# Jenna Garret Photos...Art or Not.



## table1349 (Mar 23, 2014)

Jenna Garret photos.  Art or not?  Discuss..........................


----------



## Designer (Mar 23, 2014)

Don't care.  

Sure, it's "art", but is it art that you would want to take home to your mother?


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 23, 2014)

anyone who has the patience and thought to create a set of images with a concept gets some credit.


----------



## Nevermore1 (Mar 23, 2014)

This is one where I think opinions will vary greatly.   Personally, I wouldn't consider it to be "art" in the sense that it would be something I would display for people to see in my home or office.  For me this looks to be some project that a new college grad is doing to get some attention.  A good theme idea if you have the time to do it but not something I would do and show to anyone but family and friends.  

Sent from my SM-N900T


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 23, 2014)

Lighting on some of those is god awful (can I do better? Maybe, not sure, to be perfectly honest). That being said, technical perfection isn't everything, and the photos definitely fit the theme, even if some are kinda corny (the cheese on the apple pie, but I can't think of a better way to illustrate it).


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Hrmm...political, for sure. Thought-provoking, possibly, but not so much if you don't know the context. For example, if one didn't know that apple pie picture was protesting a silly law, would it provoke any thought? Well, any thought beyond, "Wha? I don't get it." I'm not so sure it would. Maybe the David Bowie kid might, or even the ice cream cone in the back pocket one, but I'm still not convinced that any of those shots would provoke any but the most superficial thoughts. ("Well, it's a woman's ass and a melting ice cream cone...I guess she's supposed to be hawt? Okay, next!")

As for whether or not the pictures are 'artful' - in the sense that they show something visually stimulating (either positively or negatively) either through technical or emotional merit? Meh. As someone said, they don't really display a lot of technical merit. They're not so horribly done that I'm appalled at the lack of skill, but none of them stand out as being particularly well done either. Neither are any of them shocking in the image they portray - not even the one with the dildos - so they don't stimulate any strongly negative reactions like some art tries to do.

Ultimately, then, I guess I'm leaning towards "No."


----------



## tirediron (Mar 23, 2014)

I don't think this is really supposed to be about the technical perfection of the images, rather it's a group of images which are supposed to allow you to 'see' what the artist considers bizarre or unusual laws.  It's interesting, and I suppose it's art of a type.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 23, 2014)

I actually really dig the concept, and I don't think that the photos need to convey anything on their own. Actually, given what the point of the photos is, the back stories on them are actually integral to the photos...


----------



## Designer (Mar 23, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> Lighting on some of those is god awful (can I do better? Maybe, not sure, to be perfectly honest). That being said, technical perfection isn't everything, and the photos definitely fit the theme, even if some are kinda corny (the cheese on the apple pie, but I can't think of a better way to illustrate it).



Anybody knows that the only cheese that belongs on apple pie is cheddar.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 23, 2014)

I have always thought that true art is designed to cause people to THINK. And her photos do that when seen with the paired ridiculous laws. It's an interesting concept she's working with here. And with that said, now I am off to see if the Vlasic Classic Kosher Dills that I love so much actually bounce when dropped. Hmm...the more I think about that pickle law, the more worried I am becoming! Cripes on a cracker, what if the salt-and-vinegar-soaked cucumbers I love so much are *not officially considered pickles* by some state's idiotic law? 

OMG...I can feel the anxiety building.


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> *I have always thought that true art is designed to cause people to THINK. And her photos do that when seen with the paired ridiculous laws.* It's an interesting concept she's working with here. And with that said, now I am off to see if the Vlasic Classic Kosher Dills that I love so much actually bounce when dropped. Hmm...the more I think about that pickle law, the more worried I am becoming! Cripes on a cracker, what if the salt-and-vinegar-soaked cucumbers I love so much are *not officially considered pickles* by some state's idiotic law?
> 
> OMG...I can feel the anxiety building.



I agree that they are thought-provoking when paired with the ridiculous laws. But without that context, they don't seem to be particularly thought-provoking or visually stimulating. For me, that tips me in favor of "no, they're not art". How many times have folks here railed on about how, for example, the title shouldn't matter in the interpretation of the image? Or about how art is like a joke - if you have to explain it, it's no good? "It's all about the image!" I read again and again. Don't these pictures need the explanation (the pairing with the laws) to be fully appreciated? Can they stand on their own? I'm not so sure.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Mar 23, 2014)

Sure it's art. Not great art that will stand the test of time however that description fits most art produced now.

BTW to illustrate the Wisconsin cheese law I would have a suit and tie guy with a chunk of cheddar in one hand and a noose in the other facing a old woman sitting with a slice of pie on the table in front of her. The sex toy thang I'd have three scantily clad girlies drawing straws from a nude man.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 23, 2014)

Let's play Devil's Advocate for a second. Imagine if the show (or book, exhibition, collection, or portfolio) had the simple title "Illegal Activities", or "Banned By Law", or "Illegal", or "Against The Law", or "Misdemeanors".

You see the title, "Misdemeanors, by Jenna Garrett". You look at the photos. You wonder, "What the hell do these images mean? How can an ice cream cone in a pocket be a misdemeanor?" *Boom!* Made you think.

As far as the tired old saw, "A photo must stand on its own," that is silly. Titles do matter, on each image that HAS a title, the title can easily lead the viewer in a direction. WORDS CAN BE PAIRED with images; there's no written rulebook for art, but if there were..it would be *written in words*, not  in pictograms...

It's pretty well-accepted to title collections, exhibitions, and portfolios, as well as individual works of art. MOST of the classic high renaissance paintings have an accepted name, almost universally related directly to the subject of the work.

JUST for fun, Google search on this string [ *How can an ice cream cone in a pocket be a misdemeanor?*  ]


----------



## gsgary (Mar 23, 2014)

2 dildos per house is a terrible rule


----------



## table1349 (Mar 23, 2014)

It's a shame she didn't represent some of these as well. 
Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.
Boogers may not be flicked into the wind.
It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.
A female shall not appear in a bathing suit on any highway within this state. 
In Baltimore, It is illegal to take a lion to the movies.
It is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.   


And my personal favorite: 
Men who deflower virgins, regardless of age or marital status, may face up to five years in jail.
Kind of puts a damper on a wedding night.


----------



## Designer (Mar 23, 2014)

If it was the crime that she wanted to depict, then the pie with cheese on it would technically not be against the law, only against good taste, considering she doesn't know what cheese to use.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 23, 2014)

Just wanted to report back: the Vlasic Classic Kosher Dill pickles (3 of them tested) DO BOUNCE when dropped from the height of the jar (measured at 9 and 15/16 inches, lid removed). 

Whew! Thank goodness, my pickles are actually pickles!!!!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 23, 2014)

I don't think it's particularly well done art, the quality of the photos could use improvement. I don't think they convey what was intended because without the description I'd never know the purpose of these. 

I wondered why pickles were floating in the air; the ice cream melting looks 'staged' instead of the way ice cream would actually look if it was dripping (and the arm is cropped in an awkward way, the shirt looks wrinkled); the framing of the bookcase is at an odd angle and why are there sex toys on display in cups & dishes?? makes little sense (or is some really unusual home décor! lol). The jeans look like an attempt at a fashion photo for Versace. 

I think these would be seen more as stock or commercial photos than art because they seem to be photos of common objects but not portrayed in a particularly interesting way (although there could be photos done for commercial purposes that have some artistic elements to them and would be considered art).


----------



## mishele (Mar 23, 2014)

ART!! I rather liked the concept too. I found them very interesting.  Now, I also found a link at the bottom of the page intriguing...Bold Portraits of People Wearing Pantyhose and Nothing Else (NSFW)  lol


----------



## Stevepwns (Mar 23, 2014)

My vote was no, but who am I to judge.  I would say they are more visual statements.  I guess that defines art but not a type of my liking I suppose.  So I guess I shouldnt have voted either way....


----------



## mishele (Mar 23, 2014)

Stevepwns said:


> My vote was no, but who am I to judge.  I would say they are more visual statements.  I guess that defines art but not a type of my liking I suppose.  So I guess I shouldnt have voted either way....


What is art if not a visual statement?  hehe


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 23, 2014)

limr said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > *I have always thought that true art is designed to cause people to THINK. And her photos do that when seen with the paired ridiculous laws.* It's an interesting concept she's working with here. And with that said, now I am off to see if the Vlasic Classic Kosher Dills that I love so much actually bounce when dropped. Hmm...the more I think about that pickle law, the more worried I am becoming! Cripes on a cracker, what if the salt-and-vinegar-soaked cucumbers I love so much are *not officially considered pickles* by some state's idiotic law?
> ...



I think a great ruse that photographers have bought into is the whole "It needs to say something" crap. I couldn't disagree with that more. Yes, photos often do, but that doesn't mean they _have _to.

As for being paired with the descriptions of the laws, that's only required if you want people to know it's about the laws. After all, look at the David Bowie kid? I look at that, on its own, and see how the appreciation of music from the past isn't lost. After all, here's a kid painted up like Ziggy Stardust.

The bouncing pickles? Don't even get me started.

Someone who looks at _any _photo and can't see something is someone completely devoid of imagination, and a photograph needn't say the same thing to all people...


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



If I'm such an unimaginative philistine, why even bother trying to get me to understand anything? Or was it just to deliver an unnecessary insult?

Besides, weren't you supposed to be done with me?


----------



## table1349 (Mar 23, 2014)

An array of varied and interesting opinions so far.  Do continue. 

Darrell, glad to know that you actually do have pickles.  :thumbup:


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Just wanted to report back: the Vlasic Classic Kosher Dill pickles (3 of them tested) DO BOUNCE when dropped from the height of the jar (measured at 9 and 15/16 inches, lid removed).
> 
> Whew! Thank goodness, my pickles are actually pickles!!!!



Well, this is good news.

What are they if they don't bounce?


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 23, 2014)

Ok, well my 2 cents worth I guess.

I have not problem with associating stories with photographs, I see nothing objectionable to it.  A really strong photograph can stand often stand on it's own, without any sort of back story - but certainly nothing wrong with giving a photo a little context now and again.

Like Limr frankly the photo's themselves, pretty meh at least for me.  Just looking at them from a photographic standpoint nothing really outstanding, nothing really horrible, just sort of middle of the road.  As to the ridiculous laws tie in?  Well honestly there are a lot of ridiculous laws out there that could have had much better visual tie ins and made this thing a whole lot stronger.  Seems to me that they kind of went the "cheap" route here of picking stuff that they figured would be "controversial" to try and gin up some emotion.  The doofy looking David Bowie offspring, the sex toys, etc.  That's what pretty much turned my switch to off on this one.

Overall the concept itself wasn't bad and it could have been something really outstanding if it had been well done, but for me at least from my perspective they pretty much went out of their way to go for the low hanging fruit here, and as a result the end product just really wasn't all that impressive.  Is it art?  Eh, maybe.  Is it good?  Eh.. well no, not at least in my opinion.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 23, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Just wanted to report back: the Vlasic Classic Kosher Dill pickles (3 of them tested) DO BOUNCE when dropped from the height of the jar (measured at 9 and 15/16 inches, lid removed).
> ...



Cucumbers.  Obviously not a farm kid there Steve.. lol


----------



## table1349 (Mar 23, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 23, 2014)

limr said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



I'm sorry but, believe it or not, the universe does not revolve around you. _Many _have a problem with them. You just happen to be the one I quoted.

I don't see how you can possibly look at any of those photos and not think of _something_. Like someone's already said, if you ask yourself why someone has an ice cream cone in their back pocket, then it's made you think.

Is that bad? Is that offensive?

I honestly don't care if you understand anything. I really, really would be hard pressed to care less about that than I do right now...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 23, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



LOL!

No, no I'm not.

But if it's a simple cucumber, issue could be taken with the fact that someone mucked it up to a point where it was _almost _a pickle, and then bailed.

And, well, that just ain't right...


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 23, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



I remember spending several weeks as a kid helping my great grandmother make pickles the old fashioned way.  I was 7 or 8 at the time.

Haven't eaten one since.  Even the thought of them makes me wince.. lol


----------



## table1349 (Mar 23, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


Oh man, I did the same thing as a kid.  Pickles and sauerkraut. Love them both to this day.  Still have the 10 gallon kraut crock.  The pickle crock got broke but we won't talk about that.


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> I'm sorry but, believe it or not, the universe does not revolve around you. _Many _have a problem with them. You just happen to be the one I quoted.



So you responded *directly* to me, yet it's somehow MY fault that I think it's about me? Please.



> I don't see how you can possibly look at any of those photos and not think of _something_. *Like someone's already said*, if you ask yourself why someone has an ice cream cone in their back pocket, then it's made you think.



*I* was the one who said that.



limr said:


> Hrmm...political, for sure. Thought-provoking, possibly, but not so much if you don't know the context. For example, if one didn't know that apple pie picture was protesting a silly law, would it provoke any thought? Well, any thought beyond, "Wha? I don't get it." I'm not so sure it would. *Maybe the David Bowie kid might, or even the ice cream cone in the back pocket one, but I'm still not convinced that any of those shots would provoke any but the most superficial thoughts.* ("Well, it's a woman's ass and a melting ice cream cone...I guess she's supposed to be hawt? Okay, next!")





> Is that bad? Is that offensive?
> 
> I honestly don't care if you understand anything. I really, really would be hard pressed to care less about that than I do right now...



Good. Then dismiss me again.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 23, 2014)

limr said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry but, believe it or not, the universe does not revolve around you. _Many _have a problem with them. You just happen to be the one I quoted.
> ...



In the name of all that's holy, let it go...


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 23, 2014)

I like them.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 23, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

My pleasure.


----------



## ratssass (Mar 23, 2014)

limr said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > *I have always thought that true art is designed to cause people to THINK. And her photos do that when seen with the paired ridiculous laws.* It's an interesting concept she's working with here. And with that said, now I am off to see if the Vlasic Classic Kosher Dills that I love so much actually bounce when dropped. Hmm...the more I think about that pickle law, the more worried I am becoming! Cripes on a cracker, what if the salt-and-vinegar-soaked cucumbers I love so much are *not officially considered pickles* by some state's idiotic law?
> ...



...sums it up for me.Art???...who am I to say.A message???....shouldn't require sub-titles.I guess they make a statement of sorts,but the images need the back story,as much as the the back story needs the images to purvey the statement.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

> Hrmm...political, for sure. Thought-provoking, possibly, but not so much if you don't know the context. For example, if one didn't know that apple pie picture was protesting a silly law, would it provoke any thought? Well, any thought beyond, "Wha? I don't get it." I'm not so sure it would. Maybe the David Bowie kid might, or even the ice cream cone in the back pocket one, but I'm still not convinced that any of those shots would provoke any but the most superficial thoughts. ("Well, it's a woman's ass and a melting ice cream cone...I guess she's supposed to be hawt? Okay, next!")


Why would you ever show these without prominently displaying the theme next to them or in the title and intro to an exhibit, or on the web page or whatever, as is done for example in this link in the OP?  

Anyway, I don't think it matters for any criteria at all really, except "did the person intend to evoke or convey or express something?" That's about it. If your camera goes off because you accidentally leaned your arm on the shutter, then no, otherwise I think all photographs pretty much are art (maybe some other exceptions that don't intend to convey or express anything at all or have any decision, like shooting test charts)


----------



## runnah (Mar 23, 2014)

The degree in which a piece of art causes an emotional reaction varies greatly. 

On the scale of "meh" to "mind bending artistic orgasm" I give this a solid "neat".


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > Hrmm...political, for sure. Thought-provoking, possibly, but not so much if you don't know the context. For example, if one didn't know that apple pie picture was protesting a silly law, would it provoke any thought? Well, any thought beyond, "Wha? I don't get it." I'm not so sure it would. Maybe the David Bowie kid might, or even the ice cream cone in the back pocket one, but I'm still not convinced that any of those shots would provoke any but the most superficial thoughts. ("Well, it's a woman's ass and a melting ice cream cone...I guess she's supposed to be hawt? Okay, next!")
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Never said they would be. But IF they were, what about them would be considered 'art'?

Everyone is going to have a different line that separates what is considered 'art' and what isn't 'art.' If there is no line, then is EVERYTHING art? And doesn't that render the term useless, effectively making NOTHING art?



> "did the person intend to evoke or convey or express something?" That's about it.



And I have different criteria, so these pictures in question FOR ME do not fall across that line. I don't consider them art. I believe they are not simply aided or enhanced by the subtitles, but are completely dependent on them for meaning and value, and I feel that something that gets to be called 'art' should have more of an intrinsic value.

I have to say that I am really tired of these 'art' threads. There's no definitive answer; it's not something that is logically and quantitatively determined, so it's always going to be subjective. It's everyone's opinion against everyone else's. And yet, these discussions always turn into people trying to tell other people that their opinions are wrong.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

> I don't consider them art. I believe they are not simply aided or enhanced by the subtitles, but are completely dependent on them for meaning and value, and I feel that something that gets to be called 'art' should have more of an intrinsic value.


Minor issue for this particular example, but why are the subtitles of the piece not an "intrinsic" part of the piece????
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg
^
If you paint the words onto the canvas, they get to be counted but if you type them below or on a plaque next to it (and KNOW ahead of time that that will always be there) it doesn't count? Come on, that's a trivial and inconsequential distinction.



> Everyone is going to have a different line that separates what is considered 'art' and what isn't 'art.' If there is no line, then is EVERYTHING art? And doesn't that render the term useless, effectively making NOTHING art?


More generally and importantly than the above section, These are two very different and non-equal claims.
"Everyone has a different line" and
"There has to be some line"

*The latter could be true without the former being true*, which would be the most useful scenario. I.e. an agreed upon line, that is the same for everybody. Indeed, the degree to which we approach a universally agreed line is the degree to which the term is useful, and the degree to which everybody disagrees is the degree to which the term is pointless.

Which is why the line I'm suggesting is actually not actually particularly subjective, if people were to use it it would be pretty easy to agree (assuming some tiny knowledge of the photographer): were they attempting ANY expression of ANY meaning? Or was it 100% purely technical testing or accident? Pretty easy to objectively answer with any knowledge or comment from the creator at all, and often just from decisions made in how it is distributed, etc. even if you don't have a comment. And it doesn't include all images, so it has some utility still.

There are lots of other possible criteria that are objective, and some may be more useful. You might even want more than one (Art type 1, art type 2, etc.) for more than a binary distinction, while still being objective.



> There's no definitive answer; it's not something that is logically and quantitatively determined


Why not? That seems like *precisely the point *of such threads, yes? Trying to agree on a line to draw together so as to make the term useful. Not talking about it just because one doesn't exist fully universally yet is merely a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## ratssass (Mar 23, 2014)

runnah said:


> The degree in which a piece of art causes an emotional reaction varies greatly.
> 
> On the scale of "meh" to "mind bending artistic orgasm" I give this a solid "neat".




you're wrong


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

Also, like the above post, and runnah's that it is quoting, whether something is *good* art is not necessarily the same question as whether it *is* art.

They COULD be defined together, but why? That's just clumsy IMO. Opinions seem like the absolute worst place to begin if you want to agree upon a definition of art, because they're the hardest to quantift. So if you want to get somewhere, you do probably want to separate out goodness of the art from whether it is art at all, so that at least one half of it we have a chance of nailing down in agreement.

I.e. define it so that at least everybody can say "yes art" or "no art" together, and then disagree over quality of it. So we have a 23% useful term or whatever, instead of a 0% useful term.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 23, 2014)

limr said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > > Hrmm...political, for sure. Thought-provoking, possibly, but not so much if you don't know the context. For example, if one didn't know that apple pie picture was protesting a silly law, would it provoke any thought? Well, any thought beyond, "Wha? I don't get it." I'm not so sure it would. Maybe the David Bowie kid might, or even the ice cream cone in the back pocket one, but I'm still not convinced that any of those shots would provoke any but the most superficial thoughts. ("Well, it's a woman's ass and a melting ice cream cone...I guess she's supposed to be hawt? Okay, next!")
> ...



Well for me I don't have a very high bar for what is or isn't "art".  If somebody wants to call it "art", I'm ok with that.  Truth is there is a lot of stuff out there that is considered "art" that I don't get, at all.  I've seen sculptures made of scrap that is welded together, and folks call it art.  People pay big money for this stuff.  For the most part it looks like a bunch of old crap that was just welded together to me.  I don't get it.  But hey, if that's somebody's idea of art more power to them.  

But just because something is art really doesn't mean I have to like it, appreciate it or even get it.  I guess for me there is a big difference between stuff that is considered art, and stuff I consider artistic.  This project is a good example I think.  If some folks consider this "art" hey, good enough for me.  I must admit the basic premise is a very interesting one.  The execution, on the other hand, well frankly I'd rate it as pretty awful.  It's pretty much the epitome of laziness really, to pick controversial topics you know will get a rise out of people and making it abundantly obvious that all of the subjects were picked for exactly that reason.  To me there isn't much of artistic value there, it's pretty much on par with a radio personality being a "shock jock".  It's easy to get attention by being controversial, it's a lot harder to take the time to do something that's actually good.

This could have been really good - there are some pretty strange laws on the books that could have been used to produce some really striking images that would have really made this a very artistic endeavor.  Instead they pretty much phoned this one in - so is it art?  Ok, sure - is it artistic?  Nope, not by a long shot.

Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV.


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > I don't consider them art. I believe they are not simply aided or enhanced by the subtitles, but are completely dependent on them for meaning and value, and I feel that something that gets to be called 'art' should have more of an intrinsic value.
> 
> 
> Minor issue for this particular example, but why are the subtitles of the piece not an "intrinsic" part of the piece????
> ...



I said I was tired of the art threads HERE because the discussions HERE descend too quickly into people trying to convince others that their opinion is the correct one and others are wrong. I enjoy the discussion in general because it helps me to define where my line is, and that helps me further clarify my own position. But once things turn into a shouting match, then it's a useless endeavor and I tire of it very quickly.

Sure, an objective line of what is art and what isn't would be handy, wouldn't it? I think it's a myth. Would the pipe painting be art without the subtitles? I would argue that the text on that painting is not a subtitle and instead part of the painting itself. It's not extra explanation that needs to be added next to it to help someone 'get it.'  

And let's say that it IS a subtitle, and I say that it's not art because of the subtitles that explain the picture. Why is my criteria inconsequential? What difference does it make to anyone else's experience of the piece? What makes yours better? You suggest the line is, "Did the person intend to evoke or convey or express something?" 

If someone pees on the ground with the intention of expressing a dislike for the tile choice of the floor, does that make the puddle of urine art? Or is your criteria overly broad?

I don't see why we have to agree on a line for that line to exist. Can't there be as many lines as there are people? Or at least for people who give this a thought?


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Also, like the above post, and runnah's that it is quoting, whether something is *good* art is not necessarily the same question as whether it *is* art.
> 
> They COULD be defined together, but why? That's just clumsy IMO. Opinions seem like the absolute worst place to begin *if you want to agree upon a definition of art*, because they're the hardest to quantift. So if you want to get somewhere, you do probably want to separate out goodness of the art from whether it is art at all, so that at least one half of it we have a chance of nailing down in agreement.
> 
> I.e. define it so that at least everybody can say "yes art" or "no art" together, and then disagree over quality of it. So we have a 23% useful term or whatever, instead of a 0% useful term.



Why does everyone have to agree on a definition?


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 23, 2014)

limr said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Also, like the above post, and runnah's that it is quoting, whether something is *good* art is not necessarily the same question as whether it *is* art.
> ...



Well so we can all conform to the exact same standard of course.  Downside being that would pretty much make "art" a moot point.. lol.


----------



## ratssass (Mar 23, 2014)

....please,lord(without bringing religion into this),put me back to work tomorrow,so I may argue in real time,rather than argue via 1 finger typing.
     "I'm countin' on you Lord,Please don't let me down....."


----------



## baturn (Mar 23, 2014)

I was going to vote "yes", but decided to read the thread through first. And now, unequivocally, its Don't Care!


----------



## Derrel (Mar 23, 2014)

Campbell's Soup Cans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some people here still seem stuck in the dogma of abstract expressionism as the only way art can be manifested. Seems like a 50+ year time warp...

..I thought we'd settled this issue about definingn "art" as being ONLY part of a narrow range of "acceptable forms" way back in the early 1960's...


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

limr said:


> Why does everyone have to agree on a definition?


Words in general without agreed upon definitions have no purpose.

It's not all or nothing. But the CLOSER everybody is to agreeing, the more useful the word is. It's just an inherent property of words, since the whole point of words is communicating concepts to other people, thus necessitating common ground and agreement.


...unless the only time you ever plan on using the term "art" is in private diaries to yourself...



> Why is my criteria inconsequential?


It's not, but i would argue that a definition based on what's "inherent" or not with no clear explanation of how you determine inherent-ness is not a good start if you want everyone to agree on a line to draw. it's too vague.

I don't think mine's great, either, in terms of being a line people would find super satisfying, but it's at least aimed at trying to get everyone to be able to apply it equally. Yours, for instance, would also be this if you added a short tutorial on how to decide what is inherent or not, that other people could follow and end up with the same conclusions as you if they did.

Again, I'm not saying mine is right at all, but whatever people end up agreeing on, it at the very least has to be able to be reliably replicated and applied by other people for the same outcome. Then amongst definitions that meet that criterion, a group can discuss which one yields the line that divides into the most useful groups (useful as in you would actually get some value out of dividing pieces that way - for instance one that could be used as a museum cutoff or something practical)


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...



So resistance is futile, eh? I should just change my name to Four of Seventeen?


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Well so we can all conform to the exact same standard of course.  Downside being that would pretty much make "art" a moot point.. lol.


This is again conflating the two issues of "whether it is art" versus "how good of art".

You CAN conflate those two, but why would we want to? the goodness question is unlikely to ever be objective, but at least the art/notart question stands a good chance of being objective alone, if separated out.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 23, 2014)

limr said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Ok, sure, that's the downside.  The upside?  The outfits make you look Hawt!  Lol


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Why does everyone have to agree on a definition?
> ...



Words gain meaning through communal acceptance, yes. But word meanings are also constantly in flux. Words also have different meanings and uses in different communities. The term 'art' can have a core meaning but provoke debate about items that lie on the fringe of that core. The debate doesn't lie in what everyone agrees upon; it lies in the fringe.



> > Why is my criteria inconsequential?
> 
> 
> it's not, but i would argue that a definition based on what's "inherent" or not with no clear explanation of how you determine inherent-ness is not a good start *if you want everyone to agree on a line to draw*.



That's my whole point! I was never trying to get everyone to agree on a line! I was simply explaining where mine was.



> I don't think mine's great, either, but it's at least aimed at trying to get everyone to be able to apply it equally. Yours, for instance, would also be this if you added a short tutorial on how to decide what is inherent or not, that other people could follow and end up with the same conclusions as you if they did.



In my original post:


> As for whether or not the pictures are 'artful' - in the sense that they show something visually stimulating (either positively or negatively) either through technical or emotional merit? Meh. As someone said, they don't really display a lot of technical merit. They're not so horribly done that I'm appalled at the lack of skill, but none of them stand out as being particularly well done either. Neither are any of them shocking in the image they portray - not even the one with the dildos - so they don't stimulate any strongly negative reactions like some art tries to do.




So I do expect some level of skill to create an image that is visually stimulating enough on its own to provoke thought or emotion in the viewer.

Let's say we decide on a specific test to determine if something is art. Just for argument's sake, let's say that test is some amalgamation of yours and mine (or proto-mine, since it's still not quite formed): "Does the person intend to evoke or express a message through a visually-stimulating image which is created through effort and skill and which then creates a thought or emotion in the viewer."

Aren't people still going to disagree? Because people will answer that question differently. Does everyone have to agree or just a majority? If 90 people have an emotional reaction to something and 10 people just feel, "Meh," then is it art, or does it have to be unanimous? And if it doesn't have to be unanimous, how is that any different than people just deciding based on their gut reaction rather than on an objective standard?

For the record, I'm not using questions as a way to obliquely disagree or argue. These thoughts are phrased as questions partly to help me sort through it myself, and partly as actual questions that can be answered for the sake of clarifying the ideas.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 23, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Well so we can all conform to the exact same standard of course.  Downside being that would pretty much make "art" a moot point.. lol.
> ...



Ok, well for the record I don't conflate.  Not on the first date at any rate.  At the very least you have to buy me dinner first.. lol.

That and you might want to take a glance back in the thread, I've already stated that for me if someone wants to define something as "art" then I'm ok with that, we can call it art.  I may not get it or appreciate it but I'm not the grand high inquisitor of what is or isn't considered art.  Though I bet the robes would look cool, and I've always wanted one of those spiky hats, frankly I've already got a day job and I just don't look that good in sandals.

So nope, don't really care if someone else wants to call something art or not, if it's art to them then it's fine with me that they call it art.  Doesn't mean that it's something I might consider artistic.  But yup, already stated that.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

To step back for a moment.... Why do we care if something is art? Why does it matter if we agree?  That would be the first step to agree on if you want to get anywhere. Maybe actually start with that?

Some possible reasons to throw out on the table:

1) Pricing of pieces for sale
2) Award criteria
3) Inclusion in museums or shows or whatnot (not nec. same as awards)
4) Any relevant laws that have a reason to specify art (for instance special taxes or some such)

These (and many others) are hard decisions that must be made at some point. Decide which ones matter the most, and you have the beginnings of a basis for deciding the most useful method for art, non?


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

> Words also have different meanings and uses in different communities.


This happens to be the case, yes, but it is an inefficiency to be avoided if possible. Again the DEGREE to which there is universal agreement, is the degree to which it is useful. Community-wide agreement only is higher than zero agreement, but less than universal. So some usefulness.  But less than if everybody nationwide agreed. Because if it's universal you don't have to memorize as many different meanings and identify where somebody is from and translate the meanings, etc. You can just hit the ground running with a known instant interpretation. More efficient.



> In my original post:


I saw that part. But it turned out to not be a full explanation of the process you were using. I was referring to the second implied criterion you added later, that an aspect has to be "inherent to the art" to contribute to it being art or not -- wrt the subtitles "counting" or not. If that's to be part of the decision process, then it needs to also be elaborated in as much detail as the other part you wrote, and in a way that is as easy to replicate by somebody else.

(For the record, my answer to this part would be "whatever media / content the alleged artist consistently presents together whenever they display their work" So if in between different showings, the light changes each time, then the light probably isn't part of the piece. if it's always identical, then it is. If the same caption is always added below, then it's probably part of the piece. if sometimes it is sometimes it isn't, then probably not. Seems pretty objective, but maybe one can do better. "Within the edges of the canvas" seems a pretty slippery slope by comparison to me, and also more narrowly applicaple to only paintings/drawings/photographs, but *shrug*)


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> To step back for a moment.... Why do we care if something is art? Why does it matter if we agree?  That would be the first step to agree on *if you want to get anywhere*. Maybe actually start with that?



Ignoring the rest of your post for a moment, what does that mean, "if you want to get anywhere"? If I want to get to an objective standard?


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > Words also have different meanings and uses in different communities.
> 
> 
> This happens to be the case, yes, but it is an inefficiency to be avoided if possible. Again the DEGREE to which there is universal agreement, is the degree to which it is useful. Community-wide agreement only is higher than zero agreement, but less than universal. So some usefulness.  But less than if everybody nationwide agreed. Because if it's universal you don't have to memorize as many different meanings and identify where somebody is from and translate the meanings, etc. You can just hit the ground running with a known instant interpretation. More efficient.



Language is not about maximum efficiency. Incredible redundancies are built into linguistic systems. As for nationwide agreement on word meanings for maximum efficiency? Never going to happen. People don't work that way, and people don't use language that way. This approach completely negates the uses of language that go beyond simple communicative purposes, such as defining and maintaining group boundaries for one.



> > In my original post:
> 
> 
> I saw that part. But it turned out to not be a full explanation of the process you were using. I was referring to the second implied criterion you added later, that an aspect has to be "inherent to the art" to contribute to it being art or not -- wrt the subtitles "counting" or not. If that's to be part of the decision process, then it needs to also be elaborated in as much detail as the other part you wrote, and in a way that is as easy to replicate by somebody else.



Okay, the image *itself* should be able to convey a message or evoke an emotion without completely depending on a separate explanation.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

> Ignoring the rest of your post for a moment, what does that mean, "if you want to get anywhere"? If I want to get to an objective standard?


Yes. I know you're balking at that, but what other reason is there for participating in a discussion like this in the first place.


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > Ignoring the rest of your post for a moment, what does that mean, "if you want to get anywhere"? If I want to get to an objective standard?
> 
> 
> Yes. I know you're balking at that, but what other reason is there for participating in a discussion like this in the first place.



I thought it was to explain my position and to hear yours and explore differences. The reason I balk at 'getting anywhere' is that it is starting to feel like 'anywhere' = agreeing with you, and I don't believe that agreement needs to be the goal of a discussion.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

> Language is not about maximum efficiency. Incredible redundancies are built into linguistic systems.


These are not mutually exclusive. Redundancies can increase efficiency...

To be clear, by efficiency, I am referring to the least overall effort expended for the most positive impact on our lives, as facilitated by that language. NOT just maximum word efficiency.

For example, if the thing you want to communicate is "oh hey there's a lion behind you," then the consequences of miscommunication are DEATH. Avoiding death is well worth learning 1 or 2 extra redundant methods of communicating that type of information, in overall effort vs. positive life impact efficiency.

Whereas if the thing you want to communicate is "pass the salt, please," then lots of redundant communication methods are more wasteful.  




So redundancy is not necessarily inefficiency. In BOTH cases though, disagreeing on word meanings does lower efficiency, because it does absolutely nothing to help your life or even really save you any effort, and does hurt your ability to function as smoothly.

If you don't like the term efficiency, just replace with something more like philosophers' meaning of "utility" for society.






Edit: and in terms of art... if nobody ever cared or had reason to agree on whether something was art, then having agreement on a definition would be unnecessary. Having a word at all would be unnecessary. *But there clearly ARE practical reasons why we need to agree.* Like when selling a piece, or including in a museum, or possibly enforcing a tax, or giving awards or grading people in art class, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > Language is not about maximum efficiency. Incredible redundancies are built into linguistic systems.
> 
> 
> These are not mutually exclusive. Redundancies can increase efficiency...
> ...



Yes, it does. But it will continue to happen this way. There will always be debates on word meanings, connotations, and proper uses. I've been in English department meetings during which people debated endlessly over using 'writing' vs 'composing'. Legal issues can hang on the interpretation of one word. Would it be easier if the meanings were absolute and agreed upon by everyone? Absolutely! Ever going to happen? Nope. It's why I think it's ultimately futile to try to pin down an absolute definition of the word 'art.'


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 23, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> To step back for a moment.... Why do we care if something is art? Why does it matter if we agree?  That would be the first step to agree on if you want to get anywhere. Maybe actually start with that?
> 
> Some possible reasons to throw out on the table:
> 
> ...



Ok, pricing stuff to sell - well stuff is worth whatever you can convince someone to pay for it.  Art or not makes no difference.

Awards - hmm.. well, considering that's going to be entirely up to the people giving out the award, again sort of a moot point if we agree with their choice or not.  Granted if they choose badly enough often enough their award becomes pretty laughable.  See the Nobel prize as an example.

Inclusion in museums or art shows - well again we have a small group of people making those decisions.  The Josyln art museum has never once called me for a consultation.  Which is odd because my number is all over their bathroom wall for just such an emergency.. lol

As to relevant laws - well they still haven't come up with a proper legal definition and frankly they never will.  There are plenty of concepts that are almost impossible to define in the fashion you would suggest.  Pornography is another example.  Just ask Justice Stewart on that one.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

> I thought it was to explain my position and to hear yours and explore differences.


What's the point of exploring differences if not to get closer to some "truth" or if not absolute truth then at least the relative truth of agreement?

Think about it this way: if all you care about is just hearing variety of definitions of art purely for the sake of hearing a variety, then you should be super happy about the following list:
1) It's art if it shows a picture of a kangaroo or not.
2) It's art if it has sold for more than $7 and depicts something.
3) It's art if the person who made it didn't have to make it to survive.
4) It's art if it involves paint on pieces of woven linen thread in a topless and bottomless wooden box.
5) It's art if it takes more than 15 minutes to absorb.
(and so on ad infinitum).

I can give you all the variety you want! But I'm guessing you don't care about those, because what you actually care about is hearing from a lot of _different people _in terms of _what they actually believe and apply_. Which implies that you care about the degree of _agreement _amongst people, and that you have a practical aim in mind to some degree, not just exploring differences between various hypothetical answers...


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

Robbins, they DO consult you. Not by a phone call, but by the fact of whether you buy a ticket to their museum exhibit or not. If they decide a bunch of stuff is art (and good art), and then nobody buys tickets (and/or the art if it's on sale), then that's gonna be the #1 most influential thing in changing their future decisions. Even if they ONLY care about purchasers and ONLY super rich people can afford it, your opinion still matters insofar as the rich people are more likely to have heard about the artist if the populace is buzzing about them or if other people have written books on them or teach them in school. And rich people gain more prestige (for those who care about that) for owning art that more people agree on as art than not. And rich people still grow up in a community and their tastes are formed by people around them in part. Etc.

Or for awards, you are indirectly consulted by seeing whether you are more likely to buy copies of or pay to go see or whatever "art" which has awards versus not. If the award has no impact, then nobody is gonna care about getting it, and the awarders are going to adjust their methods or go out of business.

Same for any laws that exist or might eventually. Voters + lobbyists both have varying degrees of influence insofar as putting money in a politicians pocket or getting him/her re-elected, etc.



General population agreement is important to some degree for all of this. Maybe not AS important as agreement in high level art schools or companies, for example, but still. Universal agreement is incrementally more powerful than partial agreement, even if it's a difference of 85% of what matters vs. 100%.


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > I thought it was to explain my position and to hear yours and explore differences.
> 
> 
> What's the point of exploring differences *if not to get closer to some "truth" or if not absolute truth then at least the relative truth of agreement?*


*
*
I can still get closer to my own truth without agreeing with yours. Disagreement can help me clarify for myself WHY I disagree, so I HAVE gained something out of the discussion even though it doesn't end in agreement with the other participants.



> Think about it this way: if all you care about is just hearing variety of definitions of art purely for the sake of hearing a variety, then you should be super happy about the following list:
> 1) It's art if it shows a picture of a kangaroo or not.
> 2) It's art if it has sold for more than $7 and depicts something.
> 3) It's art if the person who made it didn't have to make it to survive.
> ...



Those would be pretty funny and I'd laugh. 



> I can give you all the variety you want! But I'm guessing you don't care about those, because what you actually care about is hearing from a lot of _different people _in terms of _what they actually believe and apply_. *Which implies that you care about the degree of agreement amongst people, and that you have a practical aim in mind to some degree, not just exploring differences between various hypothetical answers...*



That's where you lose me. I am not particularly interested in a discussion in which everyone is in perfect agreement. Boring! I AM interested in exploring differences. I enjoy the challenge of expanding my own views on something by hearing others' opinions. That doesn't mean I am going to agree with everyone, or give equal weight to everyone's opinion. But I have no practical aim in mind other than the simple act of thinking about the subject and gathering new ideas to think about. When I enter the conversation, it's often to simply include my ideas in the mix, or to gain clarification on some ideas that I'm curious about.

I don't enter a conversation with the aim of getting people to agree with me.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 23, 2014)

> I can still get closer to my own truth without agreeing with yours.


If "your truth" is neither anchored in some measurable absolute fact of the universe NOR in general agreement of people around you, then what is it? How do you know if you've gotten there, or if you're getting closer versus further?

Without any anchor, how do you know if your future conclusions are any more truthful than whatever you happened to believe yesterday?  You need some reference frame.

I think the most likely reference frame here is the consensus of a community, which is why I'm pushing that. I would also totally buy into an absolute reference frame (and would in fact prefer that!) if somebody could give a good one. But I haven't been emphasizing it because it sounds pretty implausible for "art"

Or if you have a third reference...


----------



## limr (Mar 23, 2014)

Oh god, now we're on to epistemology?

Sorry, but that's my cue. I've got a 12-hour day tomorrow and should have been in bed an hour ago. There was a time I would have continued this further into the wee hours, but that time ain't now.

To answer quickly, it's a third reference. I don't believe absolute demonstrable scientific facts are the only source of each person's moral or philosophical 'truth', and neither does a person's own 'truth' need to conform to the community's. What that third reference is? Well, we're just going to have to leave that one alone.

As for art? I have been ready and willing to agree to disagree from the start, and I'm invoking my right to do so now.


----------



## weepete (Mar 24, 2014)

So to the question "is it art?" is for me a pretty simple one and it's a yes.

I think we're getting bogged down to much in trying to find a spesific definition when the definition needs to be a broad. I also think that people tend to equate their likes and dislikes qto a piece is art or not. There is also a question of technical execution and how important this acually is to the piece. People also tend to value things they don't think they could do as better, I often here the comment "I could have done that!" when these types of discussions arise.

Work like this are interesting, because the concept is an interesting one, and the execution while not technically great does it's job in communicating the message. That you need some kind of context for it to make sense is no different than for a lot of art, both old and new. Though it is a wee bit gimmicky.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 24, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> This could have been really good - there are some pretty strange laws on the books that could have been used to produce some really striking images that would have really made this a very artistic endeavor.  Instead they pretty much phoned this one in - so is it art?  Ok, sure - is it artistic?  Nope, not by a long shot.



Interesting perspective.

How would you have approached the "illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket" photo?


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > This could have been really good - there are some pretty strange laws on the books that could have been used to produce some really striking images that would have really made this a very artistic endeavor. Instead they pretty much phoned this one in - so is it art? Ok, sure - is it artistic? Nope, not by a long shot.
> ...



Well not sure if that's one I would have chosen for the subject matter, but if it were me I'd probably take a pair of cutoff shorts with the ice cream cone in the back pocket, put it in a large plastic bag marked with red "Evidence" tape, put that on a metal table with a manila file folder also marked evidence and filled with papers with one of those big rubber bands around it.  I'd had given it some stark lighting.  Make it look like it's sitting on the table of in and interrogation room, kind of go for that film noir sort of feel.   To me that would have drawn the observer in a little bit more with the photograph, making them a lot more interested to find out what was going on as opposed to the approach that was taken.

Just my 2 cents worth of course.. lol.


----------



## jenko (Mar 24, 2014)

It is art.

I think it is a very clever concept. A simple one, yet it makes you think about the ridiculousness of some laws, and question a law's logic.


----------

