Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi all!

So I recently sat down and took a look at Andrei Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice. I have never really tried any of these "artsy" movies before, so I figured I would give it a shot and take some time to think of my observations. It's a decent film if you've got a few hours to burn, and don't mind a bit of grim.




Unfortunately, whatever artistic import was intended to be fired into my neurons seems to have bounced off of the force field that is my cluelessness, and out the window. I'm still not quite sure what the film is about or even really what the function of the themes are supposed to be. I did get a takeaway, even if it was off from the director's vision by a mile. At the conclusion of the viewing, I perceived the film to be a cautionary tale about regret and the value of recklessness in moderation. From this perception, I was able to reevaluate my own perceptions of regret and the role of recklessness in life. So now I have two ways I can perceive this film: through the director's vision or my own interpretation.

In the interest of getting this idea of art through my thick skull and understanding what other people think of the medium, I thought I'd ask here how folks "harvest" the artistic value from artistic works. What is its function in your life? Where do you look for it in media? How do you locate this artistic value?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

However a toilet with an unflushed turd inside it will always be a toilet with an unflushed turd inside it...
Despite how some people will huff, puff and come up with every argument under the sun to the contrary, call you uneducated or uninformed, thats just a fact of life which every cognatively functioning member of the spiecies will know to be true.

 SkavenLord wrote:
Hi all!

So I recently sat down and took a look at Andrei Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice. I have never really tried any of these "artsy" movies before, so I figured I would give it a shot and take some time to think of my observations. It's a decent film if you've got a few hours to burn, and don't mind a bit of grim.




Unfortunately, whatever artistic import was intended to be fired into my neurons seems to have bounced off of the force field that is my cluelessness, and out the window. I'm still not quite sure what the film is about or even really what the function of the themes are supposed to be. I did get a takeaway, even if it was off from the director's vision by a mile. At the conclusion of the viewing, I perceived the film to be a cautionary tale about regret and the value of recklessness in moderation. From this perception, I was able to reevaluate my own perceptions of regret and the role of recklessness in life. So now I have two ways I can perceive this film: through the director's vision or my own interpretation.

In the interest of getting this idea of art through my thick skull and understanding what other people think of the medium, I thought I'd ask here how folks "harvest" the artistic value from artistic works. What is its function in your life? Where do you look for it in media? How do you locate this artistic value?

Well, first off, you'll rarely ever perceive anything through 'the director's vision.' People usually have to be told what that is to hold it separate from their own interpretation.
When interpretation and 'vision' (assuming you can find out what the director says the vision is, and its remotely connected to reality) are similar without any particular external influence, its often just commonality of experience between yourself and the director. Of course, lots of folks will take that as a measure of their their taste and refinement rather than, for example, that they took similar film classes, or grew up in similar circumstances in a particular period.

Artistic value... it depends what you mean.
If you mean beauty, that varies from culture and time period, and within them, as for an easy example 'scrawny vs muscular' or 'skinny vs full hips.'
The same can be true for film. Several current or recent filmmakers place a ridiculous value on not telling audiences what something means or even what's in the box (Tarantino!)

Personally, I don't have much patience for anything that isn't a well told story working within the limitations of the medium. Modern effects bore me, and padding the running length with crap can completely ruin things (Hobbit 'trilogy')
If a director wants me to find some obscure meaning in the time on the clocks in three different scenes, hiding in background, said director is wasting my time and their own.

But mostly when people go on about 'artistic value,' they're really talking about what the in-group (or perceivied in-group) in their clique has decided to be true. It rarely has much at all to do with the film itself.

 Argive wrote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

However a toilet with an unflushed turd inside it will always be a toilet with an unflushed turd inside it...
Despite how some people will huff, puff and come up with every argument under the sun to the contrary, call you uneducated or uninformed, thats just a fact of life which every cognatively functioning member of the spiecies will know to be true.

If the internet has taught me anything, there are also far more people than I had realized was possible who are actually are just really into turds, figuratively and, um...otherwise.

I've got a view of "modern art" that is blunt and might actually be a bit controversial, (and I'm sure won't make me friends among the "artistic community" A LOT of modern art (not all but a LOT) is.. the emperor's new clothes. Nobody really THINKS it's art, but they're afraid of being branded "uncultured" or "clueless" or any of the other things out there, so they step forward and, declare "it's genius!" "It's an astute commentary on the modern condition though the use of feces and canvas as a medium" no buddy it's just someone took a gak on a canvas and is now asking you to buy it off him for a small fortune, he's laughing at your gulliability all the way to the bank.

I think a great modern example of art is Banksy; there is definitely technical skill involved in his work, but not to the same level as, say, a Renaissance masterpiece and there is occasionally haunting beauty, but mostly not awe-inspiring, however everything I’ve ever seen he’s done is very, very clever with an interesting message that makes you think. And you don’t need it explaining to you, it’s immediately obvious from the context of the piece (in fact most of the time, it’s all about context, because the location is key to the message).

That, to me is the problem with a lot of modern art; if you have to explain the meaning / message / emotion you were trying to convey then you’ve failed. It should be inherent in the work, because that is how art becomes timeless. We have no idea what was going through the heads of the Stone Age Frenchman who produced that wonderful cave art, but you can feel the awe and respect that they had for the animals they painted, the beauty they found in the natural world.

I've been thinking about it recently and I have come to a conclusion that I appreciate 2 things in art, whichever type of art it is:
- technical skill, so the "wow! how could they even do that!?"
- creativity, in other words "wow! how did they come up with that!?"


I've also found an explanation for the types of art I do not understand. I do not belittle them. The comparison I came up with is as folows:

Do you have some kind of an elderly aunt who loves, for example, Turkish soap operas and advert jingles but when asked about movies or songs YOU like ("did you like the new Tarantino movie, auntie?" "how do you find the new Metallica&Symphony orchestra album, auntie?") she says something along the lines of "Nah, this is too weird and hard to follow, give me my soap opera or an earworm jingle any time over this newish things. Do they even deserve being called music, when it's just noise, or a movie, when there's no happy end love story and nice people all around? Why even watch/listen to that?"

I extrapolate this to the types of art I don't like and don't understand. Ofc my ego would like me to think that it's because these pieces are crap (our brains hate it when we think we're not right or inadequate and they will lie to us all the time to avoid that-read about the cogintion biases if it's news to you). But I believe the truth is that I am just this 'unsophisticated auntie' (or an unsophisticated child who would love another dumb Transformers movie but will fall asleep watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) in this case, just in another place on the spectrum of the ability of understanding and appreciating art. Definitely not at the top.

On the subject of "modern art" I think this video sums up the "nuts" priced and a lot of your "tate modern" stuff.

I would compare a taste for modern art like a taste for food. To a certain extent it's how you're raised and what you're exposed to, but it also represents the effort you've put into refining your own taste. Most of us have a preference between burgers and pizza, many have a particular one they like between locally available options, and some will travel to a city and spend $5,000 on one topped with goose liver and truffles. ( source https://www.insider.com/most-expensive-burger-in-the-world-costs-staggering-5000-2019-8#:~:text=The%20world's%20most%20expensive%20burger,Mandalay%20Bay%20Resort%20and%20Casino.)
If that is what it takes for you to enjoy a burger, you have refined your tastes too far.

Most of us can appreciate the mastery of a sculpture like David, or a beautiful oil painting. Some of us can appreciate abstract works (I personally love Impressionism because my eyesight is terrible, and it's how I'd naturally be seeing the world blurs and color blobs) but when you need to see a crucifix submerged in a jar of pee (piss christ) or pay millions to see the picture you've bought destroyed in front of you... I think you've lost the idea. The pursuit of novelty has overshadowed the idea of quality.

You have become Hedonismbot, and will pick up hookers in back alleys to vomit on you ever so gently while you violate a pheasant.

At its core, art is meant to provoke a response. Any response.

Some of course have quite obvious responses in mind. Consider religious architecture, particularly old British churches and Cathedrals. They definitely still wow, even in the age of the lumpen sky scraper.

A classical portrait is an idealised vision of a given person. Meant to convey something of their personality.

Modern Art, whilst far from My Bag, still provokes a reaction from me. Even if that reaction is entirely negative, ranging from “what a waste of everyone’s time” to “you smug, pointless little illegitimate”.

Example. I took a photo this weekend, which is a bit of a rarity. In its own way, it could be considered a still life or landscape type thing. I just snapped it in on my phone.

It was a photo of the fire pit at my girlfriend’s woods, with the trivet made from horseshoes awaiting the kettle.

I of course put it up on Facebook, and it’s attracted some likes. Those likes are a reaction. And to those who really do know me and my history, they know I’m quite outdoorsy, and love sitting around a campfire or bonfire. All stems from my parent’s involvement in Scouting, which meant I was camping literally since I was born.

Would it necessarily make it into the Tate? No. Did it take any real skill? I don’t think so (but I dare say someone who knows about photo composition might disagree. Dare say because I’ve not a clue about that). But as a little snapshot from the life of someone prone to depression, it stands as an example of genuine happiness.

Eh. 'Art provokes a reaction' is more a cliche than anything meaningful. Something people say when faced with the dreadful 'what is art?' question when they don't know, but want to sound smart. A little more socially acceptable than 'I don't know art, but I know what I like,' but it doesn't have a lot of real depth either.

Even if true, Facebook likes... Eh. They strike me as more a rote response to the technology (button exists, gotta push) than a real response to a thought or image.
Technological determinism intruding on communication, if we can even call Facebook communication in any meaningful way.

------
@BrianDavion- that isn't controversial. That's the standard layman's response to modern art.

Voss wrote:
Eh. 'Art provokes a reaction' is more a cliche than anything meaningful. Something people say when faced with the dreadful 'what is art?' question when they don't know, but want to sound smart. A little more socially acceptable than 'I don't know art, but I know what I like,' but it doesn't have a lot of real depth either.

Even if true, Facebook likes... Eh. They strike me as more a rote response to the technology (button exists, gotta push) than a real response to a thought or image.
Technological determinism intruding on communication, if we can even call Facebook communication in any meaningful way.

------
@BrianDavion- that isn't controversial. That's the standard layman's response to modern art.

And you call my post a cliche? Spesh as I did not attempt to dictate what is and isn’t acceptable?

There’s a song for that....




But, by all means, live long happy life, and die mad about it.

Incoming bundle of incoherent thoughts warning


One major problem with art that I've noticed is that its a very poorly educated subject at schools. By and large my experience is art departments more rely on students who show skill and interest of their own and will then fawn over those students, whilst at the same time not really educating students to bring them up to a basic level of artistic understanding - either in the technical/mechanical side (eg knowing how to sketch) or in the creative side (knowing how to communicate within a visual medium).

The result is that we've steadily grown this idea that art is some kind of magical "natural talent" whereby if you don't have it you not only can't learn it but might never even understand art. It is reinforced by those "left/right brain thinking" theories which I mostly see as schools using a reason to push students toward either the "arts" or the "sciences" at school.


Personally I like to think Warhammer shoots all that in the foot since many warhammer players are often "science" (geeky) students and yet a huge part of warhammer is the mechanics of painting and the theory of art in colour theory. Heck get into things like no-metal-metallics and you're already touching on some fairly advanced concepts in light angles, directional colour shifts and such. Heck I'd wager there's more artistic teaching in warhammer painting guides than in many school art classes.






Again swinging back toward the general subject of art, the whole concept from school is very poorly developed. Which leads to a modern view of art being almost anything. "Provokes a reaction" is a fantastic line because its non-exclusive. Anything will get a reaction even utter dross will "get a reaction" .



We can go further too, the whole concept of non-verbal communication and language is very poorly developed as a form of education we are aware of. Art, at its core, is a form of non-verbal communication. As a result its as infinitely diverse as speaking or writing. Where a simple "I love you" might be a throw away line or the most powerful three words you ever hear in your life up to that point.




Another thought is context and connection. Photography has been raised above and this really shows it well. An average snapshot of a loved relative can have meaning to you. A lost relative it might have even more; you might love the blurry, out of focus, slightly faded in one corner photo of your lost loved one. Artistically it might be utter dross, but to you you've got a powerful connection.

This can also create a lot of noise in the subject when you try and shift away from almost purely personal connections and into more public and generic connections and communication through art. This is where you get your landscapes and your David's.


History also comes into play, art can capture elements of the history of the world. A photo in a veyr direct way; but art too can hold meaning that raises its importance. I like to think that, buried below the hubris, there's an element of this with some of Picasso's work. His more "modern art" style work wasn't really "impressive" in terms of skill of putting it to canvas, but in terms of how it was attempting to broaden the horizons of what counted as art in a time when art had very inflexible and formal rules governed by authorities in the subject.

For myself, “Art” is any effort of creation whose purpose is to stimulate a sense / senses.

Related to 40k, my painting efforts are not what I’d call art. Everything surrounding them is an artistic process, but my painting is not about actively stimulating the senses of another, and more about not being embarrassed when playing a game of miniatures with another person. I can appreciate that other people make *art* from their minis, but that’s not my thing. I’m producing tools, or tokens, that allow me to more greatly enjoy my leisure time.

To expand a little further, I have an intense sense of appreciation for well designed tools, and processes. I’m an intensely pragmatic person, so when I can hold a tool that feels “perfect” for its purpose, I imagine that’s what some people feel towards art. Or I have a task to perform and there’s a “best” way that efficiently and *completely* accomplishes a task... it feels amazing. I can have a similar but less intense feeling of appreciation for Art, that’s just a quirk of being me.

I have little care for the directors vision when it comes to movies. I take away what I take away. I have a poor “perception” stat. If there’s something happening in the background that has an impact on the main story, I’m going to miss it. I like my art like I like my food. Obvious taste. I don’t want to go searching for a hint of vanilla amongst the fragrance of pine. I want that vanilla to hit my tongue like a tanker truck full of vanilla extract. Boom! There’s the vanilla.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Voss wrote:
Eh. 'Art provokes a reaction' is more a cliche than anything meaningful. Something people say when faced with the dreadful 'what is art?' question when they don't know, but want to sound smart. A little more socially acceptable than 'I don't know art, but I know what I like,' but it doesn't have a lot of real depth either.

Even if true, Facebook likes... Eh. They strike me as more a rote response to the technology (button exists, gotta push) than a real response to a thought or image.
Technological determinism intruding on communication, if we can even call Facebook communication in any meaningful way.

------
@BrianDavion- that isn't controversial. That's the standard layman's response to modern art.

And you call my post a cliche? Spesh as I did not attempt to dictate what is and isn’t acceptable?

But, by all means, live long happy life, and die mad about it.

No, I called a trite 'definition of art' a cliche, because it is. Its also rather unfair to a lot of aspiring artists, as it suggests that anything that doesn't inspire comment is somehow 'not art.' No how much time, effort or even skill they put into it. Consider going onto deviant art and going through the thousands of pictures with no comments and telling the artists that the lack of responses means they aren't artists and what they create isn't art.

No idea what any of your next two sentences are supposed to mean.

A turd is, and always will be, just a turd...

 SkavenLord wrote:
Hi all!

Hello, you!

What is its (arts) function in your life?

The same for every human being - to see your metaphysical values ( your sense of life ) in a medium. Art is not didactic, it is not meant to teach anything. Art is neither subjective ( art's essential s not to elicit any emotion ) nor intrinsic ( the reason for the art by the artist is irrelevant ), but objective. Objective in the sense of a conceptual human being, meaning, clear and without any contradictions. The easier the theme of the art can be conveyed to you through the sum of it's parts, the better quality art it is.

This is not to be confused with the philosophical aspect of art, of which, I won't get into here.

Where do you look for it in media?

Inspiration of how great man can and should be. I subscribe to the romanticist school or art, as opposed to the naturalist school.

How do you locate this artistic value?

Through introspection.... and trial and error. Like every human, most of my premises were formed at a very young age, so as an adult, I choose to keep those premises that are conducive for a positive view of man in a benevolent universe while discarding any negative view of man in a malevolent universe I may have had.

It makes me shake my head whenever I hear the question "is this art"... because it's reducing it down to a simple yes or no, which doesn't suffice. It's not like we have an art referee whose decision on these things is final.
The barrier for "is this art" should be very very low indeed, after all everyone gets to have a try... but the REAL question to ask is, is this any bloody good?

Start looking at it more as a scale than a binary. A pair of spectacles somebody left on the floor as a prank can very well be art! It's saying something derogatory about the nature of the gallery it's in. But if someone tries to tell you even subjectively that it has anywhere near as much artistic value as Michaelangelo's David, then you know you can quite safely ignore the opinion of that person.

BrianDavion wrote:
I've got a view of "modern art" that is blunt and might actually be a bit controversial, (and I'm sure won't make me friends among the "artistic community" A LOT of modern art (not all but a LOT) is.. the emperor's new clothes. Nobody really THINKS it's art, but they're afraid of being branded "uncultured" or "clueless" or any of the other things out there, so they step forward and, declare "it's genius!" "It's an astute commentary on the modern condition though the use of feces and canvas as a medium" no buddy it's just someone took a gak on a canvas and is now asking you to buy it off him for a small fortune, he's laughing at your gulliability all the way to the bank.

No arguments from me.

 Super Ready wrote:
It makes me shake my head whenever I hear the question "is this art"... because it's reducing it down to a simple yes or no, which doesn't suffice. It's not like we have an art referee whose decision on these things is final.
The barrier for "is this art" should be very very low indeed, after all everyone gets to have a try... but the REAL question to ask is, is this any bloody good?

And that's pretty subjective isnt it?

I mean, I find Leonardo Da Vincis Painting to be pretty poor when compared against his contemporaries, take a look at his anatomical works and his pietas. The man just wasn't as good with a brush and pigment, but still good.

Photo realism leaves me cold I don't see much artistic value in a technically excellent portrait.

Give me a Quinten Blake napkin doodle over a Stubbs 'horsey'.

BrianDavion wrote:
I've got a view of "modern art" that is blunt and might actually be a bit controversial, (and I'm sure won't make me friends among the "artistic community" A LOT of modern art (not all but a LOT) is.. the emperor's new clothes. Nobody really THINKS it's art, but they're afraid of being branded "uncultured" or "clueless" or any of the other things out there, so they step forward and, declare "it's genius!" "It's an astute commentary on the modern condition though the use of feces and canvas as a medium" no buddy it's just someone took a gak on a canvas and is now asking you to buy it off him for a small fortune, he's laughing at your gulliability all the way to the bank.

Agreed - the primary skill of many modern artists seems to me not the ability to create or inherent skill in anything other than the ability to convince others of the worth, meaning etc of their work.

Seldom can it speak for itself - it has be to titled and explained.

In fact those who enjoy modern art also seem to consider actual artistc ability or skill something to be mocked or sneered at.

There both is and isn't a lot to art. Just because something comes off as pretentious it doens't mean it actually means anything. A lot of paintings or songs and whatever are a bunch of complex techniques to make the end result pretty or sad. Not a lot is required to enjoy that kind of thing, if a drum solo is amazing you don't need to "fully appreciate" it by knowing the five insane techniques the drummer pullled off flawlessly.

When it comes to some films, poetry, books etc that really try to say something you do run into the issue that just because you can read it doesn't mean that you're literate. Now, literacy is simply a skill that you can improve in leaps and bounds by using it a lot and talking to people who are already highly literate. But that takes time and you may or may not be getting anything out of the process. Literacy is unfortunately not always valued highly in education or is left without the necessary resources to develop due to constant budget cuts. If you then don't have enough energy-filled free time or access to highly literate social circles that respect you then you're going to have a rough time of it.

 Super Ready wrote:
It makes me shake my head whenever I hear the question "is this art"... because it's reducing it down to a simple yes or no, which doesn't suffice. It's not like we have an art referee whose decision on these things is final.
The barrier for "is this art" should be very very low indeed, after all everyone gets to have a try... but the REAL question to ask is, is this any bloody good?

Art doesn't have to be good to be fun, too, if something is bad in an interesting way you get to enjoy talking about it. But yeah, video games in particular appear largely still stuck on the "is this art" stage which is such a dull question. We've already had centuries of people sturggling and complaining over how you define art and I'd like to think we had come far enough to at least instead ask "is this good art", never mind "how does one best use this medium and what constrains, both inherent and external, does it operate under".

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I've got a view of "modern art" that is blunt and might actually be a bit controversial, (and I'm sure won't make me friends among the "artistic community" A LOT of modern art (not all but a LOT) is.. the emperor's new clothes. Nobody really THINKS it's art, but they're afraid of being branded "uncultured" or "clueless" or any of the other things out there, so they step forward and, declare "it's genius!" "It's an astute commentary on the modern condition though the use of feces and canvas as a medium" no buddy it's just someone took a gak on a canvas and is now asking you to buy it off him for a small fortune, he's laughing at your gulliability all the way to the bank.

No arguments from me.

We rarely agree. But in this case im happy to agree with BD...

"Art" is the probably one of the most loaded and controversial terms around.

My views on it are kinda of like that one judge's views on obscenity: "I can't define it but I know it when i see it!" and Jack Nicholson's Joker in Batman: "I don't know if it's art but I like it!"

A lot of modern art is like high school in some ways. Some people just happen to rise to the top of some self important hierarchy, possibly by acting superior, some by acting like they don't care what others think which drives many to compete to get their approval, some just be being "popular", which is based on undefinable thing called 'charisma".

Someone makes something then tries to get an art 'mandarin" (Someone who has become someone in art circles who's opinion matters in them) to approve of his work. They have art shows where people can show they matter in art circles.

The mandarins pass their judgement while sycophants engage in competitive toadying.

Sure it can matter a lot as there can be big money for the winners of this game, but in the end art is an up in the air term.

Someone who loads a shotgun with paint pellets and fires it at a canvas can be hailed as a daring artist(Yes it happened) while people who paint miniatures for 40k to an incredible degree is sneered at for "watercoloring toys".

I once stated i viewed a 40k picture as a work of art.


I said that the picture was a tribute to human courage, with huge, hulking thrakka representing the dangers and fears inherent in life, and tiny, old Yarrick represented the courage of a human being willing to throw himself straight at them and fight them head on. I got a lot of scrap from people busting on me for having delusions of artistic taste, others thought i was onto something.

So, in general don't let art opinions bother you. Most people have their own opinions on it. Hell, I like an art film, "Zardoz". A lot of people hate it. If you want to try another art film i recommend it. This scene alone is worth renting it for


Art is often useful as a kind of rorschach test. If someone likes images of suffering, pain, misery, etc you might not want to associate with them too closely, for example. That's about the best objective, relevant use of art i know of, if someone likes art i find abhorrent I generally don;t get close to them if can avoid it.

Oh man I love Zardoz.

As a film, it's awful. Grade A 100% garbage.

As an exercise in imagination and fantasy, it's amazing. If you've ever sat on a couch with your pals, shmammered out of your skull, and asked "whoa dude, like...what if..."? Then Zardoz is the ultimate exploration of such lines of thought.

Whatever your opinion of Zardoz, if you actually watch it, you will remember it. The good, the bad, and...the weird.

To me, that definitely qualifies it as art in pretty much all meaningful senses. Doesn't mean it's something you have to like, there's a ton of absolutely valid reasons to hate Zardoz, but it's certainly one that definitely would fall into the "art film" category and would make a good watch for someone looking for somethig...different.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
And that's pretty subjective isnt it?
I mean, I find Leonardo Da Vincis Painting to be pretty poor when compared against his contemporaries, take a look at his anatomical works and his pietas. The man just wasn't as good with a brush and pigment, but still good.
Photo realism leaves me cold I don't see much artistic value in a technically excellent portrait.
Give me a Quinten Blake napkin doodle over a Stubbs 'horsey'.

That's a very fair point, it is subjective. Which is why I'm suggesting that's exactly the kind of conversations we should be having. Not "is this art" - but, "how good is this art". And I 100% accept that not everyone will agree on that.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
And that's pretty subjective isnt it?
I mean, I find Leonardo Da Vincis Painting to be pretty poor when compared against his contemporaries, take a look at his anatomical works and his pietas. The man just wasn't as good with a brush and pigment, but still good.
Photo realism leaves me cold I don't see much artistic value in a technically excellent portrait.
Give me a Quinten Blake napkin doodle over a Stubbs 'horsey'.

That's a very fair point, it is subjective. Which is why I'm suggesting that's exactly the kind of conversations we should be having. Not "is this art" - but, "how good is this art". And I 100% accept that not everyone will agree on that.

Is a literal dog turd thats lying the bushes at my local park, art?
Like if someone takes a photo of it..

 Argive wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
And that's pretty subjective isnt it?
I mean, I find Leonardo Da Vincis Painting to be pretty poor when compared against his contemporaries, take a look at his anatomical works and his pietas. The man just wasn't as good with a brush and pigment, but still good.
Photo realism leaves me cold I don't see much artistic value in a technically excellent portrait.
Give me a Quinten Blake napkin doodle over a Stubbs 'horsey'.

That's a very fair point, it is subjective. Which is why I'm suggesting that's exactly the kind of conversations we should be having. Not "is this art" - but, "how good is this art". And I 100% accept that not everyone will agree on that.

Is a literal dog turd thats lying the bushes at my local park, art?
Like if someone takes a photo of it..

Is a literal dog turd on its own art? No. Is art if someone takes a picture of it? Sure, someone has taken an object from nature and put it in some sort of perspective or reference frame for consideration. No different than if they did so with a tree, animal, rock, cloud, etc.

That doesn't give it any inherent value or meaning, or make it worth anything, but I think it's fair to call it art.

The long and short of Art is that it is 100% subjective, not objective (despite what critics of any sort might tell you).

Case in point: I'm a big fan of classic rock and metal. Most modern music does nothing for me. But there are lots of people who are exactly the opposite. Nothing wrong with that.

Yeah, I've blasted "The Last Jedi" as a terrible Star Wars movie, and I stand by that statement as it applies to the Star Wars franchise. But if you enjoyed it despite it straying very far off existing Star Wars continuity, that's your prerogative. If it hadn't been tied to the Star Wars franchise I would have considered it a mediocre to adequate sci-fi film myself.

In the end, art either speaks to you or it doesn't. So long as it speaks to someone, even if just to the creator, it's still art. If it doesn't speak to you, then don't patronized that artist.

 Argive wrote:
Is a literal dog turd thats lying the bushes at my local park, art?
Like if someone takes a photo of it..

You appear to have missed my point... why are you asking us if it's art?
Ask whether the art is actually any good or not. (...spoiler alert - probably not...)