But is it art?

[Phanerothyme]

So what? I can't name any homeopaths, that doesn't magically validate their profession either.

How is homeopathy analagous to art criticism and art history?

 

And it's not a question of validating them, so much validating that you know what you are talking about when you refer to nameless but specific art critics.

Sorry to break this to you, but it has been done, multiple times to various different art critics and artists over the past century or so. Google is your friend, or do you really want me to go dig up a few examples for you?

 

Please, indulge me - after all it's not my assertion, it's yours.

[flamingjimmy]

How is homeopathy analagous to art criticism

You seemed to imply that because I can't name any art critics I'm not in a position to talk about how art criticism is riddled with people who don't know what they're doing, I was simply pointing out that I can by using homeopaths as an example.

Please, indulge me - after all it's not my assertion, it's yours.

Here is one example that took me literally 10 seconds to find, seriously, google is your friend, there are plenty more.

 

Also, here's a fun little test you can try yourself

[HeadingNorth]

There's an age-old, and very simple test to decide if something qualifies as a work of art. Put it in the middle of a pile of rubbish, and ask someone who doesn't know the work in advance to pick out the work of art from the pile of rubbish.

 

If nobody can distinguish the artwork from the rubbish, then the conclusion is obvious.

[llamatron]

There's an age-old, and very simple test to decide if something qualifies as a work of art. Put it in the middle of a pile of rubbish, and ask someone who doesn't know the work in advance to pick out the work of art from the pile of rubbish.

 

If nobody can distinguish the artwork from the rubbish, then the conclusion is obvious.

 

now I like that!

[Jessica23]

[...]Also, here's a fun little test you can try yourself

 

I know naff-all about art, in the scheme of things, and I got five out of the six right.

 

Which is not to say that fakes, hoaxes and forgeries don't get past the critics. Of course they do. I know more about this on the literary side than paintings or conceptual art but there's an increasing body of criticism that looks in detail at these hoaxes, judging them on aesthetic grounds alongside the 'moral' - the idea that because a hoax is a hoax it's automatically stripped of aesthetic value is not as straightforward as it might seem.

 

Intentionality (in this context, the idea that the creator of a hoax means it to be bad art, or not art at all) isn't everything.

[JFKvsNixon]

There's an age-old, and very simple test to decide if something qualifies as a work of art. Put it in the middle of a pile of rubbish, and ask someone who doesn't know the work in advance to pick out the work of art from the pile of rubbish.

 

If nobody can distinguish the artwork from the rubbish, then the conclusion is obvious.

 

This sounds like a Tracey Emin installation.

[llamatron]

Do you believe that there is more to art than just the finished product?

 

No not really.

 

Its analgous to writing a novel. The art is the final draft of the book, its not the guy sitting with writers block chewing his pen.

 

The empty sheet of paper is just a guy with painters block that gave up!

[JFKvsNixon]

No not really.

 

So would you not find an exhibition of paintings produced in Auschwitz interesting as an expression of the peoples time spent in there, or would you judge it entirely on how good the finished product is?

[HeadingNorth]

So would you not find an exhibition of paintings produced in Auschwitz interesting as an expression of the peoples time spent in there, or would you judge it entirely on how good the finished product is?

 

It would be interesting from an historical perspective but that is irrelevant to the quality of the artwork.

[llamatron]

So would you not find an exhibition of paintings produced in Auschwitz interesting as an expression of the peoples time spent in there, or would you judge entirely on how good the finished product is?

 

I would judge each painting on the finished product, I would expect the finish product to be influenced by auschwitz and that may well make the finished product better but I wouldn't think a painting was good because it was done in auschwitz.

 

You are thinking of research, it can be interesting to know why the artist did what they did but it doesn't influence how good the final product is.