DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Amusing incident proves that modern perception of "Art" is crap

**WFSdZuP3** · 06-17-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Thoral - that is a somewhat silly argument.
Only who knows nothing about art can think he knows what art is. The definition of art is a common topic among the first year students at Fine Art Universities.
That is in itself a silly concept.

Its as if english students would have to be explained what english is, and only they could later "understand" or define english.

Art is a common concept in humanity. Any art that needs "explaining" loses its value as art. Obviously, you need to know a context to understand art, otherwise it might loose some or all of its meaning.

But contrary to your belief, 'the masses' can, and indeed do define "Art".

Lets take a joke for instance. You can argue for hours about the exact definition of a joke, and what makes it good or bad. But if you have to "explain" a joke - then it is a bad joke.

If almost nobody laughs in a large crowd - it is probably a bad joke. Saying "no its a good joke, you need to familiarize yourself with "joke studies" to get it" would sound kind of silly.

But a joke, like art - has to have an intended meaning. Otherwise its just a "funny moment". If someone mistakes an accident for a joke - then that person has a bad understanding of what jokes are.

I suggest you read what you quoted more carefully. Saying that art can not be defined, is a far cry from claiming that an education is needed to appretiate artwork.

The only people here who have spoken about art needing to have a specific message or explanation in order to be appretiated are the nay-sayers. Why don't you post an example of a master piece and give a critique on it's meaning and artistic merits?

06-17-2006, 07:30 PM	#30
WFSdZuP3 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 428 Senior Member	Originally posted by Sirotnikov Thoral - that is a somewhat silly argument. Only who knows nothing about art can think he knows what art is. The definition of art is a common topic among the first year students at Fine Art Universities. That is in itself a silly concept. Its as if english students would have to be explained what english is, and only they could later "understand" or define english. Art is a common concept in humanity. Any art that needs "explaining" loses its value as art. Obviously, you need to know a context to understand art, otherwise it might loose some or all of its meaning. But contrary to your belief, 'the masses' can, and indeed do define "Art". Lets take a joke for instance. You can argue for hours about the exact definition of a joke, and what makes it good or bad. But if you have to "explain" a joke - then it is a bad joke. If almost nobody laughs in a large crowd - it is probably a bad joke. Saying "no its a good joke, you need to familiarize yourself with "joke studies" to get it" would sound kind of silly. But a joke, like art - has to have an intended meaning. Otherwise its just a "funny moment". If someone mistakes an accident for a joke - then that person has a bad understanding of what jokes are. I suggest you read what you quoted more carefully. Saying that art can not be defined, is a far cry from claiming that an education is needed to appretiate artwork. The only people here who have spoken about art needing to have a specific message or explanation in order to be appretiated are the nay-sayers. Why don't you post an example of a master piece and give a critique on it's meaning and artistic merits?
	Quote