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

**AdvertisingPo** · 06-17-2006, 08:26 PM

I haven't the faintest idea why or how the visual arts alone have managed to invert the concept of quality. In every other art or craft, it's generally uneducated commoners who prefer garbage anyone could make to a masterpiece. They'll eat Big Macs rather than Veal Scallopini, they'll read The DaVinci Code and ignore Hemingway...but almost nobody who hasn't studied art history for years thinks a can of Campbell's soup is art.

A work of art doesn't have to be incredibly realistic, but the thing that makes a piece more than the sum of its parts is the amount of effort that went into it, combined with the sensibility that made it.

If it were a matter of complexity, a tree would qualify as art. If it were a matter of beauty, a sunset would qualify. But they are not art. Why? Because humans didn't make them.

Some painters and sculptors work faster than others, but the talented ones have skill, discipline, and craft regardless of their speed. I still consider my old ceramics teacher an artist, even though he could pull off a vase in twenty seconds on the wheel. And the vase might be fairly simple. What matters is the degree of skill and craftsmanship. It took a lot of training to be able to do that. Most of his lifetime, in fact. If something can be produced by any old bozo who's new to the medium, it's got very little artistic merit.

Aesthetic sensibility + discipline = art.

06-17-2006, 08:26 PM	#33
AdvertisingPo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 477 Senior Member	I haven't the faintest idea why or how the visual arts alone have managed to invert the concept of quality. In every other art or craft, it's generally uneducated commoners who prefer garbage anyone could make to a masterpiece. They'll eat Big Macs rather than Veal Scallopini, they'll read The DaVinci Code and ignore Hemingway...but almost nobody who hasn't studied art history for years thinks a can of Campbell's soup is art. A work of art doesn't have to be incredibly realistic, but the thing that makes a piece more than the sum of its parts is the amount of effort that went into it, combined with the sensibility that made it. If it were a matter of complexity, a tree would qualify as art. If it were a matter of beauty, a sunset would qualify. But they are not art. Why? Because humans didn't make them. Some painters and sculptors work faster than others, but the talented ones have skill, discipline, and craft regardless of their speed. I still consider my old ceramics teacher an artist, even though he could pull off a vase in twenty seconds on the wheel. And the vase might be fairly simple. What matters is the degree of skill and craftsmanship. It took a lot of training to be able to do that. Most of his lifetime, in fact. If something can be produced by any old bozo who's new to the medium, it's got very little artistic merit. Aesthetic sensibility + discipline = art.
	Quote