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.

I disagree. Its a picture of a turd no matter how you spin it and it will always be a turd and just a picture of a turd. At a species level we can all recognise a turd for a turd..

If I take an axe paint it blue and hang it up on my wall... It is an axe and always will be an axe. Albeit a blue axe.

Art has to be art, in order to be good or bad art in my books.

A while back I've seen this clip a while back of asking people if a stencilled spray of something(cant remeber exact subject matter) was a good piece of art. Majority of people said it was not great.

When another batch of people were asked and were told that its a banksy piece and asked if its good all of them said it was amazing.

Why do you think that is? Is it relevant to the discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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 that's 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.

You see I was taught this in my photography & art education at college. As long as I can ramble enough, make up a bunch of artsy boloney about the turd or a picture of a turd will be art...
Hence my firm belief that a turd or a picture of a turd will never be anything else.

 Argive wrote:


You see I was taught this in my photography & art education at college. As long as I can ramble enough, make up a bunch of artsy boloney about the turd or a picture of a turd will be art...
Hence my firm belief that a turd or a picture of a turd will never be anything else.

The fact that it's sparking such a discussion and makes such a good talking point, that it makes you sit there and ask "why would someone take a picture of this?" makes it seem pretty objectively capable as an art piece.

I mean, is clipart of a turd not art? Art doesn't have a particularly high bar to attainment, nor does it mean something is of value, it just has to attempt to express or communicate something. That doesn't make it "fine" art, that doesn't make it anything you have to take seriously, but by any definition, a picture of a turd would be art.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Argive wrote:


You see I was taught this in my photography & art education at college. As long as I can ramble enough, make up a bunch of artsy boloney about the turd or a picture of a turd will be art...
Hence my firm belief that a turd or a picture of a turd will never be anything else.

The fact that it's sparking such a discussion and makes such a good talking point, that it makes you sit there and ask "why would someone take a picture of this?" makes it seem pretty objectively capable as an art piece.

I mean, is clipart of a turd not art? Art doesn't have a particularly high bar to attainment, nor does it mean something is of value, it just has to attempt to express or communicate something. That doesn't make it "fine" art, that doesn't make it anything you have to take seriously, but by any definition, a picture of a turd would be art.

It does make for interesting discussion for sure

When you asked about artistic value, i took t to mean the 'value' of art.

I said that it's true art can make some people rich, or at least well off if they can produce art the masses are willing to pay for so yes for those people art has a measurable value.

I also said I can find art a valuable way to evaluating some people's personalities.

Thru history art has served some value, be it practical, or social/political. (Yes, I said the P word. That doesn't make this a [political post.)

Ancient cave paintings seem to have often served a pragmatic value, they were by most modern theory often used to teach hunting to the young. We see pictures of animals, with crude human figures often carrying spears. These were likely used to show the tribe how to position themselves around what would hopefully be the tribe's dinner.

So the cave art had a pragmatic,. survival value. This may have been the origin of art and it served a practical value.

Art has been a valuable tool for those in power, much art in olden times was religious, (I'm mentioning religion without getting religious) meant to show the power and perfection of 'good' and the ugliness of 'evil', the pain of those in hell, etc. So it was valuable to those in power.

Political entities have used art, in the form or propaganda, to demonize the opposition and inspire the loyal, again serving a tangible, worldly goal.

So if you're asking about the value of art i maintain it has in many cases a measurable value, at least to some. If you wish to discuss art as being of value in and of itself, that's a bit different.

Subjective validation is a thing.

People tend to think they evaluate art better than their children, who value another dumb Star Wars or Transformers movie over, say, Crime and Punishment. Children are just unsophisticated.

They also think they evaluate art better than (in their minds pseudo-) experts who find value in modern, often very out-of-the-box art with no obvious message. These experts are just conformists in a way their community requires.

When you add this up it turns out these people are the best at evaluating art in general, despite having no experience or education in the field! My opinion is the best compared with everyone! What a fortunate coincidence!

Even the turd example can be converted into art in the right context. Left on the ground, no it isn't especially artistic- but what if one were to give the turd a little hat and a face?



Suddenly it becomes a critique of existing religious beliefs, and a commentary on the Midwinter festival season.

I don't think you can rule something as art or not simply from the choice of subject.

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

I believe there is objectivity within art, its just a broad spectrum. If there was no objectivity then it would be totally random with no general concept of great works or amazing creations beyond attached price tags. It would be impossible to learn or to teach and there'd be no foundations upon which to construct creations.


Think of it a bit like food and cooking. If you only ever eat really low grade, fatty, overcooked sausages you might like them. But your pallet of experiences is so limited that you've not tasted other options; you have a fondness for something, but its based more upon ignorance of what else is out there. Instead if you go out and properly sample (which means more than one experience and one bite) other kinds of sausage your pallet would expand and, whilst you might still have a nostalgic fondness for the old sausage, you would more than likely develop new tastes and desires. Heck chances are you might well come to realise how bad the original sausages you were eating really were and you'd abandon them as your favoured food.

Art is much like that, if you are only exposed to the dog turds then you might like them, but its more through a lack of experiencing and exposing yourself to other works. Again its about broadening your experiences and interactions.

 Argive wrote:
I disagree. Its a picture of a turd no matter how you spin it and it will always be a turd and just a picture of a turd. At a species level we can all recognise a turd for a turd..
If I take an axe paint it blue and hang it up on my wall... It is an axe and always will be an axe. Albeit a blue axe.
Art has to be art, in order to be good or bad art in my books.

And who decides whether it's art or not? You? ...on what authority?

A while back I've seen this clip a while back of asking people if a stencilled spray of something(cant remeber exact subject matter) was a good piece of art. Majority of people said it was not great.
When another batch of people were asked and were told that its a banksy piece and asked if its good all of them said it was amazing.
Why do you think that is? Is it relevant to the discussion?

All that this tells me is that people are easily led, which isn't exactly news. Just means I know not to pay too much attention to the opinions of those that were misled... along with the opinions of those claiming that turd art is good art.

For me art has to be something that transforms something ordinary into something else, and when you see it, you think the second thing, not the first. So for example, a canvas with paint on it.. If you look at a Leonardo or a Rubens, you see the image or the scene they are portraying. The art is in the illusion. This is why I don't see stuff like Jackson Pollocks paint splatters as art, because when you look at them you just see a mess of paint splatters. This means there has to be technique applied.. whether it's oil painting, carving a statue from marble, or even something like a portrait tattoo. The illusion and how well it's rendered is the key, none of this 'but what feelings does it induce?' for me

One thing to remember about Modern Art is that you can not "break the rules" of Art until you know and can execute the rules.

In addition, Art has a linear history. It is always a reaction to what came before. Therefore, it provides new perspectives as Art reacts to what was before it. Most people simply have no idea about this timelines, and therefore do not realize that what is being done is a reaction to anything. Again, the rules are being broken but most of us do not know the rules to start with.

That is why me scribbling with a crayon on a canvas is not "good" since my knowledge of art, the mechanics of art, and understanding of what "came before" do not exist. I did not break any rules as I did not know any rules were being broken in the first place. Boring and without skill.

It is this post-modern/Meta analysis that defines "Modern Art" and what makes it interesting and exciting.

Therefore, effectively creating "Modern Art" is not easy at all. Most of us just do not know what rules are being broken to begin with.

For Example, when a child plays with plastic army men and randomly knocks them over and declares this one lived and this one dies is the layman's approach to wargames. The guy who plays Warhammer 40K at a Tournament has higher skill, while the guy who has successfully returned to playing structured wargame with Green Army Men is the modern artist.

 Easy E wrote:
One thing to remember about Modern Art is that you can not "break the rules" of Art until you know and can execute the rules.

In addition, Art has a linear history. It is always a reaction to what came before. Therefore, it provides new perspectives as Art reacts to what was before it. Most people simply have no idea about this timelines, and therefore do not realize that what is being done is a reaction to anything. Again, the rules are being broken but most of us do not know the rules to start with.

That is why me scribbling with a crayon on a canvas is not "good" since my knowledge of art, the mechanics of art, and understanding of what "came before" do not exist. I did not break any rules as I did not know any rules were being broken in the first place. Boring and without skill.

It is this post-modern/Meta analysis that defines "Modern Art" and what makes it interesting and exciting.

Therefore, effectively creating "Modern Art" is not easy at all. Most of us just do not know what rules are being broken to begin with.

For Example, when a child plays with plastic army men and randomly knocks them over and declares this one lived and this one dies is the layman's approach to wargames. The guy who plays Warhammer 40K at a Tournament has higher skill, while the guy who has successfully returned to playing structured wargame with Green Army Men is the modern artist.

See, that just sounds like a bunch of pseudo-intellectual nonsense designed to persuade me that a glass full of water is totally art, I'm just too ignorant to realise it. Contrast that with classical art and I think you'll find it works as art just fine without a bunch of caveats about authorial intent and how well-versed the author was in the nebulous rules of their medium.

It is "en vogue" these days to think "experts" are full of it.

 Easy E wrote:
It is "en vogue" these days to think "experts" are full of it.

Critics in art, food, film etc are not normally experts except of course self proclaimed - they seldom have ANY specific qualificaitons.

Some of course failed at their chosen profession.....most are just parasites.

Art is not deep for the sake of being deep. Art is deep. I think there is an it factor no one can really put their finger on it but they know it when they see it.

.... Like pornography!

 Argive wrote:
I disagree. Its a picture of a turd no matter how you spin it and it will always be a turd and just a picture of a turd. At a species level we can all recognise a turd for a turd..

"Can beautiful art depict an ugly thing" is something that was settled like a hundred and sixty years ago when Flowers of Evil was published. At the vey least. A photograph of someone's dook isn't necessarily any interesting but the question of wether something is or isn't art is even less so.

 Easy E wrote:
It is "en vogue" these days to think "experts" are full of it.

It sure is.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I disagree. Its a picture of a turd no matter how you spin it and it will always be a turd and just a picture of a turd. At a species level we can all recognise a turd for a turd..
If I take an axe paint it blue and hang it up on my wall... It is an axe and always will be an axe. Albeit a blue axe.
Art has to be art, in order to be good or bad art in my books.

And who decides whether it's art or not? You? ...on what authority?

A while back I've seen this clip a while back of asking people if a stencilled spray of something(cant remeber exact subject matter) was a good piece of art. Majority of people said it was not great.
When another batch of people were asked and were told that its a banksy piece and asked if its good all of them said it was amazing.
Why do you think that is? Is it relevant to the discussion?

All that this tells me is that people are easily led, which isn't exactly news. Just means I know not to pay too much attention to the opinions of those that were misled... along with the opinions of those claiming that turd art is good art.

Well I decide whats art.. who else is going to decide for me?

You can decide whats art for you unless you prefer somebody else to do it for you..

Therefore one can conclude a decision is always made if something is art or not at some stage when observing reality.
And if no decision is ever made than that would mean everything is art.. And is everything art ? Again I think not.

Taking a photo of something does it automatically count as art?
Is google images art?

I think people forget that there are actual rules and guidelines for good art.

It involves concepts like:
- Color Theory
- Composition
- Use of White Space
- Color choice
- Perspective
There are a lot more "rules", but I am not an artist so do not have an exhaustive list. Writing, poetry, cinema, theatre, and music have similar rules and structures.

That is before you even get into the application of technique.

Therefore, Art is not "whatever I want it to be". It is actually a structured discipline with defined guidelines and techniques that can be evaluated objectively. I.e. was this technique performed correctly, was the guidelines applied competently, or were the guidelines purposefully broken for effect.

I am sorry that so many of our Art teachers failed so many of us in teaching us the basics of "art". Therefore, most of us (me included) do not even know enough of the basic structures and ideas to even evaluate anything objectively. Instead, all we have is "I like it, or I do not like it" which is completely subjective. That has nothing to do with what makes a "good piece of Art" objectively.

 Easy E wrote:


Therefore, Art is not "whatever I want it to be". It is actually a structured discipline with defined guidelines and techniques that can be evaluated objectively. I.e. was this technique performed correctly, was the guidelines applied competently, or were the guidelines purposefully broken for effect.

I am sorry that so many of our Art teachers failed so many of us in teaching us the basics of "art". Therefore, most of us (me included) do not even know enough of the basic structures and ideas to even evaluate anything objectively. Instead, all we have is "I like it, or I do not like it" which is completely subjective. That has nothing to do with what makes a "good piece of Art" objectively.

Indeed. Plus sadly even when people do start to learn a bit of it on their own, they often learn only one or two "rules". So they quickly get dismissive of the concept of structure in art because all they can see is a tiny number of theories and they consider that if all art must "follow the rules/theories" then learning them is limiting to creativity and so many great masters "Broke" those rules. When in actuality its simply the fact that they are becoming a bit more aware of structural elements in art, but at the same time have a very limited theory/rules scope to apply that awareness too.

 Easy E wrote:
One thing to remember about Modern Art is that you can not "break the rules" of Art until you know and can execute the rules.

Rubbish. To take an example from the world of music, many self-taught musicians break the rules all the time without realising it. You don't need to know what they are to break them and whether you're following or breaking the rules the end result (the work of art, if you like) stands on its own merits.

 Easy E wrote:

In addition, Art has a linear history. It is always a reaction to what came before. Therefore, it provides new perspectives as Art reacts to what was before it.

And here's the pseudo-intellectual nonsense I was talking about. "Art has a linear history"? As opposed to what? A fractal history? All history is linear...that's how time works. Even the idea that history is cyclical isn't literally true. All you've done (not necessarily "you", but whoever is coming up with these justifications in the first place) is try to come up with something that sounds impressive and complicated while saying either nothing at all or making the most banal and obvious of statements. Most likely that's an attempt to justify something as meaningful, in opposition to the obvious evidence to the contrary.

 Easy E wrote:

It is this post-modern/Meta analysis that defines "Modern Art" and what makes it interesting and exciting.

Therefore, effectively creating "Modern Art" is not easy at all. Most of us just do not know what rules are being broken to begin with.

But why does this only apply to Modern "Art", while classical art is absolutely fine standing on its own merits without needing any outside justification from anyone that it really is art? I can look at an oil painting or a sculpture in marble and admire both the skill of the artist and the message they're conveying. There may be some historical subtleties that are lost to me now, or there may be some technical aspects to the creation of the artwork that I don't fully appreciate, but those do not detract from my enjoyment of the work of art in that moment. Perhaps they enhance my enjoyment if I later discover them but that's not relevant to my initial reaction.

@Slipspace- Not bothering to multi-quote.....

It can happen that a self-trained artist does good, but it is the exception and not the rule. 100's more fail than succeed with no formal training. However, even without formal training what are they "self-teaching" themselves? The rules of the medium, only they are learning it from trial and error.

Second, time and history are not linear except in Western culture. However, art always builds on what came before. You could argue that the Renaissance was a "return" to classical styles and an abandonment from medieval styles that came before. It is still building on what came from the Classical timeframe. However, my thought process is Western focused so may not hold true in Eastern or other artistic traditions.

Why your view of art stagnated at "Classical" art that peaked before the modern era, I can not say. However, that is your "subjective" determination. Again, you are back to "I do or I do not like this" as your criteria. There is no other criteria in your assessment that I am reading. Am I misreading it?

Art is a lot of things, and yes, a turd can be art, as any political poster can prove.

That being said, photo camera freed up art from a lot of constraints. What use is a hyper-realistic painting when a man with a camera will produce a better portrait in a second? Your skills are no longer needed to document reality, you can develop them to alter it in new ways. And to my knowledge most "modern" artists still have all the technical know-how of how to produce basic realistic art, because if you break the rules, it helps to know what rules you break.

Cronch wrote:
Art is a lot of things, and yes, a turd can be art, as any political poster can prove.

That being said, photo camera freed up art from a lot of constraints. What use is a hyper-realistic painting when a man with a camera will produce a better portrait in a second? Your skills are no longer needed to document reality, you can develop them to alter it in new ways. And to my knowledge most "modern" artists still have all the technical know-how of how to produce basic realistic art, because if you break the rules, it helps to know what rules you break.

The Great Masters and other artists did not paint, draw or otherwise create hyper realistic art - they created a version of the person, landscape, whatever....

Thats a tired old excuse often trotted out for the decline in palapable artist skill or talent in "modern artists" - having met some and watched programmes with them snowing their lack of traditional skills.

Photography and digital manipulation of it is an art form in itself as well as digital art itself.

Its also in the in interest of Critics for artists to produce works that only they can interpret for people - it gives them a job - its a parasitical existance but often a lucerative one.

Many modern artists do become highly skilled with the cirtics in justifying their works - something that more tranitional artists do not have to do as their work speaks (or fails) for itself. Another reason the art critics sneer at it - you don't need their condersending BS to explain it you and hence make their money.

Its also in the in interest of Critics for artists to produce works that only they can interpret for people - it gives them a job - its a parasitical existance but often a lucerative one.

There is nothing stopping you from giving modern art your own interpretation.
Anyway, the Great Masters definitely did create art as accurately as they could, their paycheck depended on it appealing to (usually not particularly subtle) patrons.

 Matt Swain wrote:


Ancient cave paintings seem to have often served a pragmatic value, they were by most modern theory often used to teach hunting to the young. We see pictures of animals, with crude human figures often carrying spears. These were likely used to show the tribe how to position themselves around what would hopefully be the tribe's dinner.

So the cave art had a pragmatic,. survival value. This may have been the origin of art and it served a practical value.

Art has been a valuable tool for those in power, much art in olden times was religious, (I'm mentioning religion without getting religious) meant to show the power and perfection of 'good' and the ugliness of 'evil', the pain of those in hell, etc. So it was valuable to those in power.

Political entities have used art, in the form or propaganda, to demonize the opposition and inspire the loyal, again serving a tangible, worldly goal.

So if you're asking about the value of art i maintain it has in many cases a measurable value, at least to some. If you wish to discuss art as being of value in and of itself, that's a bit different.

In my own undergrad degree, I was required to have art credit, and got stuck with a course that focused on what you discuss here. The course I took was called something like, "communication as art" or "art in communication" or some such nonsense. What I thought I would get was a nice big textbook talking about theories of communication and a load of history stuff (which was my major and my forte). . . Instead, we read maybe 3 articles, and fethed around with Photoshop and other image processing programs. . . So, there I was, a firm windows guy, learning Windows Photoshop (cuz I'll be fethed if I could figure out how to work those stupid arse Macs. . . and yeah, I realize how old that makes me sound. . . On top of everything else I was doing, I simply couldn't handle learning a new OS)


In the past, the picture, or an "artistic representation" was a chief means of communicating an idea to the masses nonverbally. . . . Kids would nod off in church, not understand the padre's latin mass one bit, but they sure as feth understood the reliefs on the pillars and the stained glass windows. People at the time may never have personally seen Caesar, but his statues around Rome let everyone know he was in charge and he was the right guy for the job.


Now, in that class I definitely learned that some times what the artist is trying to communicate isn't received. Or isn't received to mean what they were intending to do. I mean, we have seeming mountains of "studies" showing the "universality" of psychological response to various colors (ie, its "scientific" that a restaurant with a red and yellow sign psychologically elicit a hunger response, which, is unrelated to this thread, but I think that its a bit chicken-egg argument there). . . I mean, a few famous (or infamous) pieces of art have been mentioned in this thread already: these pieces, whether some folks say they are art or not, are a piece of communication by the artist.

Banksy's art has a communicative element to it that's the same communication that a Norman Rockwell painting does. . . Each is saying something, whether we appropriately receive what that work is saying.

In the end, art is worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less.

 Vulcan wrote:
In the end, art is worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less.

That's an exceptionally capitalist way to define the "worth" of something. Something's worth can be measured in its effects, not just money.
Take the works of HP Lovecraft, for example. Much if not all of his work has now passed into public domain, meaning you literally can't "own" it - so its market value is no more than the book or e-copy that contains it. But its worth can be found in the influence in much literary horror that's come since.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
In the end, art is worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less.

That's an exceptionally capitalist way to define the "worth" of something. Something's worth can be measured in its effects, not just money.
Take the works of HP Lovecraft, for example. Much if not all of his work has now passed into public domain, meaning you literally can't "own" it - so its market value is no more than the book or e-copy that contains it. But its worth can be found in the influence in much literary horror that's come since.

Lovecraft wote his stories for money - does that diminsh them - I don't think so or that it was the only reason he created them.

There is also the opposite where those who are merely craftspeople are sneered at by Critcs and their ilk although their creations made themselves have great artistic merrit and require special skills.....

I think you can be both a artist and craftsman

Sure, but you can also be a Craftsman without being an Artist.