[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Art is communication. Communication is by its very nature objective. Just like spoken or written language, nothing can be communicated if the communication is subjective. I can say "Bandangle dondo floo," and while it may mean something to me, it's not communication because nobody else understands it. Likewise for visual art. If nothing is communicated, the piece fails; it is bad art.
For example. Mondrian? Not art.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hilariously simplistic. Especially the part where something is bad art because Joe Shmoe off the street doesn't "get it."
This definition might be ok if we were talking about illustration.
There are many different school's of thought where communication per se is not the goal (eg. surrealism, Brechtian alienation effect, Russian Formalist Art criticism).
There is no single definition of art. There are many different theories spanning different cultures and time periods. The most important thing is context.
Mondrian was a significant artist during his time. And because he was significant then, his art will be preserved in a museum due to it's historical relevance. Someone putting a bunch of lines and squares on a page probably won't be taken seriously now because the moment when that statement was culturally relevant is over. It's not just a question of art/nonart. Time and place are also factors.
Going back to the question of subjectivity, a reaction can be subjective and still be ignorant or just plain stupid. An intelligent, informed opinion is a subjective reaction that takes into account many objective factors.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just because something is simplistic does not invalidate it. When discussing something as complex as art, simplification is necessary. There's no way to discuss every permutation.
The point stands.
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
"Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
- Thomas Jefferson
There's no way to fit every permutation under one umbrella term "art." To counter your point I mentioned 3 distinct theories of art which are not grounded in the concept of "art as communication." You haven't responded to any of them.
The idea of art as objective communication begs the question "why art?" If I want to clearly and objectively communicate something, why spend 20 hours on a painting when I can spend 5 typing you a memo? Viewed this way, it would seem that the less objectively a work portrays something, the more artistic it is. Again, illustration vs. art.
www.battlewraith.deviantart.com
[ QUOTE ]
It's not much fun conversing to those who twist your words.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tru dat.