[Millieway]

I read this topic yesterday and I am glad to see how some of the things I wanted to bring up have been brought up.

But may I have a link to the original discussion. I would just like to grasp the context of these quotes. Normally, it wouldn’t be a problem for me to find the context - considering how usernames have been mentioned and an option to perform a search with; ‘find posts made by this member’ exists - but considering the nature of this topic I would say it is generally good manners to add the link.




Hopefully, I am not beating the dead horse:

Originally Posted by C Elegans

You closer at your arguments, you state that you trust only you own discernment. From this follows that you actually view yourself and your understanding of art as better and superior that anyone else's. Thus, King Lear, David, Guernica and Shostakovich’s 10th symphony is not art if you don't think it is. You can discard the greatest work of art, that has had the highest value for most people, for societies, for history, for the world heritage, as "not art" just because you don't personally like it. In my opinion @Claudius, that's an amazingly arrogant opinion.

By saying that art is something completely subjective that can only be defined by the opinion of a single individual, you have removed all of the meaning and purpose art has at social, political and historical level. You simply don't recognise that art can be greater than the personal opinions and perceptions of one individual. There is a universal level where art can change a whole society or a whole generation, but this you simply ignore. And you also ignore the great artist's talent and mastery of the enormously difficult skill to reach out and communicate an abstract message by symbols that can be understood by a large variety of different people to such an extent so this communication can alter them. I know you always talk about your religion, but you should realise that your personal opinions and frames of reference is not a rule and norm for 6 billion people.

Based on these two paragraphs. So, in order for something to become “art” it must first survive time and become recognised by the general public. We got King Lear, David, Guernica and Shostakovich’s 10th symphony and it is art because it is recognised as art. In other words, for example, there are people who would say without a slightest doubt that Shostakovich’s 10th symphony is art without even having heard of it themselves just because it has achieved the status of art.

But without people making individual choices on what is art, I do see how it would be possible to come up with anything new. Because something revolutionizing on the area of art is most likely going to violate the previous norms of art, let it be ones of technique, style or themes. And if the artist himself cannot have the amazingly arrogant opinion of defining his work as art, how could he show his work to anyone as art?

And in fact it is also amazingly arrogant opinion not to call something as art, simply because we can always say the work has not reached the level appreciation it should have. And people are doing these arrogant claims all the time, seemingly to no end. Because the matter actually comes down to how much weight your opinion has, or how well you can back it up with reasons and convince others to side with your opinion.

Originally Posted by Claudius

spontaneous does not mean no training. Why do you think that? Is that the meaning of spontaneous?

Spontaneous:
1. adjective - Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated.
2. adjective - Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.
3. adjective - Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behaviour.
4. adjective - Growing without cultivation or human labour.

With your definition for real art, it seems the old, rusty, defunct radiator is indeed spontaneous real art. After all, a part of the building did become a spontaneously a rewarded work of art.

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

Interesting story...
I'll tell you who - vast hordes of appraisers, brokers, art market dealers and other merchants peddling the pathetic pieces of crap produced by more or less inept or delusional (or both) artists (preferably died of unnatural causes), after the above mentioned pieces were sufficiently hyped up by so called art critics. Conjured "names" end up in the posh art galleries, intellectual snobs pretend they "understand" and "feel", and some customers (investors) eventually pay a pretty penny for the commodified "artwork".
Such as White Center by Mark Rothko, which was sold for whooping $72.8 million at Sotheby's:

NGA | Mark Rothko | Classic Paintings 2a

This was my small spontaneous axiological contribution to this discussion.

I’ve always liked the works of Mark Rothko. Cannot you see, cannot you realize the beauty which he has created by using blocks of colours and soft edges? :P But I do like his works, I could hang one of the works on my walls if I ever collect enough pennies. And I suppose it is a bit ironic how your opinions do not really differ all that much from Mark Rothko’s. And how he was trying to makes his works as dark and disgusting as possible, and with the mural commission for the Four Season hotel he especially hoped to ruin the appetites of people who dined there.
He withdrew himself of the commission.



As for can art be evaluated?
A silly question. It can because it has been. Money makes art. Art makes money. Either way, it is nearly impossible for art to exist without money.

And, to evaluate art, all you need to do is to check the if it is authentic and let the price tag grown.