places does grab your attention. But is it art? Well, that's really your individual interpretation. Scott McCloud said his view of art was anything veering from
human survival and reproduction, in "Understanding Comics". And look at this quote: "Some people watched the Beatles in the Ed Sullivan Show and had everything they thought they knew about music changed. For others, it was Elvis Costello on Saturday Night Live. For me, however, it was the Miser Brothers[from 'Year Without a Santa Claus']. Seriously."
http://www.fringehead.com/radiofringehead

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Frozen
OK, I'll go first - but first I want to make one thing clear: this is, for you, a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. I'm articulate, but not very well educated - my entire argument will be constructed from personal feeling and interpretation rather than accepted theory, 'K?

I'm happy to be careful, if you just keep in mind two things:

1. I'm not interested in "winning," only at getting at the truth (or a reasonable facsimile thereof). Now, I wouldn't be arguing if I didn't think it true that Creed's work is absurd. But if I can be shown otherwise I would count that as an even greater victory than if I could show that it is. For not only would I have learned something new about art, I would have been disabused of an illusion. So don't think of this as a boxing match, and no matter how hard I swing don't think that I am trying simply to knock you out.

2. The early stages of conversation like this look more like a war of attrition than of movement: a lot of savage pounding, and when the smoke clears one side or the other has advanced by only inches. Again, don't take this to mean that the object is simply to pound away senselessly at each other or each other's positions. It is just necessary to clear away a lot of premilinary detritus before the ground can be opened to swift and decisive movement.

I have to go give a test in 10 minutes. I'll be back after I give it.

[Frozen]

Cool, I'll be here!

[Maxie Zeus]

As I understand it, your basic argument is this:

1. "Art . . . is intended to [elicit, I think, is the right word] emotion, opinion, or recollection - or a mixture of all three."

2. Creed's work solicit some combination of these.

3. Therefore, Creed's work succeeds as art.

What you write is more complex, but basically just fleshes out the above argument. So Creed's work strongly evokes the image of a moment caught in time, and this sort of evokation (which you also find in pencil sketches) is an emotion or recollection of the kind that goes into art. But the basic structure of the argument is on display above.

The presence of the word "intended" in the first premise is highly significant, but I'll leave it aside for the time being. In that premise you characterize a relation between being a work of art, and being an item that elicits some sort of emotion, recollection, etc. Now, what exactly is the relation between these?

It's a conditional relation; it says that one condition's obtaining (being art, or eliciting emotion) depends upon the other condition. Which direction does dependence go? Does Creed's room being a work of art depend upon it's eliciting emotion, or does it's eliciting emotion depend upon it's being a work of art?

Let's look at each possibility in turn:

1. If something succeeds a work of art, then it elicits emotion, recollection, opinion, etc.
2. Creed's work elicits emotion, recollection, opinion, etc.
3. Therefore, Creed's work is art.

This is the most straightforward way of understanding your characterization of art, which is to say that because it is the business of art to elicit emotion, etc., then anything which succeeds as art succeeds in eliciting emotion, etc. Or, as I rewrote it, if something succeeds as art then it elicits emotions, etc.

The problem is that an argument of this form is logically suspect. Formally, it is equivalent to offering the following argument:

1. If something is an dog, then it is a mammal.
2. Dumbo is a mammal
3. Therefore, Dumbo is a dog.

One can plainly accept the premises while rejecting the conclusion; in fact the premises give no good reason for accepting the conclusion. Similarly for the reconstruction offered above. Grant that art is in the business of eliciting emotions, etc. That doesn't mean that something which elicits emotions, etc., is a work of art.

The easiest way to avoid this problem is to reverse the order of dependence: Postulate that in fact anything which does elicit emotion is a work of art; to be a work of art, it is enough that it excites particular emotions, opinions, recollections, etc. Then the argument is:

1. If something elicits emotions, recollections, opinions, then it succeeds as art.
2. Creed's work elicits emotions, recollections, opinions.
3. Therefore, Creed's work succeeds as art.

Logically, this is impeccable. But do we really want to accept the first premise as a plausible judgement about art?

9/11 elicited emotions, opinions, recollections, etc. So too did the Holocaust, and D-Day, and the Fourth Crusade. But surely these are not works of art.

I said that there were two ways that being art could be related to the eliciting of emotion, etc. If you accept the last point--that the stubbing of one's toe is not the making of art--then it appears that neither of them seems to work: on the first, the argument you offer is rendered invalid; on the second, an absurdly broad definition of art results. Hence, your proposed defense of Creed does not work.

* * *

Now, I have a confession to make. I cheated to achieve this result, and in a way that from a substantive standpoint, renders the above result voids. That's becuase I deleted the magic words "is intended" from your suggestion, and that makes a world of differnce. It means it wasn't even your analysis that I demolished, and so nothing follows that demolition.

So what's the point of my exercise above?

To help prepare the ground, by focusing on central issues. I am perfectly prepared to accept that Creed's work strikes you in a certain way and for certain reasons. So I factored them out of the above discussion, to show that even if they elicit these emotions in you, that is not enough to show that Creed's work is art.

Also, by deleting the words "is intended to" from your account, I hoped paradoxically to concentrate attention on them. Without them, your account is inadequate. This means that if your account is to work, those words must play a very important role, and we should explore what role that is. There's nothing like knocking out a load-bearing wall to make you appreciate the work that wall does.

This post is long enough. Instead of developing things further by reinserting "is intended to" I'll simply knock things back into your court. Have you any further thoughts, seeing where I think the important issues seem to lie?

[Roman Legion]

Just to begin to insert myself into this debate, let me remind folks that the definition of "art" under which Creed's work falls isn't the only definition there is, and that it's a fairly recent definition (within a few hundred years at most), at that. "Art" has carried many different meanings... in light of many, Creed's work is nothing more than a cop-out or hunk of junk. In the light of others, it's perfectly legit.

As I see it, that's the crux of the whole argument. ;-)

Romey
--Does it even have to be art to be legitimate? Does it have to be legitimate to be art? Maybe we can call it philosophy instead. =X

[Frozen]

The crux of my argument does indeed centre around the word intention. A few years ago, my Grandad hung his trousers on the hat stand, because it was the most convenient place to put them at the time. Now, when my mother and I saw them there, we laughed, greatly amused by the slightly surreal aspect of the trousers hung on a hat stand. Art? No - just a remedy. My Grandad didn't intend to amuse us, or elicit an emotion/reaction.

However, if a character on Cheers, or Friends, or some other sit-com did the same thing, and got a laugh, then that's art, because that was the intention.

Simple argument, yes?

OK, so Creed has an intention to a) elicit a reaction, b) create a sparce peice of art. So, because he INTENDS to draw attention to his work/comment on art, and because he's taken a room with a flashing light, and because it's elicited this discussion, as Creed INTENDED, then I see it as legitimate art.

Intention is the crucial element. If I kill a guy, I can either be convicted of murder or man-slaughter depending on my INTENTIONS -did I intend to hurt him, or was it an accident. Creed INTENDEDto create a work of art - the electrician who wired it up for him merely intended to rig it up and get paid - art never crossed his mind...

[Roman Legion]

But *is* intention really the determining factor? A lot what's considered art today was never intended to be art in any sense that we now know it. A lot of people appreciate "prehistoric" art, dating back many thousands of years, none of which was ever intended to be seen by anyone but the gods. The artist's intentions being to create a form of prayer or offering. This is worlds away from we see with Creed, yet it's definitely a form of art. If intention can't prevent something from being art, can intention really force something to be?

Romey
--Just testing the argument. ;-)

[Frozen]

Yep, and that's what gets to most people.

I have a box of plasters - old plasters that I've worn, that have become grubby and frayed, and then put in a box. I keep these because I'm fascinated at the endless variation in wear and deteriation (spelling?) that plasters produce.

That to me is a form of artwork - an obtuse record of moments caught in time - singular, unique records of decay. But not only are the plasters themselves little pieces of art, but by putting them in a box, and telling people ?this is art, this a snap-shot?, then, as I intend, they are confronted by an ordinary object used in a way they may not expect. Some are disgusted by the unhygenic quality of it, but most are adament that it's not art, and some get angry (?Bah, modern art's all a load of rubbish..? etc). Now, by INTENTIONALLY eliciting these emotions/reactions, by confronting them with the mundane as art, then I'm creating a small piece of art in my box of plasters, and people, as they are with Creed, are distressed because it's art they can't legitamise.

[Roman Legion]

Really, though... does it even need to be recorded to be art? If I do recall, there was an offshoot of dada consisting of people who called themselves (IIRC) "Destructionists". Something about works of art that destroy themselves completely, and the art being in the process of destruction, not in the preservation of destruction process. I saw a prime example of something like that in Venice's Biennale... a giant floating wind chime that rusts and falls apart. I'm not sure if I'd call it art myself, but it was interesting...

Romey
--Who still doesn't believe intention has anything to do with art. A lot of my favorite art is unintentional... ;-)

[Frozen]

That's something I hadn't covered in my haste to construct my opening argument, but it is no less valid as an art form.

I built a little wicker model once, nothing special, just a hap-hazard man, and then I set fire to it, and watched it burn to destruction. Now the whole creative process, the whole thought and energy that went into it, and the reaction I felt as it burnt - the very process of the burning itself, was art. Not for a big audience, but for a small one - me. No less valid though. The total destruction of that object was a more extreme example of my fascination with the plasters - decay encapsulated. A moment caught in time - or, in this case, lost

[Roman Legion]

But what ultimately bothers me about about such artists as Creed is that you can only ask yourself the profound question, "what is art," in response to this kind of work so many times before it starts getting rather... boring, old, typical, been there done that. I'm not saying it's lost *all* significance, but should it still be winning £20,000 prizes? Eighty years ago, in response to a long history of art development, it actually meant something. I've no doubt there are artists out there struggling to find new ways to express meaning and redefine the artists' brief for a new era, and faulty light switches and "controversial" art are still getting all the attention more for the fact that it's controversial than for actually making people think or see the world in new ways.

As for burning wicker models... now *that* I can appreciate! Not a bad idea at all. Sounds much more deserving of a £20,000 prize, to me...

--Romey

[Frozen]

Yeah, I can appreciate that point of view - butI think that's symptomatic of the media, and art, on a much wider scale. It's getting very difficult to keep things fresh these days - and when people try, ultimately the wider audience rejects it because it doesn't conform to their coseted expectations. That's why modern art gets a hard time, and fabilous films like Momento go largely unnoticed...

[Roman Legion]

Which takes us to the next question, *if* Creed's work can be considered art... is it necessarily good art? I suppose it may largely be a matter of opinion, but I think it can be defended that even for modern art, this faulty light switch can't hold a candle to other examples from the last century. That said, I really can't respect this guy... or a lot other so-called modern artists.

Romey
--I'll take analytic cubism over that, any day. And I do so appreciate good analytic cubism.

[Frozen]

Well, the whole "is it good art/is it bad art" is a whole different argument! One man's trash is another treasure, after all!

[Roman Legion]

Hmm... now where'd Maxie run off to? I wanted to hear the rest of what he had to say on matters. (Maybe he's busy grading those tests?) Methinks I'll bump this thread back to the top so it'll be right where he can find it. :D

--Romey

[Maxie Zeus]

I've been thinking, what do you guys need me for? :D

I'll content myself at this point with introducing two classic problems related to intention and art. One for Romey:



The Careless Woodcutter
A man while chopping wood swings his axe and carves into the end of the log (in bas relief form, I suppose) the caricature of the Roman emperor Trajan. The man does not intend to carve any likeness at all, and has never seen Trajan or even heard of him. Nevertheless, the carving he has unwittingly produced would be instantly recognized by anyone familiar with Trajan as a striking portrait of the emperor.

Leave aside the obvious implausibility that a careless stroke of the axe and the grain of the timber could combine to produce such a result, and take this story at face value: Would the result of the woodman's work be considered a work of art, indeed, a representation of Trajan?


And one for Frozen:



The Secret Intention
It turns out that you did not know your grandfather's artistic inclinations as well as you thought. His habit of draping his trousers over the hatstand was not unintentionally comical at all. Secretly, he intended that the effect be amusing in exactly the way you took it to be, and delighted in the artistic effect. This intention, however, he kept scrupulously secret--though he intended the trouser/hatstand combination to be artistic, he also intended that no one ever recognize that it had that intention behind it.

In light of the presence of this secret intention, is the trouser/hatstand thing a work of art?

[Frozen]

Well, the answer to my question is: Absolutely! Because he INTENDED to create the mirth and comedic juxtaposition of the trousers and the hatstand, then it us 100% art. The fact that neither my mother nor I were privy makes it an even better peice - much more subtle. And subtle is good!

[DR. BELCH]

--intent defines art, what of profit? Does wanting to make money selling a painting/sculpture/book make a product more or less "art"? And where does a jar of piddle or a naked man with a bullwhip up his bum factor in here? It elicits a reaction, sure...but so did a bathroom stall at the Indian Mall I saw where someone relieved himself all over the bowl, floor, and walls. Does that make the stall art? The person wasn't paid for the display, but I'm sure many people viewed it and and still talk of it to this day. So by some's standards, then, yes, 'tis art....

[Nightflower]

Originally posted by DR. BELCH
It elicits a reaction, sure...but so did a bathroom stall at the Indian Mall I saw where someone relieved himself all over the bowl, floor, and walls. Does that make the stall art? The person wasn't paid for the display, but I'm sure many people viewed it and and still talk of it to this day. So by some's standards, then, yes, 'tis art....

Well, you see, according to Frozen's definition of art, the fellow would have had to intentionally do this to the stall as an artistic creation, rather than simply being ignorant of the proper way to use the lavatory.

[Maxie Zeus]

Before I make any observations about your response, I'm curious to see your reaction to a case converse to the one I earlier proposed.



The Case of the Demented Dadaist
You are visiting the home of a famous Dadaist. It is, of course, devoid of standard art: no pictures, sculptures or anything else. So you linger over various other objects: A picture hook embedded in the wall; a windowpane with a thumbprint on it; a pen lying on the open telephone directory; a buzzing and flickering electric light in the pantry. You are shortly joined by the artist himself, and you point out each of these objects, asking, "Is this one of your latest works?" And to each he replies, "Yes. I'm very proud of it."

Satisfied, you take your leave.

Unbeknownst to you, however, the artist suffers from advanced dementia, and can barely comprehend what you're saying or doing--even his responses are mostly rote. In fact, he has never been in that house before: it has just been purchased for him by his family, and he first crossed its threshold after you had arrived.

This is the converse of the "secret" intention in the following way: Although it looks as though there are artistic intentions present behind each of these objects, in fact (secretly, as it were) there is none.

So: Have you in fact been looking over an assortment of Dadaist art?

[Roman Legion]

Originally posted by Nightflower
Well, you see, according to Frozen's definition of art, the fellow would have had to intentionally do this to the stall as an artistic creation, rather than simply being ignorant of the proper way to use the lavatory.But how can we ever know if this was intended as an artistic display or not? Should we give him the benefit of the doubt?


The Careless Woodcutter
A man while chopping wood swings his axe and carves into the end of the log (in bas relief form, I suppose) the caricature of the Roman emperor Trajan. The man does not intend to carve any likeness at all, and has never seen Trajan or even heard of him. Nevertheless, the carving he has unwittingly produced would be instantly recognized by anyone familiar with Trajan as a striking portrait of the emperor.

Leave aside the obvious implausibility that a careless stroke of the axe and the grain of the timber could combine to produce such a result, and take this story at face value: Would the result of the woodman's work be considered a work of art, indeed, a representation of Trajan?In this case, I would first say it depends on the observer.

Let's say this log was ruined by woodcutter's careless wing of the axe, and he threw it out. One day, someone who is quite familiar with the Roman emperor Trajan wanders across the log, and is instantly struck by the "impressive skill" of whoever carved this likeness so perfectly into the log. He searches for the "artist" behind this work, and fails.

Unable to keep such a fine piece to himself, he takes it to a friend of his who just happens to be a renown art critic, who is also stunned by the pure genius of the carved log. Before long, the image of the log is known throughout the world as a true masterpiece... and yet the "artist" behind it is never found.

If it's a piece of art to the observer, then there's no arguing with them that the log is indeed a piece of art. And if someone thought the thing was a piece of junk, I suppose they'd be equally justified in a very odd sort of way. All in the eye of the beholder, as the say. (Unfortunately, it's not much of an answer to the bigger questions at hand, here... not really satisfied with it, myself.)

Even if I could accept it as a work of art, I'm not certain that I'd call the woodcutter an artist, as he was more an instrument of random chance than anything else... that'll require some more thought.

--Romey

[Harley]

I find this a fascinating discussion. It's been awhile since I've seen a good debate.

Whether or not something is considered art or not is entirely up to its audience, not necessarily the "artist". I put artist in quotations because I do have my own opinions as to what art is.

Let's say that I've gone to the Grand Canyon for a day and see the most gorgeous orange and purple sunset. I happen to have a camera with me and grab a couple of shots of it. Once I get the film developed I show it to a few people. One person may say its art and comment on the wonderful composition and the fluidity of the hues flowing into one another. But then again, I might show it to someone else and they'll say it's a nice picture.

Was I a tourist who was lucky enough to grab a perfect moment in time? Or was I a skilled photographer who went there and waited for that perfect moment? It never really mattered because the interpretation thereof varied from individual to individual.

As for my own personal take on what art is, my opinion is that it's a mix of talent, intent and on occasion chance. I can further appreciate an artist's work if they have shown that they have a skillset in realism. In fact, I'll generally dismiss someone's work as true art if they do not have that basic training.

If some guy walks past a canvas and throws a really messy jelly doughnut that happens to smear down the canvas perfectly, I couldn't rightfully call that art. Even if it does, by chance, appear to be a perfectly composed smear.

Regardless of what I think of this man's work, and I do think he's a hack, I don't believe any man or woman should win £20,000 for sucessfully recreating a faulty circuit. I did that in one of my science classes when I was ten.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Romey
If it's a piece of art to the observer, then there's no arguing with them that the log is indeed a piece of art. And if someone thought the thing was a piece of junk, I suppose they'd be equally justified in a very odd sort of way. All in the eye of the beholder, as the say. (Unfortunately, it's not much of an answer to the bigger questions at hand, here... not really satisfied with it, myself.)

Even if I could accept it as a work of art, I'm not certain that I'd call the woodcutter an artist, as he was more an instrument of random chance than anything else... that'll require some more thought.

In extending the story, you hypothesize about the circumstance in which the woodcutter's role goes undiscovered. Excellent! I was going to push matters that way myself.

In fact, I'm going to push him out of the picture entirely. Imagine the same log with the same image, but cut into the log entirely by chance--some combination of animal gnawing and rot has left the image imprinted on the wood. There is no agency whatsoever at work in the production of the image. And still the observers marvel over its skill. Is it still art?

The reason I push this line is because you start with the idea that intentions do not matter to item's status as art; if the intention is absent, it might still be art. The most thorough way to remove the intention, of course, is to remove the artistic agency. That is what the example now does.

We can make the example--ludicrous on its face--more palatable if we update it to modern times. Abstract art, after all, doesn't have to resemble anything. So simply imagine, as Harley does in her story about the doughnut and the canvas, that some accident has left pigment smeared over a canvas. Art, or not?

To shorten the debate somewhat, I'm going to anticipate your answer. Because if you follow out the logic of your claim that "If it's a piece of art to the observer, then there's no arguing with them that the log is indeed a piece of art," I think you'll say that if an observer--a gallery owner, an art critic, the janitor, whomever--takes this accident to be a work of art, then it is. If so, then I would ask you to consider this variation on the woodcutter story:



Waiting for Godot II: Electric Boogaloo
A careless woodcutter accidentally carves into a log the striking likeness of a man he has never seen or heard of, and does so without ever intending to carve the likeness of any man. Oblivious even to the existence of this likeness (the poor woodcutter is nearly blind) he leaves it out by his cottage. Any art critic familiar with the emperor Trajan would recognize it at once as a striking portraiture of the emperor. But no art critic ever comes; the woodcutter dies; and the log, utterly neglected, eventually rots away altogether.

The log: A lost work of art, or not?

[Frozen]

If this guy with his doughnut has thought about this 'composition' and settled upon the doughnut as his chosen medium, and put forethought into trajectory, impact etc, then it's art. If he's some joe who trips and smears his snack on a canvas, then it's a doughnut smear on a canvas. That is until Mr Creed comes along, sees the canvas, thinks "Hmmm. that could be art...", and puts it in the Tate gallery INTENDING to elicit a reaction from a jaded public... :D