Hi i'm an art student, doing research for my dissertation. Was wondering what people thought about the differences in opinions about what is art to the un-educated art background public, and those of the artworld? I'm interested to know why it seems to be sooooo different, is this important? Should everyone understand each others art? Should questions always be left unanswered? Any thoughts would be grateful. Ta!

what is art to the un-educated? whatever they like to decorate their homes with. Example, $400.oo prints of Thomas Kinkade's cheesy 'grown up Barbie land' paintings fly off the shelves into the homes of well to do middle aged ladies.

what is art to the educated public? The classical tradition of art, starting with the Greeks, the Roman's who copied the Greeks and the Renaissance who copied and exceeded both. The accademics like W.A. Bougereau who reached the pinnacle of romantic-realism and the rebel Impressionists who revitalised the very notion of what art is, and those who followed taking from the past but interpreting things their unique ways. Then when things were 'abstracted' all the way back to blank canvases (the dadaists etc)"It's not blank, it's white on white", a new generation realised that photography had made the concept of realism less important and thus 'non-objective art' (like Jackson Pollock) and art that depended upon the viewer to make it happen (like Yoko Ono)er, happened. In the '60's such things were called 'happenings'...A few geniuses still managed to find new twists on an old theme, Rauscenberg and Jasper Johns et al, but then suddenly fine art became split into 2 camps, 'realistic art' became good but corny (bob ross, the greatest guy ever to teach art) or simply lost the respect of the art illuminati and became the craft of illustrating.
Educated people buy prints and books of that stuff...

what is art to the art world? Generally anything that can draw an audience into a gallery or museum or tickles the fancy of the pickle jars that hold the shivelled brains of the people who give grants to the stupidest crap you will ever imagine. For example, one idiot got a grant (free money) to walk around in a skirt made of dollar bills, needless to say they were stolen from him. Is that performance art or stupidity? The art world considers ridiculous stunts like that to be art and feces, urine, blood to have significance as art materiels...

Ha ha, I am ranting because there is no definition of art, if you like it it's art, and no one can dispute that.
I suggest you buy art that you would be proud to hang on your wall or put on your coffee table. Do not buy prints, especially for the reason that mrs. smith down the street has one, buy origionals from struggling artists with a vision if you can. People in the art world generally buy art as investments not because it means anything profound to them which is pretty lame in my humble opinion...

Here is a link that might be useful: Fine Art by Darren 'daz' Cox

Darren, you're right. I'd far rather buy an original piece of art, no matter what the medium, because it encourages the artist to keep working. If the value climbs great, but the impetus is that if I don't buy that and take it home I'll kick myself for the rest of my life. Limited edition prints? Tacky. I saw one by Canadian landscape and wildlife painter Robert Batemen where the outstanding feature was his signature. Check the national dailies, there's always l.e.ps listed in the classifieds, and they have not been the investment they were touted to be. If you want to invest buy mutual funds.

your confusion is understandable. we live in a culture
which maintains that any person knows as much about what
makes a work of art as anybody else; and which also main-
tains that, among the millions who make works of art, there
are some very few who really do it, and all the others are
just pretending to be doing it. and that if someone is
really doing it, they are entitled to receive public support
and exhorbitant payment for their work, and the others are
entitled to nothing. the art world is not looked upon as an
occupation in our society. if you want to know whether a
ditch digger is working as a digger, you look at the pile
of dirt to see how big it is, and at the size of the hole.
he doesn't have to be the world's best digger to get paid.
and it is the same with virtually all occupations. so why
is it that artist's, when they pile up artwork after art-
work, are not considered artists? well, they are not
artists because nobody will pay them to do it. the ditch-
digger gets paid, so he is a ditchdigger? and as for the
skill: the doctor gets paid whether his patient dies or not.
i consider myself an artist, but i have never been encouraged to believe that it is true, even though i have
had many exhibitions over many years. and i have never
figured out where to go to get paid for my work.(i have
always earned money by doing other kinds of work at the
same time, and now i am a retired professor). i have operated in the following manner: i study the art work of
the past, and emulate the spirit of those artists and their
works and too, i do not think that those who have not studied art as much as i have, know more about it. i get to decide for myself whether i think my work is good. if my perspective is a good one, then perhaps my work is good.
and vice versa if it is not. to quote one of my mentors,
'one life; take a chance.'

Daz your a bloody snob you leave poor od mrs smith down the road alone. Van Gogh proudly wanted his art to be made into prints so that everyone could afford to have fabulous art on their walls. and I love kitch, I love classical styles and minimalism and abstract and all different styles, what narrow vission some people have, agree to differ,make peace not war baby.

Daz--well, obviously that idiot said something, if his fellow human beings would let him walk around nude so they could grab a quick buck.

-Tiphanie

I am frankly offended by the picture Daz paints of the artworld. I believe this vision of the artworld trivializes it, makes art seem valueless. Art is not the artwork or art object but rather the message conveyed and there is no way any one person can say "This is not art" once it has been deemed so by another. I personally do not like much kitch like that of Kinkade but I do enjoy watching old cartoons. I do not believe that all uneducated people fall into the category of kitch conisures. Take a look at a number of Outsider artists and this becomes obvious. Do you think Sam Rodinia or Nek Chand would hang a Thomas Kinkade in their livingrooms?

Art is to the uneducated the same as it is to the educated public. Art is the message that is delivered by the objects deemed artworks. The evaluation you give of these "idiot" artists who recieve grants to make "stupid" art is a personal opinion and our definition of art has no room for personal opinions. I used to think that Duchamps readymades and Pollak's drip paintings were stupid until I learned how to read them, learned to understand them. I would say that most art I think of as "stupid" probably isn't, it is the lack of understanding or insight on my part.

Art is a tool for communication, a language designed to convey elements of the mind (thoughts, emotions, sensory info, narrative, etc.).

Carl is right on the money here. We can only read the language we understand. When we see works of art in a language we have not learned, we cannot read it. Why is it we should expect to read a work of art when we have done no homework to learn about it? We would not walk into a biology lab and expect to understand the experiments there or we would not pick up a book written in Chinese and expect to read it with no knowledg of Chinese language would we? What is different about art that people who have no education in it would expect to be able to read it?

About Kindaide - read this month's issue of IMAGE magazine and the editorial there on the "Painter of Light." It is very revealing and raises questions that most people fail to ask when looking at the lovely, peaceful, romantic world of "light." Hmmmmmm.....You can even buy his "limited edition prints" through your local Avon lady! Something is wrong with this picture, isn't it? He must be laughing all the way to the bank at the stupidity of the faithful American public.

While we're picking on "Daz", I just thought I'd mention that her art history seems to be a little fuzzy. To think that the Dadaist's with "white on white" joke paintings paved the way for non-objective art by Pollock and the Ab-exers is backwards. Non-objective art started way back with Kandinsky, Arthur Dove, Mondrian, Malevich, and others several decades before Pollock. Artists started to realize the effects of photography's existence on realism long before Pollock, AND ESPECIALLY BEFORE YOKO ONO!!! Anyway, sorry, it just bugs me when I see misinformation.

I hope everyone can find enjoyment and satisfaction with or without special skills and indoctrination. A friend of mine
has stated to me that "art is the realm of the beautiful", maybe there are problems with any definition of this sort, but I find it to be meaningful. I typically get lost in the
fragmented details that compose this ism or that ism. Use your eyes and mind. The eyes will lead you to things you all ready enjoy, your mind can help you gain insights about
art that were not immediatley apparent. Many missions and agendas are caught up with art. Try to discern for yourself. It may be art but that does not mean I have to enjoy it.

Although 'Daz' loses points for his shady art history, he does have some good things to say and some refreshing honesty. There are many who disparage the arts in general, but usually it doesn't come from artists themselves.

I think most people admit that taste in art is subjective, but many would say that there are some aspects/properties of art that can be discussed in a more objective fashion: use of formal elements, mastery of materials, originality, and conceptual aspects. Most people have heard the question, "What is art?" It's often one of those leading questions meant to cause the student to re-evaluate his/her definition of art. The typical response is, "Anything can be art." That's because most of us have heard of things like the dollar bill skirt or Serrano's 'Piss Christ,' or at least we hear of it by the end of the mind-expanding lecture on the nature of art. Another common response is "I don't know." This is close to the "anything" response because it comes from a person who hasn't yet found those elusive boundaries. Those who are in the art world often have found some kind of boundary, and it is often a small territory that it encompasses. Those of more conservative taste tend to distinguish between art and Art. They talk of Philistines and bemoan the loss of the "old days" when artists were geniuses and made "great" art. They also feel that art can be objectively rated, and an absolute hierarchy of good to bad art can be established. They also tend to detest post-modern art and the encroachment of low class taste on their territory. Others in the art world, the university art people, also tend to distinguish between art and Art. Whereas the conservatives say that Art (Fine Art) is generally painting, drawing, sculpture, etc., university art people are generally more experimental and accept all media, traditional or no. Their distinction between art and Art is harder to nail down, but it generally values "the New" and places greater weight on conceptual issues as opposed to formal issues (that's something of a stereotype there). Considering the fact that they are paying good money for their education and career training, they feel the need to emphasize the distinction between their Art and popular art. In the educational system, artists are often considered slightly above retarded by those in fields thought to be more intellectually rigorous. Therefore, students and teachers often feel the need to legitimize their careers with a large dose of elitism. Others in the art world, gallery people and critics, are basically car salesmen and one-man advertising agencies. Whatever is in their gallery is good, and probably much better than what you'll find in the store next door.

I think art can be defined in an anthropological kind of way by saying that "art is the intentional manipulation of the self or the environment for the primary purpose of emotive communication." An article published in a journal of science is not art. There is probably a better definition out there somewhere, but that's as far as I have gotten. There are all kinds of subdivisions of art, from craft to graphic design to tattoo work to a dollar skirt to Thomas Kinkade to Picasso. "Fine Art" is tricky. I think that the "common person" would generally think of what they are most often shown in regard to "Fine Art:" painting, drawing, sculpture, etc. Personally I think the medium has little to do with the definition. It would seem that class (high, middle, low) has more to do with it than with its form or content. The art world is basically a luxury economy peddling to the upper class and upper middle class. What gets into that economy is "Fine Art." What doesn't get into that economy is categorized into the many subdivisions of art, I guess "Unfine Art." I haven't heard anyone classify it exactly that way, but that is how it appears to me. Like David McGlinnen seemed to be getting at above, you should like what you like. Canons of art are to ascribe authority to a kind of art or to assure its market value. Agendas. However, the intended audience of a communication is 50% of the meaning of a communication. It would be naive not to realize that most of what is called "Fine Art" targets the wealthy and the art world that caters to the wealthy. If you are not one of them, then you are not priveledged to the full experience that the art piece can give (ownership or in-person viewing, i.e. access). Museums allow conditioned access of a sort. Whether or not that will flavor your experience is up to you. There are some "Fine Artists" who were definitely populist in attitude (Van Gogh liked the idea of giving work away), but that's sort of rare. If you aren't part of the upper class, maybe you should support the artists that are talking to you. Just an idea.

Brien Wright

I would be interested in your comments on the discussion "The purpose of Art" below on this page.

Frank

A fairly recent discussion, that was being bumped down by stupid " Jovan Obican for sale, embroidery programs for sale, visit my site, do my homework " - posts

Whispers.

Anderson:
Art is the message that is delivered by the objects deemed artworks. Art is a tool for communication, a language designed to convey elements of the mind (thoughts, emotions, sensory info, narrative, etc.).

Wright:
I think art can be defined in an anthropological kind of way by saying that "art is the intentional manipulation of the self or the environment for the primary purpose of emotive communication."